Did Jesus experience a separation from God on the cross?

[JonC]

Let me ask.

Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Romans 6:9
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Acts 13:34

Was the Christ, Jesus of a more perfect nature before or after he was raised from the dead? Was he more glorious, before or after the resurrection from the dead?
Is the glory he prayed for in John 17:5 the same glory of 1 Peter 1:21 that states the Father gave to the Son? Is it the same glory of which we as children of God are joint heirs thereof with Christ spoken of in Romans 8:17. Glory we are heirs of, not yet inheritors of. Being we are joint heirs with Christ, when did or has Christ inherited that glory?

Did it require a perfection in nature which he did not have prior to the resurrection. 1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. --- Did that verse apply also to Jesus?

Here are my thoughts, brother.

Comparing “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” with “nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” Paul is speaking of our corruptible bodies now, our flesh and blood, not our resurrected bodies.

I believe that 2 Corinthians 5:11-21 may shed some light on this question. Paul focuses attention to the fact of Christ’s bodily resurrection, but he also explains that this work of God in redemption is God’s act of reconciling through Jesus the world to himself. The difference was not that Jesus gained more glory or greater glory than before. The difference is that humanity being reconciled in Christ gained this glory. In Philippians 2:1-11 Paul teaches that Christ emptied himself and became man, that he was obedient even to the point of death on a cross, and because of this God has exalted him. I think that we can sufficiently hold that Jesus has inherited that glory. I think this consistent with Jesus being the firstborn among many brothers and also being our hope. The answer here comes down to atonement and reconciliation. In other words, Jesus is not somehow more worthy, but there is now "man" in the glory.

Those who are being saved were predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ in order that Jesus may be the firstborn among many brothers. Because of Jesus’ work of redemption, his work of reconciling humanity to himself, we will also be glorified. This is not our own glory, but a glory we have in Christ. But we will also be resurrected and made new. It is not a matter of Jesus having a more perfected nature, but that through his sufferings he perfected our salvation and reconciled man.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on your questions.

 

[percho]

I am having a bit of trouble in what measure you find corruption meeting the standard the Scripture set for an acceptable blood sacrifice.

Starting with Act 13:34 there seems to be the idea that "corruption" is implied but that is not accurate:

30 But God raised Him from the dead; 31 and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32 And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today i have begotten You.’ 34 As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ 35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm, ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.’ 36 For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; 37 but He whom God raised did not undergo decay. 38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.​

I do not find corruption at any point as that touching Christ.

Does not the passage clearly state that there was NO corruption (decay) associated with Christ?

He was born of woman. Born in corruptible flesh and blood' He did not see corruption for he was raised on the third day. Why do you think we have the verse concerning Lazarus when his sister says Lord he stinks for he has been dead four days.

The Word was made flesh. That which is subject to death and corruption. That is imperfection relative to Spirit the God. Spirit the God could not die yet death was necessary for the destruction of death and him who had the power of death, that is the devil. Therefore Spirit the God sends forth Son, born of woman, born as the children of the, "What is man," made a little lower than the angels of Hebrews 2:6,7 subject to the same death and corruption the created man Adam was created subject to, when, not if but when he sinned. Someone sinless had to shed his blood, die, in order for death and him who had the power of death to be destroyed thus redeeming those to whom death had and would come upon.

I would like to ask another question. The iniquity of all was laid upon him. He bore our sins.

Is the iniquity of all still upon him? Is he still bearing all our sims? Could Jesus be ascended and sitting on the right hand of God the Father if our sins were still upon him? Where have our sins gone?

You know the answer. They were washed away in his blood. When? 1 Cor 15:16.17 read with Rom 6:9 states if the only one who has been raised from the dead had not been risen, even though he had shed his blood; We would still be in our sins. Our sins would not be washed away in his blood, if there be no resurrection to eternal life.

Regeneration; Given life, apart from the life of the flesh being in the blood is what allowed his blood to wash away our sins.

Regeneration of Jesus, when Jesus was raised from the dead our sins were washed away in his blood. Washing of regeneration.

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed fn us from our sins in His own blood, NKJV Rev 1:5 I left the fn there for I believe washed to be correct. I also believe our sins being washed from us is relative to his being the firstborn from the dead. Firstborn being different in just resurrection in that it is eternal, to die no more.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I thought that you were implying that the forsaken supported the notion that a separation had occurred between the Father and the Son. But yes, forsaken is speaking of that state of being left - i.e., allowed or permitted - to suffer (not a separation from God).

The Bible speaks of Christ being forsaken by the Father. But I wonder if you can explain to me how someone can be forsaken without a separation taking place.

