In another thread,
@Eleanor said:
"To posit that the purpose of Christ's brutal atoning death included anything else that was less,
that anything less would apply to all without exception, and of no faith,
contrary to the Biblical testimony of the meaning of blood sacrifice as presented in the OT sacrifices and in authoritative NT apostolic teaching,
is to hi-jack Christ's atonement for the sake of serving your personal theology,
altering the terms of his sacrifice, both in meaning (expiation) and application (by belief in him), which is
as grievous a misrepresentation of this sacred reality as were the false charges against him.
To attempt to manipulate such a staggering Christian foundational reality, all for the sake of one's own personal theology,
betrays an insufficient apprehension of the cross."
I'm not sure I'm understanding her right, but it seems she implies that Christ's physical death is all that was required as payment for our sin. I have heard that before —in fact, I will never forget the look on my own mother's face when she said, "...are you saying that Christ went to [everlasting torment] in our place???"
Yes, I think he did. Did he actually die spiritually in our place? In a sense, yes, in that he did pay our penalty of 'everlasting' death, which to my mind is both temporally physical, and eternally physical
and spiritual. But God cannot be killed. Being eternal/infinite, Christ was not defeated there. Note that it says that
God raised him from the dead (Acts 2:24, Romans 8:11), and not that he raised himself, though he was himself God. (This is part of my reasoning why I suppose the "eternal" punishment may best be understood by us to be a matter of infinity of degree, rather than an eternal extension of time —well, that, and the notion I carry, for other reasons, that it will be happening outside this temporal envelope we inhabit.) (This is also why I insist, not only in his resurrection, but on his payment of our sin, that he HAD to be God himself. No creature can bear that penalty and 'survive'.) Here also, I think we see beautiful demonstration, of the unity of the Godhead and relationship of the persons of the Trinity, and of God's power —able to go to, or even beyond, the edge of disaster, and that, intentionally, but come out of it the victor.
There are many examples of others that have suffered worse physically, and died more (physically) horribly. I don't think that any suffered more psychologically/emotionally/mentally —but to the limits of their endurance, or even beyond, yes. But, regardless, the protests I have heard against it being more than his physical death, to me, truncate the meaning of Adam's disobedience and the curse, in both what has been imputed to us, and what we deserve in our rebellion. Our debt is not paid off in our physical death.
To me, it seems an awful stretch to say that his physical death alone was what saves us. But that is me, and something I have pretty much always assumed, and as far as I know, has not been proven wrong. I think he went to Hell/'Death'/Lake of Fire and suffered every bit the intensity of the punishment we owe —death— time irrelevant. But I admit to much of my view being by my reasoning from Scripture, and am open to better thinking.
Thoughts?
