NO ONE FEARED DEATH MORE THAN JESUS
Introduction: Fear of Death
No one can deny that faith in God (Jesus Christ) brings genuine peace. However, this raises an important question: how could the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) have succumbed to fear, seemingly placing His trust in Satan instead of in His Father? It is absurd.
As stated in 1 John 4:18, “There is no fear in love; perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” Was Jesus imperfect in his love when He laid down his life for lost sinners? To suggest that Jesus feared death more than anyone else is to claim that He was not perfect in his love and, therefore, not perfect in his sin offering on the cross (John 3:16).
Is it reasonable to say that pastors and teachers can maintain and accurately communicate solid scriptural teachings and suddenly transition into doctrinal falsehoods within the same discourse? Furthermore, is it fair to identify such individuals as false teachers when they adopt interpretations that conflict with biblical truths?
The concise answer is, yes. Any minor deviation from biblical truth, after sound biblical doctrine has been established— regardless of how brief the time frame—renders someone a false teacher within that short period.
The most distressing aspect is that pastors who engage in erroneous practices frequently invoke the phrase “And all God’s people say amen” to elicit a sense of collective agreement. A lie, whether said willfully or unknowingly, dismisses doctrinal accuracy and rides roughshod over veracity, no matter how small the gap in which it is presented.
In his latest YouTube video, “Something is About to Happen to the Chosen,” Jack Hibbs finds himself once again confronted by a spectre of interfaith and ecumenical issues, or shall we say his “quirky” ghost. He has even taken the creative step of substituting words like “opinion” and “interpretation” with the term “quirkiness.” Jack Hibbs maintains:
Find out [truth] for yourself [in the Bible], find out for yourself, go, go look and see. And then maybe after all of your research and cross-referencing of scripture reading, then find out what others say, but judge what they say against the Bible. Will you do that?
If you do that, you’ll never stumble, you’ll never fail, you’ll, you’ll never falter, you’ll never be led astray. I don’t care how, how charismatic somebody is, I don’t care what color their suit is or how long their beard is or how, I don’t care, I do not care.
[He holds up the Bible and says] Friends, Bible. So Charles Stanley had his quirkiness, Chuck Smith had his, Dr. David Jeremiah, Vernon McGee [had his]. Excuse me, I have mine, if you don’t think you have your quirkiness, not all of us come to the exact same landing on any particular verse of the Bible at all times. That’s where there’s commentaries written by men. They’re not inspired by God, necessarily.
What’s the point in consulting the Bible when everyone has his own quirkiness because “not all of us come to the exact same landing on any particular verse of the Bible at all times.” If everyone’s quirkiness concerning every single verse in the Bible is shaky and unreliable, whose quirkiness are you going to take as the truth? It sounds a lot like Psalm 109:29.
Let mine adversaries be clothed with shame, and let them cover themselves with their own confusion, as with a mantle.
Jack Hibbs’ contradictions can be very annoying. First, he states that you will never stumble, fail, or falter when you diligently search the Scripture and cross-reference passages to reach solid, biblically-based conclusions. And then, in the twinkling of an eye he forgets what he has just said and shifts gears to his quirky mode to prove that it’s permissible for everyone to have his own quirkiness (opinion or interpretation).
Charles Stanley had his unique quirkiness in claiming that practising homosexuals can attain heaven. Chuck Smith exhibited his own distinct quirkiness influenced by Roman Catholicism, while John MacArthur had his in his belief that God’s love and sacrifice were exclusively aimed at the elect, and lastly J.C. Ryle had his soteriological quirkiness. Even Jack Hibbs admits that he has his own quirkiness, displayed by his quirky habit of gleaning from others who say the most outlandish things imaginable.
The real issue here is whether each of these quirky teachers and preachers misrepresented Jesus Christ and his Gospel. Hence Jack’s quirky statement, “Excuse me, I have mine, [and] if you don’t think you have your quirkiness, not all of us come to the exact same landing on any particular verse of the Bible at all times.”
