Who died on the Cross?

Oberland's picture

Hi all,

At our mid week bible study the Pastor said that God (as in the second person of the Trinity) died on the Cross. Instinctively I believed that to be wrong, and so I checked it out, first from the Word and then from trusted sources, I ended up with R.C.Sproul saying that it was impossible for God (the second person of the Trinity) to die, and John Macarthur said that God did die on the cross.I'm hoping that someone could shed some light on the subject.

Thank you


Good question Justin

I believe you are being honest. Here is the best response I can give. I accept and believe God is both imanent and transcendant in relation to us, His creation. His transcendance or Creator above creation place in the universe means, to me, there are parts of His revelation I will not understand. Yet there are propositional truths I am called on to accept based on the preponderance of questions those truths answer. I cant explain creation, the idea of an eternal God, how He made Adam and Eve, and any one of a number of propositional truths that come from the pages of the Bible. For example, I can entertain the notion Jesus gave up all deity at bethlehem and from that point is only a man. Does that proposition fit most of the scriptures that define who Jesus is? No I dont believe so.

Further, there is a point in time where Truth extends beyond logic (not the same meaning as illogical), and faith MUST take over. I cant explain regeneration but I believe I am born from above or regenerated in Christ. I am left with a decision to accept scripture and the God behind it, as one Who intended to convey some coherent truth eternally relevant and Who conveyed that revelation expecting it to require faith in Him. Alternatively, I can redefine the revelatino of God to man in written form much like the supreme court does the constitution, seeking to keep the document living by reinterpretation of original intent. In the latter example, the supreme court as at times destroyed the original meaining of the document to get to whaat it believes to be the spirit of the document. I think an example of where that was positive has been the civil rights lawa, and an example where that has been negative would be the right to life laws. But the concept is the same. Is the Bible a book whereby our primary job is to seek to understand the intent of the Original Author and apply those eternal truths, or is our job to redefine the document to what we understand to be relevant today?

Please feel free to restate the question or press further for anything I left vague. Good question I think though.

Sorry, not where I have spell checker.
Submitted as a poster,