I believe God the Father, was pleased, by Jesus the Son becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross Phil 2:8 and that God forsaking him, when he laid the iniquity of all upon him and the Son crying out, My God My God why has thou forsaken me, is part of the suffering through which Son learned obedience Heb 5:7,8.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did Jesus experience a separation from God on the cross?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
I believe God the Father, was pleased, by Jesus the Son becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross Phil 2:8 and that God forsaking him, when he laid the iniquity of all upon him and the Son crying out, My God My God why has thou forsaken me, is part of the suffering through which Son learned obedience Heb 5:7,8.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Interestingly enough having read over a dozen commentaries on this issue, not one, NONE support the OP and his ongoing false theory. He has stated his belief isn't that new without substantial evidence and remains purely subjective. I still contend his OP is mocking others, and it is certainly mocking others, telling them they preach fables, guilty of pulpit crimes, that these do not get their beliefs from the Scriptures. That's the epitome of arrogance and is in fact his accusations seen clearly in this thread. That's humble, no?
jonc doulos is doing none other than mitigation of the Cross. No wrath of God suffered and not forsaken of God as Scriptures clearly teach. I'm out of here, this whole thing is at the least heterodox.
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
jonc doulos is doing none other than mitigation of the Cross. No wrath of God suffered and not forsaken of God as Scriptures clearly teach. I'm out of here, this whole thing is at the least heterodox.
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
One, yet different in that the Father was, Spirit the God, and desires those worshiping him, of John 4:23,24 and the Son was the word made flesh and dwelt among us of John 1:14
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 1 John 4:2
I suppose i didn't word my statement correctly. Christ didn't "Separate" from God in the sense they were out of fellowship, but He physically/Spiritually left His Glory and Stepped into Humanity...But i digress....as i type these words and toss around hypotheticals I don't see this being profitable towards my relationship with Christ. I pray the coming responses, if they continue, will be edifying to the saints and glorifying to our Lord Jesus.
I am not mocking anyone, but I am asking for scripture to support your interpretation. Thus far you have only provided the Psalm 22 quote, which is far from proving your point. Is that (and your commentaries) all you have based your belief on?
Insofar as Jesus experiencing the second death, dying spiritually, and separation, there are numerous commentaries that reject the idea. I have listed several commentators on another thread, not going to here, but if you honestly can't find any PM me and I will give you a few examples (or look at the other thread).
Why not just work through scripture on this issue instead of attacking me personally? Your responses, and lack of biblical support, are unbecoming a theologian... even an internet one. Are there any passages that support your view, or is it just commentary upon which you stand?
Sent from my KYOCERA-C6745 using Tapatalk
Hebrews 13
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
What is the importance of the writer denoting "Outside the Camp?" "Outside the Gate?" Was/How was the Scapegoat "Forsaken?"
How did Christ taste death for all men, even though some have already tasted death?
Hebrews 2
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
just some thoughts....
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
What is the importance of the writer denoting "Outside the Camp?" "Outside the Gate?" Was/How was the Scapegoat "Forsaken?"
How did Christ taste death for all men, even though some have already tasted death?
Hebrews 2
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
just some thoughts....
I hesitate to use commentary, but we have the treasury of church teachings that Jesus tasted death in terms of putting to death the sin of humanity in his flesh, reconciling mankind with God. In this concept Jesus indeed tasted death for everyone.
And just a note, the reference is not the scapegoat but the burnt offering. It is interesting that God meets man outside the camp. (Also see Moses and the Tabernacle).
Last edited:
So by "tasting death" or bearing within Himself the Sin of Mankind...the bitter fruit of rebellion...we see Christ conquered it...
1 Corinthans 15
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law..
57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
That begs the question...How did Christ bear the reality of Sin? Broken Fellowship with God?
Or maybe because He did bear the Sin and STILL Remained in Fellowship with God that is why There is True Victory?
I think he bore our sin in terms of his flesh. The cross is not so separated from the Incarnation. So yes, it is because Jesus is eternally God and in fellowship with the Father that he is the Reconciler of men.
