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

OK...you're a banana .......Brother......I don't know where to begin or if it is even worth it. First, sins are not material, they are manifestations of our sinfulness. It is therefore logically impossible for you to forsake your own sins by separating from them. If they are your sins that you've committed then they are acts you have done. You can't separate from them. They are forgiven you through the blood shed for you. You have a good way with words, but sometimes I think you need to be a bit more precise.

Second, as J.I. Packer noted. Forsake here is not separation but God's full presence in abandoning him to that suffering, offering him as a guilt offering.

Finally, Forsake simply does not mean separate from even in English. You saying it over and over does not make it so, and won't make me agree. I have a dictionary as well. It could mean to abandon, or to abandon to something, to refuse, to renounce....to withdraw in the face of danger, withhold aid. We simply disagree. Why keep on?

Look, brother....I've been sick for the past several days and I'm pretty much on edge...I can't sleep so my patience is wearing a bit thin I believe. If I sound rude you have my sincere apologies - it is not my intention. But we will never agree on this point.

Everything I know from Scripture denounces the idea that God will abandon his Holy One in terms of separation. Abandon to the cross, yes. In physical suffering, yes. The Father offered His Son...He was there at the Cross offering His Son as well. No separation. It was the love of God (Father, Son, and Spirit) present in the shedding of that blood through which you were given life.

We disagree. Just leave it at that. I don't think you are unorthodox (MacArthur and Sproul would agree with you) and don't think I'm unorthodox (J.I. Packer and Dodd would agree with me). I know what you believe, you know what I believe...let's just go our merry ways, part as friendly terms as we can and leave it be. Maybe we can pick it up next year, maybe not. I don't know if there is a reason for us to keep on keeping on.

 

Jesus never had two separate natures. What Jesus experienced he experienced as God-Man. Likewise, sitting at the right hand of the Father is Jesus, God-Man.

Y1, I’ve been wondering something and perhaps you can help (as you seem to hold that view). Some view Hell (the “second death” as “death and Hades are cast into Hell”) as not only a place of separation whereby the lost are separated from God, but also as an intentional and just punishment (as in God eternally exercising punishment towards those in Hell). Do you define “Hell” as God turning his back on the lost as a final judgment? What do you make of the physical torment and sufferings on the Cross (did they contribute towards our redemption?

There seems to be two distinct views here as well. Would you say that we are saved by Jesus experiencing the punishment for those God chose to save by dying this “spiritual death,” satisfying the anger of God due the elect, or are we saved by being cleansed by the blood of Christ as he was being offered as a guilt offering for us as the Father makes us anew and puts His Spirit in us? It’s tempting to simply say “yes…it’s both,” but in reality (and although elements may transcend the positions) it is really one or the other.

 

Y1, now that this thread has calmed down a bit, let me explain off the front that my reasoning for bringing this up on another thread was to find out why you believe that the Father and Son were separated at all. There was one verse offered in support (“why have you forsaken me”) and the argument on this thread became if “forsake” means “separate” (or necessarily includes a separation).

To save reading through all the threads, in the English language “forsake” does not mean “separate.” I offered examples where a person was forsaken by another, but what was withdrawn was support – not presence. Scripture offers more examples in that the word has also been used as “neglect”, “ignore”, “free”, fail”, “failed”, commits”, “release”, and “withdrawn.”

So there appears to be two pictures of this “forsakenness.” One is your position, that the Father forsook his Son by departing from him, or turning his back on him, in the form of a separation. Another position is that Christ was forsaken in the sense of being allowed to suffer, in a “forsaken” condition. Regardless, the fact that IF God separated from Jesus and left him suffering alone would be a “forsakenness” does not mean that it defines the word. If there was never a separation, yet the Father offered the Son as a guilt offering that through his blood we might be redeemed, that would also constitute a “forsakenness.” So it boils down to the reason you believe that the Father and the Son separated, and how this affects other doctrines and passages of Scripture. Is this belief a passage that you have read, or an explanation someone has given you?

For my part, I do believe that Scripture interprets itself. This is particularly true in the psalms. Psalm 22 uses a parallelism. Many have taken one part (vs. 1a) and completely ignored the other half (vs. 1b) in the psalm. Not only that, but the psalm builds in meaning through these parallels until the end. So I believe Jesus is fulfilling Psalm 22, that the psalm is a Messianic prophesy looking not only at the cross but through the cross to redemption and reconciliation fulfilled in Christ.

