Featured Did Jesus experience a separation from God on the cross?

It seems that the two views of separation are Martin's view that Jesus was separated from God for the three hours on the cross and Percho's view that it was for the three days in the tomb.

In the latter view, we are speaking of the three days after the cross but before Jesus' bodily resurrection. Are we also saying, then, that when we die we are separated from God until our bodily resurrection (and does the body in the grave constitute "us")?

The issue is largely in this separation. Both accounts seem to either separate the Son from the Father, create and separate two natures within Christ (a human nature and a divine nature), or both. I think Martin does the latter (he seems to insist that Jesus was two natures possessing one body, toggling between the two as necessary...i.e., as God he forgave sin, as man he hungered, etc). But I am not sure about your position, Percho.

 

Would you consider then the idea of "Christophanies" to be in error as the Son did not exist prior to the Incarnation? Instead God existed from eternity past and upon taking on flesh he took on the distinctions that we would consider "Father" and "Son"?

 

Not really much reading. I was just wondering if you believed that God the Son was active as distinct person within the Godhead in the Old Testament narrative. Some, for example, attribute God speaking to Moses as the second Person of the Trinity pre-incarnate.

 

Indeed our God is an awesome God.

Essentially, and if I understand you correctly, God did not exist in three persons literally in the OT. Instead the Son was foreshadowed until the time came when the Word became flesh. Jesus was that promise of God fulfilled. Is that fair, or have I misunderstood?

 

Ok, where to start…. First, there is no need to apologize for using “wittering,” and I am not offended. The word reminds me of a Pink Floyd song (except I think that’s “frittering”) and I had to look it up. Anyway, the definition is something like that last sentence I wrote. You may certainly view my exploration of Psalm 22 as non-germane to the topic, and if “wittering” accurately captures your honest assessment of my position then by all means don’t apologize. I always value honest discourse, however harsh it may be, over kind but insincere assessments. If we disagree then we simply disagree, but we walk away knowing a little more of each other’s views. I was not offended (even after I looked up the word).

Now, what you and I need to keep in mind is that both of us are speaking in context of the cross. It is how we define that context that is different. I think that the issue at hand here is adequately defined within the psalms I have provided, not to take away from the cross but because they were prophesies of the cross (Jesus didn’t just look back and quote a psalm, the psalm looked forward to the cross). You view the cross through a systematic theology that provides a context. Your context is perhaps more complete, certainly more compact. It has some advantages. I say this because I both held and preached your view until quite recently (except the 3 hours of separation, I was not that precise but I understand where you come from there). I say this only to say that I understand your argument.

Here is where I stand. I understand because we once would have agreed on this issue. This is what happened to me. I realized that if the forensic sense of divine justice missed a beat then other things could fall away. My theology was beautiful, logical, and concise. It covered all of the bases. And then one evening the unthinkable happened. I was reading scripture and I saw that theology skip a beat. I can’t unlearn what is learned, and I can’t ignore the questions that I once vaguely addressed or left to “mystery.” I don’t expect you to share my understanding, or even accept my argument. If you would like to know why I refined my views away from what I held for over 40 years then I am willing to discuss it with the understanding that I expect to work through my understanding for the rest of my life and I do not expect to convert but to explain. If you are not interested then that is fine as well.

You accuse me of coming dangerously close to an “ancient error.” You may be right. I do believe that Jesus suffered as God-Man, I believe he hungered, thirsted and died. But that death was of the flesh and not the spirit (God didn’t die, but Jesus as God-man did experience the flesh die). God cannot die. Ironically, upon my death I expect my body to die but I expect to be with the Lord. I will also point out that you are also head long into heresy with me, brother. From the Council of Chalcedon: “our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man…..Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and substance, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son.” At least we’re in good company…heretics of different heresies.

I did read Psalm 22 again, as a whole (not just verses 1-18). I still insist that your interpretation of “forsake” as a separation or as necessitating separation is a result of your theological leanings rather than scripture itself. We are not going to agree here, brother.

I actually do not think that you believe Jesus ceased being God on the cross. I believe that you think that there was a separation between the Father and Son on the cross. I do believe, however, that the logical conclusion is Jesus stopped being God. That was the point I was trying to get across, and I do apologize if it seems I misrepresented your position. I am thankful you made it clear here.

You miss so much of the passage here, brother. Even in English the word does not necessitate a separation. I don’t know why you do not realize that fact. To forsake is to “leave to something,” “abandon to” something, not just leave or abandon. Your theology fails you in understanding much of this psalm, and I fear much of the reality of the Cross. But it does not fail to bring you to our Lord and Savior and I am grateful that we can argue as brothers and not as enemies.

Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

I know that you read into this passage “our punishment” but it is simply not there. But I also know that you do not see that. You sincerely believe that Isaiah 53:5 states that Jesus took our punishment upon himself. Until you see your theology skip a beat, I think you will confidently stand on that understanding. And that's fine I guess. We can agree on other things.

 

I think you excluded me from the "we might all agree on part."

This is not what the reference "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" means. We simply cannot understand the New Testament divorced from the Old. The entire psalm is one looking to God for deliverance. The very next verse shows that the people understood this to be a cry for deliverance instead of one of abandonment.

 

No, brother, it is not obviously there. It is not there at all. "He has taken our punishment on himself" is completely absent from the passage and is a product of your theology and perhaps a commentator. That is why I provided the verse. Diagram it. You see it there because you have put it there. It is not even a matter of interpretation, brother. If it were then we could find common ground for discussion, but what you have done is place your reasoning into the text and have called it "scripture." I'm arguing a passage in God's Word against you arguing commentary. Examine the ground upon which you stand. Look at the verse, diagram the verse, and you will find "He has taken our punishment on himself" distinctly absent.

Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

It is the same with other topics we have discussed. And I think you hit at the reason in your post. It is not that you have chosen the "Reformers, Puritans, and Particular Baptists" and I have chosen the Socinians. You have indeed chosen the Reformed commentators and are arguing your interpretation of those commentators but I have chosen Scripture. If you will slow down and look at each verse, I think that you will come to see the error in this.

It is a problem in our contemporary church that so many people simply choose a "side" and built their faith on commentaries and human opinion rather than Scripture itself. For my part, there was a time when I refrained from strictly examining those alike Spurgeon, John Owen, and John Gill (these, BTW, remain favorites of mine). But these are mere men offering their understanding, and we are mere men working through Scripture. I think that if you can lay aside commentary and simply concentrate on God's Word you will at least be able to separate your explanation and reasoning from Scripture itself (even if your position stays the same). I encourage you to start by actually examining in detail this verse in Isaiah. You will find that you have added content to the passage, and I think that you may even be surprised at how obvious that addition stands apart from the actual text.

 

I think this is a product of our culture. We tend to just choose a camp and indoctrinate ourselves. In general (not speaking of anyone here) biblical literacy has been lost. So many simply do not know how to study and they don't care to learn as long as they have someone to offer an explanation they find reasonable. We no longer allow Scripture to shape our theology because we are always fighting to defend our theological understanding. Apologetics have replaced hermeneutics in personal study.

In a real sense, many hold the view of "why bother with Scripture when we have all these commentators who have done that part for us.". And that is, IMHO, nothing short of heresy.

 

Exactly. No separation but an expression of God's Holy One crying out for deliverance. And God is faithful.

 

No, brother, you have misunderstood my comments. I certainly do not think you take in commentary apart from Scripture and I certainly do not interpret Scripture in a vacuum.

What I was saying was as general principle. But I do believe that you have been influenced by theory and theology to such a degree as to have been genuine and honest when you saw God punishing Jesus stated in Isaiah 53.