Changed View of Joyce Meyer

[Jermayn]

If she's teaching Christ and him crucified then she's not doing anything wrong, even though I disagree with the part about Jesus being tormented for the 3 days. My biggest question is whether or not it's biblical for a woman to be pastor of a church. That's a whole different post though.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I think it was a popular Catholic teaching back in the middle ages. (pre reformation)

We do teach that Christ descended into the place ofthe dead, as Scripture points to, but we describe it as a victory of Christ over death, preaching to souls, and leading the righteous who died before Christ out.

I don't know of any tradition which taught that Christ was tortured in Hell, at all.

But it is really good to see some Charismatic Christians bring into question some of the big names within the movement. It's chilling and revealing to know that an atheist can fake faith heal, lay on hands, lead thousands in speaking in tongues, etc.

 

[com7fy8]

that Jesus was tortured in Hell to gain our atonement.

Yes, Jesus on the cross said, "It is finished." I see this can mean He did all that was necessary, while on the cross. Jesus died right; so that is enough. He did it right so it did not need to go any further into Hell. And Jesus is God's own Son, able to do that so well, so efficiently, that it is enough to take care of all sins ever committed > 1 John 2:2.

He got it right, the first time; so He did not have to do it again. With God, we too can get things done right, the first time, in His love's creativity.

Also > our Apostle Paul says we have been "reconciled to God through the death of His Son" > Romans 6:17. So, our reconciliation was finished by His death. Nowhere is there New Testament scripture directly saying Jesus suffered for us, in Hell.

Also > we are told to follow how Jesus loved while on the cross >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

So, our Apostle Paul is commanding that we love the way Jesus was loving, on the cross. I doubt this means we are supposed to become sinful and subject to our Father's wrath, like ones claim Jesus was doing on Calvary.

This scripture says to love like Jesus was doing! Plus, Jesus was "a sweet-smelling aroma" while going through all that on the cross. So, Jesus was not bringing our Father's wrath upon Him, but Jesus was sweetly pleasing our Father - - - satisfying Him, I would say, to forgive us and reconcile with us and adopt us as His children.

And so we are likewise commanded to love so sweetly and kindly and generously, including while we are making sacrifices. But if ones say Jesus was subjected to God's wrath, on the cross, this can take attention also away from how God wants us to follow the example of how Jesus, really, was loving us and so pleasing to our Father.

Even so, another scripture says that Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" And ones claim this means our Father totally abandoned Jesus and God's wrath was upon Him. But Ephesians 5:2, I would say, shows how Jesus was so pleasing, not forsaken.

But > in circumstance and according to the Law of Moses > yes, He was cursed > Galatians 3:13. But Jesus defeated however He was legally and outwardly being cursed. Deeply, He was blessed - - - He was still Jesus, on that cross.

So things around Him did not decide who He was, there, or how He was.

This is what we need to get > how nothing has power over us to decide how we are or what we do. But we obey how our Father personally rules every one of us in His own peace > Colossians 3:15.

"I will not be brought under the power of any," Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:12.

So, I would say if people are coming up with wrong ideas, this can be a trick to keep our attention away from how we need to follow the example of Jesus on the cross.

 

[Dave-W]

We do teach that Christ descended into the place of the dead, as Scripture points to, but we describe it as a victory of Christ over death, preaching to souls, and leading the righteous who died before Christ out.

I don't know of any tradition which taught that Christ was tortured in Hell, at all.

I have seen prints of medieval paintings with our Lord being pierced with pitchforks. Perhaps not official teaching, but the idea was there.

 

[Dave-W]

But it is really good to see some Charismatic Christians bring into question some of the big names within the movement.

I agree. The problem with them is they are not accountable to anyone. the fact is power and notoriety tend to make many go off the deep end if no one is there to yank them back to reality.

It's chilling and revealing to know that an atheist can fake faith heal, lay on hands, lead thousands in speaking in tongues, etc.

For every true gift of God the devil has a fake. I have run into at least one case (possibly several) of someone being demonized with a spirit of false tongues. Revelation warns against "false messiahs" who will do signs and wonders to deceive many.

 

[1stcenturylady]

My wife and I have been listening to Joyce for a few years now. We have several of her books ... and we have never heard the type of teaching you are attributing to her here.

What we have heard from Joyce is that she is open to correction, ... and doesn't continue to ascribe to many of the doctrines she was exposed to while in the faith movement. She speaks much of her growth from the time she started her ministry until the present. Note that I am not saying that she never taught it, ... but that it unlikely that she has continued to teach it.

I am a Bible teacher myself ... and have been one for 35+ years. Even though there are those that preach and teach unbiblically, Joyce is teaching and preaching the gospel of Christ. Do I agree with everything she teaches ... no, but I recognize a teacher of God's word when I see one.