 

Martin, I understand our disagreement and I understand that it transcends interpretation by including the English language itself. I understand the "curse" and I understand Jesus bearing our sins. We have been through this, brother. We agree on many things, but not on God separating from Christ. Until we go step by step down Scripture to see the evidences and also deal with possible violations of other passages and doctrines then we simply will not agree. And I am not certain either of us are of proper disposition to do that (we both tend to respond spitefully when the other is not apprehending our comments).

So one thing at a time, and perhaps we can get through this while showing the love of Christ - even if we don't completely agree.

1a : to give up to the control or influence of another person or agentb : to give up with the intent of never again claiming a right or interest in <abandonproperty> 2: to withdraw from often in the face of danger or encroachment <abandon ship>3: to withdraw protection, support, or help from <he abandoned his family>4: to give (oneself) over unrestrainedly5a : to cease from maintaining, practicing, or using <abandoned their native language>b : to cease intending or attempting to perform <abandoned the escape>

No one is saying that God did not abandon Jesus to the cross. No one is saying that Jesus was not in a forsaken state while he was suffering the physical pain and dying as a propitiation for our sins. We are saying that there was no separation.

Now, as to your claim previously that ‏עָזַב‎ is used some 200 times in the Bible and it always carries this idea of "to separate," I have to object. Often it is translated "forsaken," yet the meaning does not denote a "separation." Here are a few examples. The word in bold red is ‏עָזַב‎ (the word translated "forsaken" in Psalm 22).

1 Kings 19:10 He said, "I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars and killed Your prophets with the sword. And I alone am left; and they seek my life, to take it away."

Proverbs 10:17 He is on the path of life who heeds instruction, But he who ignores reproof goes astray.

Psalm 10:14 You have seen it, for You have beheld mischief and vexation to take it into Your hand. The unfortunate commits himself to You; You have been the helper of the orphan.

If we use your interpretative method, this verse would have the unfortunate separating themselves from God - this is not what the verse is saying, brother.

It is as if we are looking at the same painting but describing entirely different scenes. You quoted "far from helping me" as evidence of your position. But in reality this is exactly what I am saying. It is not a matter of separation but of deliverance. Even if you had a correct definition, you can't do word studies like that and ever hope to come up with a good interpretation. If you are interested, I can recommend a few books on hermenutics (I especially like Gordon Fee here, but if you object Fee there are others who offer excellent resources).

 

Brother, there is something I have to say and I pray that you don't take offense. I do not believe that God separated from Christ when he was on the cross, but it is not a matter of not accepting what scriptures say. It is exactly the opposite. You see, no one is saying that Christ was not forsaken. He was suffering on the cross....I don't see how else you could see it - Christ is suffering and dying and it is his Father's will. But we are not arguing "forsake," we are arguing "separate." If you look up that Hebrew word used in Psalm 22 as "forsake" you will find that in other places it means "neglect" and "ignore," only to name two. None of us are ignoring Scripture when it comes to this quote.

Now on your statement that God cannot lie - I applaud that observation! That is exactly why some of us hold that the God will never abandon - as in "separate" - from His Holy One, or that Jesus is ever to be considered separated from the Father or Spirit. If I believe that God separated himself from Christ then I make God a liar. God cannot lie - the Father will never abandon his Holy One, but He will offer him as a guilt offering. God cannot lie - Jesus is One, never separate, with the Father. God cannot lie - he was not inactive on the cross, turning his back and separating from him....the Father was offering his Son, shedding the blood of his precious Holy One so that we could be redeemed, and the Son was laying down his own life.

So the passage you speak of says "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" But you see it as saying "My God, my God, why have you separated yourself from me?" How is this accepting what Scripture says, especially given that this is an OT quote that explains itself (Jesus is quoting a Messianic psalm, a prophesy that speaks of and through the Cross to this redemption of God)?

Also, this is not "private interpretation." Our Church forefathers made it very clear that Jesus does not have two separate natures, but one nature (divine/man). Then a decade later they made it very clear that the Trinity can contain no separation. Adam Clarke and J.I. Packer also only two that have offered challenges to this notion of separation. So this is certainly not a new or private interpretation. In fact, if anything, the view that God has separated from his Christ is at least a bit unorthodox.

