Why Did Christ Have To Suffer In His Body?

Status
Not open for further replies.

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
The LBC says...

LBC 8:4 This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which that he might discharge he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfil it, and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered, being made sin and a curse for us; enduring most grievous sorrows in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead, yet saw no corruption: on the third day he arose from the dead with the same body in which he suffered, with which he also ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.

A.A.Hodge in his commentary on the WCF:

(3) His undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, and the cursed death of the cross. Christ was the representative of his people, and all his obedience and suffering was vicarious, from his birth until all the conditions of the covenant of life were fulfilled. All his earthly career was in one aspect suffering, in another aspect obedience. As suffering, it was a vicarious endurance of the penalty of sin. As obedience, it was the discharge in the stead and behalf of his people of that condition upon which their eternal inheritance is suspended. The two were never separated in fact. They are only the two legal aspects presented by the same life of suffering obedience. The essence of the penalty vicariously borne by Christ was "the wrath of God." The incidents of it were "the miseries of this life." The culmination of it was "the cursed death of the cross," (Gen. 2:17; Heb. 9:22.)

If Christ's sufferings were incidental elements of the wrath of God which he bore as the surety of the elect, then why must the elect still suffer in this life?
 
The LBC says...

LBC 8:4 This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which that he might discharge he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfil it, and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered, being made sin and a curse for us; enduring most grievous sorrows in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead, yet saw no corruption: on the third day he arose from the dead with the same body in which he suffered, with which he also ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.

A.A.Hodge in his commentary on the WCF:

(3) His undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, and the cursed death of the cross. Christ was the representative of his people, and all his obedience and suffering was vicarious, from his birth until all the conditions of the covenant of life were fulfilled. All his earthly career was in one aspect suffering, in another aspect obedience. As suffering, it was a vicarious endurance of the penalty of sin. As obedience, it was the discharge in the stead and behalf of his people of that condition upon which their eternal inheritance is suspended. The two were never separated in fact. They are only the two legal aspects presented by the same life of suffering obedience. The essence of the penalty vicariously borne by Christ was "the wrath of God." The incidents of it were "the miseries of this life." The culmination of it was "the cursed death of the cross," (Gen. 2:17; Heb. 9:22.)

If Christ's sufferings were incidental elements of the wrath of God which he bore as the surety of the elect, then why must the elect still suffer in this life?


Interesting question.

I guess the parallel question would be "why should we keep the law, if Christ has kept the law for us?". To me, the answer seems to be that this is how God created "the image of God" to work: law directs our steps, and curses come if we disobey. In addition, true faith rejoices at the promises, but also quakes at the threatenings; if we had no curses for disobedience, then we'd probably lose sight of our duty rather quickly.

The other use of suffering is to refine us, and conform us to the Image of Christ, if not a chastening for a sin. Both of these are most glorious and beneficial to us, adding nothing to Christ's completed work for us, but used by God in Christ's ongoing work within us.

Not sure that helps much, but those are my thoughts.

Cheers,

Adam
 
You asked, "If Christ's sufferings were incidental elements of the wrath of God which he bore as the surety of the elect, then why must the elect still suffer in this life?"

Hodge stated "As suffering, it was a vicarious endurance of the penalty of sin."

Isn't it true that the sufferings of the elect in this life are not penal? If not, then your question is answered.

But it begs another. If the sufferings of the elect in this life are not penal, then what is the nature and purpose of it? Adam's answer (above) hits on this, "to refine us, and conform us to the Image of Christ."

The other aspect of our suffering may be consequential. We live in a fallen world and suffer from the effects of our own continuing sin, as well as the sin of those around us. This is not properly penal suffering, but suffering nonetheless.
 
We are to glory in our infirmities, right? (2 Cor. 12:5.) They most certainly do conform our characters to that of Christ, for who in the history of this planet was more patient under long-suffering than He? And who was or is more loving than He despite the suffering that He endured? (He shows us, too, that the suffering of His children does come to an end. :) )

I've had decades of dealing with two unrelated cancer diagnoses and one "bone marrow failure" one. Now I'm messing around with liver impairment as a result of hepatitis C from a blood transfusion that I needed during chemotherapy years ago, before they started testing donations for the virus. I screamed at God, "unfair!" for years. I was furious. Now, though, I'm beginning to see why... I don't like the picture that He's shown me of what I would have been had He not, in His providence and for His purposes, given me these infirmities, and I thank Him for not leaving me to that, for the character-molding that He worked in me was necessary. How very merciful and loving our Heavenly Father is! What love He has for each of us who are His own, to send us in just the right amounts and types the infirmities that most fit us for an unimaginably blessed eternity with Him!

All praise, glory and honor to Him, for every way in which He deals with us as His children!

Margaret
 
Thank you for your responses.

From the top of my head:

To say that Christ's suffering was only for our good, ie to be our example, to succor us in our own sufferings etc, is, if I am not mistaken Socinianism.

The Confession specifically states that in His suffering, Christ "underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered". His suffering was more than just to provide us an example and to succor us in our own sufferings.

Christ's death (including his burial) removed the curse of eternal death for the elect, and His suffering removed the curse of eternal suffering for the elect?

After all, Christ died and was buried for the elect, but the elect still die in this world and that death is still the result of sin. In the same way, Christ suffered for the elect (by His stripes we are healed), but the elect still suffer in this world due to sin.

The surety of Christ is the removal of eternal death and suffering in the world to come. (In other words,, what Gomarus said above about the sufferings of this world not being penal. But if they are not penal, then what are they? Sanctification?)

