PSA: What is Implied in Christ's Substitution; What Death Did He Die?

[makesends]

This thread will necessarily get into just what is human death —is it only physical death that is meant by, "The wages of sin is death"? That will not be Off-Topic. I also happily expect it also to divert into the meaning of "eternity", and its implications.

But, first, @Arial said, in another thread:

This will derail the thread if it is discussed, but I have to ask, for the sake of thinking about it and possibley (you) starting a thread devoted to the topic: Does it have to be wrath poured out of Christ in order to be penal substitution? And wouldn't the statement "wrath poured on the Son" first need to be explained by the one who is using that terminology?

This is not exactly what Arial meant to address, but it provoked the thought in me that remains unresolved, concerning the meaning of one's death.

When I was growing up, it never entered my mind that Christ's death on the cross was only the passing of his physical life. I always assumed that he suffered every bit the penalty I would have had to pay, to include the infinite ('eternal') suffering of Hell and the Lake of Fire.

When my mother looked at me shocked one day at the notion that Jesus more than simply suffered horribly at the hands of 'legal' murderers, and endured the scorn and rejection of humanity, and lost his physical life, and asked in a dramatic whisper if I really thought he suffered the spiritual death I would be suffering if God was to count my sins against me, I said, yes, of course I believe that! She's gone, now, so I'm sure she knows better than I can understand it, what Christ did on my behalf.

But, I have no recourse but to think that Christ died precisely the death that all the redeemed would have died.

Was the 'mere', 'simple', fact of his temporal suffering and physical death, all that happened here?

 

[fastfredy0]

I'm not clear on what the post is asking but these are the thoughts it provoked in me ...

Was a the 'mere', 'simple', fact of his temporal suffering and physical death, all that happened here?

Seems to me something more devastating than Christ's suffering and physical death occurred. The Almighty Creator of all things in the form of man was treated abhorrently by His creation. But God created the event for His glory.

what Christ did on my behalf.

The is a secondary purpose. God's glory is the primary purpose as only God has any intrinsic worth, He is the fountain from which water (creation) flows.

Daniel 4:35 “All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing. But He does according to His will in the host of heaven, And among the inhabitants of the earth; And no one can hold back His hand, Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’

 

[makesends]

I'm not clear on what the post is asking but these are the thoughts it provoked in me ...



Seems to me something more devastating than Christ's suffering and physical death occurred. The Almighty Creator of all things in the form of man was treated abhorrently by His creation. But God created the event for His glory.


The is a secondary purpose. God's glory is the primary purpose as only God has any intrinsic worth, He is the fountain from which water (creation) flows.

Daniel 4:35 “All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing. But He does according to His will in the host of heaven, And among the inhabitants of the earth; And no one can hold back His hand, Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’

Yes; you mention 'something more devastating', but, what, exactly, was it that was more devastating? (And you are exactly right that the 'more devastating' was completely in keeping with that primary purpose of God's glory. —that was well-mentioned.)

 

[fastfredy0]

Yes; you mention 'something more devastating', but, what, exactly, was it that was more devastating?

Well, maybe I should have said that the delving deeper into the significance of the one being killed was called for IMO.

 

[makesends]

Well, maybe I should have said that the delving deeper into the significance of the one being killed was called for IMO.

Yep. That's the reason for the thread.

Personally, I think it was much more than just the public humiliation of the Author of Life; and others have undergone worse physical suffering, I'm pretty sure. I think it was something hinted at in the point of the Father separating himself from his Son, 'forsaking' him, not only temporally, but in an infinite fact, (which (aside) itself is enough explanation as to why Jesus Christ can only be God, since he did away with that aspect of death, in the place of millions/billions who should have undergone it, and was resurrected from it!)

 

[Carbon]

The is a secondary purpose. God's glory is the primary purpose as only God has any intrinsic worth, He is the fountain from which water (creation) flows.

That's a great point. God is the one who is atoned, not us sinners. The atonement was meant to propitiate God and reconcile Him to sinners. Us sinners being reconciled is secondary.

 

[makesends]

That's a great point. God is the one who is atoned, not us sinners. The atonement was meant to propitiate God and reconcile Him to sinners. Us sinners being reconciled is secondary.

In strict definition of those terms, you are right about Atonement and Propitiation. Reconciliation, no, as far as I can tell. But I think the way you have put that will sound to some as if they are the ones who have been wronged, and that, by God, and God has to adjust himself to us. It is sin that must be atoned for and Propitiation that must be made for our sinning. It is WE sinners who must be reconciled to God, no? All things will be reconciled to God, not to us, God being the 'default fact', the I AM to whom all rightly belongs.