And it is that starting point from which the psalmist prophesies Christ's deliverance as God will never abandon his Holy One.

As I have pointed out, a primary meaning of 'abandon' (as it applies to people) is 'forsake.' You are trying to have your cake and eat it. You have been forced to admit that Christ was forsaken on the cross, but you are trying to pretend that that does not involve at least some sort of temporary separation. Yes, of course the forsaking was only temporary, but it happened, and it was utterly essential for our salvation that it did. Because Christ was forsaken on the cross, you and I, through our union with Him, have already experienced separation from God and will not experience it again. As I wrote before:

Payment God cannot twice demand;
Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again from mine.
[QUOTE[ I am glad that we can at least agree on something, brother, and am now not really sure what you had been arguing.[/QUOTE]
I am glad that you have conceded that Christ was forsaken by God upon the cross.

 

[JonC]

First, I do not agree that Jesus was in any way forsaken by God as you imply (as you define). He was instead suffering and dying as a man, carrying our sins in his flesh. The definition of forsaken and abandon, even in the English language, is determined by context.

Forsaken does not mean or apply separation. It means left or abandoned to a situation. For example, in an entirely different context (in betrayal) Plutarch described Brutus as "forsaking" Caesar, but never bring absent from him. I am not saying this describes what happened between Jesus and God, but am pointing out a severe flaw in your definition.

Jesus was suffering and as Psalms prophecies he cried out to the Father and God was faithful to deliver. The view that on the cross God left Jesus is nothing short of heresy, and passage after passage after passage has been presented on this board. You have chosen to forsake those passages to focus on a specific definition for one word to argue your point. Brother, let scripture define scripture.

You are also caught in your theories. We are bought, purchased by the blood of Christ as an atonement, not a business transaction. The second death is separation, but it is the final and future judgment when "death and Hades is cast into Hell." The second death is not something one can "taste" for men, it is the declaration of a future death. It is something we avoid by being in Christ. Again, read the psalms. Jesus did not suffer separation, certainly not the second or spiritual death that awaits the unjust, but death in the flesh and resurrection of the flesh. Read Paul, Jesus did not die spiritually (separation) but physically and God justified him, raised him, and we are redeemed so that Jesus is the firstborn of many brothers. You deny so much more than I think you realize with your theories.

 

[agedman]

He was born of woman. Born in corruptible flesh and blood' He did not see corruption for he was raised on the third day. Why do you think we have the verse concerning Lazarus when his sister says Lord he stinks for he has been dead four days.

Perhaps you are assuming that corruption was passed from the mother to the Son. I do not hold this as what occured at the conception of the Son. In the account given by the physician Luke this is seen:

34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
​

John furthers this conception as incapable of being corrupt or incorruptible by stating:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men....
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.​

How can the Son of God be corrupt or even potentially corrupt?

The potential of corruption would indicate that Christ had a sin nature, and therefore could not be the Son of God, but merely the son of corrupt man fornicating with a woman, as the religious self righteous accused. (John 6)

Galatians states:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen.​

And Hebrews 7 addresses the difference between the OT priestly offering and that of Christ:

26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.​

And then after discussing the picture of the OT the writer continued in 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?​

Again, I consider the Scriptures teach that the union of God and Man (hypostatic union) and that teaching does not allow for even the hint of corruption or even the potential to be corrupted.

The Word was made flesh. That which is subject to death and corruption.

From a human perspective this sounds reasonable, but the Scriptures in John state:

17 For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”'​

Therefore, there was no death and corruption fleshly natural to be found in the Son.

...Someone sinless had to shed his blood, die, in order for death and him who had the power of death to be destroyed thus redeeming those to whom death had and would come upon.

Certainly, true, however you seem to be mixing that had Christ continued without being crucified that He would eventually have grown old and died as any other person. I don't find scripture support.

There is a bit of a glimpse of the dissemination of power found in Luke 4:
And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

Yet when the Revelation is written, we see the authority not given but taken because the Lamb was worthy. (Rev 5)

I would like to ask another question. The iniquity of all was laid upon him. He bore our sins.

Is the iniquity of all still upon him? Is he still bearing all our sims? Could Jesus be ascended and sitting on the right hand of God the Father if our sins were still upon him? Where have our sins gone?

You know the answer. They were washed away in his blood. When? 1 Cor 15:16.17 read with Rom 6:9 states if the only one who has been raised from the dead had not been risen, even though he had shed his blood; We would still be in our sins. Our sins would not be washed away in his blood, if there be no resurrection to eternal life.

