Did Jesus know his death would only last three days?

[Larniavc]

Topic

 

[SkyWriting]

Did Jesus know his death would only last three days?

Matthew 12:40; 16:21; 27:63;
John 2:19
Hosea 6
6 “Come, let us return to the Lord;
for he has torn us, that he may heal us;
he has struck us down, and he will bind us up.
he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him.

 

[Larniavc]

Matthew 12:40; 16:21; 27:63;
John 2:19
Hosea 6
6 “Come, let us return to the Lord;
for he has torn us, that he may heal us;
he has struck us down, and he will bind us up.
he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him.

So he knew his death was temporary?

 

[PeaceJoyLove]

He could 'see the end from the beginning...as His father sees...the whole amazing purpose God purposed in Himself...by the spirit and not the flesh (five senses)... He knew as fully as He has always been known.

 

[HereIStand]

Yes, He did.

 

[cloudyday2]

The quote "as Jonah was in the belly of a whale for three days so the Son of Man ..." (paraphrased) doesn't seem like a very good explanation of the significance of three days.

Somewhere I read that Jews believed that a person wasn't fully dead until three days had passed. I think this is the reason. Jesus needed to legally dead by Jewish rules for the Resurrection to be a full-fledged miracle showing God's endorsement of Jesus. The Jonah quote was probably inserted later - maybe by somebody who didn't know the Jewish tradition that was the original significance of three days.

 

[SkyWriting]

So he knew his death was temporary?

Looking at the passages, yes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Somewhere I read that Jews believed that a person wasn't fully dead until three days had passed.

In those days people did resuscitate on occasion. A very weak heartbeat is difficult to discern.

 

[Lukaris]

The Lord directly reiterated the time Jonah spent in the belly of the whale.

Jonah 1:17

Matthew 12:40

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So he knew his death was temporary?

Yes, He knew it was going to be temporary. But despite that, He still didn't know exactly what it was going to "feel like" ahead of time. All He definitely knew was that is was definitely going to hurt, BIG TIME!!! (Oh, but wasn't He Divine? Why all of the crying babying in the Garden of Gethsemane?)

Yeah, I really hope that's not where you're trying to take this topic, Larnievc.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes, He knew it was going to be temporary. But despite that, He still didn't know exactly what it was going to "feel like" ahead of time. All He definitely knew was that is was definitely going to hurt, BIG TIME!!! (Oh, but wasn't He Divine? Why all of the crying babying in the Garden of Gethsemane?)

Yeah, I really hope that's not where you're trying to take this topic, Larnievc.

So he could have suffered the torment (but not actually died) and the sacrifice needed to save mankind would have still happened?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So he could have suffered the torment (but not actually died) and the sacrifice needed to save mankind would have still happened?

No, my understanding is that He was destined to "be pierced for our transgressions" and to be "cut off" (meaning in Hebrew idiom that He would be put to death). So, Jesus had to suffer AND die in what was going to be a horrendous fashion. And Jesus knew this.

If I knew this was going to come upon me, I'd cry too. No Stoicism for me, thank you.

 

[Larniavc]

No, my understanding is that He was destined to "be pierced for our transgressions" and to be "cut off" (meaning in Hebrew idiom that He would be put to death). So, Jesus had to suffer AND die in what was going to be a horrendous fashion. And Jesus knew this.

If I knew this was going to come upon me, I'd cry too. No Stoicism for me, thank you.

I’ve often wondered why pain and death were used in this situation.

Was pain and death the only way to save humanity?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’ve often wondered why pain and death were used in this situation.

Was pain and death the only way to save humanity?

I've been over this with Nihilist Virus, and my answer is "yes." Jesus is the anti-type of the Passover Lamb in the Passover meal, and only by the presence of "the blood" (i.e. death) is the Covenant of mercy, grace, forgiveness, reconciliation with God made possible. Sin brings death, so God chose to make a way of salvation for humanity by taking the death penalty He requires for the presence of sin...upon Himself, through His Divine Son, Jesus. Those who accept this and appropriate it in their lives then receive the benefit of God's grace.