If you believe that you won’t face consequences for not adhering to the specific secular laws outlined in your country’s constitution, you are gravely mistaken. If governments enforce secular laws with strict exactness, how much more will God hold accountable those who prioritise their own whims over His commands (doctrines)? Consider why Peter issued the following serious warning:
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:14-16).
The so-called quirkiness of every teacher and preacher is no excuse for manhandling the Word of God or for glibly passing over their fallacious opinions and interpretations for the sake of filial fellowships. It is dangerous, to say the least.
He continues to say:
Now the Bible versus they’re quoting, they are. And some of the teaching, where it is in line, with scripture, 100%, you can tell, the believer can tell, when somebody says, look, I’m going to say something, get rid of the foam, get your napkin ready, you’re going to have, you’re going to have a seizure in a moment.
You will never hear me publicly endorse William Barclay. William Barclay [has] got some very bizarre views in his commentaries. . . but I read Barclay because he’s profoundly insightful and accurate regarding background content. William Barclay’s great.
But William Barclay didn’t believe in the miracles of Christ. That’s bizarre. That’s nuts. So, I’ve got an anchor that when I read anyone’s book, podcast or sermon, I judge it all against the Bible, just like you should do me.
And by the way, that’s what Act 17:11 is all about. Everything Paul said he was teaching and preaching should be judged against the Word of God. Isn’t that awesome?
So, I mentioned William Barclay. I glean from him, just like Ruth gleaned from Boaz’s field, right? I pick what I want, I pick what I need. If I read Spurgeon, I pick what I want, I When I read from, oh, here’s a note. Watch! If I read from J.C. Ryle, great insights, especially the gospels. Wow! But do I hold to the views of soteriology? For example, that J.C. Ryle held to, not all of them?
Contradiction after contradiction after contradiction defines Jack Hibbs’ quirky interpretations of others. How can he commend Ryle for his valuable insights, particularly regarding the gospels, yet reject his soteriology, when the essence of the gospels revolves around salvation? Where did he get this from – the Nephilim? It is indeed possible, as his unique quirkiness reflects the gigantic innuendos associated with the Nephilim.
I think the best way to evaluate Jack’s fallacious statements is to talk to Jesus. Isn’t is that what Jack advised us to do when he referred to Acts 17:11? So, let’s talk to Jesus,
Jesus, I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Jack Hibbs’ insights on altering some of the teachings you’ve shared. Take a moment to listen, as you might discover something new that could enrich your understanding.
For instance, you taught that A little leaven leavens the whole lump, which means that a small corrupting influence eventually affects everything it touches. In Scripture, as you may know, leaven (yeast) is a metaphor for something that spreads quietly but completely—usually false teaching, sin, or hypocrisy, regardless of the truth that may be communicated. Only 1% of falsehood can contaminate 99% of truth.
As you may have noticed, Jack, in his unfathomable wisdom, teaches the exact opposite when he says, “A teensy-weensy amount of quirkiness cannot leaven the whole quirky lump.”
If this doesn’t cause the hairs on your neck to stand on end, it might just do so when he goes a step further by saying that he picks what he wants from the books, podcasts, and sermons of false teachers. Wow! That’s awesome, as Jack loves to say.
Furthermore, Jack Hibbs’ bizarre justification of his nutty interfaith/non-denominational/ecumenical reference to Ruth gleaning from Boaz’s field is truly madness on steroids. Only someone who has been duped into believing that Ruth’s gleaning may be used as an allegory for spiritual discernment in matters between truth and error is truly heavily deceived.
Jesus, you might remember that Stephan Joubert, our cherished South African ekerk expert, expressed a similar sentiment. During a sermon on March 1, 2009, at the Kemptonkruin Dutch Reformed Church, he shared the following thoughts.
“And he (Rob Bell) says you should engage the culture. You should go and listen to the Buddhists. So, go listen to what those guys are saying. Then Christians faint, because they do not listen properly to what Rob Bell is saying. He is not saying become like them, but go and read their stuff. Then you will understand why they are so important. They may also have truth. Truth (of which Jesus Christ is the essence) is not only found in Christianity. You can find truth in Judaism. You can find truth in atheism. You can find truth by whoever. God’s general revelation is a bit wider, but you say ‘Jesus is Lord’. That is what you are aiming at with such a movement.”