You are correct, for Christ came into this world on purpose to do His Father's will.

However, you would consider sins as if they had to be placed somewhere, placed in something, or in some manner lumped into a group and disposed, washed away, or buried.
Certainly, those may occur in Scriptures as how God treats the doing away with sin and iniquities. There are some that would make sin as a "thing."

But, although the imagery of Scripture may be using such construct to give a picture in words, sin is not to be considered literally in that manner. Sin is results of lust and pride. Sin's wages are death. However, the broadest definition of the word "sin" is to "miss the mark." Because none can attain the righteousness of God by their own effort, all have "missed the mark."

So what was the "it" that Christ bore, if the definition of sin is to "miss the mark?"

Regeneration; Given life, apart from the life of the flesh being in the blood is what allowed his blood to wash away our sins.

Regeneration of Jesus, when Jesus was raised from the dead our sins were washed away in his blood. Washing of regeneration.

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed fn us from our sins in His own blood, NKJV Rev 1:5 I left the fn there for I believe washed to be correct. I also believe our sins being washed from us is relative to his being the firstborn from the dead. Firstborn being different in just resurrection in that it is eternal, to die no more.

There is no disagreement that the resurrection of Christ is a must be connected part of the death.

For what hope would reside in a dead savior?

The death, burial, and resurrection of our Savior is the Gospel. One should not be taught as ascended above the others.

The single connecting item of all three is the blood.

 

[JonC]

Matthew 27:46 does not teach that the Son was separated from the Father. The Son cannot be severed from the rest of the godhead, even for a moment. John 14:7 teaches that to see the Son is to see the Father.

When the Father forsook the Son it was by allowing the Son to suffer and to become a sacrifice for sin. The implications of forsaking go no further than that.

I agree. I just commented so that I could ask about your avatar and test my trivia...witch scene?

And this is where a solid systematic, biblical theology is helpful. I marvel at the amateur theologians who read a Greek-English interlinear and believe they are capable exegetes. They will build an entire doctrine on etymology.

There is the theological truth that God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). The Father cannot deny the Son; the Son cannot deny the Father; the Spirit cannot deny the Father or the Son; and they cannot deny the Spirit. Also the Father cannot deny those whom He has given to the Son (JN 10:29), because doing so would be denying the Son Himself.

Discussing this topic requires the greatest care. Some Christians are razor close to heresy in their comments and they do not even realize it. The Son is "very God of very God" and God cannot die. The Nicene creed rightly states that the Son was "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made". Also, it is what the Nicene creed did not say that stands out. It states, "He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father." The Nicene creed never says that the Son of God died. This is not a denial of the physical death of Jesus, it is an affirmation of the eternal generation of the Son, and the fact that the "very God of very God" cannot die, and consequently, cannot be separated from the Father.

What amazes me is that some find their “gem” of a word and create doctrines off their misunderstanding without even pausing to consider the implications of their conclusions. When examining ancient texts, so often context defines or gives nuance to a word. Some Christians toss context out the window when it comes to word studies (I'm not a fan of word studies in general for this reason). Anyway, you are absolutely correct. A little Greek can do a lot of damage.

 

[percho]

Perhaps you are assuming that corruption was passed from the mother to the Son. I do not hold this as what occured at the conception of the Son. In the account given by the physician Luke this is seen:

34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
​

John furthers this conception as incapable of being corrupt or incorruptible by stating:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men....
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.​

How can the Son of God be corrupt or even potentially corrupt?

The potential of corruption would indicate that Christ had a sin nature, and therefore could not be the Son of God, but merely the son of corrupt man fornicating with a woman, as the religious self righteous accused. (John 6)

Galatians states:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen.​

And Hebrews 7 addresses the difference between the OT priestly offering and that of Christ:

26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.​

And then after discussing the picture of the OT the writer continued in 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?​

Again, I consider the Scriptures teach that the union of God and Man (hypostatic union) and that teaching does not allow for even the hint of corruption or even the potential to be corrupted.


From a human perspective this sounds reasonable, but the Scriptures in John state:

17 For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”'​

Therefore, there was no death and corruption fleshly natural to be found in the Son.



Certainly, true, however you seem to be mixing that had Christ continued without being crucified that He would eventually have grown old and died as any other person. I don't find scripture support.

There is a bit of a glimpse of the dissemination of power found in Luke 4:
And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

Yet when the Revelation is written, we see the authority not given but taken because the Lamb was worthy. (Rev 5)



You are correct, for Christ came into this world on purpose to do His Father's will.