Regardless, I think @fastfredy0 would say he was referring to something else —God's glory— though in the end what you are pointing out is also to God's glory. We are talking about his love, his justice, his purity, his wisdom, his power, and not only by the intricacy and textures of the sacrifice and the death of death, in the death of Christ.

 

[Hazelelponi]

...

 

[Hazelelponi]

Well, maybe I should have said that the delving deeper into the significance of the one being killed was called for IMO.

True ..

 

[Carbon]

Carbon said:
That's a great point. God is the one who is atoned, not us sinners. The atonement was meant to propitiate God and reconcile Him to sinners. Us sinners being reconciled is secondary.

In strict definition of those terms, you are right about Atonement and Propitiation.

Okay

Reconciliation, no, as far as I can tell.

Are you sure about that?
Could you explain your meaning? I'm serious. I could be wrong, obviously, but I do not believe I am. And I appreciate your understanding.

 

[Carbon]

Okay

Are you sure about that?
Could you explain your meaning? I'm serious. I could be wrong, obviously, but I do not believe I am.

The reconciled God justifies the sinner who accepts the reconcilition, and so operates in his heart by the holy Spirit, that the sinner also lays aside his wicked alienation from God, and enters into the fruits of the perfect atonement of Christ.

If our holy God weren't appeased, there would be no reconciliation. God is reconciled first, then second is us sinners. God isn't good with us because we have been reconciled to Him.
To reconcile is to restore friendly relations between.
Wouldn't turning wrath be an indication of reconciliation?

 

[Eleanor]

Okay

Are you sure about that?
Could you explain your meaning? I'm serious. I could be wrong, obviously, but I do not believe I am. And I appreciate your understanding.

The reconciled God justifies the sinner who accepts the reconcilition, and so operates in his heart by the holy Spirit, that the sinner also lays aside his wicked alienation from God, and enters into the fruits of the perfect atonement of Christ.

If our holy God weren't appeased, there would be no reconciliation. God is reconciled first, then second is us sinners. God isn't good with us because we have been reconciled to Him.
To reconcile is to restore friendly relations between.
Wouldn't turning wrath be an indication of reconciliation?

We are reconciled to God (Ro 5:10, Eph 2:16, 2 Co 5:18-19, Col 1:20), he is not reconciled to us.

 

[Carbon]

We are reconciled to God (Eph 2:16, 2 Co 5:18), he is not reconciled to us.

So God is not friendly towards us? Friendly relations has not been restored?

 

[Eleanor]

So God is not friendly towards us? Friendly relations has not been restored?

If we are reconciled to God, made agreeable to him, we are friends with him.

The one offended (God) is the one to whom the offender (sinner) is reconciled.

 

[Carbon]

The one offended (God) is the one to whom the offender (sinners) is reconciled.

Yes, secondarily

 

[Eleanor]

Yes, secondarily

Primarily. . .

It's about us appeasing God, not about him appeasing us.

It's about reconciling us to him, not him to us (Eph 2:16).

 

[makesends]

We are reconciled to God (Ro 5:10, Eph 2:16, 2 Co 5:18-19, Col 1:20), he is not reconciled to us.

That's how I've always understood the word to mean, not only in Biblical/Spiritual contexts, but in others, too. When I can't reconcile something, it is not my mind that I can't reconcile, but the thing that I can't reconcile to my mind. My mind is the 'offended party' there.

The wrong was done to God by me. I must be reconciled to God.

 

[Carbon]

Primarily. . .

It's about us appeasing God, not about him appeasing us.

Exactly

It's about reconciling us to him, not him to us (Eph 2:16).

 

[makesends]

Primarily. . .

It's about us appeasing God, not about him appeasing us.

Or, at least, about God being appeased, (by Christ's substitution).

It's about reconciling us to him, not him to us (Eph 2:16).

And, @Carbon ...that is the language used by Scripture. We are reconciled to God.

 

[Carbon]

The blood of Christ's sacrifice is interposed between God and the sinner, and in view of it, the wrath of God is turned aside. It has the effect, therefore, of warding off God's wrath from the sinner.


Christ's sacrifice turned aside God's wrath; that's not reconciliation?

RECONCI'LE, verb transitive [Latin reconcilio; re and concilio; con and calo, to call, Gr. The literal sense is to call back into union.]

1. To conciliate anew; to call back into union and friendship the affections which have been alienated; to restore to friendship or favor after estrangement; as, to reconcile men or parties that have been at variance.