So, I know that emotions sometimes get high when one's view is challenged and I don't want to stir up stuff, but I think this a fair question - since you do seem to put a great deal of emphasis on Scripture (and rightly so), are there any passages that state that God separated from Jesus on the cross or is this a tradition that you read into the text? If the former, what are the passages, and if the latter what is the explanation?

 

I recently read Isaiah 54....I really can't remember what I was studying, but it was recent. Anyway, I think perhaps this is taking the passage out of context (it is speaking of the "barren one, you who have borne no child." I think it Israel (true Israel awaiting the Messiah), but perhaps I am wrong. Either way, it does not affect my stand on this topic.

No one is saying that Jesus was not forsaken. Many of us are saying that this "separation" is an unnecessary figment of poor theology and exegesis, but no one is denying the passages that have been thus far offered. The idea that it is in God's nature to desert his "Holy One" is, to put it bluntly, blasphemy. When you say that God deserted Christ, I cannot help but view that comment as saying God deserted his Holy One. I understand it fits well in our theologies (but our theologies are not dependent on this desertion). My point is that if you are willing to say that God separated from Jesus on the Cross then you should be willing to address all of the passages that speak of this an an impossibility. Before you say such a thing, make sure you can answer what it calls into question and by all means have more support than "forsake" means "desert". Too many dictionaries state other meanings, and the word has been used much too often scripture to mean other things than a separation.

Remember the quote I offered from Cyril of Jerusalem? The incarnation is God becoming flesh, completely God yet completely man, in such a way as there is no separation or distinction (God-Man). This is the biblical stance, and this is reconciliation. Jesus suffered the cross, obedient to the Father's will and by the power of the Spirit. The reason I've stuck around this discussion so long is that there is much too severe damage being done to the gospel of the Cross through tradition. The reason that you can find so many theologians that reject your view is that it is tradition built on tradition built on tradition. Not Scripture. It is an attempt at narrowing Scripture towards a theological interpretation (i.e., "throughout history so many have been wrong because "forsake" has to mean "desert" and therefore our theories have to be right"). If you are not careful in the end, you will end up with a tight but unbiblical theology.

Consider some other renderings that do not violate other passages. For example, J.I. Packer - "God never left him, but he did refuse him [deliverance on the cross]." Consider C.H. Dodd's view that at the cross the communion between Father and Son was not broken, but it's light was withdrawn (the Father never separated from the Son, but he did offer him as a sacrifice and forsake him to suffer on the Cross, not delivering him except through his divine providence in the Resurrection. Consider Albrecht Ritschlian's definition that the Father forsook Christ not by separation but by refusing to save him from the physical death and torment on the cross. Consider Joel Beeke (president of systematic theology and homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary) - rather than separation Jesus is "experiencing the agony of unanswered supplication." This is not an unorthodox or new view, brother.

We do not have to agree, and hopefully your argument will help you develop something upon which to stand, even if we disagree.

 

I had this discussion on another board and was met by a “preacher” who dogmatically clung to his theories to the point he could not even discuss Scripture. He had put himself in the place of God and regardless of the correctness/incorrectness of his position he was worshiping a god of his own making. I understand it is difficult to discuss our views when the only support we can come up with is “I’m Reformed” or “I’m Arminian”, but the foundation of “that’s just what I believe” is heretical….it is RCC faith (the church told me so) and not based on the Word of God. That “preacher” I spoke of, if truly a minister, is a disgrace – not necessarily because of the beliefs he holds but because of the reason he holds them. I truly believe that we have to be careful in that we are able to give an answer for our beliefs. Commentaries are good, not as our primary source but for understanding Scripture. Even then, however, we need to use them to develop our own understanding of the Bible and never take them as our understanding.

I brought this discussion to the BB because there is not only a broader range of views, but also there are those willing to look at the Word of God honestly and walk through Scripture. I am not saying “convert” to my way of thinking. I am not asking you to convert me to yours. I am saying that we should look to Scripture for an interpretation, and then take those passages and form our doctrines. Even if we disagree we can, I believe, at least know where that disagreement lies. Is it in the interpretation of Scripture itself (and if so, then we should stay there for a while) or is it merely in our explanations, or theories?