However, you would consider sins as if they had to be placed somewhere, placed in something, or in some manner lumped into a group and disposed, washed away, or buried.
Certainly, those may occur in Scriptures as how God treats the doing away with sin and iniquities. There are some that would make sin as a "thing."

But, although the imagery of Scripture may be using such construct to give a picture in words, sin is not to be considered literally in that manner. Sin is results of lust and pride. Sin's wages are death. However, the broadest definition of the word "sin" is to "miss the mark." Because none can attain the righteousness of God by their own effort, all have "missed the mark."

So what was the "it" that Christ bore, if the definition of sin is to "miss the mark?"



There is no disagreement that the resurrection of Christ is a must be connected part of the death.

For what hope would reside in a dead savior?

The death, burial, and resurrection of our Savior is the Gospel. One should not be taught as ascended above the others.

The single connecting item of all three is the blood.

What does that verse say about the nature of Jesus prior to the resurrection from the dead.


YLT Acts 13:34 'And that He did raise him up out of the dead, no more to return to corruption, he hath said thus -- I will give to you the faithful kindnesses of David;

Corruption - διαφθορά -
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. corruption, destruction
2. in the NT that destruction which is effected by the decay of the body after death
3. The sure mercies of David was that God the Father of Jesus would not let the flesh of the Christ see / suffer corruption, the Christ, the fruit of the loins of David.

Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: 2 Tim 2:8

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14

Death that in time brings the corruption of the flesh. From dust thou art and to dust thou shall return. If God the Father, does not give to the Son, the sure mercies of David at his resurrection the Son would still be of corruptible flesh. That is what Acts 13:34,35 states.

Jesus wasn't born of Mary incorruptible, the father gave him incorruptibility at the resurrection. You are correct that is the gospel and what does the gospel bring to light? What does the resurrection bring to light? 2 Tim 1:10 but has been made manifest now by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who has annulled death, and brought to light life and incorruptibility by the glad tidings;

Old Regular's favorite actually translated that verse correctly. Darby.......

By Jesus receiving life and incorruptibility from the Father he brought the same to light, for us. The Heir of God and the joint heirs with him. Heb 1:1,2 Rom 8:17

For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

The Father raised and quickened the Son from the dead and then gave him all power in heaven and earth. Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. ---- Who gave it to him? When?

 

[JonC]

Not arguing a point at all here, but this came to mind when I read your post.

As far as when Jesus was given this glory, I think it important to remember two things. First, the glory is Jesus' glory that he had with the Father from eternity past. What is different is not Jesus' nature but God's work of reconciliation, the Hope of men. Second, I think it also important to remember than Jesus "emptied" himself, he humbled himself in obedience.

Anyway, this comes to mind. John 17:1-5 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

 

[Judepriest]

I believe that God did not separate himself from Jesus. What God did was allow Jesus to suffer that is to feel what is like being human. How can Jesus say he loves humans if he does not feel being a mortal man, did he curse his tormentors while pinned on a cross? Did Jesus break down and beg for mercy as humans would under the circumstances of pain. Being his divine self as the Almighty God will not allow him to have empathy for human suffering. Jesus as a man experienced a painful death and he knew he had to go through this to solidify the rock of salvation.

 

[agedman]

"snipped for space"
The Father raised and quickened the Son from the dead and then gave him all power in heaven and earth. Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. ---- Who gave it to him? When?

Just to clarify my understanding of what you wrote.

Your posting that the raising incorruptible means in some way Jesus was corrupted before the burial.

Your saying the corruption was in some manner sin taken by the savior.

Your thinking that such corruption severed the relationship between the Father and Son if only for a short time, and the Father had to reconnect in some manner to the Son.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus suffered the punishment of a sinner who would be judged and declared guikty for their sins, as he became the sin bearer, so jesus experienced what all sinners will, eternal separation from the Father...

That was far graver than though what sinners will experience, as he who knew no sin, never ever was apart from his father had to face God turning away from him for those 3 hours upon the cross...

 

[agedman]

Jesus suffered the punishment of a sinner who would be judged and declared guikty for their sins, as he became the sin bearer, so jesus experienced what all sinners will, eternal separation from the Father...

That was far graver than though what sinners will experience, as he who knew no sin, never ever was apart from his father had to face God turning away from him for those 3 hours upon the cross...

So, God turned away from God, the trinity became a duet?

 

[JonC]

Jesus suffered the punishment of a sinner who would be judged and declared guikty for their sins, as he became the sin bearer, so jesus experienced what all sinners will, eternal separation from the Father...