 

[Lukaris]

Of course, the degree of sin varies individually ( Romans 2 ), God will judge fairly ( Daniel 12:1-4 , John 5:22-30 etc). We have all sinned ( Romans 3:21-23 ) although it was by death ( not everyone’s fault ) that sin spread ( Genesis 3:19 , Genesis 4:1-15 , Romans 5:12-14 etc ). The Lord suffered for the multitude of our sins ( Isaiah 53 ) but redeemed us if we believe on Him, strive to do good, or God will honor those He knows to have done good ( John 3:16-22 ).

 

[ViaCrucis]

So he could have suffered the torment (but not actually died) and the sacrifice needed to save mankind would have still happened?

If one maintains that Christ's physical torment is what saves mankind, that might be a possible way to look at it. But that isn't, historically and biblically, what has been believed.

The Recapitulation Theory holds that Christ is the answer to Adam; where Adam was disobedient, fell, and brought death to all Christ was obedient and restored what was lost in Adam. Adam brought death to humanity, Christ brings resurrection. Christ's death is about the full participation of Christ in the human condition in order to lift it up, in Himself, to a place of healing by His resurrection and, by grace, to the world. That is, in Christ Adam is restored, Adam is raised back up; Christ has undone Adam's error, and thus restored all that was lost in Adam. The traditional Icon of the Resurrection depicts Christ lifting Adam (and often Eve as well) from the sarcophagus.

The Ransom Theory holds that by Adam's error and fall he sold himself, and thus all of us, effectively into captivity to the devil who maintains his stranglehold over us through death. In order to rescue us God offers a ransom payment to the devil in the form of His Son, and the devil takes the deal and the death of Christ seals that deal. However, God is, in a sense pulling a fast one over the devil because Christ sets ruin to the devil's house, restores the captives and rises from the dead utterly depriving the devil of all his power. Ransom theory does not necessarily insist that every aspect here be taken literally, but rather the emphasis is on Christ's victory over sin, death, hell, and the devil; the emphasis is in our bondage and Christ's victory, and by His victory we are released from bondage. See Christus Victory Theory later. Also see the image above, with the figure of the bound man crushed beneath the fallen doors of Hades, signifying the binding, crushing, and defeat of the devil.

The Satisfaction Theory holds, as originally described by Anselm of Canterbury, that the ultimate reason that God became man was that God as Lord is to be owed the ultimate honor, and that human beings by their sin have offended God, their Lord's, honor and thus an honor-debt is owed God. A debt which no one could possibly pay, and so the only way to possible make satisfaction is for One to be both at once God and human; to be able to be perfect as God is perfect and yet make satisfaction as a man. The idea gained further traction under Thomas Aquinas who instead put forward that it wasn't an honor-debt, but rather sin had violated God's justice and law. Therefore satisfaction could only be made by One who was truly righteous.

The Penal Substitution Theory holds that the violation against God's law is so great that the only recourse from God is death and punishment, and thus there is required a satisfaction be made. Christ offers Himself as the satisfaction to that punishment by taking our place by bearing upon Himself the full measure of God's punishment against sin in our place.

The Christus Victor Theory holds that in Christ God gives Himself freely to be made a victim of the powers and principalities, God gives Himself over to the world and is killed by the world; but He does this in order to heal and save the world. By rising He is victor over the powers of this world--death, sin, hell, the devil, etc--and His victory is for us, by grace, that we share in it as well. Christus Victor takes major elements of Recapitulation and Ransom and assumes them into itself.

The Moral Influence Theory holds that Christ shows us the way we ought to be, and even as He lays down His life we are to lay down our lives as well; Christ is our Example and Teacher who shows us the Way of how things ought to be, and to imitate Him in His love, sacrifice, and kindness.

These different theories of the Atonment are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but are often seen as different emphases of the same Mystery. Though I personally don't care much for Penal Substitution and do lean much more on Christus Victor and Recapitulation, but also accept certain elements of Satisfaction as well (though not necessarily as described above).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Larniavc]

If one maintains that Christ's physical torment is what saves mankind, that might be a possible way to look at it. But that isn't, historically and biblically, what has been believed.

