Substitutionary Death of the Lord Jesus

[mellontes]

I am starting this thread not because Roo brought up the statement but because I have thought about it for a long time.

Roo: "Any denomination that preaches the true gospel whether futurist, partial preterist or preterist. The true gospel is justifiaction by faith alone on the basis of Christ's effectual, substitutionary death in our behalf." Source: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=churchtalk&thread=721&page=1#8075#ixzz1ArUUpxdB

Now, this may appear to be a strange question, but was this substitutionary death "physical" death or "spiritual" death?

I ask, because if Adam's sin was physical death, then it demands that the atonement for that death be physical as well. It is also the basis for the futurist's physical resurrection...

But if Adam's death was "spiritual" (separation from God), it demands that the atonement for that death be spiritual as well.

As I mentioned on CARM to GK (Gatekeeper), the answer to that question could be answered by translating the following:

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"

It is also one of the reasons why I believe Jesus told Martha that whosever lived and believed in Him would NEVER die. Not die and then be resurrected later as futurists must believe.

Hope this is not too controversial

[Morris]

Is it mandatory that we include an "or" in the question?

[JLVaughn]

Jan 13, 2011 11:02:10 GMT -5 Morris said:

Is it mandatory that we include an "or" in the question?

Morris,

Maybe not. Please consider, the young-earth dispies say it was both. But ultimately, they give nothing but lip service to the "spiritual death."

Do you really have a balanced view? Or is "spiritual death" an after thought, something you merely acquiesce?

[mellontes]

Jan 13, 2011 11:02:10 GMT -5 Morris said:

Is it mandatory that we include an "or" in the question?

Morris,

I suppose the question could have been asked by just using physical death but I used both and explained why I used them both. Very few think of Christ's "death" as being nothing other than physical death. This physical death is the one given the pre-eminence because of the stress upon a physical resurrection.

I had responded privately to someone concerning this matter and I further explained:

"How can we call it “substitutionary” death if the death we died as a result of sin was not physical death? If Jesus did not suffer the same penalty of sin that we did, how could He possibly be said to have died in our place?

Now, I realize that this may have more Jewish undertones, if you will, rather than an expression to all of humankind (yet being able to benefit from Calvary). Or maybe not…

My understanding is that Jesus (not His body) was raised from sheol/hades and then was later reunited with His corpse which was kept incorruptible as proof that he had been raised from the “dead ones.”

To my way of thinking, physical death had nothing to do with the curse and therefore physical death had nothing to do with the redemption from THAT curse.

Romans 6:4-5 – Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

The above two verses cannot be referring to physical death because it is being applied to living saints. Our resurrection is NOT physical and therefore Christ’s resurrection WHICH HAD REDEEMING QUALITIES could not be physical either. To me, the only physical aspect of Christ’s resurrection from THE DEATH was to reveal to His saints that He had accomplished what He had set out to do. If He accomplished it and then returned to God immediately (without the visible ascension), the saints would have had no proof whatsoever of what He had accomplished, because it was done in another realm, invisible to their human eyes.

[Morris]

Perhaps I should state my position here that I don't think the physical should overshadow the spiritual. I do believe that the death Christ died was a spiritual death as the sin of the world, and of the ages for that matter, where placed on Him.

But neither do I believe we should ignore the physical either. If it didn't matter, Christ died (the physical death) for no reason, and a baptism would have sufficed. There are two aspects to this that I don't think should be isolated from one another. After all, scripture speaks of two deaths and two resurrections.

For instance, John 11:26 was quoted, saying "And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?". Through belief in Christ and His work we have gone from being spiritually dead (no exceptions) to spiritually alive, never to experience this death again.

However, we also have John 11:25 which says, "Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live". This is speaking of a physical death and I know this because of the conditional wording "even if ever he may die" combined with the clause of believing in Him. If one is believing in Him, he is not spiritually dead any longer and therefore will not die in this sense. Yet He says that if that person dies or has died (aorist tense), will live (future tense). [Please don't make too much of me pointing out the tenses]

This is some of why I believe death and life are not merely spiritual or physical but both. If in Christ, we have been risen spiritually never to die again, and yet if we die (in the physical) we will live (in the spiritual).

