Send to Kindle
by Yuri Solomon,
Narrated by Artificial intelligence, Eric,
Click Above to Read/Listen to the Devotional,
The old Christian hymn by Charles Wesley, ‘And Can it Be?’ includes the line:
‘Amazing love! how can it be that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me!’
So what are we to make of these words? Is it correct to say that God died on the cross, or should Christians avoid speaking in this way?
In answer to this question, I would say that in the most fundamental sense God did not die on the cross, but that there is a sense in which we can say that God died on the cross.
God is immortal
The first thing we need to be clear about is that God is immortal. In fact, 1 Timothy 6:16 explicitly uses the word ‘immortal’ to describe God.
To be immortal is to be undying and incapable of dying. So God cannot die and therefore obviously has never died.
This is why I say that in the most fundamental sense God did not die on the cross.
The God-Man Jesus Christ
But things are not quite so simple.
To begin with, we need to understand that the Bible teaches that three things are true about Jesus Christ all at once. First, He is truly God. Second, He is truly man. And third, He is one person.
All three of these points are crucial, and over the centuries many heresies have arisen among people who have accepted only two of the points but rejected the third. Christians need to stand firm, however, on insisting that all three are true.
So the one person, Jesus, is a combination of God and man. He is the God-Man. His divinity and humanity are not confused or mingled. They are distinct. But He is still only one person. This is standard Christian theology.
Two opposite things are sometimes both true of Jesus
There is something about Jesus, however, that at first sight looks very strange, but which it is important to understand.
Because Jesus is only one person, anything that is true of His divinity can be said to be true of Jesus, and anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus. And this sometimes leads to opposite things both being true of Him.
A good example to illustrate this is the issue of how much Jesus knows. In His divinity Jesus knows everything there is to know, i.e., He is omniscient. But in His humanity He doesn’t know everything, i.e., He is not omniscient.
We actually have a striking example of Jesus’ lack of knowledge in Mark’s Gospel. In Mark 13:32, referring to the time when He will return to earth, Jesus says:
‘Now concerning that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father.’
In this verse ‘the Son’ is a reference to Jesus Himself, so the verse is clear that there is something Jesus doesn’t know. And this lack of knowledge is true of His humanity. But because He is only one person, anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus. So ‘Jesus is not omniscient’ is a correct statement.
However, in His divinity, Jesus knows everything. And, again, because He is only one person, anything that is true of His divinity can be said to be true of Jesus. So ‘Jesus is omniscient’ is a correct statement.
Therefore, ‘Jesus is not omniscient’ is a correct statement, and ‘Jesus is omniscient’ is a correct statement. In one sense He is not omniscient, but in another sense He is.
Jesus died on the cross
The same sort of thing applies to Jesus’ death on the cross. In His divinity He clearly did not die on the cross, because God is immortal, as I have noted. But in His humanity He certainly did die on the cross.
And, once again, because anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus, ‘Jesus died on the cross’ is a correct statement.
The person who is Jesus Christ is the person who is God the Son
So it is true that Jesus died on the cross, but it was in His humanity that He died, not in His divinity.
But if He didn’t die in His divinity, that means it is wrong to say that God died on the cross, isn’t it?
Not really, and here is the point. I have said that Jesus Christ is one person. However, crucially, this person is the person of God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.
At the incarnation, the person who is God the Son joined Himself to a human nature to become the God-Man Jesus Christ. But the person, God the Son, stayed the same. The person who is Jesus is none other than the person who is God the Son.
Therefore, because Jesus died on the cross, and because the person who is Jesus is the person who is God the Son, we can legitimately say that God the Son died on the cross.
And finally, we can shorten saying that God the Son died on the cross to saying that God died on the cross.
So, even though it was only in His humanity that He died on the cross, we can legitimately say that God died on the cross.
Summing up
In the most fundamental sense, then, God did not die on the cross. God is immortal and cannot die.
