The mechanics of The Cross. How did it work?

[stovebolts]

A Biblical word study on the words Gehenna, Tartarus and Hades and how they are used in context should help answer this question. 8-)

Yup, I agree.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=31103&start=45

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Jesus told the thief next to him, "TODAY you will be with me in paradise". That doesn't automatically state "zero time in Hell", but close enough.

Time does not pass in the spiritual realm as it does in the material realm

 

[Vic C.]

It could be that time as we know it, doesn't exist at all in the spiritual realm.

 

[Drew]

Time does not pass in the spiritual realm as it does in the material realm

I think this will be tough / impossible to defend using the Scriptures.

 

[TanNinety]

Hello Drew - I do see your point how 'sin' was condemned and not Jesus, yet the same process of condemning sin in us without condemning us is not somehow possible because we are not in the same sinless state as Jesus was. This goes well with how you actually view 'death'. If no sin was ever imputed to Jesus would He have lived forever? Even though Jesus wasn't condemned, He still had to succumb to the consequences of carrying sin, which is death. Since you do not adapt an eternal hell view, there is no illogicality in the resurrection after He paid the price for sin.

One issue though, if the power of sin "burnt itself out", why is there still evil around even after the resurrection? Would this be answered by the physicality of sin that somehow corrupted the makeup of man? And since we are not in our reformed, spiritual bodies, we are still under the influence of it, and at resurrection of the righteous, the finality of the destruction of sin is realized?

Hello handy

He did voluntarily take our sins upon Himself, but as He stood in the Temple in heaven, He was without blemish, because although He took on our sins, He never sinned. Therefore, He did not suffer the judgement of eternal separation from God

To test this, let's consider what would have happened if Jesus did not take our sins. Would He have continued to live forever for there are no wages for Him to pay, neither death nor judgment? If no, what would be the reason for Him to die? If yes, then why do the sins (which are not His) have power of death over Him but not judgment? To be more precise, the sins were not His even on earth, so if we are going to disqualify 'judgment' based on this premise, then why not disqualify 'death'?

The special thing about the death of Jesus was that Jesus was both the Man with the sin of the world upon Him, AND God. So, both parties in the contract were dead.

How do we define death for God?

 

[Vic C.]

And since we are not in our reformed, spiritual bodies, we are still under the influence of it, and at resurrection of the righteous, the finality of the destruction of sin is realized?

Some of your questions are a "catch 22" and I won't try to answer them, but this one is easy:

And since we are not in our reformed, spiritual bodies, we are still under the influence of it, and at resurrection of the righteous, the finality of the destruction of sin is realized?

Yes, our flesh is still influenced by sin and we will achieve an incorruptibles, immortal state at the resurrection/transformation.

1 Cor 15:51 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1 Cor 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1 Cor 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1 Cor 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1 Cor 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

 

[Drew]

Hello Drew - I do see your point how 'sin' was condemned and not Jesus, yet the same process of condemning sin in us without condemning us is not somehow possible because we are not in the same sinless state as Jesus was.

I suspect what I am about to write will elicit cries of heresy from all and sundry. Ah well, here goes. Note this very odd statement from Paul in Romans 7:

20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me

Note how Paul draws a distinction between himself and sin - treating the "sin" almost as if it were a "possessing" spirit". Paul seems to be placing the responsibility on this other "agency" that inhabits his body. I have not thought this through, but I am not so sure that we are right when we "blame" ourselves for something (sin) which Paul blames on a kind of "possessing spirit of sin".

Perhaps this whole "blame - guilt - punishment" model is fundamentally wrong. I realize that I am going way out on a limb here, so please remember I am thinking on the fly here. Perhaps it is more correct to think in terms of a model where we are "hosts" of a sin virus that needs to be de-activated.

One issue though, if the power of sin "burnt itself out", why is there still evil around even after the resurrection?

I am in a huge rush. I will respond to this statement even though I did not read the remainder of your post. I erred in my choice of words - I intended to assert that sin "burnt itself into a much weaker state". More later.

 

[Rick W]

Real quick here.
Yes, Paul made that distinction. The body dies, the spirit lives on to eternal life.
This isn't licence to do as we please though. There's a battle joined and until the body is gone there will be war between the spirit and the flesh. I'm a sinner, I know what I do is sin. It's knowing this that saves our spirit for we walk by the spirit knowing the sin of the flesh. We have repented for before we were ok with the flesh, even to the point of excuse. But our thinking has changed and we now know the flesh cannot please God.

 

[cyberjosh]

If you will accept a pithy response to the OP title:

If the cross had mechanics, then the Holy Spirit was the oil for it.

