Featured Justification

I knew there was no point in beginning, brother, except that I had hoped to press you for passages I could examine that stated your position. If Jesus separating from God's presence was such a vital doctrine, I thought perhaps there would be a verse that stated such without having to weave through it our own theories.

As so many scholars have rejected the notion that Jesus was separated from God (to include ECF's, & both dead and living Reformed theologians) I am not too worried about my lack of comprehension in this department. I say this because had I rejected your theory in isolation I would see it a cause for concern - not that men like Louis Berkhof, J.I. Packer, John Piper, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Joseph Exell, John Calvin...etc.. are authorities but that they confirm my understanding so it is not beyond the pale of Reformed theology.

You also have confirmation of your idea of separation of God's presence. John Gill borders your view - if you would clarify that you do not mean the presence of God itself was severed but instead that God's graciousness (his gracious presence alone) was withdrawn as He offered His Son on the altar for all men (of course, he borders my position as well). Although not a theologian, Spurgeon also seems inclined to your position. So I have no qualms with you but just wanted to make sure there was not something I missed of your argument. It appears I haven't.

 

Yes, Christ was mutable both physically (growth) and mentally to the extent that He learned and grew in wisdom. I am not denying that at all. But this does not change his nature any more than the mutable actions of God towards Israel reflected some change in the divine nature. On the contrary, God’s actions changed because God’s nature is immutable. Jesus’ nature was immutable as He is eternally one with God. There is no passage of scripture that affirms Christ laid aside the divine nature or that he took upon himself a human nature. He took upon himself humanity, flesh, and was tempted in all ways but without sin. Divine human nature, if you like.

My argument is the same and has been from the start. Any shift has been on your trying to justify an extra-biblical theory. My argument is that Jesus could never separate from God’s presence because where Jesus was (walking on water, eating with sinners, crying for a friend, laughing, running, singing hymns, and hanging on a cross) so also was God’s presence because Jesus is God. And you know what? Scripture affirms that. It does not affirm Jesus separating from God’s presence simply because it adheres to the belief that Jesus is God.

Now, I do admit that I have argued in extremes in order to see what your best argument would be. I do not know how far you take your view. But if you believe that Jesus experienced our punishment in terms of being separated from God’s presence in terms of His love and his sustaining grace then I do not know of many who would agree (except perhaps here). The closest you can come to agreement seems to be John Gill – but he sees this forsakenness as God withdrawing his graciousness (Jesus experiencing a sense of separation from God’s gracious presence). But even Gill denounces the view that Jesus separated from God (and from God as in the spiritual death of Hell...i.e., from his love).

For the record, I again note my position is supported of all of those John's - John Calvin, John Gill, John Piper, John the Apostle and J.I. Packer, Louis Berkhof, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Joseph Exel...to name a few. I know that you and I cannot reason together here, but please read what they say. Then perhaps we can have a more meaningful discussion.

 

I thought you were saying this was a "fused" nature. I'm saying Jesus didn't bounce between natures. One nature God-man (two in that genuinely human, genuinely God, no mixture ...God-man). But regardless, my argument was not this diversion but your claim Jesus separated from God's presence... something Piper, Gill, Berkhof, Calvin, Beza, and Packet has denied.

 

I said early on that I am not so concerned about our understanding of the hypostatic union, about the two natures, etc., as I am the fruits of that doctrine.

I tire of being treated as if I have somehow invented a view or found an old heresy. I am not alone in this view the two of you find so strange. Here are a few more that deny the unqualified comment that Jesus was separated from God's presence.

