Did God die on the cross?
- Thread starter Delahunt
- Start date
- Status
SoJesus Judt had the nature of God then let him?
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Perhaps I'm being dense, but I'm still having trouble following you. Here is what is confusing me about what you said:
It sounds like you're saying that "just as the human soul was separated from the body, the divine person was separated from the body." I could concur if you mean that the Son of Man was separated both body and soul.
Then you stated:
Perhaps it is just the wording that is getting me, but I don't believe the second person of the trinity was ever separated from the body or soul of the incarnate Christ. It was only the body and soul that were separated from each other but both remained united to the the divine nature even in the separation of death.
In your explanation, you said:
Are you saying that the human nature was always united with the divine because the soul went to be with God? Do you believe that the body without the soul in the grave was also still united to the divine nature or was the body separated from the divine nature when separated from the soul?
I appreciate your clarification! I would admit I may have something to learn here!
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
David, everyone has maintained at all times that the divine nature cannot die. Christ, according to the human nature, was both divine and could physically die. I'm not sure if you are taking the time to understand what is being said and you are muddying the water by using terms carelessly. This is a fairly technical conversation and your questions/assertions are not adding clarity to the conversation, but the opposite.
Would you like some reading materials? I'm sure many here could give you some recommendations! I often come here for reading recommenations myself.
This is confusing to me , is it even possible to have Jesus have His twin nature's divided after he died?Perhaps I'm being dense, but I'm still having trouble following you. Here is what is confusing me about what you said:
It sounds like you're saying that "just as the human soul was separated from the body, the divine person was separated from the body." I could concur if you mean that the Son of Man was separated both body and soul.
Then you stated:
Perhaps it is just the wording that is getting me, but I don't believe the second person of the trinity was ever separated from the body or soul of the incarnate Christ. It was only the body and soul that were separated from each other but both remained united to the the divine nature even in the separation of death.
In your explanation, you said:
Are you saying that the human nature was always united with the divine because the soul went to be with God? Do you believe that the body without the soul in the grave was also still united to the divine nature or was the body separated from the divine nature when separated from the soul?
I appreciate your clarification! I would admit I may have something to learn here!
That would be helpful.David, everyone has maintained at all times that the divine nature cannot die. Christ, according to the human nature, was both divine and could physically die. I'm not sure if you are taking the time to understand what is being said and you are muddying the water by using terms carelessly. This is a fairly technical conversation and your questions/assertions are not adding clarity to the conversation, but the opposite.
Would you like some reading materials? I'm sure many here could give you some recommendations! I often come here for reading recommenations myself.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
The two natures of Christ (divine and human) were not divided after he died. It is only the two parts of the human nature (body and soul) that were separated at death. Does that help?
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Have you read the confessions on this point recently? I would start with the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and then look at the relevant parts in the Three Forms of Unity and Westminster standards. After this, I would look at some of the heresies since it is often helpful to understand our own position better when we compare it to divergent views. I can provide a list of these if you'd like as well. Let me know if you need help finding the relevant portions in the confessions.
Blessings on your studies!
So Jesus duel nature's remained in His soul?
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
His soul is part of the human nature. The soul does not have a nature since it is part of a nature. Does that help?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
It's the doctrine of the Extra Calvinisticum. The divine person isn't circumscribed by the body. The body was in the grave.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Correct, the mental temptation is to identify soul with divine nature and body with human, but that is wrong.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
Tim,
I’d be happy to exegete my posts over the phone but there’s way too much here to try to untangle in such a forum given my time constraints. I’ll make a few comments briefly.
You said:
“It sounds like you're saying that "just as the human soul was separated from the body, the divine person was separated from the body." I could concur if you mean that the Son of Man was separated both body and soul.”
The Son of Man was a person. So, I don’t think that gets you much. I’ll try to unpack that more below.
“Separated both body and soul” is very unclear to me.
Then you say:
“Perhaps it is just the wording that is getting me, but I don't believe the second person of the trinity was ever separated from the body or soul of the incarnate Christ.”
Separated from the human soul? I tried to labor the point that the the Second Person stayed intact with respect to soul and divinity in one person. I even stated: “So, no matter the relationship of the human soul and divine nature of the Son, one person with two natures existed as one person, even when the body lay in the grave. Where the human spirit of the Son was, he was there as the undivided God-man, awaiting the resurrection.”
