Featured Justification

Brother Martin,

You have done a good job of defining many of your terms here as you walk us through your position. Thank you for taking the time and care to do so. I have read this thread, but I still have a few questions.

Do you mean this word "dikaioo" in terms of God declaring us just as “Law keepers” and "morally just" based on the perfect Law-keeping of Christ (a righteousness based on the Law performed by Christ) or is this God declaring us just/righteous in the context of the Abrahamic covenant based on Christ as the Seed of Abraham (a righteousness apart from the Law through faith...perhaps even looking at Christ's own faithfulness in the Father for deliverance)?

 

Martin, I have one more question regarding something you stated earlier.

I am addressing this separately from my other question so as not to confuse the two. There are areas where I think we agree. I believe that we both agree that the death of Christ was substitutionary in that He died in the stead of sinners, their guilt being imputed to Him in such a way that He representatively bore their punishment. We have, I think, in common the understanding that Justification is to declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus Christ. It is an act of God where He declares the believing sinner righteous on the ground of Christ’s death. So yes, Jesus never sinned. I believe not only so that he would remain a suitable sacrifice (Leviticus 22:21) but also because He is God (Jn 1:1).

We've had this conversation before and I realize we do not agree on a few points. But I have not fully grasped the reasoning that you choose one position over the other as both do not (to me) seem equally supported in scripture.

You take Christ as calling out “why have You forsaken Me?” to indicate that Jesus was separated from God’s gracious presence for three hours. I grant that the word "forsaken" can, among other things, indicate a separation between two parties.

My understanding of the passage is twofold. First, Jesus is in agony calling out to God in a forsaken state. Not that He is separated from God’s gracious presence in even the least degree but that God has yet to deliver Him (this One Whom we are told God will give His angels charge lest he strike his foot against a stone is dying on a cross). But secondly, and more importantly, is that this is a declaration that He is indeed the Christ, fulfilling Psalm 22, trusting in God’s righteousness and deliverance.

What passages of Scripture do you offer to support the idea that for three hours Jesus was separated from God’s presence?

Thank you in advance for taking the time to explain your views, and for the patience you've extended to others in so doing. I look forward to your reply as I move towards a fuller understanding of your position.

 

It seems we’ve run into a bit of a dead end insofar as justifying our positions on Justification .

Opening the question up beyond being directed at Brother Martin, but concerning the same understanding:

Does God declaring men “just” refer to a declaration that we are as “Law Keepers” based on the perfect Law-keeping of Christ (a righteousness based in the Law performed by Christ) or is this God declaring men just/righteous in the context of the Abrahamic covenant based on Christ as the Seed of Abraham (a righteousness apart from the Law through faith…perhaps even looking at Christ’s on faithfulness in the Father for deliverance)?

My other question which remained unaddressed involves the meaning of “forsake”. There are at least two contexts in which this has been commonly taken. One is as Brother Martin poses here – God separated from Jesus for a duration of time (Martin insists for 3 hours). The other view is that Jesus is crying out in agony (he is “forsaken” as it is the will of the Father to crush Him and offer Him a guilt sacrifice) but also that He is affirming that He is the Christ and expressing a reliance in the faithfulness of the Father for deliverance.

While I believe the second interpretation correct (and have strong objections to the first), a couple of days ago I asked if there were passages that supported the first view (that on the cross Jesus was separated from God’s presence for 3 hours). Are there, and if so, what are they? If there are none, then how do we come the conclusion that Jesus was separated from the "God's gracious presence" for 3 hours on the cross when scripture is replete with passages to the contrary?

 

Me, personally? I died in Christ and now I live in Him. And this is an experience that I can back up with scripture (Rm. 6:8). So the answer to your question, of course, is both. That's basic Christianity 101. God makes us what he has called us to be.

But my question concerns the statement of God declaring men"just". Does “just” here refer to us as “Law Keepers” based on the perfect Law-keeping of Christ (a righteousness based in the Law performed by Christ) or is this in the context of the Abrahamic covenant based on Christ and grounded in the Cross (a righteousness apart from the Law through faith…perhaps even looking at Christ’s on faithfulness in the Father for deliverance)?

