Is It Right to Say that God Died on the Cross?

The old Christian hymn by Charles Wesley, ‘And Can it Be?’ includes the line:

‘Amazing love! how can it be that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me!’

So what are we to make of these words? Is it correct to say that God died on the cross, or should Christians avoid speaking in this way?

In answer to this question, I would say that in the most fundamental sense God did not die on the cross, but that there is a sense in which we can say that God died on the cross.

God is immortal

The first thing we need to be clear about is that God is immortal. In fact, 1 Timothy 6:16 explicitly uses the word ‘immortal’ to describe God.

To be immortal is to be undying and incapable of dying. So God cannot die and therefore obviously has never died.

This is why I say that in the most fundamental sense God did not die on the cross.

The God-Man Jesus Christ

But things are not quite so simple.

To begin with, we need to understand that the Bible teaches that three things are true about Jesus Christ all at once. First, He is truly God. Second, He is truly man. And third, He is one person.

All three of these points are crucial, and over the centuries many heresies have arisen among people who have accepted only two of the points but rejected the third. Christians need to stand firm, however, on insisting that all three are true.

So the one person, Jesus, is a combination of God and man. He is the God-Man. His divinity and humanity are not confused or mingled. They are distinct. But He is still only one person. This is standard Christian theology.

Two opposite things are sometimes both true of Jesus

There is something about Jesus, however, that at first sight looks very strange, but which it is important to understand.

Because Jesus is only one person, anything that is true of His divinity can be said to be true of Jesus, and anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus. And this sometimes leads to opposite things both being true of Him.

A good example to illustrate this is the issue of how much Jesus knows. In His divinity Jesus knows everything there is to know, i.e., He is omniscient. But in His humanity He doesn’t know everything, i.e., He is not omniscient.

We actually have a striking example of Jesus’ lack of knowledge in Mark’s Gospel. In Mark 13:32, referring to the time when He will return to earth, Jesus says:

‘Now concerning that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father.’

In this verse ‘the Son’ is a reference to Jesus Himself, so the verse is clear that there is something Jesus doesn’t know. And this lack of knowledge is true of His humanity. But because He is only one person, anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus. So ‘Jesus is not omniscient’ is a correct statement.

However, in His divinity, Jesus knows everything. And, again, because He is only one person, anything that is true of His divinity can be said to be true of Jesus. So ‘Jesus is omniscient’ is a correct statement.

Therefore, ‘Jesus is not omniscient’ is a correct statement, and ‘Jesus is omniscient’ is a correct statement. In one sense He is not omniscient, but in another sense He is.

Jesus died on the cross

The same sort of thing applies to Jesus’ death on the cross. In His divinity He clearly did not die on the cross, because God is immortal, as I have noted. But in His humanity He certainly did die on the cross.

And, once again, because anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus, ‘Jesus died on the cross’ is a correct statement.

The person who is Jesus Christ is the person who is God the Son

So it is true that Jesus died on the cross, but it was in His humanity that He died, not in His divinity.

But if He didn’t die in His divinity, that means it is wrong to say that God died on the cross, isn’t it?

Not really, and here is the point. I have said that Jesus Christ is one person. However, crucially, this person is the person of God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.

At the incarnation, the person who is God the Son joined Himself to a human nature to become the God-Man Jesus Christ. But the person, God the Son, stayed the same. The person who is Jesus is none other than the person who is God the Son.

Therefore, because Jesus died on the cross, and because the person who is Jesus is the person who is God the Son, we can legitimately say that God the Son died on the cross.

And finally, we can shorten saying that God the Son died on the cross to saying that God died on the cross.

So, even though it was only in His humanity that He died on the cross, we can legitimately say that God died on the cross.

Summing up

In the most fundamental sense, then, God did not die on the cross. God is immortal and cannot die.

But in another sense, it is right to say that God died on the cross, as follows:

(1) In His humanity, Jesus died on the cross.

(2) Because Jesus is only one person, anything that is true of His humanity is true of Jesus, so we can say that Jesus died on the cross.

(3) Because the person who is Jesus is the person who is God the Son, we can say that God the Son died on the cross.

(4) Saying that God the Son died on the cross can be shortened to saying that God died on the cross.

So I would say that we can sing the words of Charles Wesley’s hymn with a clear conscience.

