The Problems with Reformed Theology’s Penal Substitution Teaching

crucifixion, Nazarene, IHS

Discussing theology with our Protestant brothers and sisters is often interesting, but it can also be quite frustrating.

For instance, many Protestants, particularly those from the Reformed traditions, passionately and firmly hold to the doctrine of penal substitution. This doctrine holds that, on the cross, Jesus was taking the place of all of mankind and was punished by God the Father. In so doing He endured the wrath and punishment we deserve because of our sins.

Reformed vs. Catholic Theology

Of course, as Catholics, while we hold that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice, we do agree that it was substitutionary. But we firmly reject the idea of penal substitution. Since Jesus is God and God is perfect, how can God punish God? And assuming Jesus could somehow separate Himself from God, why would God punish a holy and pure being for our sins? Such an idea is entirely incompatible with our understanding of God.

In dialogue with Protestant friends, I have found that the essential elements in their belief in penal substitution seem to be that due to God’s wrath and perfect justice, Jesus had to be punished in order for us to be forgiven – there was no other option. But this doctrine is based on misunderstandings of the Incarnation, God’s “wrath,” and God’s perfect justice.

Why have you forsaken me?

When Jesus is on the cross, he cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Matthew 27:46). Those holding the doctrine of penal substitution, claim this shows that God the Father abandoned Jesus on the cross and the relationship between God the Father and God the Son was severed. Additionally, quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21, they believe Jesus literally took on our sins. Referencing Romans 1:18, they say that God’s wrath was poured out onto Jesus. So at this moment on the cross, Jesus is taking our place and enduring the punishment we deserve for our sins.

But if we examine our understanding of the Trinity and of the Incarnation, we can see that this view of penal substitution is incompatible with these doctrines.

In Light of the Trinity and the Incarnation

First of all, God has revealed that He is a Triune God. The three Divine Persons of the Trinity are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Each Divine Person is distinct but not separate. Each divine person fully possesses the divine nature with the only difference being the relationship of the Persons. In the Godhead, these three Persons have no beginning and no end, and they are in eternal communion with each other.

In the Incarnation, God the Son, the Second Divine Person, while still fully possessing a divine nature, united himself to a human nature. This hypostatic union is real and not merely accidental. The two natures in Christ are distinct without commingling and Jesus’ divinity remained unchanged. Jesus was not simply a man with the indwelling of God but was both true God and true man.

Both Human and Divine

Therefore, when Jesus walked the shore of Galilee, spoke to the Apostles and was scourged at the pillar, it was God the Son who did these things. These experiences were possible because of his human nature. And when Jesus gave sight to the blind, calmed the storms and raised the dead, it was God the Son who did these things, because while having a human nature, He was still God the Son who fully possessed the divine nature. And when Jesus died on the cross, the Second Divine Person suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh.

So the Passion was endured by God the Son on account of the human nature He assumed while His divine nature remained unchanged. (See Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, 46, a. 12.)

With the doctrine of penal substitution, however, it is held that God the Father ruptured His relationship with God the Son on the cross in order to punish Jesus. But this element of the doctrine is contrary to the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. If it were possible for God the Son to be separated from God the Father, even for a moment, then he would not and could not be God.

Did Jesus literally take on our sins?

When we acknowledge that Jesus is God the Son, we also must reject any interpretation of Scripture that suggests that Jesus literally took all our sins onto himself. We can confidently do this because of the nature of sin.

Simply put, sin is an offense against God. When we sin, we damage our relationship with God to varying degrees. By committing grave sins, we completely sever our relationship with God. We are no longer in communion with God.

If Jesus literally took on all our mortal sins, we would have a situation where Jesus would be at enmity with God. But, as already pointed out, this is not possible because Jesus is God the Son.

Acknowledging what we know about the Triune God, the Incarnation, and sin, we must then examine Scriptures in their entirety along with all the revealed doctrines. Looking at Scriptures in their entirety requires us to reject any interpretations suggesting God the Son in any way lost communion with God the Father or was at enmity with the Father.

How is God’s wrath satisfied?

