Featured Forsaken in Matthew 27:46

Thank you for your restatement. I'll start here (but have to run, so I'll pick up a bit later):

The difference is that prior to Beeke, Piper, Gill, etc. stating that Christ was ‘abandoned’ they take the measure of saying what this ‘abandonment’ does not mean. With them I believe their intent is very clear. They reject a separation between Jesus and God, and they reject the idea that there was a separation between Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

For example, after pressing that God was not separated from Jesus Beeke makes the statement that God withdrew his “loving presence”. After confirming that there was no detachment between Son and Spirit, Beeke makes the statement that Jesus lacked the “comforts of the Spirit”.

On this one, and other threads, you disagreed with me when I said that God did not abandon Jesus in terms of withdrawing his presence. I did not say “loving presence”, or “comforts of the Spirit” as I agree these are obviously withdrawn. I was speaking of a whole and complete withdrawal (as the lost will experience at Judgment).

I disagree with your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 (perhaps this would be another topic). Jesus being made literal sin simply does not make sense (it denies Habakkuk’s comment about Jesus, that He is too pure to condone sin/evil, much less become sin/evil).

 

If I understand you correctly (please let me know if I have not) then we both agree with Beeke's explanation except that you depart with the assertion that Jesus and God are immutably united (a fellowship of persons in one Godhead that cannot be undone), and Beeke's conclusion that this abandonment (and solitariness) is related to divine "assistance", "loving" disposition, or "deliverance" as the Son remains completely dependent on the Father (not an abandonment in terms of division or separation of persons, nature, being, will, or so forth).

I believe the difference is enough for you to simply disagree with Beeke. Insofar as Piper, I think that both agree with what he has said (although we disagree with each other). Like Carson, Piper will be difficult to nail down on this one (Carson sees it as a mystery, Piper that it is asking the wrong question).

And to be clear where I stand on this issue:

Jesus was forsaken by the Father, but not in such a minimal way as a separation or withdrawal of persons. The Father was there, as Abraham was there, offering his Son. There was not an absentee moment as God offered His Son as an atoning sacrifice for us, for God is not an absentee God. The Atonement was the sacrifice of the Son, but it was also the sacrifice of the Father. There was not a moment when Jesus became less than God’s beloved Son, in Whom He is well pleased.

 

Then you have my apologies for misunderstanding your position. I really don't know why you've chosen to disagree with me at every turn possible and across threads when I say that God did not depart or separate from Jesus (God's Spirit remained on Jesus, Jesus remained God) if in truth you believe the same thing. Because of you marking my posts with "disagree" I took it that you disagreed.

But now that we are clear - the passage does not mean God withdrew his Spirit (as will occur at the "second death"), but God did not deliver Christ at the moment (he abandoned him to suffer, not withdrew Himself or His Spirit but his loving presence).

I don’t believe you want to dismantle the Trinity.

By your logic here, God is spirit so it is impossible that he become man.

And, either Jesus was literally made to be evil (made sin) or he suffered for the consequences of our sin (he was made a sin offering). Habakkuk denounces the former interpretation.

 

“Jesus’ cry does not divide His human nature from His divine person … 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. … It is unthinkable that the Son of God might question what is happening or be perplexed when His Father’s loving presence departs.”

I agree.

“Jesus is expressing the agony of unanswered supplication (Ps. 22:1–2). Unanswered, Jesus feelsforgotten of God… 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.”


I agree except maybe with the point all the disciples fled as not all disciples and women were absent at the cross (at this point, they have not all fled).


“But why would God bruise His own Son (Isa. 53:10)? The Father is not capricious, malicious, or being merely didactic. The real purpose is penal; it is the just punishment for the sin of Christ’s people. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”… Among all the mysteries of salvation, this little word “for” exceeds all. This small word illuminates our darkness and unites Jesus Christ with sinners. Christ was acting on behalf of His people as their representative and for their benefit.”


I agree.


“With Jesus as our substitute, God’s wrath is satisfied and God can justify those who believe in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). Christ’s penal suffering, therefore, is vicarious — He suffered on our behalf. He did not simply share our forsakenness, but He saved us from it. He endured it for us, not with us.”


I agree.

 

I am really not sure the degree that we disagree, but I find my self in the same situation with your posts.

What I mean when I say God did not abandon Jesus on the cross is that there was no separation, and by this I mean God did not withdraw His Spirit (as Beeke put it, there is no "detachment from the Holy Spirit").