 

See also:

How Can the Word Be With God and Also Be God?

Paradoxes and Tensions in the Christian Faith

Salvation Is Not by Doing Good but Only Those Who Do Good Will Be Saved

The Justice and Mercy of God

Is America Really the Greatest Country on Earth?

I keep hearing American Christians confidently and proudly declaring that the United States is the greatest country on earth.

I find this troubling, not just because I believe it is incorrect, but because I think that many of those who say this have set up their country as an idol. And idolatry is a grave sin.

I am not American

Before I go any further, I should say that I am not an American myself. I think some Americans will therefore probably be offended by me giving my opinion here.

Nevertheless, I believe I am justified in doing so. If some American Christians are guilty of idolatry in this area, as I suspect they are, then if I can help to counteract this, I will be doing them good. I am only trying to make constructive criticism that builds people up. I am not trying to push anyone down.

Besides, it is my sincere belief that my own country, the United Kingdom, is even worse than the U.S. So I am in no way writing from some imagined position of superiority. And if American Christians want to write criticizing the U.K., then as long as the criticism is fair – which it isn’t difficult to believe it would be – then I would be the first to say “Amen.”

When the late British queen was still alive, I actually wrote an article encouraging British Christians not to idolize her, so I have a track record of criticizing my own country in this sort of way anyway. I haven’t written an article specifically directed towards British Christians who think that the U.K. today is a great country, for the simple reason that I have hardly ever heard any British Christian say that.

What counts as a great country in God’s sight?

When considering this topic, we first need to think through what we mean by the greatness of a country.

As Christians we obviously want to have the perspective that God would have on this issue, what Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 2:16 as “the mind of Christ.” So we are really asking what God sees as greatness in a country.

A good place to start is Luke 16:15, where Jesus says in no uncertain terms:

“For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.”

The things that the world admires and is impressed by are usually things that are totally unimpressive to God. And this surely applies when considering whether countries are great or not.

So, for example, the U.S. is the wealthiest country on earth. But we know from Scripture that wealth doesn’t impress God at all.

For instance, in Revelation 3:14-22 we read how the risen Jesus sharply rebukes the church in Laodicea. Materially this church was well off. But Jesus describes it as “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (v. 17) because of its sins. And if God ignores wealth when forming a judgment on how impressive a church is, it makes sense to think that He would do the same when forming a judgment on how impressive a country is.

So the wealth of the U.S. certainly doesn’t mean that it is the greatest country on earth. Nor does its power. Here 1 Corinthians 1:27 is relevant, where Paul says that “God has chosen what is weak in the world to shame the strong.” It is true that these words are about individual people, but the words tell us about God’s perspective, and it makes sense to think that they would apply to countries too. God is unimpressed by power.

Instead of thinking along the lines of wealth, power, opportunity or anything like that, I would suggest that the issue of how great a country is boils down to one simple thing. Surely in God’s sight the greatest country on earth is the one that pleases Him the most. Surely it is the country where the laws are most pleasing to Him and where the people act most in line with His will. The whole Bible from cover to cover would lead us to think this, wouldn’t it?

Is America the most pleasing country to God?

So our question about whether America is the greatest country on earth is really about whether America pleases God more than all other countries on earth.

I don’t pretend to have special access to God’s mind on this point. But even so, I find it impossible to believe that the U.S. is the country that pleases Him the most. Some of the evils that are tolerated and practiced in America are truly horrifying.

Let’s start with abortion. This is a monstrous evil that has claimed the lives of millions of unborn babies over the last half century or so in the U.S. It is true that Roe v. Wade has finally been overturned, but this is unlikely to reduce overall abortion rates more than a little for the country as a whole. And widespread abortion is not something that has been forced on an unwilling population by the American government. It is what most U.S. citizens want.

Of course, there are countries where abortion laws are even more relaxed than in the U.S. and where even more of this kind of evil occurs. But there are also more than a few countries where abortion is much more tightly controlled. In some parts of the world, the value of unborn children is set much higher than in America.

I would suggest that this issue on its own clearly disqualifies the U.S. from being the greatest country on earth.