Protestants will often ask, however, if Catholics do not hold that God the Father poured out the wrath we deserve onto Jesus, then how is God’s wrath satisfied? They will also point to numerous texts in the New Testament referring to God’s wrath, such as John 3:36; Romans 1:18 and 12:19; and Ephesians 5:6.  But the key to understanding is in properly interpreting what Scripture is teaching us.

Anger (wrath) is a passion within human beings. God, however, is immutable and impassible. He does not have feelings as we know them. Nor does He experience passions. God also does not have a temper. And our sins do not provoke revenge in God. God is infinitely perfect, merciful, loving and just in all he does, so we must see what we call His anger in light of this truth.

Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, tells us that at times Scripture speaks of things in reference to God metaphorically. This is seen particularly when certain human passions are predicated of the Godhead. Aquinas says:

Hence a thing that is in us a sign of some passion, is signified metaphorically in God under the name of that passion. Thus with us it is usual for an angry man to punish, so that punishment becomes an expression of anger. Therefore, punishment itself is signified by the word anger, when anger is attributed to God.

In order to help us better understand God, Scripture uses metaphors, but we must take care to not hold that God can change, or that our actions cause emotions or passions to flare up in God.

Punishment as an expression of Wrath

Even though God does not experience the passion of anger, we say that we experience the consequences of sin as expressions of His “wrath.” But this must be understood metaphorically. When we sin, we rebel against God and turn away from him. God allows us to endure the consequences in this life and in the next. Those consequences include disorder, disharmony, pain, suffering and physical death. But these consequences/punishments are not the result of God actively willing torments. Rather, because of His love for us, God has given us a free will to make choices. If we choose to separate ourselves from Him who is Goodness itself and Love itself, then the inevitable outcome will be that we deprive ourselves of His goodness and love.

Another way of understanding “God’s wrath” is to recognize that our disobedience and rebellion do not causes any change in God by nature of who He is. Rather, we are changed by sin. If we reject God’s love and rebel, our hearts are hardened. Lacking God’s love, one will be tormented by the thought of God’s judgment and, as a result, will experience “God’s wrath.” But in both scenarios, what has changed is not God but us.

God’s Justice

The final point to keep in mind in regard to God’s nature is related to His perfect justice. Those holding to the doctrine of penal substitution believe that since the consequences of our sins are suffering, death and the pains of hell, justice requires Jesus to take our place and experiences these consequences for salvation to be possible.

But as posited earlier, how can God punish Jesus Christ who is completely innocent? It is also impossible to hold that God the Son could literally become a sinner in enmity with God. And it is at odds with justice that Jesus, perfectly pure, holy and innocent, would have to be tortured and crucified as punishment for what He did not do.

Christ’s Sacrificial Offering of Love

Jesus’ entire life was one of love, obedience and self-emptying (Philippians 2:8). He accepted his death on the cross freely, willing laying down his life for each one of us in love. Because of the Incarnation, God the Son performs a human act – one of freely offering Himself and sacrificing His life. He does this in our place.  And being God, his offering is one of infinite value. This act of humility, obedience and love was pleasing to God. And Christ’s sacrifice was of infinite merit for us.

As Aquinas writes:

. . . by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which he suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of his life which he laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion and the greatness of the grief endured…And therefore, Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race…” (Summa, III, 48, a. 2).

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

28 thoughts on “The Problems with Reformed Theology’s Penal Substitution Teaching”

  1. I tried to post these two replies to the posts above, but they didn’t show up. So, I will try to post them here for anyone who might be interested.

    Reply to Franklin P. Uroda Post in regard to Dr. Allison Low’s Jan 12, 2019 article “The Problems with Reformed Theology’s Penal Substitution Teaching.

    It is sadly true that if you select certain statements in Isaiah 53 and separate them from other statements, indeed ignoring those other statements, a person might think they have found something in Scripture to present God as a a liar, ignorant of the truth, and viciously imposing suffering upon sinners and even the righteous Jesus.
    But one must ignore the fact that the “Penal Substitution Theory” accuses God of rendering a false judgment, decreeing the innocent Christ “guilty” and we guilty men “innocent”.