There are some here that insist that God separated from Christ. If this is true, then it is something that I need to examine because as it stands I believe that there are too many passages that deny this possibility. I need to see the evidence of this interpretation, and thus far no one has provided anything except Jesus was forsaken to suffer, and God was far from delivering him as he suffered in the flesh. Brothers, this is a far cry from "for 3 hours God separated from Jesus." Can you at least understand why, just based on what has been presented so far, why I cannot abandon passages I've relied on since a young man - that just as God would not desert his Holy One, he will not desert me because I am in Christ? I need to examine actual Scripture against these passages because if what you are saying is true, then many passages need to be reinterpreted as Scripture does not deny Scripture.

I hope this helps explain why I am persistent here. I also believed that on the Cross God turned his back on Christ, but I have come to realize I believed it as that "preacher" held his tradition. I can find no passage that allows for that extreme a position, but I can find many that is problematic for that view. I am, as always, open to correction provided it is via Scripture.

 

First, brother, you misunderstand my comment about those unable to defend their faith. I was not speaking of you at all. In part, I was speaking of when I believed that the Father turned from Christ. I interpreted Scripture based on my tradition and not on what was necessarily conveyed through the Word. I was also speaking in general cautioning against such things (I do see it fairly regularly). I apologize if it came across I was speaking of you. I promise you that was not my intent.

Insofar as the definition, we disagree. We seem to agree in part, that in the Cross the Father abandoned Christ to suffer. But while this could mean to separate, it is not necessary that it takes on that definition. Withdrawing support it help doesn't mean withdrawing presence of a separation. We simply disagree based, I hope, not on English definitions but on the context of the passage. Perhaps that is the direction we should go - why do we interpret as we do?

I think it is obvious by definition that to "withdraw protection, support, or help" is not to separate. For me this is obvious because I have seen countless orphans forsaken as an entire country withdrew protection and support and left these children to find food in the trash and die in the street. It may have been better if this abandonment included separation, I don't know. But neither the English, and certainly not the Hebrew of Psalm 22, demands the definition of "separation," although it is not prohibited by the word itself. What evidences (other than what we have both already agreed on) are there that God separated from Christ on the Cross? If you are willing, please walk me through the theology.

Yes, I want you to present your points. Yes, this is too important an issue for me not to present mine. We are in reality very close, except on two points (and they are important points, but not vital points). That is what this discussion is about - presenting our best arguments and looking at Scripture for evaluation.

Again, Martin, please accept my apologies if you believed my opening comments on the previous post was about you. I assure you they were not. I believed God turned his back on Christ because my tradition had raised me to interpret the passage in that manner. The "preacher" I spoke of is not on this board, and I am not alone in refraining from calling him "brother." I was not speaking of you. We disagree, but I firmly believe that our disagreement is a family argument. If you feel we cannot discuss this as brothers, then simply respond and let me know. For if that is the case, then we needn't discuss it at all. Our comprehension is finite as we struggle to explain the Infinite. We may arrive at an impasse simply due to our own inadequacies. Regardless we are fellow heirs in Christ. It is better to walk in Christ and disagree than to abandon Christ to fight for our understandings.

 

Why don’t we simply look at a few of the difficulties I have with your position one at a time. Here is one (of several) reason that has proved a challenge for me to accept the idea that God separated from Christ.

Throughout the Old Testament we see the prophets relying on several promises that God has made. These promises reflect God’s own nature. One of these promises is that when we feel forsaken, when we are in need, God will never forsake his faithful ones. Throughout scripture we see people crying out that they are forsaken, broken, suffering, etc., but they are crying out not to indicate that God has departed from them. Instead they are crying out to God in full expectation that he is faithful to his promises (Deut 31:6; 31:8; Joshua 1:5; 1 Kings 8:57; 1 Chronicals 28:20; Psalm 37:28; Psalm 94:14; Isaiah 41:17; Isaiah 42:16; Hebrews 13:5).

The reason I deny that God separated from Christ is not that I deny Psalm 22:1. It is that I interpret Psalm 22:1 in such a way as not to violate the doctrine of God’s faithfulness. Throughout history this idea that when God’s people are forsaken, when they are in distress,

With that in mind, an obstacle for me would be overcoming the doctrine that God is faithful to deliver his Holy One as this is the premise that I lean on for my own deliverance. How does your view overcome the passages I mentioned?