I hope that’s clear now.
I believe you took issue here, “The human nature was restricted upon death but the divine person in his divine nature was not restricted when the second person was separated from the body of the human nature. He could function as always before upon separation from his body.”
First off, humanity is a body soul composite. Priority is given to the soul since our souls exist (as immortal subsistence) when the body dies. We’d never say Joe is at the cemetery. However, we would say, Joe is in heaven. Nothing controversial there I trust.
But again, the Son performed divine acts through his human nature. When the Second Person died, his body - the body of the Second Person - lay in the grave. His body died and awaited resurrection life. Whose body died? The Divine Son’s body, of course. If you’re saying that the Son of Man’s body died in an effort to get around the Second Person’s body, that would be a move toward Nestorianism (two persons). So, I’m not sure what introducing Son of Man (or Second Adam) type language gets us in this regard.
Did a person’s body die? If so, then that settles it for me. That’s all that’s meant by the Second Person died on the cross. The Second Person was crucified, dead and buried. For three days the Son only could act apart from His dead, un-resurrected body. (It is even similar in some respects to when human persons die; we exist and behave according to the intermediate state. Having no body was hardly restrictive of the Son, which only underscores my point that we needn’t shy away from the death of the Son upon the cross. We’re not annihilationists.)
I’d be happy to exegete my posts over the phone but there’s way too much here to try to untangle in such a forum given my time constraints. I’ll make a few comments briefly.
You said:
“It sounds like you're saying that "just as the human soul was separated from the body, the divine person was separated from the body." I could concur if you mean that the Son of Man was separated both body and soul.”
“Separated both body and soul” is very unclear to me.
Then you say:
“Perhaps it is just the wording that is getting me, but I don't believe the second person of the trinity was ever separated from the body or soul of the incarnate Christ.”
Separated from the human soul? I tried to labor the point that the the Second Person stayed intact with respect to soul and divinity in one person. I even stated: “So, no matter the relationship of the human soul and divine nature of the Son, one person with two natures existed as one person, even when the body lay in the grave. Where the human spirit of the Son was, he was there as the undivided God-man, awaiting the resurrection.”
I hope that’s clear now.
I believe you took issue here, “The human nature was restricted upon death but the divine person in his divine nature was not restricted when the second person was separated from the body of the human nature. He could function as always before upon separation from his body.”
First off, humanity is a body soul composite. Priority is given to the soul since our souls exist (as immortal subsistence) when the body dies. We’d never say Joe is at the cemetery. However, we would say, Joe is in heaven. Nothing controversial there I trust.
But again, the Son performed divine acts through his human nature. When the Second Person died, his body - the body of the Second Person - lay in the grave. His body died and awaited resurrection life. Whose body died? The Divine Son’s body, of course. If you’re saying that the Son of Man’s body died in an effort to get around the Second Person’s body, that would be a move toward Nestorianism (two persons). So, I’m not sure what introducing Son of Man (or Second Adam) type language gets us in this regard.
Did a person’s body die? If so, then that settles it for me. That’s all that’s meant by the Second Person died on the cross. The Second Person was crucified, dead and buried. For three days the Son only could act apart from His dead, un-resurrected body. (It is even similar in some respects to when human persons die; we exist and behave according to the intermediate state. Having no body was hardly restrictive of the Son, which only underscores my point that we needn’t shy away from the death of the Son upon the cross. We’re not annihilationists.)
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
For my clarification, would you say then that in the grave His body was separated from the divine nature, yet his soul was not?
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The human soul of Christ and his body are separated from each other, but they are still united to the divine person so that the hypostatic union isn't broken.
