Who died on the cross - Jesus as man or Jesus as God? ? ?

[abelisle]

If this question has been asked before and dealt with, I apologize. But I have been asked this question by unbelievers: "How can God die?"

We know about the Docetist heresy that stemmed from the Gnostics that basically presupposed that matter was evil, and as a result God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil, lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.

Docetism can be further explained as the view that since the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus must have been an illusion and, likewise, his crucifixion.

So, when we say Jesus died on the cross, exactly what do we mean? Can we respond just with Scriptural texts?

My thoughts are that Jesus gave up his life , both as man and as God temporarily , then took it up again at His resurrection but I'm not sure that there are substantial Biblical texts to back up my assertion? Lastly, I still can't wrap my mind around the concept of God dying, even temporarily.

Alex

[olger]

Jesus became what the brass serpent on the pole symbolized. SIN.

That's enough for this country boy,

og

[teresaq]

so do these people believe that adam, eve, and their posterity would eventually have "shed" their human bodies at some point? wouldnt that say that they were created evil, in other words that we were "deliberately created by an evil, lesser god (the demiurge)", satan, not God?

that kinda makes satan the creator, tho im not sure how he could have put any "a divine spark" in his creation, should he be able to create life...

[abelisle]

Huh?

I don't see how this is a response to my question? I think this is an important issue since the hope of salvation for Christians resides in the fact of His resurrection.

I simply mentioned the Docetist heresy for the sake of those unfamiliar with early church history.

Alex

[teresaq]

my apologies, i was reading the op as a whole...

i dont know if what egw has to say is acceptable or not, but i recently came across something she said, if i can find it again, and if i read it correctly, to the effect that there was not one righteous man on earth-one who had never sinned-so Christ came as man to do that very thing...i believe the statment is based on this

she is also emphatic that divinity did not die...so my thoughts would be,

can divinity die?

could divinity die if "it" had not sinned?

[teresaq]

and maybe the most pertinent question might be, can man kill God?

[Robert]

"How can God die?"

[abelisle]

Bible only please. If we can't prove what we think by the Bible only, how can we talk to others about what we believe?

[Robert]

i dont know if what egw has to say

"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the man Christ Jesus. ... When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been

impossible."

Human nature is of course sinful. The question is did Son of Mary's nature change into the divine nature? No! They were "mysteriously blended". The divine nature didn't change...neither did human nature.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

i dont know if what egw has to say

"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary ....

robert, perhaps you misunderstood what i was saying when you copied only a partial part of my statement above? but please notice that even with what you did copy that i hadnt said i didnt know what she had to say regarding...

[Robert]

Bible only please. If we can't prove what we think by the Bible only, how can we talk to others about what we believe?

[abelisle]

"Notice that Christ's death as the Son of Man was a corporate death. Who is the "all"? Humanity! To be human is not to be divine. Hence the humanity Christ assumed at the incarnation died. Deity can't die or we would cease to exist. Why? Because God is the author of life. THe vast universe exists because He is the "I am"...."

But if Jesus was all man and all God was there some sort of separation of the two when He was on the cross as the Gnostics suggest?

Your quotes speak of a symbolic transfer of sins. I'm referring to the literal state of Jesus' body on the cross. If he was both man and God and even if only the humanity died then either God died or there was some sort of separation taking place?

Alex

[pnattmbtc]

In these discussions we quickly get over our heads. How could Jesus Christ be both God and man? Seems impossible. The mind can't grasp it. If we could understand that, we could more easily understand how Christ could die as man, but not as God.

I suppose one could express this possibility as implying that there was some sort of separation, but it doesn't follow from this that this is thinking of things similarly to the Gnostics. That would be a logical fallacy. That A and B have C in common doesn't imply that A is the same as B.

[John317]

Quote:

abelisle: But if Jesus was all man and all God was there some sort of separation of the two when He was on the cross as the Gnostics suggest?