    Sorry for you who disagree, but that theory fits how the devil, who is “a liar and murderer from the beginning” would explain how God saves us.

    Jesus, who is, “The Way, The Truth, And the Life” actually did something quite different to save us. Jesus offered perfect human obedience to the Father’s Will. Both the Father’s “positive will” throughout His life, and in the case of His suffering and death on the cross, Jesus obeyed even the Father’s “permissive will” – that men misusing and abusing God’s gift of free will were capable of and in fact did impose suffering and death on the cross upon Jesus.

    In becoming man with a human nature, Jesus did indeed “empty Himself”, in that nature, of His divinity – but without in any way diminishing His Divine nature.

    The problem with this article is that it attempts to feed solid food to those who have been undernourished even of the “milk” that Paul speaks of in Heb 5: 12 and 1 Cor 3: 2. Paul identifies the needed solution, but it cannot help those filled with pride in the actual ignorance of so much that Scripture teaches. The word and concept of “alone” permeates their misunderstanding of Scripture, justifying in their own minds their selective rejection of those parts of Scripture that contradict their human assumptions about the meaning of some out of context statements.

    Three examples from Isaiah 53:

    “By a perversion of justice he was taken away.”

    “The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous and he shall bear their iniquities.”

    Notice the obvious, that Jesus did indeed bear the fruit or consequences of our “iniquities” throughout His human life on earth.

    And this next verse, which is misunderstood because Scripture does not identify whether “the will of the Lord” is The Father’s “positive will”, or His “permissive will”!

    Do notice what a difference in the meaning of the sentence occurs, depending upon which “Will of God” a person assumes is meant. And making such an assumption is entirely the act of the person reading this Scripture – it is not a revelation of this single Scriptural statement ALONE.

    “Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain”

    Reply to Johnlonglong4@gmail.com who posted a reply to Dr. Allison Low’s article: “Problems with Reformed Theology’s Penal Substitution Teaching”

    For the sake of your own soul, please carefully and prayerfully read and heed what Jesus taught through Scripture in Luke 10: 25 -28. Do accept the answer that Jesus gave in preference to any other person’s opinion and answer! Recall that a layer asked Jesus – to test Him: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” NOTE JESUS’S reply: “What is written in the law? What do you read there?”

    The lawyer answered: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

    Do not let yourself be tricked into ignoring or refusing to believe Christ’s reply to that answer: “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”

    Note also Mark 10: 17-31 for additional information regarding how important this detail is.

  2. Dr.
    As a practicing Catholic and a person. Who reads and dissects prayer and the gospel, I find the foundations of your argument to be illogical and in Error in part. These errors call into question any other assertions you make and in fact diminish the sacrifice Jesus endured for us. Jesus referenced Joy in heaven over the repented sinner, and God displays anger multiple times in the Old Testament towards Sodom and Gamorah, toward the Israelites multiple times, toward the satan in genesis as he punishes him for his deception of eve. God obviously displays emotions.

    You reference things in Scripture but never provide supporting scriptural evidence.

    I don’t have the answers and will continue to look because I didn’t find much help here. I pray for both of us to find answers that help us on our quest to walk the path of Christ and hopefully guide others to Heaven.

    Peace be with you
    Jim

    1. Any Catholic mystic will tell you there is infinite passion in the Godhead. The thing we are missing is thinking of Love as a Human emotion; thus when we think of God having emotions we have to say it is a metaphor (actually an Anthropomorphism). I believe we have it backwards. God IS Love and as such all He does is an expression of Love, but this is Divine Love. 14 places in the Bible God is Jealous, and once He even says His name is Jealousy “You must not worship any other god, for the Lord is called Jealous, for he is a jealous God”Ex.34:14. Divine Love is beyond our experience. A mother’s love for her child is perhaps the closest we can get, and who would want to risk the “Loving Wrath” of a mother by coming between her and her child? I hope to write for CS soon and explain this more.

