Christ died alone

Hebrews 13: 12 Therefore Jesus also suffered outside the gate, in order to sanctify the people by His own blood

Galatians 1:4 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord[b] Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins to rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father

Isaiah 53 says that people put him on the cross because they thought he was cursed

they thought he was cursed because he died on a cross
they considered him punished alone for his sins alone

he was in fact punished alone, but not for sins of his own

the law says— get the right person, no substitutions
the law says—no unjust suffering of one for many
the law says—one for one, eye for eye
the law says—no death of one person for another person

Jesus died for our sins, Jesus died because of our sins

Romans 4:25 does not say simply “died for our sins”, it says “handed over for our sins”—penal death
Jesus did not die once for our sins, and then the second time we die for our sins
Jesus died for our sins once for all time
this means we won’t die for our sins

though we will die the “first death”, those who are justified are excluded from perishing, and will not die a penal death
we are excluded from being there in His death, because legal identification still means He died alone

replacement theology

“why should god forgive somebody by demanding the death of God the Son? it does not make sense to me, and i won’t worship that kind of god. That’s not even really forgiveness. It’s eye for eye. Paying off sin but letting the sinner live but then unfairly killing somebody else who is not a sinner. And don’t try to make it sound right just because Jesus wanted to do it. I don’t like it. I only like the kind of god who unilaterally forgives, without paying Himself off first to do it.

Isaiah 46: “Who will you compare Me or make Me equal to?
Who will you measure Me with,
so that we should be like each other?
6 Those who pour out their bags of gold
and weigh out silver on scales—
they hire a goldsmith and he makes it into a god.
Then they kneel and bow down to it.
7 They lift it to their shoulder and bear it along;
they set it in its place, and there it stands;
it does not budge from its place.
They cry out to it but it doesn’t answer;
it saves no one from his trouble.
8 “Remember this and be brave;
take it to heart, you transgressors!

9 Remember what happened long ago,
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and no one is like Me.
10 I declare the end from the beginning,
and from long ago what is not yet done,
saying: My plan will take place,
and I will do all My will.
11 I call a bird of prey from the east,
a man for My purpose from a far country.
Yes, I have spoken; so I will also bring it about.
I have planned it; I will also do it.
…..
I will put salvation in Zion,

I Peter 3—a few—that is, eight people—were saved THROUGH water.

mark, you just want your guilt detached from you, without you yourself being changed in any way

to which i say, yes, if my hope is not only guilt and penalty avoided (because taken by Jesus) but me also changed, then I have no hope

Lord, forgive me for my sins
Lord, do not impute my sins to me
Lord, cover my sins
Lord, separate the guilt of my sin from me, separate me from the guilt of my sins
be my replacement, don’t take me through death with you

Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus goes through the judgment for us, instead of us
or do they teach that we have to also go through the judgment with Jesus?

The gospel is more than a law gospel distinction. But not less. There are many who make a distinction between law and gospel who don’t know the gospel because they deny that the gospel is Christ’s satisfaction of the law by His death

The gospel is more than the extent of the atonement. But not less. There are many who know that Christ died only for the elect but who know the gospel because they still don’t think Christ’s death is enough to keep these elect not under condemnation.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: imputation

Tags: ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

9 Comments on “Christ died alone”

  1. markmcculley Says:

    were you there?
    no
    Christ died alone
    if Christ died only as a representative, others could have died with him
    but Christ died as a substitute, instead of the elect
    the elect deserved the penalty of death
    as the substitute of the elect, Christ deserved the penalty of death
    the only way we “died with Christ”
    is by God’s legal imputation
    Romans 5:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with Him
    Romans 7:4 4 Therefore, my brothers, you also were put to death IN RELATION TO THE LAW through the crucified body of the Messiah,
    II Corinthians 5:14 If One died for all, then all died
    II Corinthians 5: 19 In Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespassES against them…. 21 He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us

  2. markmcculley Says:

    my atheist friend tells me that depending on a substitute to talk my penalty is an “abdication of my moral responsibility”

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/apr/04/christrecrucified


  3. Reblogged this on Pickering Post and commented:
    For His Own

  4. markmcculley Says:

    Romans 14: 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.