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Hebrews 9:14). If you really think about it, that is a very deep passage which indeed gets into the "forensics" of Jesus' work on the cross.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Imagican]

Jesus told the thief next to him, "TODAY you will be with me in paradise". That doesn't automatically state "zero time in Hell", but close enough.

Time does not pass in the spiritual realm as it does in the material realm

funny that you would 'bring this up'. There are MANY Biblical scholars who believe that this is an 'alteration' of the TRUE offering. That the 'comma' was MISPLACED, or (purposely altered), in order to give this depiction a 'different' understanding. These scholars state that the comma was SUPPOSE to be placed after Today as in, "I tell you today, that you will be with me in paradise". You see, this offers a completely different understanding. For this does NOT contradict what is said in other places concerning 'sleep'. For we have been told that ALL will sleep as David STILL sleeps unto this day. For the statement that the theif would BE in paradise WITH Christ TODAY would be a complete contradiction of ALL that we KNOW took place after the life waned out of Christ on the cross. For FIRSTLY, Christ did NOT immediately ascend to heaven. He spent time in HELL first. So this alone offers indication that the statement was somehow altered or misinterpreted.

MEC

 

[handy]

Hello handy

He did voluntarily take our sins upon Himself, but as He stood in the Temple in heaven, He was without blemish, because although He took on our sins, He never sinned. Therefore, He did not suffer the judgement of eternal separation from God

To test this, let's consider what would have happened if Jesus did not take our sins. Would He have continued to live forever for there are no wages for Him to pay, neither death nor judgment? If no, what would be the reason for Him to die? If yes, then why do the sins (which are not His) have power of death over Him but not judgment? To be more precise, the sins were not His even on earth, so if we are going to disqualify 'judgment' based on this premise, then why not disqualify 'death'?

The special thing about the death of Jesus was that Jesus was both the Man with the sin of the world upon Him, AND God. So, both parties in the contract were dead.

How do we define death for God?

Second question first: Death, at its most basic level is separation from God. I'm not going to try to act like I understand this, and I would be a little suspicious of anyone who does claim to understand it, but we know that when Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me" there was a separation of the Son from the Father and Spirit.

Now for the first question. Questions rather, OK I can't count.
"To test this, let's consider what would have happened if Jesus did not take our sins. Would He have continued to live forever for there are no wages for Him to pay, neither death nor judgment?"

Yes. The only reason why Jesus experienced death was on our behalf.

If yes, then why do the sins (which are not His) have power of death over Him but not judgment? To be more precise, the sins were not His even on earth, so if we are going to disqualify 'judgment' based on this premise, then why not disqualify 'death'?

Opps. I have to go, I'll tackle this later.

 

[Drew]

Real quick here.
Yes, Paul made that distinction. The body dies, the spirit lives on to eternal life.
This isn't licence to do as we please though. There's a battle joined and until the body is gone there will be war between the spirit and the flesh. I'm a sinner, I know what I do is sin. It's knowing this that saves our spirit for we walk by the spirit knowing the sin of the flesh. We have repented for before we were ok with the flesh, even to the point of excuse. But our thinking has changed and we now know the flesh cannot please God.

I will politely disagree with what I think you are saying. I think that Christians have largely bought into a false "flesh-spirit" dualism that is informed by our Greek cultural roots. I believe that Paul did not intend us to think of a "spiritual" world as set against the "physical world". When Paul uses the term "spiritual", he is not drawing a distinction against the material / physical - he uses the term in the "new creation" sense. So for Paul, the issue is not a "flesh - spirit" divide but a "old nature - new nature" divide. It is unfortunate that we read "spiritual" through Greek glasses and slip up (in my opinion anyway). Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying. Either way, I think the error that I am describing abounds in western Christianity. One example: I think it is clear that eternal life will be a distinctly embodied experience - eternity will not be spent in some non-physical heaven but rather in physical bodies (like the one Jesus had) in a remade and transformed version of this world.

In any event, I wish to point out that Paul is not even addressing this particular issue when he says "its not me, its sin" in Romans 7. The distinction he draws here is not one of "flesh" versus "spirit" but rather one where he sees a distinct agent "occupying his members" and causing him to sin. It is interesting how he seems to "blame" sin for his transgression and not the essential "Paul" which he sees as a distinct agent. What is particularly controversial here is that Paul seems to absolve himself when he says "I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me".

 

[Orion]

Second question first: Death, at its most basic level is separation from God. I'm not going to try to act like I understand this, and I would be a little suspicious of anyone who does claim to understand it, but we know that when Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me" there was a separation of the Son from the Father and Spirit.

I would like to step into this and again state, . . . . Jesus was supposed to be God, so how can Jesus (who is still God) be separated from God (which he is supposed to be)?