The above-mentioned goes beyond Ruth’s gleaning in Boaz’s field; it is, in reality, Satan who robs truth from people’s minds and then twists it to accomplish his goal. Nonetheless, both situations stem from the same source—Satan.
The fundamental distinction between the two can be found in Ruth’s viewpoint: In her gleaning metaphor, which Jack uses, he disguises himself as an angel of light, while in Joubert’s statement, he prowls like a roaring lion, seeking someone to consume. There’s no difference between Jack Hibbs’ and Stephan Joubert’s “picking” from different religious backgrounds and aligning them with biblical truth.
However, Jesus, please don’t feel too bad about Martin Luther and Jack Hibbs’ contention that “no one feared death more than you.” The fact is that Martin Luther, the great reformer, never feared God. How could he, when he was such a blistering anti-Semite who vehemently called for the slaughtering of Jews?
John Calvin wrote,
“Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end, and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”
Luther was even more embittered with hatred and said of them:
“Jews are a base and whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth . . .They are full of the devil’s faeces . . . which they wallow in like swine. . .”“Their synagogues and schools [must] be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, the rabbis forbidden to preach, their home demolished, and their properties and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness afforded no legal protection and that these poisonous and envenomed worms should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.”“We are at fault in not slaying them.
”The Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler perpetrated the genocide of six million individuals of your brethren, your chosen people, on account of what Lutheran said.
Across Mein Kampf and various speeches, Hitler invoked Luther as A great German reformer whose defiance of Rome prefigured Nazi defiance of “alien influences; as a “model of German national spirit;” and as a theological authority whose anti‑Jewish writings justified Nazi anti-Semitism.”
Despite this historical atrocity, Jack Hibbs argues that one may appropriately draw upon and incorporate Luther’s theological contributions, including the infamous lie that ”No one feared death more than Jesus Christ.
Additionally, Chuck Smith, Jack’s spiritual mentor, held the conviction that Roman Catholic Church members should be regarded as Christians. Significantly, the Roman Catholic Church rendered support to Hitler’s efforts in the systematic elimination of six million of your treasured brethren and chosen people.
It is understandable why Jews reject the form of Christianity propagated by the Roman Catholic Church and Martin Luther. While Luther is often regarded as a “great reformer,” his history of anti-Semitic views casts a shadow over his legacy.
Jack Hibbs appears to not take this matter seriously, quoting Luther, who stated, “No one feared death more than Jesus.” Be that as it may, this seems to be one of Jack Hibbs’ nutty quirks. Jesus, I’m sure you’ve come across Amir Tsarfati’s statement in that YouTube video where he asserts that anyone who harbours hatred for Israel does not truly know God. I fully resonate with his perspective.
Those who profess to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them yet still exhibit hatred towards your chosen people must be influenced by a different spirit; only a deceitful spirit would lead someone to despise Israel, while you love them and have never changed your plans to restore them to yourself and your blessings. “For I know the thoughts that I think toward you,” declares the Lord, “thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.” (Jeremiah 29:11).
What does this make of Martin Luther, who said that “No one feared death more than Jesus?” Did his horrible quirkiness concerning the Jews leaven the whole lump? Look, you cannot support and love Israel when you pick what you want from an anti-Semitic varmint.T
To conclude my discussion with you, Jesus, I want to mention one more thing that makes me very angry. You may recall Jack Hibbs saying, “William Barclay didn’t believe in the miracles of Christ. That’s bizarre. That’s nuts … but I read Barclay because he’s profoundly insightful and accurate regarding background content.
Barclay identified as a “liberal evangelical” (Douglas, op. cit., p. 61), and his modernist views became increasingly apparent with age. He hesitated to defend the inspiration of Scripture, criticised the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, and raised questions about the virgin birth. Additionally, he minimised the literal interpretation of the miracles in Scripture. For instance, he expressed scepticism regarding Jesus raising the widow’s son to life as described in Luke 7:11–17.