    2. Jim, there is nothing illogical in Dr. Low’s article, and nothing she has written is in error. God’s ‘emotions’ in the Bible are metaphors for how we humans relate to God. As Fr. Hugh Barbour states at Catholic.com https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-we-mean-when-we-speak-of-gods-emotions%203 “Without a body, there are no emotions in the strict sense, since emotions are bodily reactions toward or away from the things we sense as good or bad. Thus, neither God nor angels (who are pure spirits), nor the human soul separated from the body in death, properly have emotions.”

      As the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says (#42): “God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God – ”the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable” – with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.”

      And as Isaiah 55:8–9 says ““My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

  3. Thank you for your article.. I was looking for references to back up my original piece and your article was useful…. I thank you for your scholarship…
    Can you help me find the source for this surprising but game-changing quote: “Ambrose, again: “I thank the Lord our God who created such a marvelous work in which to find his rest. He created the heavens, and I do not read that he rested; he created the earth, and I do not read that he rested; he created the sun, the moon, the stars, and I do not read that even then he rested; but I read that he created man and that at this point he rested, having a being whose sins he could forgive” (Hexameron, IX 76).
    https://catholicism.org/o-happy-fault.html
    I am pursuing the idea that sin (and redemption) were part of the plan from the beginning…I have several points that back this up but I cannot find the right source. Both Jerome and Ambrose appear to have writen Hexameron(6 days). God Bless.

  4. Johnlonglong4@gmail.com

    WHY ARE SOME PROTESTANTS SO NASTY AND HATEFUL AND SOUND LIKE THE DEVIL ATTACKING CATHOLICISM…THESE PEOPLE ARE WICKED FILTHY HERETICS WHO CAN’T BE SAVED FROM HELL…ANY PROTESTANT THAT ATTACK GOD’S CHURCH THE BODY OF CHRIST WILL RECEIVE BRUTAL PUNISHMENT IN THE JUDGMENT DAY RECOMPENSE…THE EVANGELICALS, PENTECOSTALS AND CHARISMATIC PROTESTANTS ARE THE WORSE OF THESE DEMON FILLED HATERS..MAY GOD THE HOLY TRINITY QUICKLY SEND THEM TO THEIR REWARD WITH SATAN !!!

    1. I envision us Catholics as enjoying a huge feast of every kind of sustenance, and others, gathered in the same room, enjoying a fraction of the food but avoiding the most nourishing. All are invited to the feast, but some have decided to reject most of what the Master has provided. We must pray for them as they all have guardian angels, and a “cloud of witnesses” around them. Pray that their hunger and the witness of all the Catholics loving them, will attract and convince them that the Master has more than enough to feed all His children.

  5. Dr. Low: How do you answer the Reformed teaching that Christ was guilty of sins not by perpetration but by imputation. ? Christ was legally liable for the sins of people because of imputation and not infusion ?

  6. Completely distorted and erroneous text, clearly made by people not born again, and unaware of Christ’s word and sacred expiation. Trying to de-characterize those who brought their heresies and shame to the surface, the Lord Jesus being God emptied himself of his divinity to come as a man and subject to the same human feelings, showing that he overcame the devil as a man showing to all humanity that all too they could do it through their sacrifice. And on the cross at the end of all his suffering because he was taking the sin of the whole world upon himself, he still says as a man, with human feelings, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Matthew 27:46) . To a difference between being like God and being fully like a man, with human feelings, subject to pain and suffering and etc., in this expression we see intimate feelings of the humanity of our Lord when making this declaration. And there was no abandonment of the Father to the son, knowing and knowing the human nature in which the son was. (John 12: 27,28 – Now my soul is troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour but for this I came at this hour.
    Father, glorify your name. Then a voice came from heaven saying, “I have already glorified him, and I will glorify him again.)
    God cannot contemplate sin, and withdraws momentarily, it is when it gets dark (Habakkuk 1:13 – You are so pure in eyes, that you cannot see evil, and oppression cannot be contemplated. , and shut up when the wicked devours the one who is more righteous than him?).
    The question of the divine nature has already been explained, in emptying it, in the question of miracles and the power to perform them is pure lack of knowledge of the word of God. Let’s go back to the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, where he receives authority and power through the Holy Spirit, to perform all his miracles, as he had emptied himself of his divinity, and needed to be clothed with authority and power so that as a man he performs all his signs are taken. (Matthew 3: 16,17 – And when Jesus was baptized, he immediately left the water, and, behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him. behold, a voice from heaven said: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; Acts 10:38 – concerning Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power; who walked everywhere , doing good and healing all the oppressed of the Devil, because God was with him .; Luke 3:22 – and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in a bodily form, like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my beloved Son, and I am exceedingly pleased with you. “; Luke 4:18 -” The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach Evan help the poor. He sent me to proclaim the release of the prisoners and the recovery of sight for the blind; to restore freedom to the oppressed,). I believe it is enough, and I tell you all here on this website “Repent and convert to the true Lord Jesus and not to a sinful man who calls himself Christ in Catholic denomination, one of the most heretical, dirty and cruel denominations in Christian history. .