... I'm referring to the literal state of Jesus' body on the cross. If he was both man and God and even if only the humnity died then either God died or there was some sort of separation taking place?

Do you mean "if" or "since"?

There's no doubt that only Christ's humanity died on the cross, because by definition Deity is immortanl and therefore cannot possibly die, since it isn't subject to death. One thing God cannot do is will Himself into non-existence.

But by the same token, Christ's divine nature wasn't tested by sin in the wilderness, since it's impossible for God to be tempted. Similarly, we shouldn't think that it was God who was hungry or sleepy.

One of the main reasons the Word (or the pre-incarnate Christ) became human was in order to suffer and die. As God, He couldn't have done those things. Yet when He became a man, He didn't cease to be God, although He did cease to have certain characteristics we associate with God. For instance, Christ on earth was not omnipresent or omnicient. He laid aside those privileges and prerogatives. While on earth, He totally relied on the Father, just as we have to. He wasn't half God and half man but was fully both God and man.

The NT doesn't view Christ as having been two persons in one body but rather as having been one person with two natures, the human and the divine.

Some of the early Christians (docetists) believed Jesus' physical body was an illusion and only appeared to be real. They thought Jesus couldn't have been truly human. Others (adoptionists) believed He was all human and wasn't divine until God adopted Him as His Son. Today the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe Jesus of Nazareth was divine at all but that He was only a perfect human of the same value as Adam before the Fall. They believe He was resurrected as a spirit being and that He left His human nature behind in the tomb.

On the other hand, SDAs and most other Christians believe that Jesus Christ will be both God and man for all eternity.

[abelisle]

"He did cease to have certain characteristics we associate with God. For instance, Christ on earth was not omnipresent or omnicient. He laid aside those privileges and prerogatives. While on earth,. . . "

How do you know this? Where does it tell us that in the Bible? And if he wasn't omniscient, how did He know things like for instance the marital staus of the Samaritan woman? and how was he able to prophesy if he wasn't omniscient?

I too have been taught what you have said but these things cannot be proved "sola scriptura".

Was Jesus as God speaking to himself on the cross when he said "Father, why have you forsaken me?"

I don't have a problem with your logic but I do have a problem with your proof.

Lastly, how can you Biblically prove your last sentence: On the other hand, SDAs and most other Christians believe that Jesus Christ will be both God and man for all eternity

Alex (just looking for some solid Biblical proof)

[Robert]

Read this!

[RonP]

Hi Alex,

Sorry about that, I lost the first part of this post, so here goes again:

John 3:14-15

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the SON OF MAN be lifted up:That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Revelation 13:8

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of THE LAMB SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.

{5BC 1113.4}

When the voice of the angel was heard saying, "Thy Father calls thee," He who had said, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again," "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. DEITY DID NOT DIE. HUMANITY DIED, but Christ now proclaims over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In His divinity Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. He declares that He had life in Himself to quicken whom He will.

5BC 1113.2

Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. Christ, the sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood.

Conclusion:

Our Saviour has experienced both the first and the second death.

It was as the Son of man that He died the first death at Calvary. This was illustrate to our slow minds what was (and is) actually happening to Him as the Son of God and what will happen to those who experience the first death, for even the rejecters will be resurrected from that.

It is as the Son of God that He “dies” for those who accept His gift by giving them a portion of His life when they become converted with “a new heart”. Thus all Christians, from the righteous Abel to the last sinner who accepts salvation, are saved from the second death in the same way, but He must bear that for them for eternity.

[Overaged]

Bible only please. If we can't prove what we think by the Bible only, how can we talk to others about what we believe?

[Yong T Tay]

Abelisle,

I agree with your thoughts: "My thoughts are that Jesus gave up his life , both as man and as God temporarily , then took it up again at His resurrection"

God is Sovereign, Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things that are not yet done, said the lord 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do at my pleasure'." God is Self-existing, God claims, "I AM God and there is no one-else, beside Me." There is no Authority above God. God can do anything as He want and at His pleasure and for His honor and glory. God is above His law. God is the Owner and Ruler of the universe. All His creatures are under His laws. Ezekiel 18:4 "Behold all souls are Mine, the soul of the father, as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sin shall die." God can never sin and God can not die because He is Sovereign.