Barclay’s assertion that Jesus did not perform miracles is clearly a rejection of your divinity, Jesus. Yet, Jack Hibbs sings his praises “because he is profoundly and accurate regarding background content.” It once again proves that Jack Hibbs’ quirkiness is a heretical approval of God’s enemies. That’s it.
How can Barclay’s background content be profoundly insightful when he denied that Jesus is God by rejecting his miracles. It was his miracles that proved that He is God who came from God.“The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” (John 3:2).
William Barclay categorically denied that Jesus Christ came from God. In essence, it is a denial of biblical salvation. Salvation is to believe — with repentance and trust — that the Father sent His Son to die and rise again for our sins, and to receive the new life the Spirit gives.
“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” (John 5:22-24).
What are the characteristics of a false teacher?
The first point to consider is that they can be misled themselves without even being aware of it. Naturally, we all are prone to misinterpreting certain passages of Scripture at times. However, the Holy Spirit will not allow you to remain in error as long as you earnestly read and study your Bible, for He will continually remind you of what Jesus taught (John 14:26).
One of their most prevalent characteristics is their ability to advocate for sound doctrine while subtly introducing errors that can be difficult to identify. It often happens when they substitute a word for another without testing its meaning against other passages where the same word appears.
They may present the Gospel truthfully, yet incorporate aspects that contradict their earlier assertions regarding it. Contradictions play a major role in shaping their Gospel presentations. It clearly results in individuals being misled into paths that do not align with Gospel truths.
They stubbornly refuse to listen to reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).
False teachers often cite Bible verses; however, when they interpret these passages, they tend to rely on quotes from so-called “mighty men of God.”
Degrading Christ Jesus
Having identified several key traits of a false teacher, it is now essential to explore how these characteristics are reflected in the videos of Jack Hibbs that were introduced at the beginning of our dissertation. He begins by quoting Charles Spurgeon, a staunch Calvinist:
Charles Spurgeon once said that when we have fear or anxiety, we’re putting faith in the devil. That’s a great word.
In the follow-up video, Jack Hibbs quotes Martin Luther, who said:
I believe the word of the great reformer are true when he said “No one feared death more than Jesus Christ.
I felt a sense of deep discomfort when I first heard him say this, as it brings to mind the Pharisees who charged Jesus with casting out demons through the power of Satan. (Matthew 12:24). it is the same kind of accusation.
The conclusion Jack makes is unmistakable: Jesus experienced fear and, as a result, placed his trust in the devil instead of his Father. This notion is nothing short of blasphemy.
Jesus endured the torments of hell on the cross (“I thirst) rather than in hell itself, as His Father placed upon Him the sins of all humanity — ranging from the dawn of creation to the final generation of sinners at the conclusion of the Millennium age of peace on Earth. That was the moment when God the Father had forsaken Him, presenting Him with the bitter cup of his righteous wrath on our sins and indignation to drink to its last drop.
The second death that Jesus reportedly feared more than anyone else, having been forsaken by his Father, is exclusively linked to hell, also referred to as the Lake of Fire. Jesus never descended into hell following his crucifixion. In reality, He did not experience death. Yes, it is true that while his body was in a state of sleep (John 11:11), his soul and spirit remained alive in Hades (Sheol). To say that He feared death more than anyone else is false. It is, in fact, quite similar to heresy.
Consider the following Scriptures carefully and ask yourself whether these words are typical of someone who fears death, even more than anyone else.
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:1-2).
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:18)
If Jesus Christ embodies the essence of love, which He undoubtedly does, why would He fear death more than anyone else? This presents a troubling contradiction.
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (John 10:17-18).
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
According to Jack Hibbs, Jesus Christ experienced eternal separation from His Father. Given that the Godhead has existed as one God in three Persons since time immemorial, it is difficult to understand how Jack arrived at such a strange conclusion.
To understand the meaning of “forsakenness” in the context of His cross, we need to backtrack to Jesus’ Gethsemane experience, particularly Luke 22:43-44,
“And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke 22:43-44).
The word ἐνισχύω (enischuō) means to receive strength from an outside entity (in this case an angel sent by God) to endure what was set before Him. It demonstrates that He was not alone in His agony (affliction) in the Garden of Gethsemane. God the Father entrusted an angel with the task of strengthening Him.
