# Here is an interesting line of study and thought.



## earl40 (Dec 16, 2009)

Jesus the person Who is %100 God and %100 man died on the cross. Now in His humanity He died but what is your thinking on His Divinity? Did the divinity of Jesus die also? This is an interesting subject that I looked into about a year ago and I learned a lot when I did.

Discuss


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 16, 2009)

Not at all - the divinity of the Second person of the Trinity is incapable of death. On account of the Reformed understanding of the communication of properties, we can say that the _Person_ died; but we cannot say that he died according to his divinity.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 16, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Not at all - the divinity of the Second person of the Trinity is incapable of death. On account of the Reformed understanding of the communication of properties, we can say that the _Person_ died; but we cannot say that he died according to his divinity.



That was the position I took before I looked into this also. Here is a clue...look into what "death" is.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 16, 2009)

Earl, respectfully, such is not an allowable position, nor is what the church has confessed.

The Definition of Chalcedon was produced by a council of the church 1500 years ago, and has served as a boundary of catholic orthodoxy ever since. Note our language:
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures,* without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence*, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.​
Though the two natures are joined in one person, nevertheless each nature still retains those properties peculiar to it -- the divinity remains divinity, and the humanity remains humanity.

For a more recent and distinctly Reformed confessional statement, please see the Second Helvetic Confession below:
THE DIVINE NATURE OF Christ IS NOT PASSIBLE, AND THE HUMAN NATURE IS NOT EVERYWHERE. 
Therefore, we do not in any way teach that the divine nature in Christ has suffered or that Christ according to his human nature is still in this world and thus is everywhere. For neither do we think or teach that the body of Christ ceased to be a true body after his glorification, or was deified, and deified in such a way that it laid aside its properties as regards body and soul, and changed entirely into a divine nature and began to be merely one substance.​


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 16, 2009)

earl40 said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all - the divinity of the Second person of the Trinity is incapable of death. On account of the Reformed understanding of the communication of properties, we can say that the _Person_ died; but we cannot say that he died according to his divinity.
> ...



Earl, with all due respect, you are treading on very dangerous ground. (and now I see that Prufrock has weighed in with his comments which are similar to what I had planned to say). To argue that Christ's divine nature died is to confuse the natures - which is not only contrary to the Reformed Confessional understanding of Christ's dual nature, but runs contrary to the early ecumenical creeds - Chalcedon in particular. God CANNOT die - that which is divine simply cannot. 

I don't know what you've "found" but it is false.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 16, 2009)

First of all I would like apologize for the obvious misunderstanding that came with this post. I love how you guys reacted because I did the same when I first looked into this subject because it appears at first light rank heresy. 

Now read this...

The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed by Anjela Paje of Spokane, WA, from the tape, GC 1301-T, titled "Bible Questions and Answers Part 22." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. ©1982. All Rights Reserved.

Question

Did God die on the cross, or just the humanness of Christ die, and if no, then what was the purpose of the incarnation?

Answer

Did God die on the cross? For a moment, we have to say yes. Because Jesus died on the cross and Jesus was God. And, death, basically, means what? Separation from God. Was Jesus separated from God? ‘My God, My God, why hast thou what? Forsaken me?’ He was separated from God. He died. And, the Bible says He died, over and over, and over, and over, and over, doesn’t it? He died. He died. He died, and He was Jesus Christ. You cannot separate Jesus Christ’s humanness from His deity. You cannot cut Him up. He was Jesus Christ, the God-man and He died. So, yes, God died on the cross.

Now, how you separate one member of the trinity from the rest, I don't know, but I do not really worry about it because if God expected me to know it, He would have told me, or given me the ability to think it through, and I haven't. All I know is, He did die on the cross. He was separated from the Father, and, yet, one with the Father, and I don't understand that, and I am not going to be worried about not understanding it. It is not God’s problem. It is mine. I just do not have what it takes.

Question continues

But, it is important to know that God did die on the cross, right?

Answer

Well, of course. Otherwise, all you’ve got is a human sacrifice, a human martyr up there. The weight of sin of all the sins, of all the world killed Jesus Christ.

Question continues

So, the death of just the humanness of Christ would not have atoned for all the sins of the world?

Answer

There is nothing about Jesus that you can separate out and talk only of His humanness. He is a whole person.