Adam Clarke

Some suppose "that the divinity had now departed from Christ, and that his human nature was left unsupported to bear the punishment due to men for their sins." But this is by no means to be admitted, as it would deprive his sacrifice of its infinite merit, and consequently leave the sin of the world without an atonement. Take deity away from any redeeming act of Christ, and redemption is ruined….. That the words could not be used by our Lord in the sense in which they are generally understood. This is sufficiently evident; for he well knew why he was come unto that hour; nor could he be forsaken of God, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. The Deity, however, might restrain so much of its consolatory support as to leave the human nature fully sensible of all its sufferings, so that the consolations might not take off any part of the keen edge of his passion; and this was necessary to make his sufferings meritorious. And it is probable that this is all that is intended by our Lord's quotation from the twenty-second Psalm. Taken in this view, the words convey an unexceptionable sense, even in the common translation. Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Matthew 27:46"


John Gill

When he is said to be "forsaken" of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him: nor was he separated from the love of God; he had the same interest in his Father's heart and favour, both as his Son, and as mediator, as ever: nor was the principle and habit of joy and comfort lost in his soul, as man, but he was now without a sense of the gracious presence of God, and was filled, as the surety of his people, with a sense of divine wrath, which their iniquities he now bore, deserved, and which was necessary for him to endure, in order to make full satisfaction for them; for one part of the punishment of sin is loss of the divine presence.
Gill, John, The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible


John Calvin

We have likewise pointed out the distinction between the sentiment of nature and the knowledge of faith; and, there ore, the perception of God’s estrangement from him, which Christ had, as suggested by natural feeling, did not hinder him from continuing to be assured by faith that God was reconciled to him. This is sufficiently evident from the two clauses of the complaint; for, before stating the temptation, he begins by saying that he betakes himself to God as his God, and thus by the shield of faith he courageously expels that appearance of forsaking which presented itself on the other side. In short, during this fearful torture his faith remained uninjured, so that, while he complained of being forsaken, he still relied on the aid of God as at hand. Calvin, John. "Calvin's Commentary on the Bible".


Louis 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. Berkhof,Louis Systematic Theology


John Trapp

Therefore he laid down his life at his own pleasure; for by his loud outcry it appears that he could have lived longer if he had listed, for any decay of nature under those exquisite torments that he suffered in his body, but much greater in his soul. That which for the present seems to have expressed from him this doleful complaint, was the sense of his Father’s wrath in the darkening of the body of the sun over him; which though God causeth to shine upon the just and unjust for their comfort, yet was not suffered to shine upon him for those three sorrowful hours together. Trapp, John. John Trapp Complete Commentary


Thomas Coke

The truth is, his words on the cross cannot be accounted for, but on the supposition that he suffered in his mind pains inexpressible, inflicted on him by an immediate interposition of the power of God, the nature and intenseness of which cannot in the language of men be more justly, or more emphatically expressed, than by the metaphor of God's forsaking him
Coke, Thomas. Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible


Albert Barnes

This expression is one denoting intense suffering. It has been difficult to understand in what sense Jesus was “forsaken by God.” It is certain that God approved his work. It is certain that he was innocent. He had done nothing to forfeit the favor of God. As his own Son - holy, harmless, undefiled, and obedient - God still loved him. In either of these senses God could not have forsaken him. Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on Matthew 27:46".


Joseph Exell

To what end all this forsaking of Christ was. Christ was forsaken in regard of His present comfort and joy, and He positively felt the wrath and fury of the Almighty, whose just displeasure seized upon His soul for sin….These words do not imply, on the part of the Father, an entire and perpetual abandonment of His Son. Exell, Joseph S. The Biblical Illustrator.


John Wesley

About the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice - Our Lord's great agony probably continued these three whole hours, at the conclusion of which be thus cried out, while he suffered from God himself what was unutterable. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - Our Lord hereby at once expresses his trust in God, and a most distressing sense of his letting loose the powers of darkness upon him, withdrawing the comfortable discoveries of his presence, and filling his soul with a terrible sense of the wrath due to the sins which he was bearing. Psalm 22:1 . Wesley, John. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes


Theodore Beza

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou o forsaken me?
That is, in this misery: And this crying out is a natural part of his humanity, which, even though it was void of sin, still felt the wrath of God, the wrath which is due to our sins.
Beza, Theodore"The 1599 Geneva Study Bible