While He hung on the cross, no one came to His aid—neither angels nor God the Father offered support as He bore the sins of all humanity. He found Himself utterly alone and without any external assistance. This profound solitude led to His heart-wrenching cry, “Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachtani?” In this context, He experienced abandonment as darkness enveloped the land until the ninth hour. (Mark 15:33). It refutes Jack Hibbs’ “eternal separation” nonsense.
This moment evokes the biblical account of Jesus Christ establishing a covenant with Abraham, as described in Genesis 15. In this passage, God (Jesus Christ) placed Abraham into a deep sleep and walked through a path of sacrificial animals alone, symbolizing His role as the Lamb of God capable of fulfilling such a promise despite Abraham and his offspring’s lapses in sin. It is an unconditional covenant. Had He not traversed between the sacrificed animals in Genesis 15 alone and endured the suffering on the cross without any external help, He could not have been the unblemished Lamb of God.
The unholy substitution of words
Jack Hibbs maintains that Jesus suffered eternal separation from God the Father on the cross. Jesus suffered great agony to the extent that his sweat turned into blood when He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane.
“Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.” (Matttew 26:36-38).
The word for sorrowful in Matthew is περίλυπος (perilupos) and means to be intensely sorrowful and sad. The same word is used in Mark 14:34, and in Luke 22:44 the word ἀγωνία (agonia) is used to convey his agony (deep grief).
The main Greek word used for “fear” and “feared” throughout the New Testament is φόβος (phobos), along with its verb form φοβέομαι (phobeomai). The word phobos appears 47 times in the New Testament.
Even the most powerful magnifying glass cannot reveal the presence of the words _φόβος (phobos) or φοβέομαι (phobeomai) in the aforementioned passages. Only someone with a particularly vivid imagination would be able to locate them there.
His profound sorrow, sadness, and anguish stem from His need to bear the consequences of the sins committed by every person throughout the entire history of humanity. That was the moment His Father crushed Him with a single blow, as Isaiah 53 describes.
“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.” (Isaiah 53:3-10).
Jesus Christ not only carried our sins and transgressions on the cross, but He also embraced our griefs (torments) and sorrows. What does this signify? It can only refer to the agonies we would have faced in hell if we’d remained unrepentant and eternally lost. The rich man who found himself in Hades illustrates this suffering when he pleaded with Abraham.
“And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.” (Luke 16:24).
Jesus experienced profound anguish and sorrow when He proclaimed, “I thirst.” This was not a physical thirst, but rather a spiritual yearning for God’s Living Water, which was absent during His sorrowful suffering on the cross. The torment that lost souls will face in the Lake of Fire reflects their relentless pleas for mercy, which will go unanswered. This torment will surpass the pain of literal fire; it will manifest as an innermost unquenchable desire for mercy that will never be fulfilled.
According to my Gospel
I sometimes wonder what Paul would have thought and said about Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther, and William Barclay. “Well, you know, I have my own little quirkiness and would certainly have gleaned from them as Ruth gleaned barley and wheat from Boaz’s field. Her gleaning was a perfect example of how to discern between truth and error.” Perish the thought.
Paul would certainly not have gleaned from either one of them. He would rather have confronted them with Galatians 1:8-9.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Spurgeon’s interpretation of the gospel negates the concept of free will, which is a divine gift that allows individuals to love freely without coercion in their relationships. Imagine expressing this sentiment to a woman during a marriage proposal. She would likely respond to him, “Take a hike. I am not interested in your distorted idea of love. You big oaf” Nonetheless, this is what Charles Spurgeon preached.
hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, ‘You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself.’ My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will. – https://www.reformedreader.org/spurgeon/exsermons.htm
Of course, his distorted view of the Gospel stemmed from his notion that God only loves the elect and died and rose from the dead for them alone. He might not have read the following truth about God’s love.
“For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon ALL” (Romans 11:32)
Paul’s response to Martin Luther’s heinous anti-Semitism would probably be more severe.
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” (1Jn 4:6).