Being born of a woman make one a sinner. Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity. And in sin my mother conceived me." Jesus was conceived and born of a woman.

Jesus was a born sinner, but He Himself did not sin. 2 Corinthians 5:21 "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Roman 8:3 "God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh." Galatians 4:4-5 "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who are under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."

When the Word became flesh (John 1:14) Jesus did not use His Sovereignty and Authority on earth but fully depending on His Father in heaven. He became a little lower than an angel while on earth. Philippians 2:5-8 "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross."

Irrespective of died in the cross as man or as God, Jesus died as a whole Person of a sinless-sinner. If Jesus died only as man, then His whole Person did not completely died. Lucifer could claim that God simply put up a show and that Jesus did not really died. Remember! Jesus is a God-man person. In order to silent Lucifer, Jesus has to die as a full person, as man and as God, in the Cross. It took a sinless-sinner to save sinful-sinners, a feat no individual in the universe can duplicate. Jesus died because He was born of a woman. Jesus can die as God because He was born under the law (His Sovereignty was set aside). Had Jesus commit a single sin Himself, He would not been able to rise from the death. Because He was a sinless-sinner, death could claim Him but could not keep Him there.

[pnattmbtc]

How do you know this? Where does it tell us that in the Bible?

There's nowhere in Scripture that puts it as clearly as EGW puts it, but it can be inferred. First of all, as she points out, deity did not die, because "this would be impossible." This just gets to what deity is.

Secondly, Jesus said that no would take His life away, that He would lay it down and take it back up again. He also spoke of how he would raise the temple in 3 days, speaking of His body. There's a contradiction here, since, being dead, He could do anything, let alone resurrection Himself. Yet this is what He claimed He would do. How? Because as God He could do this, even though as man He had died.

[Guest truthseeker007]

I think Christ suffered even before the foundations of the earth (According to the bible he was the lamb slain from the foundations of the earth) so he probably knew that one day he had to make a terrible sacrifice. I believe the fact that Jesus took upon him our sins at the cross, that was the most awfull part. When he knew his job was finished he let his humanity die and put his soul into the Fathers hands. He trusted the father that he would ressurect him i believe. But what i would like to know, was Jesus like in a soul sleep when he died? Or was he still conciouss of existence. How awfull it must be for the holy spirit and the father to be separated from Christ, if only for three days, surely was an incredible sacrifice.

[fccool]

If this question has been asked before and dealt with, I apologize. But I have been asked this question by unbelievers: "How can God die?"

So, when we say Jesus died on the cross, exactly what do we mean? Can we respond just with Scriptural texts?

Alex

Alex,

Many people respond with scriptural text, and that becomes the biggest problem... because the logic does not follow. It becomes convoluted and preposterous.

Let's evaluate the facts:

1) Jesus is God

2) Jesus contained Himself to a human form, even though He is fully God. How is this possible?

3) What was the nature of the pre-universe Christ? I don't believe for a second that he was corporal. It's simply silly.

4) God can not die... period. If we ascribe to the idea that Jesus physically and spiritually died, then we ascribe to the idea of Jesus being a created being. There's no both. It's either or. Either Jesus can die as God, or He can't.

5) When we understand the death on the cross being merely a ransom for sins... we absolutely miss the point of Christ's purpose. Christ did not come to merely die. He came to show that he is immortal being, who is the ruler of the universe, and who does not use His power to escape suffering inflicted by evil.

We tend to solve all our problems by means of enforcing things. The purpose of the OT law was to show that in our present condition it's a futile attempt to legislate sin away. It's simply impossible. No amount of the law will stop people from breaking it. The law was never and will never be a solution to humanity's problems.

Christ came to DEMONSTRATE and CLARIFY in person so that we have a pattern of true love that does not end with the law, but transcends it.