Question continues

I just want to get that clarified because a lot of people said that He did die just in His humanness and I said, “No.”

Answer

No. But, you see, His spirit isn't dead because when His body is dead on the cross, as we saw earlier, His spirit descends and proclaims a victory over the demons, and so, yes, He died, but remember now, this is not our definition necessarily, or our perception. But, surely, He died. It says He died, and He was separated from the Father.

-----Added 12/16/2009 at 03:32:23 EST-----

*From a good friend on another board .....*"If "death" means to cease to exist, then there is no way to coherently work out Christ's deity on the cross. But if death is not cessation of existence, it is possible without contradiction for God to be eternal and die.

If death means separation from God, then it is not clear how God can be separated from Himself. But it is clear that "separation" is not something spatial and so not something illogical."

*My reply....*"I also brought up the the possibility that Jesus never lost
total separation from the Father. In other words, Jesus experienced judgment from The Father on the cross. So even the idea of "separation" needs to be qualified also as you pointed out. :up

This goes to show me the depths of the atonement are truly only skimmed on in our churches and in my mind."


----------



## KMK (Dec 16, 2009)

Earl, do you agree with this?



> LBC 8:2. The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with Him who made the world, who upholds and governs all things He has made, did, when the fullness of time was complete, *take upon Him man's nature,* with all the essential properties and common infirmities of it,9 yet without sin;10 *being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary*, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures;11 so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures 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.12
> 9 John 1:14; Gal. 4;4
> 10 Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14,16,17, 4:15
> 11 Matt. 1:22, 23
> 12 Luke 1:27,31,35; Rom. 9:5; 1 Tim. 2:5



And this?



> LBC 8:4. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake,21 which that He might discharge He was made under the law,22 and did perfectly fulfill it, and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have born and suffered,23 being made sin and a curse for us;24 *enduring most grievous sorrows in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body*;25 was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead, yet saw no corruption:26 on the third day* He arose from the dead27 with the same body in which He suffered*,28 with which He also ascended into heaven,29 and there sits at the right hand of His Father making intercession,30 and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.31
> 21 Ps. 40:7,8; Heb. 10:5-10; John 10:18
> 22 Gal 4:4; Matt. 3:15
> 23 Gal. 3:13; Isa. 53:6; 1 Pet. 3:18
> ...



Christ's body was conceived in the womb of Mary, and He suffered and died in His body, and was raised again in His body. His body belongs to His human nature, not His divine nature. And since there is no 'confusion' of the two natures, Christ died in His human nature, not His divine.


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 16, 2009)

*Orthodox Christology*

1.Jesus Christ is the θεανθρωπος the God-Man
2.Jesus Christ is fully God
3.Jesus Christ is fully Man
4.Jesus Christ is one Person having two natures
5.Anything that can be predicated of either nature can be predicated of the Person
6.Human death is the separation of the soul and body
7.It was the *body* of Jesus Christ the died on the Cross
8.The Person Jesus Christ died for the sins of His people


----------



## larryjf (Dec 16, 2009)

Perhaps there is a confusion regarding what death is. Let's consider that natures don't die...whether human or divine. When we, as humans die, it is our person that die not our nature...our nature moves from the temporal to the eternal.

Therefore we can say that the person Jesus Christ died, but neither his human nor his divine nature died...because natures don't die.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 16, 2009)

larryjf said:


> Perhaps there is a confusion regarding what death is. Let's consider that natures don't die...whether human or divine. When we, as humans die, it is our person that die not our nature...our nature moves from the temporal to the eternal.
> 
> Therefore we can say that the person Jesus Christ died, but neither his human nor his divine nature died...because natures don't die.



Good very good. You are hitting hard what the word "death" means. Do we say the human nature of Jesus ceased to exist when he died on the cross? No it did not. Can we say that Jesus in His divine nature was forsaken on the cross (as well as His Human nature BTW) on the cross? Yes we do.

Jesus was forsaken by The Father as He said on the cross. This being forsaken was Jesus dying on the cross.

He experienced the second death which we deserve, and He did it on the cross.