But in another sense, it is right to say that God died on the cross, as follows:
(1) In His humanity, Jesus died on the cross.
(2) Because Jesus is only one person, anything that is true of His humanity is true of Jesus, so we can say that Jesus died on the cross.
(3) Because the person who is Jesus is the person who is God the Son, we can say that God the Son died on the cross.
(4) Saying that God the Son died on the cross can be shortened to saying that God died on the cross.
So I would say that we can sing the words of Charles Wesley’s hymn with a clear conscience.
See also:
How Can the Word Be With God and Also Be God?
Paradoxes and Tensions in the Christian Faith
Salvation Is Not by Doing Good but Only Those Who Do Good Will Be Saved
I have been a Christian for over 30 years. I have a Ph.D. in New Testament from the University of Edinburgh. I am a UK national and I currently live in the south of Scotland. Check out my blog, The Orthotometist, at maxaplin.blogspot.com
Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com–CHRISTIAN WRITERS
And Now a word from our sponsor, The Life of Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Go to https:// payhip.com/ Christian NonFiction eBookStore then scroll down and click on The Life of Charles Haddon Spurgeon
In publishing the life of the late CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON, the publishers feel a peculiar pleasure and believe themselves especially fortunate in having secured the Rev. Russell H. Conwell, D.D., LL.D., pastor at The Temple, of Philadelphia, to prepare the work. There are many reasons why the popular preacher, who might justly be called the Spurgeon of America, should in this way pay a loving tribute to the memory of his great English ecclesiastical brother, and why such a book must have an absorbing interest for all readers. Foremost among these might be considered his personal acquaintance with the great divine of gigantic efforts and wonderful achievements, and the deep study he has ever given to his popular brother preacher’s life and the measure of its successes.
As a fellow-preacher of the Gospel, he knew better than any layman how to interpret the hidden springs of success to count the cost of Herculean efforts made, and better, understand the great man’s life-work in all its thousands of minute details which he, as an intimate personal friend had the opportunity to observe.
Like Spurgeon, he has the power to earn and raise large sums of money, but he devotes every dollar beyond a reasonable living expense to the cause he has so much at heart. His remarkable line of work, also, in many ways corresponds with that of Spurgeon,
The similarity in the work of the English Spurgeon and the American Conwell has often been commented upon by press and people. Spurgeon made, and Conwell is making, a complete sacrifice of talents, time and health to the one aim in life-the salvation of souls. Each commenced life a poor boy, and had an early life fraught with discouragements and temptations.
The author’s grand work for the Grace Baptist Church, of Philadelphia, has justly distinguished him as the greatest preacher of his denomination in this country. He was a student at Yale College, and graduated in the Law Department of Albany University and was admitted to the New York bar in 1865. His health not permitting the practice of law, he began as traveling correspondent of the Boston Traveler and the New York Tribune, during which his constant companion and warmest friend was Bayard Taylor, with who he traveled all over the world, and obtained distinction as a journalist.
In addition to the pastorate of a church which has one of the most remarkable houses of worship in the world, open every hour of every day and night in the year, and is never untenanted, Dr. Conwell is the head of Temple College, connected with the church fostered by him, which is for the free education of working-men and women in the classic collegiate branches, with fourteen professors, a preparatory department that sends pupils to Yale, Harvard and Amherst, and giving itself decrees equal to those of Princeton. He is the head of the Samaritan Hospital, also an outgrowth of his personal effort and example, which is doing incalculable good in Philadelphia.
In addition. to his church work, Dr. Conwell lectures all over the United States, to large and delighted audiences.
He is also a prolific author, The most important of his works are a ” Life of Garfield,” which he wrote at the home of the martyred President, in Mentor; “Why and How the Chinese Immigrate,” the material for which he gathered in the Chinese Empire Life of Hon. James G. Blaine,” Life of Bayard Taylor,” and “Acres of Diamonds,” each of which has been appreciatively read by thousands of readers in this and other countries.