# Did God Suffer on the Cross?



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 15, 2008)

Hey:

Did the body and spiritual sufferings of Jesus Christ on the Cross affect the Divine Nature of God in the Person of Jesus? Or, did His Sufferings affect the human nature only, but was supported by the Divine Nature in order to bear the weight of Eternal Wrath?

Thanks,

-CH

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## ADKing (Feb 15, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> 
> Did the body and spiritual sufferings of Jesus Christ on the Cross affect the Divine Nature of God in the Person of Jesus? Or, did His Sufferings affect the human nature only, but was supported by the Divine Nature in order to bear the weight of Eternal Wrath?
> 
> ...



From the Westminster Larger Catechism:

_Question 38: Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?

Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession; and to satisfy God's justice, procure his favor, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation._

and

_Question 39: Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?

Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow feeling of our infirmities; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace._

One of the attributes of God is that he is impassible, which means that he cannot suffer. That is one of the reasons it was necessary for the Mediator to be man. The human body and soul of Chist suffered on the cross. That having been said, according to Chalcedonian orthodoxy it is acceptable to say "God suffered" if by that we understand that the person (who is God and man) suffered. It is similar to Paul's statement that God purchased the church with his blood (Acts 20.28). Obvioulsy the divine nature has no blood, but the person who is God (and man) did shed his blood. Scholastic Reformed theology calls this the communication of attributes. 

_Question 40: Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person?

Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us, and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person.
_


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 15, 2008)

ADKing said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Hey:
> ...



I agree with this. I think it would be helpful to clarify (and I am fairly certain that this is what Adam meant) that we do not believe that the communication of attributes flows from divine to human nature, but from divine nature to the person of Christ as He is in hypostatic union, God with a human nature. The Lutherans hold to a communication of divine to human (in regard to Christ's real presence in the Sacrament). So, with this in mind, we can say that the person of Christ suffered (by communication of the human nature with the person), and we can say that the human nature of Christ suffered. But we cannot say that God Himself suffered. I agree with the WLC on this one.


----------



## Wannabee (Feb 15, 2008)

Great answer Adam.


CalvinandHodges said:


> ...did His Sufferings affect the human nature only, but was supported by the Divine Nature in order to bear the weight of Eternal Wrath?



If I may add: There is a common misunderstanding that perceives two natures of Christ rather than a dual nature (I hope I said that right). This perspective results in a 50% man 50% God view in which one nature can be discussed outside the other. However, just as you are fully your mother's and fully your father's, the two are inseparable. Being 100% God and 100% man, one nature cannot experience anything without the other experiencing the same. It is this fact that makes the cross that much more horrible, as God the Son experienced the full wrath of God the Father.


----------



## ADKing (Feb 15, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I agree with this. I think it would be helpful to clarify (and I am fairly certain that this is what Adam meant) that we do not believe that the communication of attributes flows from divine to human nature, but from divine nature to the person of Christ as He is in hypostatic union, God with a human nature. The Lutherans hold to a communication of divine to human (in regard to Christ's real presence in the Sacrament). So, with this in mind, we can say that the person of Christ suffered (by communication of the human nature with the person), and we can say that the human nature of Christ suffered. But we cannot say that God Himself suffered. I agree with the WLC on this one.




Thanks for the contribution. The Reformed do define "communication of attributes" differently than the Lutherans. We hold that each nature contributes what is proper to itself to the person. As you point out, Lutheranism historically sees a communication of what is proper of the divine nature to the human nature (rather than merely the person). This of course was a creative way whereby they could explain the ubiquity of the human nature of Christ in the eucharist.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 15, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> Great answer Adam.
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> ...




This is actually a heterodox statement, sorry  

If you assert that Christ's suffering affected his divine nature then you have just compromised the impassibility of the divine essence. It's not considered a good thing in the history of Christian theology.

Classical Christology does not speak of a dual nature, but of two natures in one person, and does find it profitable to speak of the unique properties of the divine and human natures separately, since if you cannot distinguish the properties of one nature from another you _will_ end up confusing them. 

The following excerpt from the definition of Chalcedon is still the best summary regarding this issue:

"...one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; *the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved*, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, *not parted or divided into two persons*, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ..."

Note that they do find it proper to make a theological distinction between the natures and their properties, the subsequent reference to the division into two persons (which is much different than saying two natures) being a defense against Nestorianism. Pretty much any orthodox system of theology will have a discussion regarding the unique properties of each nature, and how they relate one to another in the person of Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Feb 15, 2008)

Also:

WCF VIII.II. The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by he power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. *So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.* Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wannabee (Feb 15, 2008)

Thanks Adam,

Actually, I think it's only partially heterodox. I clarified my statement in the fact that it was under the wrath of God the Father that God the Son suffered. Impassibility, as I (among others) understand it states that God's passions are not subject to the creature in any way. I fully affirm this. But does that necessitate that God's passions are not subject to God, which is exactly what we're dealing with here? I perceive that my words could probably have been chosen better though.

Part of the concern is that we don't approach Open Theism. If God is subject to or reactive to creatures/creation in any way then His sovereignty, and therefore deity, is brought into question. This is an obvious heresy that does not take anthropopathisms into account. 



> Robert Reymond: “Thus whenever divine impassibility is interpreted to mean that God is impervious to human pain or incapable of empathizing with human grief it must be roundly denounced and rejected. When the Confession of Faith declares that God is “without…passions” it should be understood to mean that God has no bodily passions such as hunger or the human drive for sexual fulfillment…”
> “We do, however, affirm that the creature cannot inflict suffering, pain, or any sort of distress upon him against his will. In this sense God is impassible.”(179)





> D. A. Carson writes, “If God loves, it is because he chooses to love, if he suffers, it is because he chooses to suffer. God is impassible in the sense that he sustains no ‘passion,’ no emotion, that makes him vulnerable from the outside, over which he has no control, or which he has not foreseen.” (Love of God, 60)



Hopefully that clarifies.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 15, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> Thanks Adam,
> 
> Actually, I think it's only partially heterodox. I clarified my statement in the fact that it was under the wrath of God the Father than God the Son suffered. Impassibility, as I (among others) understand it states that God's passions are not subject to the creature in any way. I fully affirm this. But does that necessitate that God's passions are not subject to God, which is exactly what we're dealing with here? I perceive that my words could probably have been chosen better though.
> 
> ...



That is an interesting take, and one that I am not sure that I've ever heard discussed (regarding God inflicting suffering upon himself). I'd have to think about it more.

I'm not certain that I find either Reymond's nor Carson's answers more than partially helpful. One of the things that they fail to do (at least within the bounds of those citations) is to tie the discussion of God's impassibility into the reality of the Incarnation. Only the incarnate person of Christ was able to suffer with us, and in doing so, to sympathize with us and become our great high priest a la Hebrews 4:15. I would say that God, as he is in Christ, has suffered and been moved, by virtue of his human nature, but I would not extend that experience of suffering to the Trinity outside of the Incarnation.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Feb 15, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> 
> Did the body and spiritual sufferings of Jesus Christ on the Cross affect the Divine Nature of God in the Person of Jesus? Or, did His Sufferings affect the human nature only, but was supported by the Divine Nature in order to bear the weight of Eternal Wrath?
> 
> ...



You may find Donald Macleod helpful, but he is provocative!

Reactions: Informative 1


----------