While I don't dispute the doctrine of atonement, I certainly think that we get carried away with the "cleansing blood" concept. The blood does not cleanse. God does the cleansing. We tend to forget that and seek blood and suffering as substitution for our shortcomings instead of seeking God and yet another chance to do things right. God did require gore from Israel as an extreme lesson, but He does not from us... yet we keep fixating and gravitating towards the gore and suffering. It's very unfortunate.

[pnattmbtc]

I think Christ suffered even before the foundations of the earth (According to the bible he was the lamb slain from the foundations of the earth) so he probably knew that one day he had to make a terrible sacrifice.

This seems to presuppose that sin was inevitable. I don't believe this is the case. It's very possible (likely even) that would not have occurred. It shouldn't have occurred. It's existence is a mystery.

[pnattmbtc]

When we understand the death on the cross being merely a ransom for sins... we absolutely miss the point of Christ's purpose. Christ did not come to merely die. He came to show that he is immortal being, who is the ruler of the universe, and who does not use His power to escape suffering inflicted by evil.

We tend to solve all our problems by means of enforcing things. The purpose of the OT law was to show that in our present condition it's a futile attempt to legislate sin away. It's simply impossible. No amount of the law will stop people from breaking it. The law was never and will never be a solution to humanity's problems.

Christ came to DEMONSTRATE and CLARIFY in person so that we have a pattern of true love that does not end with the law, but transcends it.

While I don't dispute the doctrine of atonement, I certainly think that we get carried away with the "cleansing blood" concept. The blood does not cleanse. God does the cleansing. We tend to forget that and seek blood and suffering as substitution for our shortcomings instead of seeking God and yet another chance to do things right. God did require gore from Israel as an extreme lesson, but He does not from us... yet we keep fixating and gravitating towards the gore and suffering. It's very unfortunate.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it sounds promising.

[fccool]

To simplify it even more. Substitutionary atonement view goes something along these lines:

1) Adam sinned and thus humanity inherited his sinful nature making them unable to resist sin.

2) God gave the law which demonstrates that everyone is a sinner, and the penalty is death.

3) God sent His son (or son volunteered... either way) to take the blame upon himself and suffer God's rejection instead of us... commonly referred to as Christ literally became sin and died because of all of the load. He alone could do it on behalf of whole humanity, because He was the only sinless human on the planet.

4) God accepts this as the ultimate sacrifice which was a gift for us, if we choose to accept it... our sins are forgiven... therefore Jesus took the punishment that we deserved by suffering the death. So, through his literal blood we come to God and he does not judge us based on our acts of transgression.

I believe that this is a wrong take on "atonement", and nature of both God and Christ. There are several facts to consider.

1) Justice is not portrayed in such scenario. Quite the contrary, what we have is injustice. One person can not pay the price for other prerson's breaking of the law. That's injustice by definition. God would not deal injustice, or circumvent His own law in order to play favorites.

2) The blood never cleansed anything... neither in OT, nor NT. It demonstrated and taught an object lesson... that the innocent will suffer because of transgression of God's law. It was a punishment for the person who was going to sin to perform this act. The sin was not magically transferred to the blood, as many would contend. There's nothing magic about the sin that it can go somewhere else. Sin is an act of transgression. You can't transfer it anymore than you can transfer a spoken words or turn back the time.

Thus, the sacrifice rites were the OT ways of acknowledgment of non-intended wrongs, confession, and repentance. On top of that, these did not cover the intentional sins like breaking Sabbath, and sexual immorality and idolatry... punishment for which were clear cut death. If sins were committed, the transgressors were brought before the court and were at complete mercy of God at that point. They could not simply get off by making an offering. It was literally "eye for an eye, and tooth for tooth".

I would encourage you to do research on the purpose and structure of the OT law, and which sins could be atoned by sacrifice.