Sent from my KYOCERA-C6745 using Tapatalk
So did Christ deserve to die? No. Did He willingly die? Yes. So God's Justice would be Satisfied? Yes. Sin was atoned for. Was Christ Cast off? Forsaken?
Look at the next several words in Psalm 22:1...Why are You so Far(as in time or distance) from Helping( delivering, saving, giving victory) me????
Christ is asking (seemingly), "God why are you letting them do this to me, why aren't you coming in and rescuing me from this?????"
and for a moment God abandons Him, right?
Psalm 16
10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
But He rose victoriously from the Grave and is Brought back to life...
While continuing in Fellowship with God all the while?
And Psalm 22 goes on to possibly clear things up...
24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
Look at the next several words in Psalm 22:1...Why are You so Far(as in time or distance) from Helping( delivering, saving, giving victory) me????
Christ is asking (seemingly), "God why are you letting them do this to me, why aren't you coming in and rescuing me from this?????"
and for a moment God abandons Him, right?
Psalm 16
10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
But He rose victoriously from the Grave and is Brought back to life...
While continuing in Fellowship with God all the while?
And Psalm 22 goes on to possibly clear things up...
24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
Last edited:
I was reading this article https://carm.org/jesus-cross-father, and at the conclusion the author makes this comment:
"As Jesus was suffering, he was quoting the Jewish scriptures from the cross! In this view, there is no doubt that Jesus was drawing the attention of the Jews to the words of King David, the first sentence of Psalm 22. Can you imagine the expression of the surprised Jews as they remembered the whole of the messianic prophecy as Psalm 22 unfolded in front of their eyes? And the climax would be Jesus’ final words, "It is finished." Look at the last line of Psalms 22!"It will be completed." What a contrast with Jesus’ words “It is finished!” Thus, in this view Jesus is actually saying that He is the Messiah from the cross."
"As Jesus was suffering, he was quoting the Jewish scriptures from the cross! In this view, there is no doubt that Jesus was drawing the attention of the Jews to the words of King David, the first sentence of Psalm 22. Can you imagine the expression of the surprised Jews as they remembered the whole of the messianic prophecy as Psalm 22 unfolded in front of their eyes? And the climax would be Jesus’ final words, "It is finished." Look at the last line of Psalms 22!"It will be completed." What a contrast with Jesus’ words “It is finished!” Thus, in this view Jesus is actually saying that He is the Messiah from the cross."
Right...I was just implying the Scapegoat, too as they both went outside the camp....
Leviticus 16
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
...And Christ did as such, Left the Holy Place and was Crucified outside the City
Hey brother, I don’t have much time, just stopped by the office for a moment and while waiting I looked this up for you.
Since you have read a dozen commentaries on this issue and not even one, NONE, supported the idea that the Son was not separated from the Father on the cross, that mine was a new and false theory, that it is purely speculative and without substantial evidence, I thought that you may benefit from a little correction. These are just a few, a very few, of the commentators out there.
Athansaius (3rd century theologian) in his defense of the Trinity implies that the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternally glorified and co-equal in majesty.
Lactanitus (Divine Institutes) states “nor can the Son be separated from the Father.”
More recently:
Adam Clarke denies that the Son experienced a separation from the Father and states “Take deity away from any redeeming act of Christ, and redemption is ruined.”
You may also find this interesting, as CARM denies this separation that you have never encountered:
https://carm.org/jesus-cross-father
I found this in less than five minutes by doing a quick search. In the future, perhaps you could research at least a little before launching into personal attacks. I think it would help reflect the attitude that we should embody when discussing these things.
I don't know if this really applies, but I wonder if being outside of Jerusalem did have much to do with salvation being a matter of grace outside of the Law.
Good Thoughts.
It was definitely "Outside of what the Pharisees have done with the Law." Jerusalem and the Temple became their Idol. Salvation was not to be found in Jerusalem, Salvation was not to be found at the Temple. Salvation was to be found in the One and Only Spotless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. And one must go further than rituals or self righteousness to find it...they must Go to Where Jesus Is...Outside the Camp....