I believe that she deserves a second hearing in 2019. I've changed some positions that I teach across my 35+ years, as well ...

That's possible. I know Jim Bakker came out of the WoF movement and also does not believe in a pre-trib rapture anymore either.

 

[A_Thinker]

If she's teaching Christ and him crucified then she's not doing anything wrong, even though I disagree with the part about Jesus being tormented for the 3 days. My biggest question is whether or not it's biblical for a woman to be pastor of a church. That's a whole different post though.

She's not a pastor. She has a pastor and a husband, to whom she submits. She is a teacher in para-church ministry ...

 

[Hank77]

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I seldom go out on a limb on my own because I'm not a Bible scholar, neither could I read the original Hebrew or Greek even if I had access to those very old MSS. I find that turning to commentaries written by men who did are extremely helpful.
This particular scripture isn't translated very well. To be sin for us v a sin-offering for us.
A sin offering is what He was/is, just like the lambs, etc. that were offered as a passover/offering.

This snippet is taken from Adam Clarke's Commentary on this verse, but there is more which I encourage you to read also. He's talking about the KJV of coarse which words it just the way you did.

In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the חטאה chattaah and חטאת chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ,
2 Corinthians 5 Clarke's Commentary

There are at least 20 other commentaries to compare to each other.
God Bless

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I like this verse in the New Living translation because it explains what Jesus really did on the cross for us:
"For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:21).
This is consistent with the Old Testament sacrifice for sin, which was a shadow of the once for all sacrifice that Jesus was for our sin. That is what atonement actually is, and His death on the cross completed God's full plan of redemption.

What Kenyon, Hagin, Copeland, and others have done is to say that Jesus who came to earth just as a man and not God, partly achieved atonement on the cross, but became sin - took on the nature of Satan, was dragged down into hell to suffer torment at the hands of demons, and then became God and rose from the dead. Through that, Jesus was born again; and though that, we who receive Christ are born again the same as Jesus, become gods like Him, and are fellow messiahs.

But the truth is that Jesus came as God and man, and couldn't have taken the nature of Satan on the cross because that would be saying that God became linked with Satan and suffered torment in hell. That is just sheer blasphemy and is describing another Jesus and another gospel.

So, Jesus became our substitute for sin, not sin itself, and His death was the same as the Jewish scapegoat who had all the sins of the people laid on it once a year. But Jesus became the scapegoat for our sin once and for all and went to heaven to offer up His blood as the full atonement for us to the Father. That is the true gospel of Christ and the real Jesus of the Bible.

As a result, the penalty for sin is removed from us, and God views us as being totally righteous. It is a free gift of grace.

I kind of see the New Living paraphrase in the same category as the teachers you're speaking out against.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I seldom go out on a limb on my own because I'm not a Bible scholar, neither could I read the original Hebrew or Greek even if I had access to those very old MSS. I find that turning to commentaries written by men who did are extremely helpful.
This particular scripture isn't translated very well. To be sin for us v a sin-offering for us.
A sin offering is what He was/is, just like the lambs, etc. that were offered as a passover/offering.

This snippet is taken from Adam Clarke's Commentary on this verse, but there is more which I encourage you to read also. He's talking about the KJV of coarse which words it just the way you did.

In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the חטאה chattaah and חטאת chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ,
2 Corinthians 5 Clarke's Commentary

There are at least 20 other commentaries to compare to each other.
God Bless

I kind of skip the commentaries and go right to the strongs, the word used for sin in the passage (twice) is the same word used for sin in the whole New Testament. Adding a new meaning to a word in one particular instance isn't much different than textual criticism's re-writing of the bible saying the word for Homosexual means shrine prostitute.

Also, why is there a commentary on the Hebrew word, when the passage is translated from the greek? Even the apostles used the Septuagint, the Hebrew meaning isn't even relevant.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I find in the web of lies that is bible interpretation (there being so many denominations) it is important to acknowledge what the lie is based on and form your own conclusions based on the actual principle. When we make up theologies to prevent bad theologies from being accepted, it distorts the picture even more for the next generation.

and IMHO, it is distorted enough.

I don't believe that Jesus became an actual sinner or took on the nature of Satan or was tormented in hell as part of the atonement. I believe that He was our substitute and sacrifice for sin. If He actually became a sinner, then He could not have been our perfect sacrifice for sin. We have to take this verse along with all the others that explain what Jesus did on the cross for us. I believe that atonement was fully made when Jesus shed His blood on the cross for us. He remained the spotless Lamb of God all throughout, and went to heaven to offer His blood to the Father.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I agree except your saying they aren't saved. For years after I was saved I didn't know that Jesus was God, but it was revealed in Scripture and I was shocked. I still have "Jesus is God!!!" written in the margin of my Bible from that day.