    Romans 8: 3 – Because, what the Law was unable to accomplish because it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did it, sending his own Son, in the likeness of the sinful human being, as a sin offering. And so, he condemned sin in the flesh,

    Philippians 2: 7,8-But he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming like men;
    And, found in the form of a man, he humbled himself, being obedient to death, and death on the cross.

    Hebrews 2:17 – For this reason, it was vital that He became similar to his brothers in all aspects, so that he could become a merciful and loyal high priest in relation to God, and could make atonement for the sins of the people. .

    1. Careful sir… “Emptying Himself” does not mean he became solely a man. One person, two natures; fully human, fully God. You’ll back yourself into a corner without affirming both.

      You say “God is blind to sin”? I checked the Book of Habakkuk, the first chapter is the prophet whining about God doesn’t seem to care about how the wicked are bullying His people. Chapter 2 is God’s reply.. Chapter 3 is Habakkuk’s “enlightened” answer including (3:12-14):
      “In fury you stride across the earth; in anger you trample the nations.
      13 You go forth to deliver your people, to save your anointed one.
      You shatter the house of the wicked, laying bare its foundations to the bedrock.
      14 You pierced with your arrows the leader of those warriors
      who stormed toward us like a whirlwind, ready to devour the wretched who were in hiding.”

      Obviously, Habakkuk is finally convinced God is responsive to and sees Sin. Never assert a limit on God except for your own salvation….. that’s a call you’re gonna make.

  7. A lot of this was a misrepresentation of penal substitution. Especially the idea of us Believing that Christ is somehow separated from the Father. Jesus is clearly quoting Psalm 22 a Messianic Psalm when he says “My God my God why have you forsaken me?” Another error was in the idea that penal substitution means Christ literally takes on the sin as if it’s infused into him, that’s a problem for the Roman Catholic who believes in infusion not for us. Our assertion is that our sin is imputed to him, not that he’s inherently made a sinner

    1. Funny, you mentioned Psalm 22. Jesus was not quoting that psalm to imply that God did that, on the contrary, God NEVER did that.

      What Jesus quoted was the NAME of the psalm (usually the beginning of it), as they never had them numbered. If you read that psalm you will find that verse 24, part of the conclusion of that psalm says

      For He has not despised, nor detested,
      The affliction of the afflicted,
      Nor has He hidden His face from Him,
      And in His crying to Him He hears.

      So the psalm itself contradicts your theory of God hiding His face from Jesus, or despising Him, or turning His back on Him, which is COMPLETELY nonsense.

    2. One thing about Catholics… they mean what they say…. Christ had to accept all the consequences of sin, in order to redeem humanity.

  8. If Jesus died willingly on the Cross, why did he cry out, “Eli, Eli, lamach sabachthani.”? Those are not the words that one would expect to hear from someone who willingly dies for our sins. I

  9. For those interested-
    There has been a question by someone linking to this article disputing my statement that there are no passions in God. This is not a novel teaching on my part. St. Thomas Aquinas (as well as others) held that there are no passions in God since God is immutable. This is a complex topic but you can read a quote from Aquinas where he says “there are no passions in God” in Summa Contra Gentiles (Book I, chapter 89)
    https://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#89

    Aquinas also states in this same document that joy and love are in God and though passions in us “do not befit God as passions.”
    Read book I, chapters 90-91 in the same link above.