You are being so very humble quoting Titus 3.
Seems to me that the OP placed a question to the BB that is well worthy of discussion.
Show from Scripture your argument has foundation.
Prove from Scripture that there was some level of wrath that God had to dump on the Son so it might be extinguished.
Let's try you out on ONE passage from Hebrews 9:
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Are you actually going to contend that Christ was blemished by the wrath of God particularly in the light that Christ states that after the resurrection, He had yet to ascend to the Father? (John 20)
You need to support your offense toward others by Scriptures.
Perhaps you can find that single Scripture that states that God poured out some measure of wrath upon His Son as satisfactory payment for sin.
I haven't found one, and frankly am too tired to look for one.
So PROVE by Scriptures you view.
For in them is the truth.
I actually did think it a topic worthy of discussion, it is something I was studying on my own, and was surprised at the lack of interest (some even indicated it was an old topic...I suppose not worthy of their interest. What I find amazing is that some strongly disagree and treasure their tradition (to the point of degrading other people) yet cannot provide one single passage that proves their view. It is not even a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of explanation, leaning on human understanding, and biblical illiteracy. Unfortunately, there are too many books out there telling people what to believe that some don't actually get around to scripture.
Here are some interesting (using that word subjectively) observations.
The idea that God “turns his back” on Jesus at the cross is denied by the very psalm Jesus quotes to express his identification with sinners. The psalmist praises God because, despite his cry of dereliction, God has NOT forsaken his servant or turned his back on him: “For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him;
But when he cried to Him for help, He heard (Ps. 22:24).”
The implication that the relationship between Father and Son has remained intact is reinforced by the cry “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46; Ps. 31:5). Which of course, brings us to Psalm 31:22: “As for me,I said in my alarm, ‘I am cut off from before Your eyes’; Nevertheless You heard the voice of my supplications when I cried to You.”
What is amazing is that in the midst of the suffering, in the midst of the agony, when Jesus is dying on the cross for me, he cried out with the words of the psalmist to express the faith that God is faithful to redeem, that God does not nor ever would abandon his Servant (Ps. 22; 31, and see also Ps. 16:10 and of course Luke’s quote of the Psalm in Acts 2).
Then of course there are the passages that describe a mutual indwelling of the Father and Son – “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:10). “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30). Perhaps more importantly – “Yet I am not alone because the Father is with me” (John 16:32).
Another interesting note (again, using “interesting” subjectively) is the truth that NT authors quoted the first lines of OT scriptures instead of giving chapter and verse references (which, of course, didn’t exist at that time). We cannot understand the New Testament divorced from the Old, yet this is exactly what some try to do. They take the quote “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” and conclude that the Father abandoned the Son (which is exactly the opposite of what Psalm 22 points towards).
I, agedman, am also interested in knowing what verses support the conclusions of a separation on the cross. It seems that some hold close that conclusion, so close that they resort to personal attack when they can’t find biblical support. But surely, as mine seems a minority view here, someone can provide at least one verse that supports their position. I have provided many stating that God will not abandon his Righteous One, is there at least one passage stating he will?
Imagine the depth of scripture you would find if you simply believed that the Old Testament is about Jesus. Imagine actually believing that Psalm 22 and Psalm 31 (which were quoted on the cross) actually reflected a reality that God will never abandon Jesus and therefore those of us in Christ will never be abandoned. Just try it out…read the two Psalms as if they actually applied to Jesus (I assure you they do) and then see if you can reconcile that scripture with the notion that the Father abandoned the Son.
Last edited:
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
No apologies for my usage of Titus 3 are forthcoming.
We have the OP here stating that those (whose views differ from his) are believing myths, preaching lies or something from the pulpit, and those who don't get their teachings from the Scriptures. That right there is being factious as Titus describes. The slander was arrogant, accusatory, condescending and divisive.