 

Welcome back to the flogging Wink. This time, perhaps the difference in topic will help highlight our positions and narrow the discussion (truthfully, it should be two separate threads as the idea that Jesus was separated from the presence of God for 3 hours is neither an essential idea within historic penal substitution or the doctrine of justification).

But we're here, so maybe we can contribute to each other's understanding. I mostly would like to know those two things about your view here. I do not know how you are viewing "righteous" or "just" here, and I am not sure how you defend your position about Jesus' separation from God via scripture. And again, thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. Thumbsup

 

Brother, I am in no way implying that either of us holds these understandings as essential doctrine to our faith, and if it appeared as if I was adding such views as essential to the gospel of Christ then you have my apologies.

Sure,

My understanding of the Jesus' cry "why have You forsaken Me" is twofold. First, Jesus is in agony calling out to God in a forsaken state. Not that He is separated from God’s gracious presence in even the least degree but that God has yet to deliver Him (this One Whom we are told God will give His angels charge lest he strike his foot against a stone is dying on a cross). But secondly, and more importantly, is that this is a declaration that He is indeed the Christ, fulfilling Psalm 22, trusting in God’s righteousness and deliverance.

I do not believe there can ever be a separation between God and Jesus, but instead I believe in the eternally triune and immutable Godhead - Father, Son, and Spirit - inseparable, three persons, One God...(I am a Trinitarian). I believe that a doctrine of the Cross which implies a separation between any persons of the Trinity is a incomplete doctrine and error. I believe that our hope is in Christ, and that this hope includes the faithfulness of the Father (not separation but deliverance).

As we discuss this topic, brother, I am going to try not to innodate our entire conversation with passages (I've found some try to confuse the issue by flooding posts with verses) but please let me know if I need to provide a reference (from scripture) to support what I assert. If I cannot then I will accept what is extra-biblical as such. On this topic, I am not asking for your view. You are articulate and have expressed your position very well in the past. I am asking for you to support your view via scripture.

Thanks again for your willingness to discuss (again) this issue and perhaps show me what I missed in our previous interactions.

 

Let's slow down a bit here, brother Martin. I was telling you that if you wanted to discuss N.T. Wright's views that you should read his views first hand. That is a far cry from saying I need to read "Pierced for our Transgressions" in order to discuss whether or not Jesus was separated from God for 3 hours on the cross. N.T. Wright is the authority when it comes to discussing what he believes. Scripture, not Jeffrey and Ovey, is our authority of whether or not Jesus was separated from God.

You are right, however, that our doctrines are inter-dependent (if they are correct). That is why I completely reject that Jesus was separated from God's presence on the Cross. It denies far to much, and as far as I know has no biblical support (hence my request for passages supporting such a doctrine). I know the "slippery slope theory", but I still insist that it is wrong to teach error as truth even when the intention is to keep people closely in check. Good intentions never justify bad theology.

And I am not talking about "higher criticism" but what is stated specifically and plainly in Scripture. I am asking you to show me a verse that very clearly and straight forwardly states that Jesus was separated from the presence of God, and I am asking because I believe that such a statement denies the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of divine immutability, the doctrine of the righteousness and faithfulness of God, the work of the Father in redemption, and the nature of the cross itself....all in one fell swoop. If so much is denied, then I need a bit more than "well....Jesus said that he was forsaken and then committed his spirit to God". That doesn't cut it, brother, because it presupposes the error of which we are speaking (you are assuming, still, that this supposed separation ended when Jesus committed his spirit to God when in fact it had never existed to begin with).

For my part, as a start, I stand on the truth of scripture that God will indeed never abandon his righteous one and in fact did not separate from Jesus (Deuteronomy 31:8; 31:6; Joshua 1:9; 1:5 Isaiah 41:10-13; Psalm 22; 37:25; 37:28; 55:22; 73:23-26; Micha 7:7).

So again, brother, slow down and discuss this with me. Are there any passages that indicate Jesus was separated from the Father for 3 hours on the cross? If so, will you please provide the passages so that we can work through them?

 

I am going to briefly address the passages you have provided as a supplement for your view, but I would much prefer that you provide passages that actually demonstrate your position. I can provide verses that actually say that God will not abandon His Righteous One, that God is immutable, Jesus is God, etc. It is odd that you have yet to provide even one verse saying Jesus was separated from God's presence for 3 hours. It is a matter of your opinion rather than scripture, brother. And there is a deeper meaning to the Cross once you get beyond that error.