But let’s think about another issue too, so-called “gay marriage.” Arrogant Western countries, including the U.S., have dared to try to alter God’s created order for marriage by claiming that it is possible for two men or two women to get married. Like abortion, this is not something that has been foisted on the people against their will by the government. It is what most American citizens want, and it is a massive insult to God.

It is important to understand that there are many countries where people wouldn’t dream of trying to change marriage in this way. In many parts of the world, the vast majority of the population rightly sees “gay marriage” as unnatural and an affront to God.

I really don’t think I need to provide any more evidence to make my case. How can American Christians possibly claim that their country is the greatest on earth? Do they think God overlooks the unborn babies being cut to pieces every day? Do they think He overlooks being insulted when the husband-wife relationship that mirrors the holy relationship between Christ and the church is discarded in order to promote perversion? Do they think the fact that many other countries displease Him far less in these areas is a trivial matter?

Regardless of how great America may or may not have been in the past, at the present time it is surely not the greatest country on earth.

God is not mocked

In Galatians 6:7 Paul tells his readers:

“God is not mocked.”

Of course this isn’t to be taken literally, as if people don’t actually mock God. God is mocked all the time, whether explicitly or whether implicitly in things like abortion and “gay marriage.”

What these words mean is that no one mocks God and gets away with it without repentance. Either they will repent and find forgiveness for their mockery, or they will be punished for it.

I would encourage American Christians who think that their country is the greatest on earth to ponder these words.

For my own part as a British Christian, I would never even contemplate saying that the U.K. is the greatest country on earth or anything remotely close to that. It is an evil place that is piling up its sins against almighty God, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it is down near the bottom of the list in His sight.

Which are the greatest countries?

So if America isn’t the greatest country on earth, which one is? I am not at all confident about the answer to this question. But if I had to guess, I would say that the best countries today are probably some of those in sub-Saharan Africa that have a lot of Christians.

The worldview in these countries tends to be much more grounded than in the West. There is more of a humility before God, an understanding that human beings are creatures under His mighty hand, who have obligations to fit in with His created order.

To be fair, even the best countries are full of sinful people committing sins. So perhaps we should refer to the least bad countries rather than the greatest ones. But I would guess that some of these African ones are top of the list.

 

See also:

The Will of the People: A Big Idol among Christians Today

“Human Rights”: A Big Idol among Christians Today

Most People in Western Countries Completely Misunderstand What Human Beings Are

A Plea to British Christians Not to Idolise the Queen

Is Jeremiah 13:23 Racist against Black People?

Opponents of the Christian faith sometimes claim that Jeremiah 13:23 shows a racist attitude towards black people, and they see this as evidence that our faith is not true.

In fact, this verse is not racist at all, as I will try to explain in what follows.

The text and its correct interpretation

Here is the text of Jeremiah 13:23:

‘Can the Cushite change his skin, or a leopard his spots? If so, you might be able to do what is good, you who are instructed in evil.’ (CSB)

‘Cushite’ in this verse refers to dark-skinned people who came from the land of Cush, the area immediately to the south of Egypt, where modern day Sudan is located. Many translations have ‘Ethiopian’ in this verse instead of ‘Cushite’, although modern-day Ethiopia is not really the same location as ancient Cush. For our purposes, however, the details of this are not important, because, regardless of its location, the inhabitants of Cush were known for their dark skin. They were what we would describe as black.

In this verse God is sharply criticising the Jewish people of Jeremiah’s day. He is saying that they are so in the habit of doing evil, that there is no more likelihood of them changing and doing good than there is of a Cushite changing his skin colour or a leopard getting rid of its spots.

Changing the skin colour of a human and changing the visible appearance of an animal are obviously good examples of something that is impossible, which helps to drive home how immersed in sin and evil the Jewish people of that day were.

I think the precise examples of a Cushite and a leopard were chosen because they would both have been unusual and attention-grabbing sights in Judah at that time.

Jews would have known about dark-skinned people from Cush, but it seems that they would have been few and far between in Judah, so if someone saw a Cushite, it would have been a sight that caught people’s attention.

As far as leopards are concerned, these animals clearly have a very distinctive appearance compared to most other animals. And I think they would also have been rare in Judah at that time, which would have made them stand out all the more when they were seen.

The striking appearance of dark human skin and leopard spots seems to have been why these examples were chosen.

Answering an objection

There are a couple of different ways in which this verse is said to be racist against black people.

Firstly, it is sometimes said that the way the verse sets a Cushite alongside an animal is demeaning to the Cushite, as if to some extent the Cushite is being brought down to the level of a mere animal.

This objection is completely wrong. There is no more suggestion in this verse that the Cushite is being brought down to the level of the leopard than there is that the leopard is being raised to the level of the Cushite. Neither is being brought to the level of the other at all.

Instead, what we have here is simply one example of a striking appearance that is taken from the world of human beings and another example that is taken from the animal kingdom. For Jews of the day, the Cushite’s skin colour was an unusual and striking sight among human beings, and the leopard’s appearance was an unusual and striking sight among animals. Humans and animals are not being confused here at all.

Answering a second objection

There is a second and more common reason why this verse is said to be racist against black people, which has to do with the reference to changing appearance.

The Jewish people in view in this verse are evil, and the verse is clearly implying that it would be good if they were able to change for the better (although this is impossible). Some therefore claim that the analogy of the Cushite requires that we understand the verse also to be implying that it would be good if the Cushite were able to change his skin colour. In other words, it is sometimes said that this verse looks at dark skin colour negatively.

This objection also completely misses the mark. Crucially, we need to take note of how in this verse the Cushite’s skin and the leopard’s spots are parallel to each other. The same point is being made about both.

So logically, if we were to say that the verse is implying that it would be good for the Cushite’s skin colour to change, we would also have to say that it is implying that it would be good for the leopard to lose its spots.

But the verse cannot possibly be implying that it would be good for the leopard to lose its spots. Why? Because leopards look fantastic! And there is no doubt that it isn’t just in our day that people think this. Surely people throughout history, including in Jeremiah’s day, have thought the same. The way that the Romans, for example, took great trouble to bring leopards to Rome is just one of many pieces of evidence for this.

This verse, then, is in no way implying that it would be good for leopards to change their appearance. So it cannot be implying that it would be good for Cushites to change their appearance, because exactly the same point is being made about the leopard and the Cushite.

The comparison of evil people with a Cushite and a leopard is therefore limited to the point that there is inability to change. The comparison doesn’t include whether it would be good for change to occur. Of course, it would be good if these Jews were able to change, but this is simply not the point that is being made by referring to the Cushite or the leopard. The point that is being made is just that the Jews in Jeremiah’s day are as unable to turn away from their evil as a Cushite is to change his skin colour or a leopard is to get rid of its spots.

Summing up

The idea that Jeremiah 13:23 is somehow racist against black people, then, is completely mistaken. In reality, this verse just mentions the skin colour of a Cushite as an example of something that cannot change, without anything negative about the Cushite or his skin colour being implied.

Moses married a black woman

While we are on this topic, it is well worth noting that Numbers 12:1-9 tells us that Moses married a black woman and that God approved of the marriage.

In Num 12:1 we read:

‘Miriam and Aaron criticized Moses because of the Cushite woman he married (for he had married a Cushite woman).’ (CSB)

In this verse the Hebrew adjective (koosheet) that is translated ‘Cushite’ is closely related to the Hebrew noun in Jer 13:23 (kooshee) that is translated as ‘Cushite’ in that verse. There is no good reason for thinking that these words have different meanings, which means that Num 12:1 is telling us that Moses married a Cushite woman, who would surely have been black.

We see from v. 1 that Miriam and Aaron criticised Moses for marrying this woman. And then in verses 5-8 God rebukes Miriam and Aaron for their attitude to Moses.

It is true that God’s rebuke seems to be at least mostly because Miriam and Aaron were assuming more importance than they should have, not specifically because they had criticised Moses’ marriage.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the passage is implying that Moses did nothing wrong by marrying the Cushite woman. Verse 1 tells us that the precise reason Moses came under criticism by Miriam and Aaron in the first place was because he married her. So when God then responds to this criticism and describes Moses as ‘faithful in all my house’ in v. 7, this has to mean that God had no objection to Moses’ marriage.

For yet another reason, then, the charge of racism against black people that is sometimes levelled against the Bible fails completely.

 

See also:

A Christian Perspective on Race and Racism

The Arrogance and Hypocrisy of Western Society

“Human Rights”: A Big Idol among Christians Today

The Will of the People: A Big Idol among Christians Today