The Recapitulation Theory holds that Christ is the answer to Adam; where Adam was disobedient, fell, and brought death to all Christ was obedient and restored what was lost in Adam. Adam brought death to humanity, Christ brings resurrection. Christ's death is about the full participation of Christ in the human condition in order to lift it up, in Himself, to a place of healing by His resurrection and, by grace, to the world. That is, in Christ Adam is restored, Adam is raised back up; Christ has undone Adam's error, and thus restored all that was lost in Adam. The traditional Icon of the Resurrection depicts Christ lifting Adam (and often Eve as well) from the sarcophagus.

The Ransom Theory holds that by Adam's error and fall he sold himself, and thus all of us, effectively into captivity to the devil who maintains his stranglehold over us through death. In order to rescue us God offers a ransom payment to the devil in the form of His Son, and the devil takes the deal and the death of Christ seals that deal. However, God is, in a sense pulling a fast one over the devil because Christ sets ruin to the devil's house, restores the captives and rises from the dead utterly depriving the devil of all his power. Ransom theory does not necessarily insist that every aspect here be taken literally, but rather the emphasis is on Christ's victory over sin, death, hell, and the devil; the emphasis is in our bondage and Christ's victory, and by His victory we are released from bondage. See Christus Victory Theory later. Also see the image above, with the figure of the bound man crushed beneath the fallen doors of Hades, signifying the binding, crushing, and defeat of the devil.

The Satisfaction Theory holds, as originally described by Anselm of Canterbury, that the ultimate reason that God became man was that God as Lord is to be owed the ultimate honor, and that human beings by their sin have offended God, their Lord's, honor and thus an honor-debt is owed God. A debt which no one could possibly pay, and so the only way to possible make satisfaction is for One to be both at once God and human; to be able to be perfect as God is perfect and yet make satisfaction as a man. The idea gained further traction under Thomas Aquinas who instead put forward that it wasn't an honor-debt, but rather sin had violated God's justice and law. Therefore satisfaction could only be made by One who was truly righteous.

The Penal Substitution Theory holds that the violation against God's law is so great that the only recourse from God is death and punishment, and thus there is required a satisfaction be made. Christ offers Himself as the satisfaction to that punishment by taking our place by bearing upon Himself the full measure of God's punishment against sin in our place.

The Christus Victor Theory holds that in Christ God gives Himself freely to be made a victim of the powers and principalities, God gives Himself over to the world and is killed by the world; but He does this in order to heal and save the world. By rising He is victor over the powers of this world--death, sin, hell, the devil, etc--and His victory is for us, by grace, that we share in it as well. Christus Victor takes major elements of Recapitulation and Ransom and assumes them into itself.

The Moral Influence Theory holds that Christ shows us the way we ought to be, and even as He lays down His life we are to lay down our lives as well; Christ is our Example and Teacher who shows us the Way of how things ought to be, and to imitate Him in His love, sacrifice, and kindness.

These different theories of the Atonment are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but are often seen as different emphases of the same Mystery. Though I personally don't care much for Penal Substitution and do lean much more on Christus Victor and Recapitulation, but also accept certain elements of Satisfaction as well (though not necessarily as described above).

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for taking the time to post that.

I think the Ransom Theory makes the most sense, to me.

I’ll be honest, I did not expect an answer that would satisfy me (being a hate filled atheistical and all) but your answer was exactly what (in hindsight) I was looking for.

Cheers.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If one maintains that Christ's physical torment is what saves mankind, that might be a possible way to look at it. But that isn't, historically and biblically, what has been believed.

The Recapitulation Theory holds that Christ is the answer to Adam; where Adam was disobedient, fell, and brought death to all Christ was obedient and restored what was lost in Adam. Adam brought death to humanity, Christ brings resurrection. Christ's death is about the full participation of Christ in the human condition in order to lift it up, in Himself, to a place of healing by His resurrection and, by grace, to the world. That is, in Christ Adam is restored, Adam is raised back up; Christ has undone Adam's error, and thus restored all that was lost in Adam. The traditional Icon of the Resurrection depicts Christ lifting Adam (and often Eve as well) from the sarcophagus.

