Did Jesus experience a separation from God on the cross?

[JonC]

Absolutely! The very reason that God will never forsake His redeemed people is that Christ has undergone their forsakenness (is there such a word?) on their behalf. This is the wonder of Penal Substitution. Christ has taken every part of my life and made it perfect (Rom.5:19), and He has also taken every part of my punishment upon Himself- the curse, the suffering, the separation- and borne it on my behalf, so that 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus' (Rom. 8:1). Because He was forsaken, no child of God will ever be forsaken.

When the Anabaptist Michael Sattler was condemned by the Romanist court to the most hideous torture and death, he made an agreement with some of his colleagues that in the midst of his torments, if God were with him, he would raise his hand as a sign. This he did. Our Lord could not do likewise. He faced His sufferings absolutely alone, so that sinners like Sattler, like you and like me, could know the felt presence of God in extremis.


Do you see here, brother how you are doing the very thing you seek not to do? You are subordinating the clear teaching of Scripture that Christ was forsaken by His Father on the cross, for the doctrine that you have espoused, that such a thing cannot be.

I am comfortable concluding that our disagreement is one of interpretation. We read exactly the same thing but come up with different conclusions. But no, this is not subordinating the clear teachings of Scripture. For me, determining that this separation occurred would be contrary to what I view as the clear teachings of Scripture. For you it is otherwise.

I would be interested also how you interpret the passages I offered (as well as the issues agedman mentioned). If you get time, perhaps you can address these so that I can understand your perspective (they are part of the reason we don't see eye to eye...not just this definition).

 

[agedman]

I cannot agree with this at all. The first drink He refused because it was an analgesic. As I explained before, He must drain the cup of God's wrath to its very dregs. The second cup he actually asked for (John 19:28), and this was for two reasons: firstly, it was to fulfil the last prophecy concerning His suffering (Psalm 69:21- in all, around 30 O.T. prophecies were fulfilled at or around the cross); secondly it was to enable Him to make His final cries to be audible. The drink that he took is described as 'sour wine'- that is, wine vinegar.

You don't agree, but then do restate that there were two times that drink was offered.

I agree that the second was a "wine vinegar" because that was typically carried as a healing and purifying ointment by the Roman soldiers.

It was given for the purpose that I stated, and the results were what you stated, so we are in agreement.

That I took a forensic (study of the body of evidence as it relates to a crime) and physical evidences of approaching death and you took a more theological approach does not make us in disagreement.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus became the Sin bearer on the Cross, he literally experienced the full wrath of God in judgement for those sins taken upon himself, so he always stayed sinless in His natures, but also still experienced hell as all sinners will on that cross...

that is what he was dreading the most on that cross, not the physical death, but being isolated and separated from the father while dieing in place of sinners...

 

[kyredneck]

that is what he was dreading the most on that cross, not the physical death, but being isolated and separated from the father while dieing in place of sinners...

You got scripture to show that to be so? (don't know why I ask that because you NEVER show scripture to support your statements)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You got scripture to show that to be so? (don't know why I ask that because you NEVER show scripture to support your statements)

How about Psalm 22:1-11?

 

[kyredneck]

How about Psalm 22:1-11?

And that proves "what he was dreading the most on that cross, not the physical death, but being isolated and separated from the father while dieing in place of sinners"? No.

39 And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. Mt 26

7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, Heb 5

HE WAS HEARD! God answered His supplications and RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD!

 

[JonC]

Martin interprets Psalm 22:1-11 to indicate this separation. I interpret the passage to indicate God's faithfulness. We each have reasons and can provide scholarly commentary (I can provide people like J.I. Packer and Clarke and Martin can provide MacArthur, R.C. Sproul). We can both provide Scripture but believe the others interpretation flawed….(otherwise we’d each be arguing the other’s point).

I think perhaps this topic cannot be fairly discussed here as it is not the root of disagreement. I do not believe that Martin holds this separation based solely on Psalm 22, and my view is not strictly related to the Psalm either. The root of our disagreement here is in our views of the Atonement. All we can probably hope for here is to understand the others position.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Matthew 27:46 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


Matthew wrote, "that is ...". Matthew interpreted or translated the words, 'lema sabachthani', to "mean, why have you forsaken me?"


So what did Matthew mean with the word, "forsaken"--Greek, 'enkatelipes' - 'enkataleipoh'.