    1. Good article, Allison, it’s odd that “Aquinas also states in this same document that joy and love are in God and though passions in us “do not befit God as passions.” because joy and love are virtues ; there are on lists of virtues.

    2. Allison Low: I am not convinced that the fruits of the Spirit joy and love are even passions for people (see Galatians 5:22-23).
      Agape love is on a different level than the different types of emotional love.

  10. Pingback: Gods Emotions

  11. Pingback: The Atonement – Isaiah 53

  12. Thanks for a fine article. It is a great consolation to be reminded that Christ’s sacrifice, which we witness before our very eyes at Mass, is a “Superabundant” atonement for all the sins of all men of all time. Our bloody sins are made as white as snow through the mercy of God.

  13. Perhaps the Protestant theologians have taken a lot of their assertions from the descriptions and implications of Isaiah 53.

  14. Thanks Allison for this outstanding piece on a topic that has confused me ever since returning to the Church in 2005 after 35 years as an evangelical Protestant. It is important for lots of reasons, not the least being the heretical idea of limited atonement. Further, I have heard some say that “God died” for our sins. Not the case. The human Jesus died, not the 2nd person of the Trinity. Nor did he go to hell. And yet mysteriously he suffered as if he did. Penal substitution does no justice to the paradox of God’s holiness and mercy here, both poured out on the redeemed through baptism. And to correct another post, it is there that the Holy Spirit came to be within us and then strengthened through the Sacraments of Confirmation and the Eucharist. Anything else is less than Catholic thinking. Last, I would share a link to an article I found that further illuminates your points so well. It is not written by Catholic Stand and should not be construed as such, but confirms your research and understanding of Catholic theology on this matter. http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/04/does-catholic-view-of-christs-atonement.html
    We have so much more than penal substitution through the atonement. It only muddies the waters of salvation.

    1. Richard –
      Thank you for your comments. Firstly, as to the link you provided, I do not know the author but I have used him in the past and have found his articles to be a very good resource on penal substitution. (And he has quite a few articles that address this.) Another good resource is Dr. David Anders – search his name plus atonement and I have found a good article on his site calvin2catholic.com and a different article on his other site calledtocommunion.com.

      I will make one comment on your post. We can say “God died.” However, we must understand what is meant by this. Jesus is the Second Divine Person become incarnate which means that God the Son with a divine nature united himself to a human nature. Jesus = 1 Divine Person, 2 natures. [To explain the concept of “person” I like to give the analogy of an “operator” and to understand “nature”, I like to explain this as the “operations” possible.] With Jesus, there is one operator and two operations possible. And with Jesus, we must take care in our expressions because we cannot say the human Jesus did this one thing and the divine Jesus did this other thing as this is similar to the heresy of Nestorianism. Nestorius argued that Mary gave birth to Christ but not to God and so the Church declared this an error stating there are not two persons in Jesus but only one and Mary gave birth to God [she is truly theotokos – the God-bearer].

      So when we say Jesus walked the shores of Galilee, spoke and ate, it was God who did these things – possible because of his human nature. When we say that in Galilee and Jerusalem, Jesus walked on water, exorcised demons and raised the dead, it was God who did these things – possible because of his divine nature. When we say Jesus experienced pain, suffering and anguish, it was God who did these things – again possible because of his human nature.

      So then with death, death is the separation of the human body from the human soul. Because Jesus had a human nature (with a human body and human soul), in the Creed we say Jesus suffered, DIED and was buried. So we can and do say God died. BUT this does NOT at all mean that the Divine Person with his divine nature was at all changed (he remained impassible and eternal). He died on account of his human nature with no change to his divinity.
      Thomas Aquinas discusses this in his Summa. Part III, question 46, article 12: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article12

      Christology is difficult to explain in a small comment box but hopefully this helps.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.