What do y'all think? I am currently working through Durham to see what he has to say. :detective:
 
We are to glory in our infirmities, right? (2 Cor. 12:5.) They most certainly do conform our characters to that of Christ, for who in the history of this planet was more patient under long-suffering than He? And who was or is more loving than He despite the suffering that He endured? (He shows us, too, that the suffering of His children does come to an end. :) )

I've had decades of dealing with two unrelated cancer diagnoses and one "bone marrow failure" one. Now I'm messing around with liver impairment as a result of hepatitis C from a blood transfusion that I needed during chemotherapy years ago, before they started testing donations for the virus. I screamed at God, "unfair!" for years. I was furious. Now, though, I'm beginning to see why... I don't like the picture that He's shown me of what I would have been had He not, in His providence and for His purposes, given me these infirmities, and I thank Him for not leaving me to that, for the character-molding that He worked in me was necessary. How very merciful and loving our Heavenly Father is! What love He has for each of us who are His own, to send us in just the right amounts and types the infirmities that most fit us for an unimaginably blessed eternity with Him!

All praise, glory and honor to Him, for every way in which He deals with us as His children!

Margaret

YES! I could not agree more! Thanks for sharing, Margaret. We do have such a merciful, wonderful GOD! And so wise!!!!!!
 
Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church;
Col 1:25 whereof I was made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which was given me to you-ward, to fulfil the word of God,

Sorry to interrupt, but your question brought this verse of scripture to mind and was wondering what Paul meant by this, "that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my (Paul's) flesh"? Not sure what Paul was speaking of here. Is he saying that Christ's suffering lacked something and he needed to make up the rest? I know that can't be right or at least I wouldn't think so.
 
Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church;
Col 1:25 whereof I was made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which was given me to you-ward, to fulfil the word of God,

Sorry to interrupt, but your question brought this verse of scripture to mind and was wondering what Paul meant by this, "that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my (Paul's) flesh"? Not sure what Paul was speaking of here. Is he saying that Christ's suffering lacked something and he needed to make up the rest? I know that can't be right or at least I wouldn't think so.

Interesting question.

Matthew Henry:

But the sufferings of Paul and other good ministers made them conformable to Christ; and they followed him in his suffering state: so they are said to fill up what was behind of the sufferings of Christ, as the wax fills up the vacuities of the seal, when it receives the impression of it. Or it may be meant not of Christ's sufferings, but of his suffering for Christ. He filled that which was behind. He had a certain rate and measure of suffering for Christ assigned him; and, as his sufferings were agreeable to that appointment, so he was still filling up more and more what was behind, or remained of them to his share.
 
Here is what Durham has to say:

James Durham, “Christ Crucified”, pg 247, Sermon 22 on Isa 53:5

“But if it is asked, why Christ paid so much? We answer: 1. It behooved Christ to pay a condign (appropriate and deserved) price, to give a condign satisfaction to justice…First, we say it behooved to be a condign satisfaction. For (1) It behooved to be a price equivalent to all that the elect should have suffered, had he not interposed. (2) It behooved to be proportionable to the justice of God; for God having laid down such a way of showing mercy, that his justice should be salved, there behooved to be condign satisfaction, for the vindication of justice, which was done by Christ’s suffering to the full undoubtedly, if we consider:

[1] The excellency of the person that suffered, God and man in one Person. [2] If we consider the nature of his sufferings, that they were exceeding great, heavy, and pressing. And [3] If withal we consider the manner of his sufferings, that it was with much readiness and cheerfulness of obedience to the Father’s will. That such and so excellent a person should suffer, and suffer so much, and suffer in such a way, this surely makes condign satisfaction; and so justice is fully thereby satisfied, and made as glorious as if all the elect had suffered eternally. Therefore we say that his sufferings were a condign and proportionable satisfaction to justice for them whose debt he paid; by this, justice is completely and gloriously satisfied.”

In his body, Christ suffered the eternal suffering due to the elect.

From pg. 224; Sermon 19

“Suppose that our Lord had never died (as blessed be his name, there is no ground to make the supposition), the cup of sorrow that the elect would have drunken eternally, was the same cup that he drank out for them.

The bodily suffering of Christ removed, for the elect, the curse of eternal bodily suffering. (Gnashing of teeth, etc)

The curse has been removed so...

Is there any penal aspect to the sufferings the elect endure in this world?

Is there any suffering for the elect at all in this world?

Should the 'suffering' of the elect in this world truly be considered 'suffering' or should it always be considered 'temptation/tribulation'?

After all, Isa 53:5 says...

And by his stripes we are healed.

And then Matt 13:15 says...

For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Sorry for all the questions.
 
Fisher's Catechism on WSC Q 27:

Q. 18. What were the miseries of this life, which Christ endured in his state of humiliation?

A. Together with our nature, he took on him its sinless infirmities, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, grief, and the like, Rom. 8:3; he submitted to poverty and want, Matt. 8:20; and endured likewise the assaults and temptations of Satan, Heb. 4:15; together with the contradiction, reproach, and persecution of a wicked world, Heb. 12:3.

Q. 19. Why did he undergo all these?

A. That he might take the sting out of all the afflictions of his people, Rom. 8:28; and sympathise with them in their troubles, Isa. 63:9.

It sounds like Fisher does not see any surety in Christ's bodily suffering.

But he goes on...

Q. 23. How could Christ undergo the wrath of God, seeing he did "always the things that please him?

A. He underwent it only as the Surety for his elect seed, on account of their sins which were imputed to him, Isa. 53:6 -- "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Q. 24. How did it appear that he underwent the wrath of God?

A. It appeared chiefly in his agony, in the garden, when he said, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death," Matt. 26:38; at which time, "his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood, falling down to the ground," Luke 22:44; and again, on the cross, when he "cried with a loud voice, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matt. 27:46.

It sounds like Fisher sees Christ's suffering in his soul as surety, but not the suffering in his body.

Or, maybe I am not being fair to Fisher...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top