Heinrich Meyer

In ἐγκατέλιπες Jesus expressed, of course, what He felt, for His ordinary conviction that He was in fellowship God had for the moment given way under the pressure of extreme bodily and mental suffering, and a mere passing feeling as though He were no longer sustained by the power of the divine life had taken its place (comp. Gess, p. 196); but this subjective feeling must not be confounded with actual objective desertion on the part of God (in opposition to Olshausen and earlier expositors), which in the case of Jesus would have been a meta-physical and moral impossibility.
Meyer, Heinrich. Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

 

I ran out of space, but continuing I hope that at least one of these will resonate at least enough that you can understand my position and that it is not some doctrine sprung out of a lack of understanding. You may well think all these men heretics, and if so then so be it - on this topic I am in well company.

John Owen

First, the Father promises to protect and assist the Son in accomplishing and perfectly fulfilling the whole dispensation in which he was employed, or which he was about to undertake. Upon undertaking this great work of redemption, the Father engaged himself that the Son would not lack any assistance in his trials. He would not lack strength against opposition, encouragement against temptations, nor strong consolation in the midst of terrors. He would not lack whatever might be necessary or requisite in any way to carry him on through all difficulties to the end of so great an employment. Upon this promise, the Son undertakes this heavy burden which is so full of misery and trouble. For the Father, before this engagement, requires no less of him than that he “become a Savior, and be afflicted in all the affliction of his people,” Isa. 63:8, 9. Although he is “the fellow of the LORD of hosts,” he would endure the “sword” that was drawn against him as the “shepherd” of the sheep, Zech. 13:7; “treading the winepress alone, until he became red in his apparel,” Isa. 63:2, 3. He would be “stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted; wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; to be bruised and put to grief; to make his soul an offering for sin, and to bear the iniquity of many,” Isa 53. He is to be destitute of comfort so far as to cry, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Ps. 22:1. Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

In fact, Owen's book has been of such importance to me that I can't help but offer the link. I hope at least you will consider his words even if you never agree: http://www.apuritansmind.com/wp-con...heDeathofDeathintheDeathofChrist-JohnOwen.pdf

Joel Beeke

Jesus’ cry does not in any way diminish His deity. Jesus does not cease being God before, during, or after this. Jesus’ cry does not divide His human nature from His divine person or destroy the Trinity. Nor does it detach Him from the Holy Spirit. The Son lacks the comforts of the Spirit, but He does not lose the holiness of the Spirit. And finally, it does not cause Him to disavow His mission. Both the Father and Son knew from all eternity that Jesus would become the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (Acts 15:18). It is unthinkable that the Son of God might question what is happening or be perplexed when His Father’s loving presence departs.

Jesus is expressing the agony of unanswered supplication (Ps. 22:1–2). Unanswered, Jesus feels forgotten of God. He is also expressing the agony of unbearable stress. It is the kind of “roaring” mentioned in Psalm 22: the roar of desperate agony without rebellion. It is the hellish cry uttered when the undiluted wrath of God overwhelms the soul. It is heart-piercing, heaven-piercing, and hell-piercing. Further, Jesus is expressing the agony of unmitigated sin. All the sins of the elect, and the hell that they deserve for eternity, are laid upon Him. And Jesus is expressing the agony of unassisted solitariness. In His hour of greatest need comes a pain unlike anything the Son has ever experienced: His Father’s abandonment. When Jesus most needs encouragement, no voice cries from heaven, “This is my beloved Son.” No angel is sent to strengthen Him; no “well done, thou good and faithful servant” resounds in His ears. The women who supported Him are silent. The disciples, cowardly and terrified, have fled. Feeling disowned by all, Jesus endures the way of suffering alone, deserted, and forsaken in utter darkness. Every detail of this horrific abandonment declares the heinous character of our sins! Beeke, Joel. http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/christ-forsaken/