  5. D A Carson—Gathercole’s introduction begins by asking the question raised by the old spiritual: “Were you there when they crucified my Lord?” If we answer “yes,” we presuppose that we somehow participated in his death, or that in his death Jesus somehow represents us: “We have died with Christ” (Rom 6:8). If we answer “no,” then we were not there: Christ died alone. “He was there, taking our place in our stead” (p.13). In much biblical scholarship, the former answer is widely assumed: on the cross, Christ represents us, but it is a mistake to think that substitution occurs when Jesus dies. While not denying that the Bible can present Christ’s death on the cross as an act of representation, in this slender volume Gathercole sets out to rehabilitate substitution.

    His introduction is devoted to some careful definitions. “I am defining substitutionary atonement . . . as Christ’s death in our place, instead of us. The ‘instead of us’ clarifies the point that ‘in our place’ does not, in substitution at least, mean ‘in our place with us.’ (Jesus was, for example, baptized in our place with us – that is, the baptism was not a substitution.) In a substitutionary theory of the death of Jesus, he did something, underwent something, so that we did not and would never have to do so” (p.15). Again: “Substitution entails the concept of replacement, X taking the place of Y and thereby ousting Y: the place that Y previously occupied is now filled by X. In representation, X in one sense occupies the position of Y, as in substitution. There are differences, however. In representation, X does not thereby oust Y but embodies Y” (p.20). Gathercole provides extensive quotations from Martin Luther, Robert Letham, and Karl Barth “to illustrate this definition” (p.15). Along the way he sketches the relationship between substitution and satisfaction, substitution and penalty, substitution and propitiation, and substitution and representation, partly in order to stipulate that in this “essay” his restricted aim is to defend substitution, not representation, satisfaction, propitiation or anything else – not, as becomes evident, because Gathercole has not thought about these things or is unwilling to defend them, but to keep this work sharply focused.[1]

    Gathercole concludes his introduction by briefly listing and responding to common criticism raised against substitution: it is a legal fiction and an immoral doctrine, surrounded by philosophical, logical, and exegetical difficulties. For example, against the charge that substitution is a form of “cosmic child abuse” (in recent work, think Peter Carnley and Steve Chalke), in which God vents his wrath on his Son, Gathercole responds in several ways. The two most important are these: (1) the charge neglects “the obvious fact that the death of Christ is not that of a third party but is the ‘self-substitution of God’ [to quote John Stott’s expression]. Outside of a context of high Christology or of the doctrine of the Trinity, substitution might of course be open to such charges as those leveled above. But as far as I can see, most theologians seriously advocating substitution also hold to a high Christology” (pp.24-25). (2) In any case, Jesus “offers himself as a sacrifice in line with his own will. . . . (Gal. 1:4; 2:20).”

    The last of these several categories of objections, exegetical challenges to substitution, occupies the first of three numbered chapters after the introduction (pp.29-54). The four exegetical errors on which he focuses are these:

    (1) Representation in the sense of “place-taking,” as in the Tübingen school nicely represented by Hartmut Gese and Otfried Hofius, and, in English, by Richard H. Bell. The focus is on the day of atonement ritual described in Leviticus 16. “The problem [as Gese sees it] is not so much individual transgressions but that the Israelite needs to be rescued from death” (p.31). When the hand is placed on the animal, this does not represent a transfer of sins but an identification with the animal. When the animal dies, “the people symbolically enter into the judgment of death” (p.32). When the blood of the animal is taken into the Most Holy Place, the animal is symbolically bringing the people of Israel into the presence of God with him. In other words, there is no substitution but a form of representation. Gathercole objects, in the first place, to Gese’s interpretation of Leviticus 16. Everything depends on the significance of the hand being placed on the sacrificial animal, but Leviticus 16 says nothing about that: the hand is placed instead on the other animal, the scapegoat – and here it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the scapegoat (the live goat) is a substitute.
    (2) Representation in the sense of “interchange” with Christ, the view of Morna Hooker. She holds that substitution is not only un-Pauline, but that Paul speaks against it. In her view, Jesus does not swap places with his people but “goes to the place where they are and takes them from there to salvation” (p.39). She relies heavily on her distinctive reading of 2 Cor 5:21 and 8:9, and rests on her understanding of union with Christ. Christ enters into the human condition of sin and death, but human beings must also unite with him, and we pass out of death and into resurrection with him. Gathercole acknowledges the importance of the union with Christ theme, but denies that Paul ever criticizes substitution, and insists that a right understanding of what the death of Christ achieves readily embraces substitution. Moreover, the union theme tends to focus on Adamic sin as a whole, but does not really address individual sins.