I believe the translation with ‘forsake’ was unfortunate. The word is normally rendered, to ‘leave’. Jesus was given command --was given 'leave'-- to do the will of God, and to empty the cup of his suffering. He actually prayed the Father, “not my will (which was “to do Thy will, of God”) but Your will be done”. Even though it was Jesus' own will, He would have his will be his Father’s will. So now here Jesus is facing the full reality of the crisis of the cross, ‘YOUR will shall be done, my Father; THIS IS my hour, come, glorify Yourself in Me, fully.’ And the only way to glorify Himself for the Father is to “leave” the Son to do his will, perfectly.


I understand more a ‘sanctification’ by the Father of the Son in this Scripture. He put the Son apart for holy purpose and end. “Why” or ‘What have you sanctified Me for, my Father? For that which I prayed you, for: Not my will, but YOUR will, be done.”

Jesus spoke with his Father; He gave his life into his Father's hands --- how could there have come a separation, one of abandonment, a forsaking of Jesus by the Father? Not at all! In fact, when Jesus had died, at that very moment in time, the veil which covered the Shekinah of God's Presence from human gaze, was torn in two from the top to the bottom ... and God's Presence LEFT THE TEMPLE and would on the cross and afterwards in Joseph's grave, go "COVER" the body of Jesus so that "his flesh would see no corruption in death", and He would be "in Thy sight always" / “before thy face always", "always" even in death!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jesus became the Sin bearer on the Cross, he literally experienced the full wrath of God in judgement for those sins taken upon himself, so he always stayed sinless in His natures, but also still experienced hell as all sinners will on that cross...

that is what he was dreading the most on that cross, not the physical death, but being isolated and separated from the father while dieing in place of sinners...

Jesus dreaded nothing. Jesus never was afraid of anything or anyone. "Triumphing over them He made an open show of them."
Jesus "destroyed death ... the last enemy ... death is swallowed up in VICTORY."

How would Jesus <~dread... most ... being isolated and separated from the father~>!? What E.G. White humbug!

"I will sing unto the LORD this song for HE TRIUMPHED GLORIOUSLY. ... I will EXALT HIM (for the LORD IS A MAN OF WAR : THE LORD IS HIS NAME. ... Thy Right Hand o LORD is become Glorious in Power ... in the Greatness of Thine Excellency Thou hast overthrown them that rose up against Thee" ---even the powers of the last enemy, DEATH.

The Father praising the Son.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jesus dreaded nothing. Jesus never was afraid of anything or anyone.

I don't think these comments stand up to a perusal of Matt. 26:36ff and Luke 22:39ff. Our Lord was tested in every way, just as we are(Heb. 4:15).

"Triumphing over them He made an open show of them."
Jesus "destroyed death ... the last enemy ... death is swallowed up in VICTORY."

Exactly so. He overcame fear and dread and triumphed over them, so that we too can be more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I don't think these comments stand up to a perusal of Matt. 26:36ff and Luke 22:39ff. Our Lord was tested in every way, just as we are(Heb. 4:15).

Exactly so. He overcame fear and dread and triumphed over them, so that we too can be more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Fine; it still does not mean the Father forsook the Son --left Him in the lurch. E.G. White and SDA concept of fear and dread remain blasphemous.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dag een: “Die negende uur” tot die ‘twaalde uur’(3 n.m. – 6 n.m.)

Psalm22:1,20-25 Waarom het U my ver van My Hulp laat gaan? ... U het U Aangesig nie vir Hom verberg nie.

Markus 15:34,35

Die negende uur het Jesus uitgeroep met ’n groot stem:

καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ

At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,

Elohim, Elohim, lama sabagthani; dit is, geïnterpreteer:

Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί; ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani? which is, being interpreted,

● My God, my God, waarvoor het U My hierin geheilig?

Ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

[Johannes 12:27,28; 17:1,4,5 See Addendum 2]

35 En party van dié wat daar rondgestaan het en gehoor het,

καί τινες τῶν παρεστηκότων ἀκούσαντες

And some of them that stood by, when they heard, said,

het gesê: Hoor, hy roep Elia.

ἔλεγον Ἴδε Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ.

Behold, he calleth Elias.

Matteus 27:46,47

Om nege uur het Jesus uitgeroep met ’n luide stem en gesê:

περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥραν ἀνεβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων

about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,

Eeleï, Eeleï, lema sabagthanei; wat, vertaal, beteken:

Ἡλεὶ Ἡλεὶ λεμὰ σαβαχθανεί; τοῦτ’ ἔστιν

Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani?that is to say,

My God, my God, waarom het U My hierin uitgekies?

Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἵνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες;

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?[Johannes 12:27,28; 17:1,4,5]

47 Party van hulle wat daar gestaan het en gehoor het,

τινὲς δὲ τῶν ἐκεῖ ἑστηκότων ἀκούσαντες

Some of that stood there, when they heard,

het gesê: Hierdie man roep Elia.

ἔλεγον ὅτι Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ οὗτος.

said, This man calleth for Elias.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

And that proves "what he was dreading the most on that cross, not the physical death, but being isolated and separated from the father while dieing in place of sinners"? No.

39 And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. Mt 26

7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, Heb 5

HE WAS HEARD! God answered His supplications and RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD!

en sê terwyl Hy bid, My Vader, as dit moontlik is,

προσευχόμενος καὶ λέγων Πάτερ μου, εἰ δυνατόν ἐστιν,

and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible,

laat hierdie beker by My verbykom!

παρελθάτω (παρελθέτω) ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο·

let this cup come by me / at me pass.

Slegs, nie soos Ek nie, maar soos U wil!

πλὴν οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλ’ ὡς σύ.

nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Jesus prayed that He might empty the cup; not that He might not empty it. But actually Jesus prayed that He might drink the cup not because _He_ willed it, but that it would be the _Father's_ will that He would obey. So fully were the will of the Son and the will of the Father, one. Jesus would not do his own will if not the Father's will, what would go against his Father's will. It is unthinkable God forbid the very thought so cherished by opinionated SDAism.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

'Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy' Psalm 43:4.

It answers it all! Jesus would drink the cup to the dredge--DIE--with exceeding joy wherein was no unwillingness or moment's wavering, fear or dread ---NO fear! Despicable idea!

 

[MB]

Jon C
Even though I'm a sinner no better or worse than any other sinner the world has ever seen. I can't imagine what Christ must have looked like with the sin of the whole world placed on Him. I can't truly understand how our Lord could have with stood the shame of the world's sin, being as Holy as He is. It seems all to devastating, yet we all know He did this for sinners such as myself. With so much sin placed on Christ How could the Father do anything else but turn away and not even look at Him. God's Son must have looked more horrible than anything I can imagine. The real pain according to my thinking was in the moment when Christ was buried in our sins. The beatings and the cross was nothing in comparison to how much our Lord suffered for the sins of the world. We look to the cross as a picture of what He went through, yet is only a small part of the story of what He truly suffered. The Father and the Son were separated in those moments when our sins were Placed on Him. No one has ever Loved us as much as Christ does.
MB

 

[Martin Marprelate]

παρελθέτω

This comes from the Greek verb parerchomai which means to pass by, to go past, to pass away or perish. If you are suggesting that the Lord Jesus was saying to the father in effect, "If possible, bring it on!" I don't think that is linguistically possible.

 

[JonC]

Jon C
Even though I'm a sinner no better or worse than any other sinner the world has ever seen. I can't imagine what Christ must have looked like with the sin of the whole world placed on Him. I can't truly understand how our Lord could have with stood the shame of the world's sin, being as Holy as He is. It seems all to devastating, yet we all know He did this for sinners such as myself. With so much sin placed on Christ How could the Father do anything else but turn away and not even look at Him. God's Son must have looked more horrible than anything I can imagine. The real pain according to my thinking was in the moment when Christ was buried in our sins. The beatings and the cross was nothing in comparison to how much our Lord suffered for the sins of the world. We look to the cross as a picture of what He went through, yet is only a small part of the story of what He truly suffered. The Father and the Son were separated in those moments when our sins were Placed on Him. No one has ever Loved us as much as Christ does.
MB

MB,

I cannot fathom even the incarnation. God becoming man, the Creator to Whom and through Whom all exists humbling Himself to be found in the likeness of man. I think of what has been attributed as the last words of John Wesley - "The best of all is, God is with us.". If I lack the ability to fully grasp the Incarnation then I am fully admitting an inherent weakness in explaining the mind of God throughout the Atonement. I would never want to sway you from your position by my fragile understanding. I am only explaining the issue as I see it in Scripture (to be taken or discarded). And I do not see God separating from Jesus on the cross. If this is a misunderstanding on my part I am confident it not alone.


I have considered your explanations and I respectfully disagree, (I view the Father in sharing both the love and sacrifice here), but that does not change where we agree. You may present Christ under the weight of the sins of the elect while I view Christ under the weight of human sin, but when we speak of the holiness of God and the depth of His love we are united in awe and wonder. I couldn't imagine Christ bearing just my sin alone, much less the sins of the world. Yet He did.