I stand in good company with my views with Spurgeon, Calvin, Gill, Coke, Trapp and many others including Christ; Matthew 27:46. Simply because we see God as 'inseparable' does not necessitate that the God who can did die, suffer wrath and divine desertion as noted by Gill. Showing others to believe the inseparability of God does not prove Mt. 27:46 to not show Christ forsaken of the Father.
Interestingly enough the OP claims (arrogantly yet again) not using commentators, however, he assuredly wants others to hear, guess who? HIM and what he has to say.
Now, I happen to believe what I believe, and I took the OP on for his statements which were divisive. Don't like my viewpoint? Good! But to call others those names and imply all of that is to be a factious person.
We have the OP here stating that those (whose views differ from his) are believing myths, preaching lies or something from the pulpit, and those who don't get their teachings from the Scriptures. That right there is being factious as Titus describes. The slander was arrogant, accusatory, condescending and divisive.
I stand in good company with my views with Spurgeon, Calvin, Gill, Coke, Trapp and many others including Christ; Matthew 27:46. Simply because we see God as 'inseparable' does not necessitate that the God who can did die, suffer wrath and divine desertion as noted by Gill. Showing others to believe the inseparability of God does not prove Mt. 27:46 to not show Christ forsaken of the Father.
Interestingly enough the OP claims (arrogantly yet again) not using commentators, however, he assuredly wants others to hear, guess who? HIM and what he has to say.
Now, I happen to believe what I believe, and I took the OP on for his statements which were divisive. Don't like my viewpoint? Good! But to call others those names and imply all of that is to be a factious person.
Last edited:
Brother, I apologize for my wording if that is what you have found so offensive. I did not mean it that way. What I mean by myth is not a particular interpretation. What I mean by myth is holding a belief that you cannot substantiate via Scripture. It is not the belief in question, it is reason that belief is held. A good example is the response of "I happen to believe what I believe." You believe it through scripture and can defend that position through scripture; or you have borrowed that belief from another person and simply hold it as if it were yours even though it is not; or you are simply combining tidbits of theological points hoping it will pan out. The first example is what I mean by believing Scripture (even if we disagree on interpretation), the last to are what I mean by believing a myth. If you believe something that you can’t back up then you hold it as myth regardless of its actual validity.
Years ago I changed my major to religion and transferred to a Baptist college because that I realized many of the beliefs I held were not my own (in the sense I knew what to believe but could not provide ample scripture to defend that belief). For example, you could have asked me if we were eternally secure. I would have affirmed OSAS. But if you pressed, you would quickly realize that I had either been told or read what to believe. The belief was not really my own, it belonged to someone else and I simply claimed it. Furthermore I couldn't defend it via Scripture (I could give some passages, but not engage through the Word of God). Now I still believe OSAS. But there is a difference. Then I believed it as a myth, now I believe it as truth. That is what I mean by “myth.” Some people cannot offer scripture to back up their beliefs, yet they hold to that belief anyway. If scripture is our authority, then that is where our doctrines should originate. And I do sincerely apologize if you thought I was saying penal substitution atonement is myth. I do believe it error, but I am always open to someone who can defend that view via scripture.
Last edited:
Well I had to Google, hypostatic union. That said let me ask and then you tell me.
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5 Here we have a prayer from Jesus to the Father asking to be glorified, 1 Peter 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
Here we have a statement concerning God raising and giving glory to the Christ. Jesus I assume.
I ask, do you believe that the Father gave the Son, Jesus glory of which he did not have from his birth of the virgin until his death and resurrection.
Hebrews 5 states Christ did not glorify himself to be made high priest but he that said, Thou art my Son this day have I begotten you, is the One who glorified him to be made high priest.
Tell me about, hypostatic union, from his being born of woman until his death. As I said I had to Google.
Could, Spirit the God, the Father, the One, desiring to be worshiped in spirit and truth die?
Could the Word made flesh die? Is the Word made flesh, the Son born of woman, born under the law?
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Romans 6:9
Can he die anymore? Has he been glorified? Did the Father glorify the Son?
- Status