----------



## Herald (Dec 16, 2009)

*MODERATOR NOTE:

*Please be circumspect discussing this subject. It has already been made clear, by Paul Korte, that Christ's divine nature did not die on the cross. This is the Reformed position, and it is not open to discussion or debate. I was going to close this thread, but I will leave it open, albeit with close supervision by myself and the other moderators. 

If you are unsure of the Reformed teaching on this matter, I suggest you study it. If you need to be pointed to some Reformed resources, just ask and we will be happy to provide them.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 16, 2009)

Herald said:


> *MODERATOR NOTE:
> 
> *Please be circumspect discussing this subject. It has already been made clear, by Paul Korte, that Christ's divine nature did not die on the cross. This is the Reformed position, and it is not open to discussion or debate. I was going to close this thread, but I will leave it open, albeit with close supervision by myself and the other moderators.
> 
> If you are unsure of the Reformed teaching on this matter, I suggest you study it. If you need to be pointed to some Reformed resources, just ask and we will be happy to provide them.





I understand and will oblige to the request. Also I hope you do understand I am not saying Jesus ceased to exist at all.

All I am pointing out is that Jesus (human and divine natures) was forsaken by The Father while on the cross which As far as I know totally reformed. Correct me if I am wrong here. For I am open to correction especially on this subject which is essential to the faith which we place in Him.

-----Added 12/16/2009 at 04:37:46 EST-----



KMK said:


> Earl, do you agree with this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree %100.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 16, 2009)

Earl, you are taking statements which apply to the person, and ascribing them equally to the divine nature: this cannot be done. Christ's divinity is impassible: it cannot, could not, and will not change, nor can it undergo suffering. This is why he assumed flesh in the first place, _so that_ he could suffer for us. The Incarnate Son suffered on the cross: the divine nature subsisting in the Second Person of the Trinity did not suffer. So, "Can we say that Jesus in his divine nature was forsaken on the cross?" Well, no, we actually don't say that. The hypostatic union was never broken, and Christ's divinity was joined to his humanity throughout his sufferings, so "that he might, by the power of his Godhead sustain in his human nature, the burden of God's wrath; and might obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life." But the divine nature could not suffer or undergo death.

This is not a matter of private opinion or interpretation: it is the catholic faith and part of the definition of the church. Even the Lutherans, who ascribed certain characteristics of the divine nature to Christ's flesh, did not dare ascribe the characteristics of humanity to the Godhead.

I would urge you to leave aside your theological inquiry for a moment, and truly consider the terrible ramifications for our faith, comfort and consolation if God _as God_ could suffer, or die, or be killed or change. What would we have in which to place our confidence.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 16, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Earl, you are taking statements which apply to the person, and ascribing them equally to the divine nature: this cannot be done. Christ's divinity is impassible: it cannot, could not, and will not change, nor can it undergo suffering. This is why he assumed flesh in the first place, _so that_ he could suffer for us. The Incarnate Son suffered on the cross: the divine nature subsisting in the Second Person of the Trinity did not suffer. So, "Can we say that Jesus in his divine nature was forsaken on the cross?" Well, no, we actually don't say that. The hypostatic union was never broken, and Christ's divinity was joined to his humanity throughout his sufferings, so "that he might, by the power of his Godhead sustain in his human nature, the burden of God's wrath; and might obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life." But the divine nature could not suffer or undergo death.
> 
> This is not a matter of private opinion or interpretation: it is the catholic faith and part of the definition of the church.
> 
> I would urge you to leave aside your theological inquiry for a moment, and truly consider the terrible ramifications for our faith, comfort and consolation if God _as God_ could suffer, or die, or be killed or change. What would we have in which to place our confidence.



Good points made I will consider them prayerfully.

Would you be willing to speak to MaCarthur on this? Just curious.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 16, 2009)

Well, I do not know Mr. Macarthur and would thus have no reason to be talking to him about this: however I am more than glad to discuss my faith with anyone who would do so.

