[ZNPaaneah]

Let us summarize. WL taught that "God died" based on one verse in Acts which refers to the church being purchased with "God's blood".

In this hymn Wesley goes on to say, “Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!” Here Wesley declares that God died for us. When I was translating this hymn into Chinese years ago, I was troubled by this. I was not sure whether to be so bold as to translate it literally to indicate that God died for us. Do you have the boldness to say that God died for you? Charles Wesley saw the vision concerning this and declared in his hymn that God died for us. (Life-Study of Acts, Chapter 54, Section 1)

According to Greek scholars there are two ways to understand this term "God's blood".

1. The blood belongs to God. There is no dispute about this at all since everyone recognizes the crucifixion of Jesus as a peace offering to God.

2. The blood that was shed on the cross was God's blood, it was God who was bleeding. The second understanding also has two possible interpretations.

a. Jesus is God, therefore we can say it was God's blood. This idea can include the understanding that Jesus humanity did not become part of the Godhead until the ascension. This understanding is also fine with everyone.

b. God died on the cross.

So although there is nothing in this verse that would require or even strongly suggest this interpretation it is the one that WL went with. The other two understandings are strongly supported by numerous verses. This understanding is not supported by any other verses.

What is undeniable from reading this verse is the following:

1. God possesses blood.
2. God purchased the church
3. Jesus is God.

So why would WL talk about "God died" which is extremely controversial, perhaps the most controversial verse in the Bible, and has no Biblical support whatsoever? This is who he was, his modus operandi. He liked to say shocking things that those listening had not heard to make it seem like he had some special revelation that no one else had. Then, when you aren't looking he steps back from this and gives a standard understanding:

“God died in man. God died not in His own death but in another One's death.” (The Move of God in Man, Chapter 4, Section 4)

So Evangelical is taking a very different stand from LSM and WL, to join with Zeek and proclaim that it was God who died. Some of his quotes claim that Jesus was "no surrogate". But if Jesus were no surrogate then why does the OT typology of Jesus death use the blood of bulls and goats as surrogates to atone for man's sin? Why is so much effort expended on this in the OT if it is not relevant to the NT?

Still I find it interesting that Evangelical, portrayed as someone who mindlessly follows LSM doctrine, would be so bold as to clearly and unequivocally reject it on this point. So I applaud his boldness in finding his own voice, but reject his conclusions.