# Is it correct to say "God killed Christ" ?



## ddharr

Short from standing up, tearing my shirt in half and screaming Heresy!!! I am having a hard time accepting the above statement. If you think you can defend the statement please do. I am having a hard time with this statement. It was used in the context of God's sovereignty in a circle of reformed believers. judgment stops thought and that is where I am at.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Isaiah 53:10



> Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
> he has put him to grief;


----------



## Rufus

I would say in a way ya, God killed Christ so that we may be made right. We also killed Christ by are sins.


----------



## steadfast7

... especially in the context of God's sovereignty, where God killed _everyone_ who ever died.


----------



## AThornquist

I think if you argue from God's sovereignty, God would also be the author of sin.


----------



## steadfast7

AThornquist said:


> I think if you argue from God's sovereignty, God would also be the author of sin.


 
We confess that God ordained all that comes to pass, and in my mind, ordaining is different from authoring. But for many who assert equal ultimacy for all of God's will, then yeah, I don't see how that conclusion can be avoided.


----------



## ddharr

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Isaiah 53:10



I found my James Durham "Christ Crucified" book when I got home and will have me a read tomorrow when I can think clearer. Thanks for the passage. I believe he has a sermon on that verse.

---------- Post added at 01:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 AM ----------

---------- Post added at 01:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 AM ----------

One thing that did come to my mind as I was driving home tonight was Gods command to Abraham to sacrifice his son.


----------



## CharlieJ

No, it's incorrect. Although God is the remote cause of all things, proximal causes receive reward and blame for their actions. See the extended discussion in Calvin's _The Bondage and Liberation of the Will_. However, it is perfectly orthodox to say that Christ died for God, or that Christ died at God's command. 

Sinners killed Jesus. Read the preaching in Acts and you will see the apostles blame those present for the death of Jesus. In fact, several of Jesus' own parables (the wicked vinekeepers) make the same point.


----------



## Andres

AThornquist said:


> I think if you argue from God's sovereignty, God would also be the author of sin.



No He would not. 



> WCF 5.4
> The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, *as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin*.


----------



## steadfast7

CharlieJ said:


> No, it's incorrect. Although God is the remote cause of all things, proximal causes receive reward and blame for their actions. See the extended discussion in Calvin's _The Bondage and Liberation of the Will_. However, it is perfectly orthodox to say that Christ died for God, or that Christ died at God's command.
> 
> Sinners killed Jesus. Read the preaching in Acts and you will see the apostles blame those present for the death of Jesus. In fact, several of Jesus' own parables (the wicked vinekeepers) make the same point.


 
I thought it was more orthodox to be compatibaliist, that God is completely sovereign (not just remotely, but proximately), AND creatures are responsible for their actions.


----------



## seajayrice

CharlieJ said:


> No, it's incorrect. Although God is the remote cause of all things, proximal causes receive reward and blame for their actions. See the extended discussion in Calvin's _The Bondage and Liberation of the Will_. However, it is perfectly orthodox to say that Christ died for God, or that Christ died at God's command.
> 
> Sinners killed Jesus. Read the preaching in Acts and you will see the apostles blame those present for the death of Jesus. In fact, several of Jesus' own parables (the wicked vinekeepers) make the same point.


 
Does it not also say in Acts that it was God who ordained the cross? If not God's punishment of our sin (death), what then was the cross?

Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 
Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.


----------



## Jack K

In terms of demanding and extracting the penalty for sin (which is the central reason the crucifixion matters to us), Christ's death is the just work of God. If Christ has not borne _God's wrath_, we are still in our sins and the gospel is lost. So yes, it is both correct and necessary to say that God killed Christ.

But in terms of being an evil act that wrongly took the life of an innocent man, Christ's death is the unjust work of men. This may be why you're having trouble with the statement. Do you tend to see Christ's death first of all as a horrible act of _injustice_ (which in a sense it is), or as a glorious act of _justice_ (which it also is) that brings salvation?


----------



## CharlieJ

Dennis, I am compatibilist. Again, see Calvin. To say that God stands in a causal relationship to everything that happens does not make God the doer of every deed. If I throw a rock, you wouldn't say, "God threw that rock." Where does that end? "God lied to Eve in the Garden of Eden." "God murdered Abel." 

There's more complexity and nuance than the sweeping statement "God killed Jesus" can reflect.


----------



## bpkantor

I think we need to define what "killed" means here first.

does it mean: (1) beating, and nailing to a cross (in which case I don't think the statement would be that fitting, of course God ordained it though)
OR
does it mean: (2) crush under the wrath of God (in which case I think it would be a fitting statement in light of Isaiah 53:10)

As someone mentioned there is a difference between God ordaining everything and being the direct cause of all things (we cannot forget secondary causes, which the scriptures acknowledge: "whom you crucified..." etc)


----------



## christiana

John 10:18 Christ tells us He has the power to lay His life down and the power to take it up again. He voluntarily laid down His life for me!


----------



## steadfast7

CharlieJ said:


> Dennis, I am compatibilist. Again, see Calvin. To say that God stands in a causal relationship to everything that happens does not make God the doer of every deed. If I throw a rock, you wouldn't say, "God threw that rock." Where does that end? "God lied to Eve in the Garden of Eden." "God murdered Abel."
> 
> There's more complexity and nuance than the sweeping statement "God killed Jesus" can reflect.


 
Agreed. There is more to the sweeping statement that needs to be treated sensitively. "God killed Abel" is different, however, from "God killed Jesus." First, Scripture seems to want to make it a point that it was God's will to ordain Jesus' suffering and death. Second, the OP stated that this was in "the context of God's sovereignty in a circle of reformed believers." We can deduce fairly confidently that the speaker was addressing God's "remote" governance over all events.