John MacArthur

When Christ was forsaken by the Father, their separation was not one of nature, essence, or substance. Christ did not in any sense or degree cease to exist as God or as a member of the Trinity. He did not cease to be the Son, any more than a child who sins severely against his human father ceases to be his child. But Jesus did for a while cease to know the intimacy of fellowship with His heavenly Father, just as a disobedient child ceases for a while to have intimate, normal, loving fellowship with his human father.
MacArthur, John. https://www.gty.org/resources/print/bible-qna/BQ032913

None of these men teach that on the cross Jesus experienced a separation from God's presence for 3 hours as a spiritual death that we would have encountered being separated from God. If my view is wrong here, at least I am wrong in good company (it isn't, as you imply, a lack of scholarship on my part).

 

We may be talking past each other, brother, and if so you have my apology. Insofar as the two natures, I am only insisting that "without division" not be left out of the equation. Insofar as this "separation", my argument started before our dialogue so I could very well have missed something in our conversation.

My original objection was that Jesus experienced what we would have experienced apart from redemption in terms of being separated from God (literally the separation from God in Hell as a spiritual death). I was still working off of that understanding. But on the cross Jesus was not separated from God in that way (He was not separated from the Spirit of God, the love of God, etc.). What was withdrawn was that comfort - or as Gill states, that sense of God's gracious presence.

It was not my intent to say that the Father did not withdraw such from Jesus (that is what I understand "forsake" to mean in this passage). But merely stating the Jesus was separated from God's presence is not the same as stating He was separated from God's comfort, or sense of gracious presence. In other words, Jesus did not experience the separation that we would have experienced as the second death because God's Spirit was not withdrawn. His love was not withdrawn. His presence was not withdrawn (in any of those ways).

To clarify what was presented by "fellowship", it was not presence itself but the presence of in a particular way (MacArthur uses the illustration of a parent withdrawing favor to a disobedient child). What is broken is that intimate fellowship (not presence itself but that sense of favor, of comfort, of graciousness as this is replaced with the Father laying our sins upon His Son and offering Him a guilt offering).

 

I accept the statements as presented by all of those people. Sometimes I think that Gibran's observation that we can give our words but not our understanding rings true and we benefit from the explanation of a third party. I was not understanding this "separation" in your view to be in that subjective sense, although I think we may disagree as I do hold "without division" insofar as the "two natures". You have my apologies for any lack of clarity on my part and for any misunderstanding that may have been viewed as venturing into the personal rather than dealing with the topic.

 

I hold the Chalcedonian definition (451 AD) correct (which includes without division). That may be a difference. But to clarify, when I say Jesus had "one nature" I mean to emphasize that these two natures (God and man) are inseparable and indivisible while remaining distinct. It is not correct (in my understanding) to look at Jesus as going from a human nature to a divine nature as these two distinct natures are indivisible but distinct. (I hope that helps clarify my view). Here is the definition:

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." Fourth Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon (451)

 

You didn't use the word "bounce", but that was my understanding.

I do believe that Jesus' life was one of submission to the Father. So those things that reflect the divine nature (e.g., omnipotence with the loaves and fish, healings, calming the storm; omniscience in knowing what is in the heart of man, etc) was a reliance on the Spirit and not necessarily relying on His own divinity as such. But I also grant that there is room for disagreement here.

I also appreciate and agree with the suggestion that I may need to reword not only that sentence but much of my argument.

 

My understanding is that they mean the two natures are indivisible and inseparable (they were combating the heresy of a mixed/hybrid nature). Given what would come later with RCC heresy, I understand your objection to the wording of "mother of God". The creed refers to a physical and human birth ("according to manhood"), although even here it does seem to highlight the natures as being indivisible in that Mary mothered Jesus as indivisibly God/man (so I can understand your objection here as well). I agree with the creed and appreciate that it was the statement of orthodoxy for centuries, but even here I think that there is room for discussion and disagreement.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iii.html