 

[MB]

Jon C.
I understand your position and there is no offense taken.
The trinity is difficult to understand for everyone. I think How could a being be Father Son and Holy Spirit three different personalities able to act individually yet all the same God at the same time. No where else have I ever heard of such except in His Holy Word. I believe in Him because of His love.
His Love for us is also beyond my understanding, yet I'm thankful for it.
MB

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You don't agree, but then do restate that there were two times that drink was offered.

I agree that the second was a "wine vinegar" because that was typically carried as a healing and purifying ointment by the Roman soldiers.

It was given for the purpose that I stated, and the results were what you stated, so we are in agreement.

That I took a forensic (study of the body of evidence as it relates to a crime) and physical evidences of approaching death and you took a more theological approach does not make us in disagreement.

Christ was offered a cup twice at the crucifixion. The first, He spit out for at no time would He take an intoxicant into his system. The second he took (for it was not mixed with an intoxicant) as one may to rinse the mouth of the typical buildup of "sludge" that occurs as one is dying.

Matteus 27:34b

Gee hulle Hom om te drink asyn met gal gemeng,

ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ πιεῖν οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον·

they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall;

maar net die smaak daarvan en Hy kon nie drink nie.

καὶ γευσάμενος οὐκ ἠθέλησεν πιεῖν.

and when he had tasted, he would not drink.

Dag een: Asyn op stok [Ps51:7 Lv14:52 Hb9]

Johannes19:29,30a

’n Pot asyn was vaste gebruik, dan ’n spons vol asyn

σκεῦος ἔκειτο ὄξους μεστόν· σπόγγον οὖν μεστὸν τοῦ ὄξους

Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge

om ’n hissopstok vasgemaak, wat hulle bring tot aan sy mond.

ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες προσήνεγκαν αὐτοῦ τῷ στόματι.

with vinegar and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.


Markus 15:36

Toe hardloop een met ’n spons gevul met asyn op ’n stok

δραμὼν δέ τις καὶ γεμίσας σπόγγον ὄξους περιθεὶς καλάμῳ

And the one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and on a reed,

en maak Hom drink, terwyl (ander sê): Hou op!

ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν, λέγων Ἄφετε

... gave him to drink, saying, Let alone;

Laat ons sien of Elia kom om hom af te haal.

ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἡλείας καθελεῖν αὐτόν.

let us see whether Elias will kom to take him down.

Matteus 27:48,49

Dadelik het een van hulle gehardloop en ’n bamboes gevat

καὶ εὐθέως δραμὼν εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ λαβὼν

And straightway one of them ran, and took

met ’n asyn-gevulde spons om die punt vasgemaak,

σπόγγον πλήσας τε ὄξους καὶ περιθεὶς καλάμῳ

a spunge ...filled with vinegar ...put around a reed

en het Hom probeer laat drink. 49 Die ander het gesê: Stop dit!

ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν.49 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ εἶπαν Ἄφες·

and gave him to drink.49 The rest said, Let be,

Laat ons sien of Elia gaan kom om hom te verlos!

Ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἡλείας σώσων αὐτόν.

let us see whether Elias will come to save him.


Jesus drank nothing. The gall mingled with wine : they forced the stuff upon his mouth and he had to taste--- but it says, "just the taste and it was undrinkable. So yes, Jesus might have <~spit~> the TASTE from his mouth or rather off his mouth.

The second was a pure act of hateful contempt to humiliate Christ. The instrument used, was used by soldiers for much baser ~healing and purifying~. Christ could not be debased further through human means, but He "TOOK" it like only God could in his deepest descent into the hell of his Suffering for sin.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This comes from the Greek verb parerchomai which means to pass by, to go past, to pass away or perish. If you are suggesting that the Lord Jesus was saying to the father in effect, "If possible, bring it on!" I don't think that is linguistically possible.

I hope that I am not ~suggesting~ anything. You put well just what the word means, and I believe, what Jesus meant it to mean. He did not ask his Father NOT to drink the cup; He asked Him ~to bring it on~. It was Jesus' sole desire and longing, will and delight, to do his Father's will.

What you deny is ~linguistically possible~, in fact is the obvious and most possible. ~Linguistically~ the meaning 'bring it on' is correct and simple.
When it comes to believing it, the difficulty begins. Unless Christ's HUMILIATION and SUFFERING the Passover of Yahweh is given one to believe, everything about it must look impossible.