 

That’s fine, brother, keep on pressing. I want to be as clear as I can possibly make myself here.

I agree with Beeke that the “abandonment” of the Father can only be in a context that does not:

1. Diminish His deity. Jesus IS God, without separation or diminishment.

2. Jesus’ human nature is not separate from His divine person.

3. Jesus is not detached from God’s Spirit.

4. Jesus is not detached from faithfully obeying the Father.

So where does this leave us? I believe it leaves us with a different definition of “forsaken” insofar as this abandonment cannot be a separation between Jesus and God.

By definition “abandon” can mean “to leave completely”. But it can also mean “to give up” or to “withdraw from”. Dictionary.com gives this example “to abandon hopes for a stage career”. Or “to yield over” as in “to abandon oneself to grief”. “Forsake” carries the same meaning.

You are stuck on one definition and use of “abandon” (to withdraw one’s presence), but Beeke specifies that this is impossible. What is withdrawn is God’s “loving presence” as the Father abandons His Son to the consequences of sin.

How do you reconcile using “abandon” to be God separating from Jesus yet Jesus does not cease being God, His human nature is not separated from His divine person, He is not detached from God’s Spirit, ect.?

 

Think of it this way, brother:

When we speak of the atonement (in terms of appeasing God’s wrath) we are speaking of propitiation (at least as one important aspect). To propitiate means to appease or atone. If you anger someone, you make propitiation for your offense in one way or another to appease that person. You offer a peace offering so that your guilt is atoned and your relationship can be restored.

On the Cross we find God’s hatred and God’s love coming together. God hates sin and only His Beloved Son can satisfy His justice and redeem us. Apart from Christ’s blood, God’s wrath will send sinners to hell forever. However, even when God hated sin so much, He loved sinners so much that He willingly sent His Son to suffer that wrath for the very sinners who hated Him. Jesus remained God's Beloved Son, even as He offered His Son as a propitiation for sin.

When I argue against God “abandoning” Christ on the Cross it is without those qualifiers (God’s Spirit present with Jesus - , God present with Jesus in the Godhead, ect). To me, abandonment as a separation means a state of moving or being (Jesus “apart” or detached from God’s Spirit, Jesus “apart” or detached from the presence of the full Godhead, Jesus “apart” or detached from the Father).

 

“The apostle John wrote, “he is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2). He also said, ‘Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (1 John 4:10). To propitiate means to appease or atone. If you anger someone, you make propitiation for your offense in one way or another to appease him. You offer a peace offering so that your guilt is atoned and your relationship can be restored…. we find God’s hatred and God’s love coming together in an astonishing fashion. God hates sin and is so angry with sinners that nothing less than the death of His Son will appease His anger, satisfy His justice, and set them free. Apart from Christ’s blood, God’s wrath will send sinners to hell forever. However, even when God hated sin so much, He loved sinners so much that He willingly sent His Son to suffer that wrath for the very sinners who hated Him. Amazing love! How can it be, that Thou, My God, shouldst die for me?.” (Joel Beeke, http://www.joelbeeke.org/page/5/)

Right. Jesus became a sin offering (the Sin Bearer) as our iniquities are laid upon HIm, not sin itself. I agree.

I still don't understand how you can hold that Jesus experienced the same as the lost will for those 3 hours, yet also hold that what he experienced for those 3 hours was in fact not the same as the lost will experience at Judgment. I am simply not clear what you mean (as the lost will experience a complete absence of the Holy Spirit while we already agreed that Jesus was not detached from the Spirit; as the lost will be cast out from God, but we already agreed that Jesus remained one with God; that the lost will be turned over to their evil, yet we already agreed that Jesus is without sin; that the lost will be hopeless, yet such a faithless state is foreign to Jesus; that the lost will be unloved by God, while Jesus is the eternally Beloved of God).

 

No. The lost will experience a state that is foreign to God. They will be, by definition, evil and void of "light" and "truth". They will be in a hopeless state, not even able to look to God in hopes of deliverance. Now they experience some common grace through the Spirit. But then God's Spirit will be withdrawn. They will be evil, by definition (eternally opposed to God). Jesus experienced none of this.

But what Jesus experienced was far more extreme than the eternal damnation of every man who lived because He is God, and God hung on the cross - Jesus' humanity was not separated from His divine person - and suffered at the hands of those He had created, those He had come to save, by the Father's design.