Psalm 91 concludes:
“Because he holds fast to me in love, I will deliver him; I will protect him, because he knows my name. When he calls to me, I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble; I will rescue him and honor him. With long life I will satisfy him and show him my salvation.”

This was my point, which you either deny or misunderstand.

2 Thessalonians 1:9 speaks of the second death as Hades is cast into Hell at judgment. It does not speak of Jesus being separated from God’s presence for 3 hours on the cross. You are reading your ideas into that passage.

Habakkuk 1:13 is his complaint appealing to God’s holiness. It applies to Jesus Christ. It is not saying that Jesus was separated from the presence of God for 3 hours on the cross. You are reading this into your theory.

Psalm 75 also denounces your eisegesis, which you would have seen if you had continued in the psalm instead of extracting it to your own view: “But I will declare it forever; I will sing praises to the God of Jacob. All the horns of the wicked I will cut off, but the horns of the righteous shall be lifted up.”

I am trying to be clear here, brother. There are many verses and passages stating that God will NEVER abandon His Righteous One in terms of separation. Do you have EVEN ONE saying that He did?

Look to God's Word, brother, not merely words and opinions for comfort. You will never find a Christ separated from God's presence, but you will find an eternally greater truth. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

 

At the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” (Mark 15:34)

Up to this point, the narrative of the crucifixion has focused on the physical sufferings of Jesus: the flogging, the crown of thorns, and his immolation on the cross. Six hours have now passed since the nails were driven home. The crowds have jeered, darkness has covered the land, and now, suddenly, after a long silence, comes this anguished cry from the depths of the Savior’s soul.

The words are an Aramaic-tinged quotation from Psalm 22, and although Matthew and Mark both offer a translation for the benefit of Gentile readers, they clearly want us to hear the exact words that Jesus spoke. At his lowest ebb, his mind instinctively breathes the Psalter, and from it he borrows the words that express the anguish, not now of his body, but of his soul.

He bore in his soul, wrote Calvin, “the terrible torments of a condemned and lost man” (Institutes, II:XVI, 10). But dare we, on such hallowed ground, seek more clarity?

Against All Hope
There are certainly some very clear negatives. The forsakenness cannot mean, for example, that the eternal communion between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was broken. God could not cease to be triune.

Neither could it mean that the Father ceased to love the Son: especially not here, and not now, when the Son was offering the greatest tribute of filial piety that the Father had ever received.

“Jesus did not merely feel forsaken. He was forsaken; and not only by his disciples, but by God himself.”John 1:32), and he would be there to the last as the eternal Spirit through whom the Son offered himself to God (Hebrews 9:14).

And finally, the words are not a cry of despair. Despair would have been sin. Even in the darkness God was, “MyGod,” and though there was no sign of him, and though the pain obscured the promises, somewhere in the depths of his soul there remained the assurance that God was holding him. What was true of Abraham was truer still of Jesus: Against all hope, he in hope believed (Romans 4:18).

Truly Forsaken
Yet, with all these qualifiers, this was a real forsaking. Jesus did not merelyfeel forsaken. He was forsaken; and not only by his disciples, but by God himself. It was the Father who had delivered him up to Judas, to the Jews, to Pilate, and finally to the cross itself.

And now, when he had cried, God had closed his ears. The crowd had not stopped jeering, the demons had not stopped taunting, the pain had not abated. Instead, every circumstance bespoke the anger of God; and there was no countering voice. This time, no word came from heaven to remind him that he was God’s Son, and greatly loved. No dove came down to assure him of the Spirit’s presence and ministry. No angel came to strengthen him. No redeemed sinner bowed to thank him.

Bearing the Curse
Who was he? He cries out in Aramaic, but he doesn’t use the greatest of all the Aramaic words, Abba. Even in the anguish of Gethsemane, distraught and overborne though he was, he had been able to use it (Mark 14:36). But not here.

Like Abraham and Isaac going up to Mount Moriah, he and the Father had gone up to Calvary together. But now Abba is not there. Only El is there: God All-mighty, God All-holy. And he is before El, not now as his Beloved Son, but as the Sin of the World. That is his identity: the character in which he stands before Absolute Integrity.