For further clarification, I do not believe in a resurrection of my physical body, for it is but a naked kernel not resembling the body to come (not that I know what that is). The point is that physical death will not impair my life, but rather increase it.

And now I'll get to my real point; I don't think Christ's sacrifice was "substitutionary" in the sense of "in my place". It was "for" me, not "instead of me". I can't find any place in scripture which suggests He went in my place to do something I could have done. (Please post if you know of any.) I could not make the sacrifice He made, not even for myself let alone for anyone else. What I could do however is die, period, in all senses of the word.

Basically, the wages of sin IS death, not was death, or would have been death. Neither do I think it means any particular slant on death; just death, utterly and completely in any manner you can conceive. I believe that the sentence has to be carried out fully and completely as well, otherwise God's Holy character is compromised. Can God simply say "don't worry about that sin, I forgive you and it's all alright" just because we say we are sorry and DO something (even if that doing is just believing in Him)?

Or is there even more happening here? I think there is.

[Allyn]

Jan 13, 2011 16:13:51 GMT -5 Morris said:

Perhaps I should state my position here that I don't think the physical should overshadow the spiritual. I do believe that the death Christ died was a spiritual death as the sin of the world, and of the ages for that matter, where placed on Him.

But neither do I believe we should ignore the physical either. If it didn't matter, Christ died (the physical death) for no reason, and a baptism would have sufficed. There are two aspects to this that I don't think should be isolated from one another. After all, scripture speaks of two deaths and two resurrections.

For instance, John 11:26 was quoted, saying "And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?". Through belief in Christ and His work we have gone from being spiritually dead (no exceptions) to spiritually alive, never to experience this death again.

However, we also have John 11:25 which says, "Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live". This is speaking of a physical death and I know this because of the conditional wording "even if ever he may die" combined with the clause of believing in Him. If one is believing in Him, he is not spiritually dead any longer and therefore will not die in this sense. Yet He says that if that person dies or has died (aorist tense), will live (future tense). [Please don't make too much of me pointing out the tenses]

This is some of why I believe death and life are not merely spiritual or physical but both. If in Christ, we have been risen spiritually never to die again, and yet if we die (in the physical) we will live (in the spiritual).

For further clarification, I do not believe in a resurrection of my physical body, for it is but a naked kernel not resembling the body to come (not that I know what that is). The point is that physical death will not impair my life, but rather increase it.

And now I'll get to my real point; I don't think Christ's sacrifice was "substitutionary" in the sense of "in my place". It was "for" me, not "instead of me". I can't find any place in scripture which suggests He went in my place to do something I could have done. (Please post if you know of any.) I could not make the sacrifice He made, not even for myself let alone for anyone else. What I could do however is die, period, in all senses of the word.

Basically, the wages of sin IS death, not was death, or would have been death. Neither do I think it means any particular slant on death; just death, utterly and completely in any manner you can conceive. I believe that the sentence has to be carried out fully and completely as well, otherwise God's Holy character is compromised. Can God simply say "don't worry about that sin, I forgive you and it's all alright" just because we say we are sorry and DO something (even if that doing is just believing in Him)?

Or is there even more happening here? I think there is.

Very thoughtful post.

I was doing some thinking on the part where you said:
I don't think Christ's sacrifice was "substitutionary" in the sense of "in my place".

I think this is absolutely true in the sense that not only was Jesus the perfect sacrifice because of His sinlees state but that also His blood was the only blood that could cover the sins of all mankind. In otherwords it was more then the fact that he was without sin. It is also that He was appointed to do what no other could do. God made Him that perfect Lamb and Jesus was perfect through obedience. Without the shedding of blood there can be no sacrifice and without the perfect sacrifice there cannot be the forgiveness of sins once for all.