And again, the concepts of "father" and "son" are strictly earthly concepts that make no sense in a spiritual realm.

 

[handy]

You know Orion, this thread is dealing with a number of fairly deep theological issues. As I said before, your simple question has a very complex answer. Not that it isn't good to ask it, just that there are many things to consider in the answer.

So, maybe it was good that I was interrupted earlier today. If you aren't at a place where you can understand the Trinity, then it would be hard to understand Jesus as God and Man, being separated from God.

I would disagree with your statement "the concepts of "father" and "son" are strictly earthly concepts that make no sense in a spiritual realm."

The reason is that we are made in the image of God. Just as male and female are aspects of God's image, so is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If I understand your statement correctly, it seems as though you believe the Bible to be simply using strict human terminology to explain things, but I don't think so. Jesus revealed Himself over and over again as the Son, who was sent to the the will of the Father and the Holy Spirit as a comforter, again separate from Himself or the Father (for the Father was the One who was to send the Holy Spirit.)

Sigh... :-? . It's just crazy around here today. The kids are off school and my husband is home and things keep happening. Right now, my daughter just let one of the cows out. I really want to pursue this discussion. Maybe tonight, when everyone is asleep, I can devote more attention to this thread.

 

[handy]

Orion,

I can now better understand why you (and perhaps others) are having trouble understanding how and why Jesus’ death should be able to atone for our sins, and why He wouldn’t need to suffer in hell. Now that I know that you haven’t accepted that Jesus is not only man, but also God makes it a lot clearer. For you are right, all men need to face both death and judgment, if Jesus is merely a man, why would His death be any more acceptable as payment for sin, and why shouldn’t He face an eternity in hell for sin.

Which brings us to a bit of a crossroads in this study. Because if one is rejecting Jesus as God, then there really is little sense in a mere man’s death for another man, even a man as good as Jesus was.

I’ve done some reading and came across something that might explain things a bit better. This is from David Guzik, director of the Calvary Chapel Bible College in Germany:

This principle of sacrifice explains why the suffering of hell must be eternal for those who reject the atoning work of Jesus. They are in hell to pay the penalty of their sin, but as imperfect beings they are unable to make a perfect payment. If the payment is not perfect, then it has to be continual and constant - indeed, for all eternity. A soul could be released from hell the moment its debt of sin was completely paid - which is another way of saying never. (David Guzik’s Study Guide for Hebrews 9, vs 23-28 Blue Letter Bible, http://www.blueletterbible.org/)

If Jesus is simply yet another man, a good man yes, but nonetheless a mere man; then he wouldn’t be perfect as well. No matter how many times He would offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins, it wouldn’t be enough.

So, understanding the divinity of Christ is key to understanding the acceptableness of His atoning work on the Cross.

I understand that one hurdle to understanding this is the apparent paradox of Jesus being God and yet being separated from God. And, as I mentioned before, this paradox does clear up, if one can understand the triune nature of God. The Christian believes, because it is so clearly delineated in the Bible that God is three-in-One, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When Jesus cried out on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?†He experienced for the first time in all eternity a separation from the Father and Spirit. When He stood before God then, before the Alter in Heaven, He was most likely, (and I don’t know that anyone can know this for certain) but most likely still standing as separate from the Father and Spirit. But, as He was perfect in every way, His payment was perfect and acceptable and the Old Covenant was paid in full.

So, being at the crossroads I mentioned before, I would need to know from you which way to go here. Do you want to pursue the idea of Jesus being divine? It would be a good place to start, because without it, I agree, the atoning work of the cross doesn’t make a whit of sense. Or, if you can accept, at least for the purposes of this discussion the divinity of Jesus, we can further pursue why His death was acceptable.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Orion,

I can now better understand why you (and perhaps others) are having trouble understanding how and why Jesus’ death should be able to atone for our sins, and why He wouldn’t need to suffer in hell. Now that I know that you haven’t accepted that Jesus is not only man, but also God makes it a lot clearer. For you are right, all men need to face both death and judgment, if Jesus is merely a man, why would His death be any more acceptable as payment for sin, and why shouldn’t He face an eternity in hell for sin.

Which brings us to a bit of a crossroads in this study. Because if one is rejecting Jesus as God, then there really is little sense in a mere man’s death for another man, even a man as good as Jesus was.