The Ransom Theory holds that by Adam's error and fall he sold himself, and thus all of us, effectively into captivity to the devil who maintains his stranglehold over us through death. In order to rescue us God offers a ransom payment to the devil in the form of His Son, and the devil takes the deal and the death of Christ seals that deal. However, God is, in a sense pulling a fast one over the devil because Christ sets ruin to the devil's house, restores the captives and rises from the dead utterly depriving the devil of all his power. Ransom theory does not necessarily insist that every aspect here be taken literally, but rather the emphasis is on Christ's victory over sin, death, hell, and the devil; the emphasis is in our bondage and Christ's victory, and by His victory we are released from bondage. See Christus Victory Theory later. Also see the image above, with the figure of the bound man crushed beneath the fallen doors of Hades, signifying the binding, crushing, and defeat of the devil.

The Satisfaction Theory holds, as originally described by Anselm of Canterbury, that the ultimate reason that God became man was that God as Lord is to be owed the ultimate honor, and that human beings by their sin have offended God, their Lord's, honor and thus an honor-debt is owed God. A debt which no one could possibly pay, and so the only way to possible make satisfaction is for One to be both at once God and human; to be able to be perfect as God is perfect and yet make satisfaction as a man. The idea gained further traction under Thomas Aquinas who instead put forward that it wasn't an honor-debt, but rather sin had violated God's justice and law. Therefore satisfaction could only be made by One who was truly righteous.

The Penal Substitution Theory holds that the violation against God's law is so great that the only recourse from God is death and punishment, and thus there is required a satisfaction be made. Christ offers Himself as the satisfaction to that punishment by taking our place by bearing upon Himself the full measure of God's punishment against sin in our place.

The Christus Victor Theory holds that in Christ God gives Himself freely to be made a victim of the powers and principalities, God gives Himself over to the world and is killed by the world; but He does this in order to heal and save the world. By rising He is victor over the powers of this world--death, sin, hell, the devil, etc--and His victory is for us, by grace, that we share in it as well. Christus Victor takes major elements of Recapitulation and Ransom and assumes them into itself.

The Moral Influence Theory holds that Christ shows us the way we ought to be, and even as He lays down His life we are to lay down our lives as well; Christ is our Example and Teacher who shows us the Way of how things ought to be, and to imitate Him in His love, sacrifice, and kindness.

These different theories of the Atonment are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but are often seen as different emphases of the same Mystery. Though I personally don't care much for Penal Substitution and do lean much more on Christus Victor and Recapitulation, but also accept certain elements of Satisfaction as well (though not necessarily as described above).

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for this, but why is it actually not even known which it is?

It's not enough to believe without sufficient evidence.

It's not enough to believe in a proposition which is a non sequitur even if all unsupported claims are granted.

We have to also believe without even knowing which of the factually unsupported non sequiturs is the correct one.

 

[Chesterton]

I’ve often wondered why pain and death were used in this situation.

Was pain and death the only way to save humanity?

"Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes."

There may be an additional aspect to it. As human, God experienced pretty much all the bad things and the fears we can experience. He was hungry, thirsty, alone, he grieved at the death of Lazarus, was let down by friends, betrayed by a friend, unjustly accused, he was humiliated, and then the pain (as well as the agony of dreading the pain to come). The Creator can fully empathize with His creatures, and it can't ever be said that He will judge us not knowing what it's like to be us.

 

[Larniavc]

"Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes."

There may be an additional aspect to it. As human, God experienced pretty much all the bad things and the fears we can experience. He was hungry, thirsty, alone, he grieved at the death of Lazarus, was let down by friends, betrayed by a friend, unjustly accused, he was humiliated, and then the pain (as well as the agony of dreading the pain to come). The Creator can fully empathize with His creatures, and it can't ever be said that He will judge us not knowing what it's like to be us.

So if he knows all about pain and death (odd given that nothing can really hurt or kill him) why did he need/want Jesus to go through it?