    (3) Apocalyptic deliverance, not least as articulated by J. Louis Martyn and M. C. de Boer. They hold that human beings do not so much need forgiveness of sins as deliverance from slavery to sin; they appeal to (inter alia) Gal 1:4. Gathercole insists that even if this view is defended from Galatians, it really does not work in Romans, where a major component of sin is personal guilt (e.g., Rom 1-3). Sin may sometimes be presented as a major external cosmic force that Christ overcomes, but even more commonly sin is presented in terms of individual sins and transgressions.

    (4) All three of these views tend to downplay the place of individual sins in Paul’s thought. Gathercole provides an admirable summary of the biblical evidence that refutes the common assumption that “sins” play only a little part in Paul’s thought. He then shows how this evidence shapes our reading of several atonement passages.

    The final two chapters provide detailed exegeses of just two verses: chap 2, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3), and chap 3, treating Romans 5:6-8. As for the former, Gathercole notes that Paul is writing about the matters he views as “of first importance”: Christ died for our sins. He focuses on the phrase “according to the Scriptures”: which Scriptures? Drawing attention to several passages, Gathercole treats Isaiah 53 at length – how it is used in Paul generally, and in particular in 1 Corinthians 15:3. He provides a shrewd and convincing exegesis (pp.61-70). Gathercole also draws attention to several passages where the OT asserts that so-and-so dies for his sins (e.g., Num 27:3; Deut 24:16; Josh 20:22; 1Kg 16:18-19): this use of the preposition hyper (in the Greek translation of these OT passages) does not itself signal substitution, for in these texts the person dies in consequence of his sins. “It is when this is set in the framework of one person doing this for the sins of others (and not for one’s own) that the substitutionary sense is achieved” (p.74). “It is not that huper [sic] in itself has a substitutionary sense; this would in any sense be meaningless, as Christ is not dying in the place of the actual sins but in place of the people who are saved. The substitutionary meaning arises out of the unusual language of one person dying for the sins of others” (p.79). And this is what Paul declares to be of first importance.

    After a short excursus (“An Objection – Why Then, Do Christians Still Die?”, pp.80-83), Gathercole delivers his final chapter, which provides a close exegesis of Romans 5:6-8, no less convincing than his treatment of 1 Corinthians 15:3. http://www.reformation21.org/articles/defending-substitution.php

  6. markmcculley Says:

    Tianqi Wu we are buried into death —this is logically post-cross, different from the imputation of sins to Christ, which is logically pre-cross

    Except that Abraham and other justified elect in the Old Testament were buried into Christ’s death before the death.

  7. markmcculley Says:

    Isaiah 53: He was taken away because of oppression
    and who considered His fate?
    For He was cut off from the land of the living;
    He was struck because of my people’s rebellion.
    9 They made His grave with the wicked…
    although He had done no violence
    and had not spoken deceitfully.
    10 … He will see His seed….

    My righteous Servant will justify many,
    and He will carry their iniquities.
    12 Therefore I will give Him the many as a portion,
    and He will receive the mighty as spoil,
    because He submitted Himself to death,
    and was counted among the rebels;
    yet He bore the sin of many

  8. markmcculley Says:

    The Lord Jesus not only died, but continued in the state of death for three days. If you say that “his human soul was still alive and united to his divine person”, does that man that “his human body was not united to his divine person while he was dead but not really dead”? Just asking another loaded question…

    Christ died alone
    Christ died on His own

    Christ gave Himself to die
    God the Father gave God the Son to die

    since Christ is both God and human, the death of Christ was not only between God and God

    my God my God
    why have you forsaken me—one reason is wrath
    the wages of sin imputed is death

    can a dying person lose sight of the future?
    can a person who is human know and remember everything all at the same time?

    Jesus Christ was not only the mercy-seat covering
    Jesus Christ’s death was also the blood on the mercy-seat

    Romans 8: 25 God put forward Jesus Christ as an expiatory mercy-seat] by his blood, to be received through faith.

    Romans 8: 3 God condemned sin in the flesh by sending His own Son in flesh like ours under sin and for sin

  9. markmcculley Says:

    Hebrews 5: 7 During His earthly life, Jesus offered prayers and appeals with loud cries and tears to the One who was ABLE TO save Him from death, and Jesus was heard because of His reverence
    1. “was heard”, but that does not mean that the Father saved Jesus from death
    2. “able to” does not mean God will do so
    if the Father had saved the Son from death, the elect the Father gave the Son would not be saved


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: