Add new comment

“The New Testament nowhere (correct me if I’m wrong) speaks of God dying on the cross.”

 — This premise is very much tied up in the term “God.” All would recognize that ὁ θεὸς in the NT is primarily, with only a few exceptions, a designation for the Father of Jesus. That being the case, orthodox Christians (who reject Patripassianism) would not expect the normative NT language to be of “God” dying on the cross. The normative language is of Jesus Christ dying on the cross, and the theological question, “Did God die on the cross?” therefore depends on whether, and in what sense, it is correct to call Jesus “God.” (I believe all would have to concede that the title ὁ θεὸς is used for Jesus at least in John 20:28 and probably in other texts, so the statement “Jesus, who is God, died on the cross” must be correct in some sense, even if one contests what that sense is.)

Having said that, there are a number of NT passages that arguably speak implicitly of God dying on the cross, or at least in ways that evoke this idea.
- The most direct of these is the passage discussed in this article, Acts 20:28 — granting the author’s point that the reading “church of God, which He obtained with His own blood” is disputable on exegetical and text-critical grounds.
 — Having discussed Christ’s death in the immediate context, Paul in 2 Cor. 5:18-19 makes God the main actor and Christ the intermediate agent in the drama of cross-centered reconciliation. This falls short of saying that God died on the cross or that God’s blood was shed, but it certainly makes “Christ dying on the cross” an act of God.
 — Similarly, in Rom. 5:6-7, Paul speaks of Christ dying for the ungodly, with the emphasis squarely on the will of the one who is willing to die. Yet in v. 8, “Christ dying for us” is interpreted as God demonstrating his love for us. So, again Christ’s death on the cross is God’s act of love. This raises a serious theological problem: how can God take credit for Christ’s willingness to die for sinners? The doctrine of the Trinity, of course, contains the Church’s answer to this conundrum.
 — There is a phenomenon in 1 John, widely recognized by scholars, whereby the author is intentionally ambiguous about whether certain singular personal pronouns refer to God or to Christ. One of the most interesting instances of this is in 1 John 3:16 — “this is how we have come to know love: he gave his life for us.” The nearest antecedent for “he” is “God,” mentioned five times in vv. 9-10; Christ (“the Son of God”) was last mentioned in v. 8. Were we forced to choose between God and Christ as the referent of v. 16, we should probably choose Christ, but the intentional ambiguity (again, something that occurs frequently in the epistle) suggests that the writer does not want to force us into an either/or choice but to reflect on how the statement might be true of both God and Christ. In that sense, the writer is arguably pressing us to consider God as having laid down his life for us in some sense.
 — In the Gospel of John, if we combine the idea of Jesus’s flesh as the tabernacle of the Logos that “was God” (John 1:1, 14) with the idea of Jesus’s flesh as the temple that would be destroyed and raised up (John 2:19-21), we again have a picture of an entity that “was God” dying.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.