Regarding the statements from this man which you posted above -- though one paragraph is potentially troubling through its ambiguity -- most of what he is saying does not seem to assert in anyway that the divine nature underwent suffering. _He_, the person of Jesus Christ, underwent death: and we cannot separate the two natures; thus, he was not a human person (for the Son did not assume a human person, but humanity) suffering and dying; but rather, the person (the human nature suffering death _as sustained by and joined to the Divine Logos who assumed it_) suffered and bore our sins, with each nature fulfilling its proper office in the work. Thus we can say such things as "the church, which God purchased with his own blood" -- not that the divinity suffered or shed blood, but that the Logos assumed human nature and was thereby able to shed blood, though this shedding belongs to the assumed human nature alone. So to say, as Macarthur may have above, that [the Son of] God died is to say something about a Person who has assumed flesh -- not about the Divinity itself.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 16, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Well, I do not know Mr. Macarthur and would thus have no reason to be talking to him about this: however I am more than glad to discuss my faith with anyone who would do so.
> 
> Regarding the statements from this man which you posted above -- though one paragraph is potentially troubling through its ambiguity -- most of what he is saying does not seem to assert in anyway that the divine nature underwent suffering. _He_, the person of Jesus Christ, underwent death: and we cannot separate the two natures; thus, he was not a human person (for the Son did not assume a human person, but humanity) suffering and dying; but rather, the person (the human nature suffering death _as sustained by and joined to the Divine Logos who assumed it_) suffered and bore our sins, with each nature fulfilling its proper office in the work. Thus we can say such things as "the church, which God purchased with his own blood" -- not that the divinity suffered or shed blood, but that the Logos assumed human nature and was thereby able to shed blood, though this shedding belongs to the assumed human nature alone. So to say, as Macarthur may have above, that [the Son of] God died is to say something about a Person who has assumed flesh -- not about the Divinity itself.



Sorry about posting the quote by Mac. Though I thought he was quite clear about the contentious part we are discussing to which I don't think the same as you do on your assumption of what he said. Would it have been ok to post the hyperlink to his response since it was found on Google?

Also you brought some GREAT points!


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 16, 2009)

See the excellent article
*A Meditation on the Doctrine of the Person of Christ*
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
Welcome to A Puritan's Mind!


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 16, 2009)

Earl, there is nothing wrong with posting quotations from this gentleman. Did somebody send you a private message telling you not to?


----------



## earl40 (Dec 16, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Earl, there is nothing wrong with posting quotations from this gentleman. Did somebody send you a private message telling you not to?




My mistake. I thought I posted John MacArthur's answer in my first post here. I read a response to my original and thought someone deleted it.

But more importantly look what I found!!!!!!!!!!!!

15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the *one Man*, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 

I am sure there are more verses that proved my original thoughts on this were wrong. If you find them I would LOVE to have them.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 16, 2009)

Christ's body died, not His divinity. Christ's divinity cannot die.


----------



## Rich Koster (Dec 16, 2009)

The "Jesus died spiritually" is one of the worst teachings of the Word of Faith ilk.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 17, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> The "Jesus died spiritually" is one of the worst teachings of the Word of Faith ilk.



Yes I have heard them say this also. Though they import that Jesus was tormented by satan and his demons in hell for the 3 days after the crucifixion.


-----Added 12/17/2009 at 03:17:33 EST-----



rbcbob said:


> See the excellent article
> *A Meditation on the Doctrine of the Person of Christ*
> by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
> Welcome to A Puritan's Mind!




I started this last night and got about %25 done with it and I thank God for it, and you for posting this excellent article. It defines terms we use in a clear way and points out the reason for why heretical teachings on the incarnation are wrong.

Once again thank you for your help in setting me straight.

Also thank you to everybody here.


----------



## Andres (Dec 17, 2009)

Earl, I just wanted to commend you on your teachable spirit. One of my favorite things about the PB are the opportunitites for learning and growing in Christ that is made possible through the wisdom of knowledgeable brothers and sisters. Of course, when people refuse to accept wisdom and instead would rather argue their position from a heart of pride, they miss out completely. Unfortunately I feel like I have seen this a few times in the past so your willingness to be corrected and receive further study is a refreshing. God bless!


----------



## larryjf (Dec 17, 2009)

Andres said:


> Earl, I just wanted to commend you on your teachable spirit. One of my favorite things about the PB are the opportunitites for learning and growing in Christ that is made possible through the wisdom of knowledgeable brothers and sisters. Of course, when people refuse to accept wisdom and instead would rather argue their position from a heart of pride, they miss out completely. Unfortunately I feel like I have seen this a few times in the past so your willingness to be corrected and receive further study is a refreshing. God bless!


----------