----------



## cih1355

God made a plan that Christ would be crucified and God used secondary causes to carry out His plan. God ordained that someone would make the nails and the cross. God ordained that someone would nail Him to the cross. The people who whipped Jesus and nailed Him to the cross are responsible for what they did because their actions and their desires proceeded from their own will and hearts.


----------



## steadfast7

cih1355 said:


> God made a plan that Christ would be crucified and God used secondary causes to carry out His plan. God ordained that someone would make the nails and the cross. God ordained that someone would nail Him to the cross. The people who whipped Jesus and nailed Him to the cross are responsible for what they did because their actions and their desires proceeded from their own will and hearts.


 
Acts 4:27" for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever _your hand and your plan_ had predestined to take place."


----------



## ddharr

CharlieJ said:


> it is perfectly orthodox to say that Christ died for God, or that Christ died at God's command.



I do agree with this

---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 AM ----------




Jack K said:


> So yes, it is both correct and necessary to say that God killed Christ.



I can only go so far as saying God allowed it to happen



Jack K said:


> Do you tend to see Christ's death first of all as a horrible act of injustice (which in a sense it is), or as a glorious act of justice (which it also is) that brings salvation?



They meant it for evil but God meant it for good. Christ laid his life down freely allowing them to do what has come to pass.

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> To say that God stands in a causal relationship to everything that happens does not make God the doer of every deed. If I throw a rock, you wouldn't say, "God threw that rock." Where does that end? "God lied to Eve in the Garden of Eden." "God murdered Abel."



This is where the conclusion goes for me as well

---------- Post added at 11:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------




steadfast7 said:


> "God killed Abel" is different, however, from "God killed Jesus."



seems like the same except different names


----------



## CharlieJ

If you're arguing from _sovereignty_, there is no difference between "God killed Jesus" and "God killed Abel." God's predestination does not come quantitatively graded, as if one action is 70% predestined by God, but another is 100% predestined by him. God is equally sovereign over everything.

That's why "God killed Jesus" is wrong, whether or not it's in the context of Reformed believers talking about sovereignty. "God is one person and three persons" is wrong, even in the context of Christians talking about the Nicene Creed. I've already suggested a few other possibilities, such as, "Christ died for God" and "Christ died at God's command." I can think of a few more: "Jesus' death was God's plan." "God purposed for Christ to die." "God ordained for good and holy ends what wicked men performed." 

Don't you think that any of those are far more clear and unambiguously orthodox than "God killed Jesus"?


----------



## Andres

ddharr said:


> I can only go so far as saying God allowed it to happen



To say God only "allows" things to happen seems to rob Him of His sovereignty. God orders, or ordains, everything to happen.


----------



## steadfast7

One can put it this way ...
Jesus likened his suffering and death as a "cup" he needed to drink. Who gave him the cup?

Also, What do you make of "God hardened Pharoah's heart?"


----------



## steadfast7

CharlieJ said:


> If you're arguing from _sovereignty_, there is no difference between "God killed Jesus" and "God killed Abel."


 There is a difference, but not one that we can grasp. But we confess that he ordains all things that comes to pass and that he's not the author of evil. 



> I've already suggested a few other possibilities, such as, "Christ died for God" and "Christ died at God's command." I can think of a few more: "Jesus' death was God's plan." "God purposed for Christ to die." "God ordained for good and holy ends what wicked men performed."


 These are all good and true.



> Don't you think that any of those are far more clear and unambiguously orthodox than "God killed Jesus"?


 
I understand your concern to not equate evil acts to God's own hand. So I agree, it's wrong to say God killed Abel (even though God ordained it). However, my concern is that God's sovereignty cannot and should not be removed from proximal events, as if it didn't reach that far. This is what 'God allowed it happen' communicates. It seems Scripture is much more "dangerous" with its words than we comfortable with.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

The operative word here, "killed", in its contemporary context, usually presumes something more than an act of justice. Yes, God ordained the just punishment for sin, but if we are given over to thinking that this was a murderous act, we have confused the moral intent of God with the moral intent of the perpetrators who nailed our Lord to the cross.

AMR


----------



## steadfast7

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The operative word here, "killed", in its contemporary context, usually presumes something more than an act of justice. Yes, God ordained the just punishment for sin, but if we are given over to thinking that this was a murderous act, we have confused the moral intent of God with the moral intent of the perpetrators who nailed our Lord to the cross.
> 
> AMR


 But "killed" does not always have the meaning of murder in scripture either. God is said to have killed others as well. eg. 1 Chron. 2.3; Exo. 13.15.


----------



## CharlieJ

I notice, Dennis, that in both those passages, God really did kill those people, himself, or at least through the Angel of the Lord. That's different than the situation with Jesus, in which there were human efficient causes. 

I do sympathize with your desire, though, not to let permission become "bare" permission, as if God grudgingly allowed something to happen. Yet, even Calvin doesn't get away from the idea of permission entirely. Again, I would recommend his _The Bondage and Liberation of the Will_, which is a debate about the very issues relating to this thread.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

ddharr said:


> Short from standing up, tearing my shirt in half and screaming Heresy!!! I am having a hard time accepting the above statement. If you think you can defend the statement please do. I am having a hard time with this statement. It was used in the context of God's sovereignty in a circle of reformed believers. judgment stops thought and that is where I am at.


 
I think Isaiah 53 makes it clear that it was God's will to kill Christ.


----------



## ddharr

CharlieJ said:


> Again, I would recommend his The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, which is a debate about the very issues relating to this thread.



Thank You


----------