3) Read Ezekiel 18 and you'll get the point about personal responsibility. The penalty for the described sins is literal death sentence. Not from old age either. Also note that God did not demand the same action from Gentiles, because He did not enter into a blood covenant with them. Any Jew could exit the country and covenant at any time they wanted and go on doing these things like Gentiles did without receiving a death penalty. But it was an agreement between God and the nation of Israel that they keep ALL OF THE LAW, not just 10 commandments, as long as the covenant was in effect. Penalty for some of the severe transgression was death that could not be atoned by the animals.

The concept of repentance without atonement in Ezekiel 18 is yet another way that Jews would atone for their sins, which was acceptable to God. In that chapter the concept is described quite well. If one sin all his righteousness if discounted, if he repents and does good deeds instead... his sins are forgotten.

Quote:

But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

That was the case for the NT Jews, and non-Jews alike. Take the story of Jonah. The people in Nineveh were wicked, yet true repentance did serve as a form of atonement based on grace of God. I don't believe that God looked several thousand years forward to Christ's death and counted that to them as righteousness. The message was "Repent and live!", without blood sacrifices or rituals, but true act of genuine sorrow and repentance for violent ways.

Modern Christians would be up and arms at this concept of atonement noting that this is us earning salvation... NOT QUITE! Nineveh deserved death, but they prayed and hoped for forgiveness. God saw a genuine change and he gracefully let them off the hook when they deserved death. The doctrine of substituted atonement is not here (the way most of Christianity explains it).

____________________________________________________________

Now, let's look at what's going on with Christ. There are couple of things we have to understand first though before we dive into it:

1) Christ and God and Spirit are the same entity. They may have separate persons and functions, but they are ONE GOD.

2) When we transgress any law, there's a legal concept of "damaged party". In case of humans, we can return what we've stolen. In case of God, we have to pay in some other way... death is one way of doing it... sometimes immediate.... sometimes eventual, based on severity of the law broken. Either way, God is a damaged party.

3) In our legal system, the damage party may demand retribution, or they may choose to settle outside of the court or forgive the damages all-together. Happens a lot of times. Likewise, it's up to God to either forgive the damage, or to demand the repayment and justice.

If God chooses to forgive, then He himself in fact "eats up" the damages caused by us. He takes the responsibility for these so to speak. Knowing that Christ is part of One God, ... the sacrifice is not God punishing Christ instead of us, but God punishing himself instead of us. He chooses to "eat up" the damages based on our genuine acknowledgment and repentance. So, He does the forgiveness ... not based on blood, but BASED ON OUR REPENTANCE, just like in case of Nineveh.

The present view of atonement pictures Christ that came to "die for our sins" in a sense of pacifying God's wrath. IT'S WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Here's what I believe a more accurate way the atonement concept should be presented. I've already hit on major points of it.

Christ was not killed by the Father, but by conspiring and power-hungry humans driven by Satan. The bigger picture is Satan vs God, which is the reason for Christ's death, not because God needed and demanded blood.

One may point out the "proof-text" of demanding blood, but you have to understand that both OT and NT were built around the object lessons of sacrificial system, rites of which are useless if God's grace is out of the picture. God could forgive without sacrifice, and in case of genuine repentance, but the PURPOSE OF THE SACRIFICE was not to transfer sins to blood. If you think alone these lines, you are missing the point. The purpose was to demonstrate that SIN BRINGS ABOUT DEATH! ... even when it's unintentional.

Christ triumph over death is a symbol of immortal God that does not desire "tooth for tooth" and violence and death but is willing to forgive those who genuinely repent and stop causing death and suffering.

Christ's death is a symbol of what happens to us when we live such life by means of repentance and seeking God's ways of non-violence obedience to the universal law.

The whole point is that righteous eventually live, but unrighteous and wicked eventually die.

Additionally, Christ's death as a symbol of offering for the "unintentional sins which are through weakness of the flesh" is for us to have confidence of getting up and trying again and developing new habits.

We need to stop dwelling on "blood and death", and start dwelling on life and repentance.