According to WLC 86, the bodies of believers "even in death continue united to Christ." What is true of the members, in this regard, is also true of the head. The death of Christ involved the separation of human soul and body, not the separation of divine person from human body.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
That the human body dies in Christ doesn’t undermine the soul’s separation from the body nor the hypostatic union. But more to the point, the Second Person’s body died. Accordingly, it wasn’t until the resurrection that divine acts could again be performed through the human nature. If one doesn’t want to recognize that three day restriction as a person being separated from his body, then not much more can be said. But let’s not lose sight of what is at stake. If a person didn’t die for the sins of God’s people, then we are men most miserable, still dead in our sins. Praise God that the church was purchased with the blood of God and that the Son of God loved the elect and gave himself, not just an abstraction, up for them. Praise God that a person was crucified, dead and buried.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Thank you for this, as this has been my concern all along.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, as I’ve said in two distinct ways. It’s very useful too, but I don’t think he was intending to offer an exhaustive response to the apparent disagreements regarding death.
Last edited:
Denying the death of a person would certainly be a significant problem. But I haven't made that denial, nor has Tim. Hence nothing of what you warn against is at stake. On the contrary, your approach seems to dissolve the hypostatic union with reference to the corporeal aspect of Christ's humanity. That would involve the hypostatic union being, at least in part, an on-again off-again proposition. Given that the mystical union with the believer's body is not broken by death, it's difficult to see on what grounds the hypostatic union would be.
Of course! John Brown of Haddington put it like this:
Q. Did Christ's death separate his soul or body from his divine nature?
A. No; Rev. 1:18, 1 Peter 3:18.
(Questions & Answers on the Shorter Catechism, p.129 - expounding WSC 27)A. No; Rev. 1:18, 1 Peter 3:18.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
That the WLC teaches that upon death the human body nebulously somehow remains united to Christ does not imply that the standards, let alone Scripture, also teaches that the Spirit of Christ emphatically indwells corpses that lay in the grave, return to dust and see corruption. A few more premises would be needed to get us from p, “dead body is united to divine person” to q, “divine person indwells dead body.” For one thing, union is not always existential union, such as in the ordo salutis. Union in election (chosen in Him) pertains to identity, not ontology. So, not only must you get from union of dust to indwelling of dust, your conclusion also assumes symmetry without a supporting argument. Even if we were to allow union to imply indwelling, “humanity —> divine” does not imply “divine —> humanity.” In other words, even if the dead human body somehow indwells the divine essence of the Son in that mystical union, the reverse cannot be assumed, that a symmetry obtains with respect to the divine Son indwelling corruption. That’s simply fallacious, even if true!
Life - God’s life, indwells non life yet the non life remains dead? If so, indwelling is no longer “indwelling”. It’s meaning becomes vacuous. Moreover, to extrapolate out even further any premise that reduces to the Son having use of his dead body, (which is a direct consequence of indwelling a dead body), undermines the death of the Son, the very thing you say you and Tim would like to maintain.
“Given that the mystical union with the believer's body is not broken by death,”
The soul upon death is indeed separated from the body. That’s precisely why the intermediate state is unnatural. Accordingly, that premise, being false, fails to support your conclusion regarding any violation to the hypostatic union. Moreover, if the mystical union is not broken, then it’s not predicated upon indwelling!
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
David, I once read through almost all the Reformed ST's on this subject, and the clearest and most helpful by FAR was Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, volume 2, pp. 378-407.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
Maybe this might clarify things even further.
“Given that the mystical union with the believer's body is not broken by death, it's difficult to see on what grounds the hypostatic union would be.”
Union means many things. Jesus was united to humanity in the incarnation. We are united to Christ in eternal election. There’s a sacramental union between the elements and the reality. In all such instances, there’s no indwelling between that which is union with another. So, although the Holy Spirit is united in a non existential mystical sense to the waters of baptism and that Christ is mysteriously present by faith in the Supper, such union doesn’t imply life indwells the elements. That Jesus identified with sinners in John’s baptism, such union is not existential. So, when I say that soul departs or that the Son no longer indwells the physical corpse, citing mystical union between life and corpse indeed serves to corroborate hypostatic union, but notwithstanding it doesn’t exclude what I’ve been saying all along. Mystical union is not germane to my point, other than underscoring the hypostatic union remains intact.
Paul speaks of death as a departure from the body.
The thief on the cross would depart from the body that day, being separated from his body.
Jesus gave up the ghost (from his body).
Paul states that to be absent from the body is to be present (or home) with the Lord.