I’ve done some reading and came across something that might explain things a bit better. This is from David Guzik, director of the Calvary Chapel Bible College in Germany:

This principle of sacrifice explains why the suffering of hell must be eternal for those who reject the atoning work of Jesus. They are in hell to pay the penalty of their sin, but as imperfect beings they are unable to make a perfect payment. If the payment is not perfect, then it has to be continual and constant - indeed, for all eternity. A soul could be released from hell the moment its debt of sin was completely paid - which is another way of saying never. (David Guzik’s Study Guide for Hebrews 9, vs 23-28 Blue Letter Bible, http://www.blueletterbible.org/)

If Jesus is simply yet another man, a good man yes, but nonetheless a mere man; then he wouldn’t be perfect as well. No matter how many times He would offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins, it wouldn’t be enough.

So, understanding the divinity of Christ is key to understanding the acceptableness of His atoning work on the Cross.

I understand that one hurdle to understanding this is the apparent paradox of Jesus being God and yet being separated from God. And, as I mentioned before, this paradox does clear up, if one can understand the triune nature of God. The Christian believes, because it is so clearly delineated in the Bible that God is three-in-One, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When Jesus cried out on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?†He experienced for the first time in all eternity a separation from the Father and Spirit. When He stood before God then, before the Alter in Heaven, He was most likely, (and I don’t know that anyone can know this for certain) but most likely still standing as separate from the Father and Spirit. But, as He was perfect in every way, His payment was perfect and acceptable and the Old Covenant was paid in full.

So, being at the crossroads I mentioned before, I would need to know from you which way to go here. Do you want to pursue the idea of Jesus being divine? It would be a good place to start, because without it, I agree, the atoning work of the cross doesn’t make a whit of sense. Or, if you can accept, at least for the purposes of this discussion the divinity of Jesus, we can further pursue why His death was acceptable.

Excellent post...amen

 

[mutzrein]

Let's get into the topic of "how exactly DOES Christ's death on the cross remove sin".

If the sin of all men was placed upon Jesus, because the "wages of sin is death...", exactly how did Jesus' death accomplish this "satisfaction of God's wrath"? How was this sacrifice, and what Jesus did, taking our place?

If we die "in our sin", then we go to Hell. No way out. If we die in our sins, while still alive, we have no choice but to find ourselves in Hell...

How exactly did Jesus become our substitute?

Can someone refresh my memory please? Where does it say that Jesus is our substitute?

 

[handy]

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-for it is written "Cursed is every one who hangs on a tree" in order the in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:13-14

For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your consience from dead works to serve the living God?...
And inamusch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.....
then He said, "Behold I have come to do Thy will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all....
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws upon their heart, and upon their mind I will write them," He then says, "And their sins and their lawless deed I will remember no more."
Hebrews 9:13-14; 27-28; 10:9-10; 14-18

There are other texts as well. We most likely should be sure to include John's testimony of Jesus, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." The texts in Hebrews are really clear though that Jesus was the substitutionary sacrifice that bore our sins.

 

[Orion]

handy, yes, I feel like I tend to open up topics that are pretty deep, . . . . and that's just the kind of guy I am. I ask the tough questions and may or may not agree with the answers given, but I will take them into consideration.

Unless you MAY not have seen in other prior posts, I've been in Christianity all my life (39 now) and know very well all the Christian doctrines of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, the reason for the death on the cross, . . . . . not on a scholarly level, but my questions arise when my brain sees something and says, . . ."Woe, . . . hold on!"

I know the reason for Jesus on the Cross, but struggle with the idea that Christianity accepts a monotheism, yet trying to work around the "separationg of Jesus from God" when Jesus WAS God. Him, the person, his spirit, . . . . completely God. If you separate Jesus from God, then Jesus was no longer God.

Having said that, I actually have a much more liberal view on just how much "this atoning sacrifice for the sins of men" is. I can't get into what that is because it probably is against the board rules. :wink:

As for my thoughts on Hell and the doctrine of it, I posted in the Hell topic within Apologetics and Theology.

 

[Orion]

Oh, and for the "father" "son" thing, I would agree that there would be both a masculin and feminine characteristic to the divine, but what would be the feminine? Which traits would be more feminine and what member of the Godhead would be more associated with those characteristics?

We have such a hard time with sematics, calling God "he", but what if some parts were, in fact, more "she"? Is it because it seems "too pagan"? Maybe that's where the pagans got the idea from? :-?

As for the trinity, I see it differently than Christian Doctrine in that I don't have any need to create a "weird, hard to understand" ONE God with three aspects. I have no problems with the Trinity actually being three separate beings. . . . all ONE in their goal and thought, . . much like the man and woman become ONE when they marry. So yes, a masculine diety, . . .but then also a feminine deity as well. The "son" concept denotes some sort of union, though, meaning that this "offspring" came from two other beings. That's a place I don't know how it can transfer over to the spiritual world, and I doubt it would be much like how humans do it, but our actions are probably "metephorical" of the spiritual. I'm completely thinking off the top of my head at this point, though.