“He stands where none has stood before or since, enduring at one tiny point in space and time, all that sin deserved.”2 Corinthians 5:21), condemned to bear its curse; and he has no cover. None can serve as his advocate. Nothing can be offered as his expiation. He must bear all, and El will not, cannot, spare him till the ransom is paid in full. Will that point ever be reached? What if his mission fails?

The sufferings of his soul, as the old divines used to say, were the soul of his suffering, and into that soul we can see but dimly. Public though the cry was, it expressed the intensely private anguish of a tension between the sin-bearing Son and his heavenly Father: the whirlwind of sin at its most dreadful, God forsaken by God.

His Anguish of Soul
But no less challenging than the torment in Jesus’s soul is his question, “Why?”

Is it the why of protest: the cry of the innocent against unjust suffering? The premise is certainly correct. He is innocent. But he has lived his whole life conscious that he is the sin-bearer and has to die as the redemption-price for the many. Has he forgotten that now?

Or is it the why of incomprehension, as if he doesn’t understand why he’s here? Has he forgotten the eternal covenant? Perhaps. His mind, as a human mind, could not be focused on all the facts at the same time, and for the moment the pain, the divine anger, and the fear of eternal perdition (the cross being God’s last word) occupy all his thoughts.

Or is it the why of amazement, as he confronts a dreadfulness he could never have anticipated? He had known from the beginning that he would die a violent death (Mark 2:20), and in Gethsemane he had looked it in the eye, and shuddered. But now he is tasting it in all its bitterness, and the reality is infinitely worse than the prospect.

Never before had anything come between him and his Father, but now the sin of the whole world has come between them, and he is caught in this dreadful vortex of the curse. It is not that Abba is not there, but that he is there, as the Judge of all the earth who could condone nothing and could not spare even his own Son (Romans 8:32).

The Cup Is Drained
Now, Jesus’s mind is near the limits of its endurance. We, sitting in the gallery of history, are sure of the outcome. He, suffering in human nature the fury of hell, is not. He is standing where none has stood before or since, enduring at one tiny point in space and in one tiny moment of time, all that sin deserved: the curse in unmitigated concentration.

“The Cup is drained and the curse exhausted, and the Father now proudly holds out his hands to the spirit of his Beloved Son.”Psalm 31:5. In the original, it had not contained the word Abba, but Jesus inserts it: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46).

We have no means of knowing what intervened between the two cries. We know only that the Cup is drained and the curse exhausted, and that the Father now proudly holds out his hands to the spirit of his Beloved Son.


http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-have-you-forsaken-me

 

I understand & thank you for the clarification.

 

We don't have to understand the mysteries of the hypostatic union, brother. Scripture tells us plainly of God's faithfulness, of His immutability, of Jesus' divinity. We can simply rely on God's Word and know that Jesus was never separated from God's presence.

Now, if we were to say that God withdrew that forbearance towards man and it was His will to "crush Him", then we would agree. That is "forsaken" and that is what happened. But not separation. Consider Berkhof:

“Eternal death in the case of Christ did not consist of an abrogation of the union of the Logos with the human nature, nor in the divine nature’s being forsaken of God, nor in the withdrawal of the Father’s divine love or good pleasure from the person of the Mediator. The Logos remained united with the human nature even when the body was in the grave; the divine nature could not possibly be forsaken of God; and the person of the Mediator was and ever continued to be the object of divine favor. It revealed itself in the human consciousness of the Mediator as a feeling of God-forsakenness. This implies that the human nature for a moment missed the conscious comfort which it might derive from its union with the divine Logos, and the sense of divine love, and was painfully conscious of the fullness of the divine wrath which was bearing down upon it. Yet there was no despair, for even in the darkest hour, while He exclaims that He is forsaken, He directs His prayer to God.” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 339)

If Jesus was separated from God's presence for 1 second on the cross then you and I have no hope of salvation. It is precisely because there was no such separation that we are redeemed, that Jesus is the acceptable Lamb. If by "separation from God's presence" you mean something else then we could find common ground. It was not that the Father withdrew His presence but that He withdrew His deliverance for a time. But even here the Father is present at the cross active offering His Son as a guilt offering for our sins (not departing from Jesus when He needed God the most, at His darkest hour, but patiently offering His Son in love as a guilt offering and answering His cry for deliverance).