8 “Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. 9 But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

10 “And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.

I've often wondered what Jesus must be referring to with this statement.

I was reading John Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress last night. At one stage he sees this tunnel and it is called the shortcut to hell. Then he sees a list of those who go down there, and one of them was "those who blaspheme the gospel of Christ". That got my attention! The WOF teachers are actually blaspheming the gospel of Christ with their teaching, and it does really confirm something that I do believe about them.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I don't believe that Jesus became an actual sinner or took on the nature of Satan or was tormented in hell as part of the atonement. I believe that He was our substitute and sacrifice for sin. If He actually became a sinner, then He could not have been our perfect sacrifice for sin. We have to take this verse along with all the others that explain what Jesus did on the cross for us. I believe that atonement was fully made when Jesus shed His blood on the cross for us. He remained the spotless Lamb of God all throughout, and went to heaven to offer His blood to the Father.

There's a distinction there, I read it as Jesus becoming sin, not a sinner.

We sinned, Jesus became our sin for us, so we could be righteous.

This passage appears to be an answer to one of the questions in Job.

Shall I be made vile so you can be righteous?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Perhaps it is time to review the other one you defended. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed in its season. Be Blessed Oscar!

Yep. We are learning all the time! Are you referring to Benny Hinn? Yep, my changed view also applies to him as well! I was shocked to view what he is teaching!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

My wife and I have been listening to Joyce for a few years now. We have several of her books ... and we have never heard the type of teaching you are attributing to her here.

What we have heard from Joyce is that she is open to correction, ... and doesn't continue to ascribe to many of the doctrines she was exposed to while in the faith movement. She speaks much of her growth from the time she started her ministry until the present. Note that I am not saying that she never taught it, ... but that it unlikely that she has continued to teach it.

I am a Bible teacher myself ... and have been one for 35+ years. Even though there are those that preach and teach unbiblically, Joyce is teaching and preaching the gospel of Christ. Do I agree with everything she teaches ... no, but I recognize a teacher of God's word when I see one.

I believe that she deserves a second hearing in 2019. I've changed some positions that I teach across my 35+ years, as well ...

I understand what you are saying. I saw a clip where Joyce was teaching that Jesus went to hell and she told this great story about how all the demons jumped over Him rejoicing that He was down there. This is a blasphemy of the gospel of Christ and a denial that the blood of Jesus shed on the cross fully completed the atonement. If she has changed from that teaching, well and good. It will be good to find out.

 

[W2L]

I dont listen to teachers nor make them rich by buying their books. I lost faith in such people. The apostles didnt get rich selling the gospel.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I kind of see the New Living paraphrase in the same category as the teachers you're speaking out against.

I don't usually quote it. But it explained what Jesus actually was when He died for us on the cross. I use the NIV, which Gordon Fee says is the best translation, and his second choice is the Jerusalem Bible.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

There's a distinction there, I read it as Jesus becoming sin, not a sinner.

We sinned, Jesus became our sin for us, so we could be righteous.

This passage appears to be an answer to one of the questions in Job.

Shall I be made vile so you can be righteous?

I like Graham Cooke's description: He says that Jesus died on the cross as us, so that God can view us as He views Christ. It doesn't mean that we become Christ or another messiah, but that He views us as righteous as Christ is.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I like Graham Cooke's description: He says that Jesus died on the cross as us, so that God can view us as He views Christ. It doesn't mean that we become Christ or another messiah, but that He views us as righteous as Christ is.

Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

This also connects to the statement in Colossians 2 that the ordinances that were against us were nailed to the cross so we could be saved.

That being said, I agree with your juggling of the theosis related topic.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I was reading John Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress last night. At one stage he sees this tunnel and it is called the shortcut to hell. Then he sees a list of those who go down there, and one of them was "those who blaspheme the gospel of Christ". That got my attention! The WOF teachers are actually blaspheming the gospel of Christ with their teaching, and it does really confirm something that I do believe about them.

I don't see how making a mistake about how much atonement Jesus made at the time of the cross, and how much was left over makes them unsaved; they still believe Christ suffered ALL ATONEMENT. I am just not quick to judge someone's salvation, based on scholarship of theology. But I can judge based on lack of power over sin. And interestingly, this is where others think I'M a heretic. There are so many focused on the atonement, that they don't recognize what Christ's atonement accomplished. Some say, He just paid the price so the sins they keep committing are covered and they are going to heaven. I say no. They are still in the flesh and have no inheritance in heaven. You MUST be born again of the Spirit and be a new creature in Christ.