“Absence” and “departure” pertain to death’s separation. In all such instances, the union that is severed is ontic. It’s metaphysical. In death, the soul is severed from the body. So, whatever is meant by the body being “united” to Christ upon death, it must be compatible with the ontic inward reality that contemplates a lifeless corpse. That dead bodies are outwardly identified with ones who once occupied them (and in a very qualified sense are said to be “united” to the Son) does not undue the biblical teaching of the soul’s utter release and separation from the body upon death. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Accordingly, that the mystical union is not broken is not at odds with what I’ve put forth. A divine person died and his corpse had no human nor divine life. The eternal Son didn’t act through the dead body for three days. The Second Person had died. That in no way undermines the hypostatic union. What it does do is preserve the meaning of death.
“Given that the mystical union with the believer's body is not broken by death, it's difficult to see on what grounds the hypostatic union would be.”
Union means many things. Jesus was united to humanity in the incarnation. We are united to Christ in eternal election. There’s a sacramental union between the elements and the reality. In all such instances, there’s no indwelling between that which is union with another. So, although the Holy Spirit is united in a non existential mystical sense to the waters of baptism and that Christ is mysteriously present by faith in the Supper, such union doesn’t imply life indwells the elements. That Jesus identified with sinners in John’s baptism, such union is not existential. So, when I say that soul departs or that the Son no longer indwells the physical corpse, citing mystical union between life and corpse indeed serves to corroborate hypostatic union, but notwithstanding it doesn’t exclude what I’ve been saying all along. Mystical union is not germane to my point, other than underscoring the hypostatic union remains intact.
Paul speaks of death as a departure from the body.
The thief on the cross would depart from the body that day, being separated from his body.
Jesus gave up the ghost (from his body).
Paul states that to be absent from the body is to be present (or home) with the Lord.
“Absence” and “departure” pertain to death’s separation. In all such instances, the union that is severed is ontic. It’s metaphysical. In death, the soul is severed from the body. So, whatever is meant by the body being “united” to Christ upon death, it must be compatible with the ontic inward reality that contemplates a lifeless corpse. That dead bodies are outwardly identified with ones who once occupied them (and in a very qualified sense are said to be “united” to the Son) does not undue the biblical teaching of the soul’s utter release and separation from the body upon death. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Accordingly, that the mystical union is not broken is not at odds with what I’ve put forth. A divine person died and his corpse had no human nor divine life. The eternal Son didn’t act through the dead body for three days. The Second Person had died. That in no way undermines the hypostatic union. What it does do is preserve the meaning of death.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That's an entirely different proposition from whether Christ's human body and human soul were separated, which is the universal understanding of "death."
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
Lane,
Have you consulted Vos? In Vol. 3 (Christology) of Reformed Dogmatics, Vos notes that “the concept of death includes...Separation of the source of life for the body, because the soul can no longer retain in its organic connection. This was also the case with Christ.”
He goes on to note that “If the concept of death is separation, dissolution, then this characteristic must come to light in the strongest possible way. Hence the soul and body must be torn apart.”
In the context of eternal death relative to temporal death, Vos compares and contrasts Christ with the lost. Both suffer both types of death, whereas only the elect suffer only temporal death. Regarding the lost, Vos speaks of soul and body being reunited (which presupposes a severed union) upon the temporal death [the intermediate state] giving way to the fullest expression of eternal death in the reunited body and soul. He also observes the order of things. Christ suffered eternal death, then temporal death. The lost experience the same two but in reverse order. In both cases, only in eternal death does the body soul composite remain intact.
Any appeal to mystical union of believers’ bodies dying in union with Christ has no relevant bearing on the anthropological subject at hand because although the bodies of believers die in Christ, the bodies of the lost don’t. Therefore, any appeal to mystical union of body and soul, if it’s to make a point about how body and soul relate to personhood, must apply to all humanity in the intermediate state. It must apply to quick and the dead. It must transcend union with Christ.
You're absolutely right. John Brown gives a clear statement of the view that I have expressed, which in no way contradicts the definition of death as the separation of soul and body.
That line feels a little ironic!
While I appreciate the explanation about what it would take to get us to "indwelling" in post #54, I haven't used the word. I certainly have no objection if you want to critique positions I haven't argued for, but I don't see why I would need to be involved in that process.
Last edited:
- Status