That was far graver than though what sinners will experience, as he who knew no sin, never ever was apart from his father had to face God turning away from him for those 3 hours upon the cross...

I think that we have all heard this explanation, brother. What has been missing thus far, however, are the passages to back up many of those assertions you make.

I am not sure how or even why we have shifted from Jesus bearing our sins in his flesh (the Crucifixion) to Jesus bearing our sins in his spirit (this metaphysical 3 hours as Jesus experienced eternal separation from God). Are there any passages that you can offer for support?

How do you reconcile this conclusion (that Jesus experienced a separation from God for three hours) with the scriptures that it would seem to deny (listed throughout this thread)?

 

[percho]

Just to clarify my understanding of what you wrote.

Your posting that the raising incorruptible means in some way Jesus was corrupted before the burial.

Your saying the corruption was in some manner sin taken by the savior.

Your thinking that such corruption severed the relationship between the Father and Son if only for a short time, and the Father had to reconnect in some manner to the Son.

No I am saying the Christ came into the world as corruptible flesh, just as Adam was created; He came into the world in the figure of the created Adam Rom 5:14 a living soul. A living soul that derived his being through spirit life from God the Father circulated to his flesh through his blood. The soul (translated life in Lev 17:11) of the flesh is in the blood. Jesus said: Matt 20:28 Mark 10:40 For even the Son of man (the Son of God) came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life (ψυχὴν soul of the flesh in the blood) a ransom for many. The soul of the flesh. in the blood was poured out unto death Isa 53:12 as, back to Lev. atonement for the soul of man. Someone tell be about this word for atonement and how close is it to the word for appeasement for the wrath of God. BTW Jesus was then dead. Now look at Numbers 19 and all tell me, how long after touching a dead body (Oops here is that word again translated life in Lev 17:11; nephesh, soul) would it be before the one touching that soul could begin to be made clean?

After the Father laid our sin upon the Son and the Son was a dead soul do you thing it might have been three days before regeneration could take place? Before the cleansing of the Son could take place? Psalms 139 again I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; The soul, dead in Sheol/Hades the body of corruptible flesh, dead, laying in a borrowed tomb yet in three days would not see corruption. Both unclean, needing to be renewed with spirit Holy.

Question. After the resurrection of Jesus was his life/soul in the blood? That is where his life soul was before death but after the resurrection I believe the soul of his flesh, flesh and bone, was in his spirit Holy being. He received the life in himself that he said the Father gives him.
John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;



The soul Jesus the Christ: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Jesus was sinless yet he came into the world in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Matthew 27:46 does not teach that the Son was separated from the Father. The Son cannot be severed from the rest of the godhead, even for a moment. John 14:7 teaches that to see the Son is to see the Father.

When the Father forsook the Son it was by allowing the Son to suffer and to become a sacrifice for sin. The implications of forsaking go no further than that.

That the Godhead cannot be severed is a given, as is John 14:7 of course.
However, the question is not whether the Lord Jesus was torn asunder from the Trinity, but whether, as a man, He experienced 'a' (ie. some sort of) separation from His Father. The answer is yes.

JonC keeps on wittering about 'context' without giving any, so let's consider the context of our Lord's cry of desolation.

First of all, the scene in the garden. Jesus says to His disciples, "Look guys, this isn't costing Me a thing. It's all been sorted out. Just hang around for three days and we'll get the kingdom of God going." No! He says, "My heart is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death!" (Matt. 26:38). 'Then He fell on His face and prayed,' "Father, if there is a Plan B, now would be a very good time to consider it" (v.39).

'Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him' (Luke 22:43). So that was alright then, wasn't it? He jumped up, sang a chorus, turned a few cartwheels and off He went. No! No! 'And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly.' Whatever it was that the angel did, it didn't make the bad stuff go away. Here is the Creator and Saviour of the world horrified and bewildered at the ordeal that is approaching Him. Why? Because of the pain? No! Because of the separation from the Father that He knew He was about to experience. Because He had to experience the full horror of hell on our behalf. There would be no angel mopping His brow where He was about to go. 'Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.' On a night when it was cold enough to need a fire in the high priest's courtyard (Luke 22:55), our Lord sweats copiously- the psychosomatic response of a human being to impending trauma. He was true Man as well as true God.

Finally, in Gethsemane, we hear Him say, '"If you seek Me, let these go their way" that the saying might be fulfilled which He spoke, "Of those whom you gave Me I have lost none"' (John 18:8). He lost none because He was about to pay the penalty for them in full. We go our way because He went the way of the cross.

On the cross, the first thing we must notice is that He initially refused the wine and vinegar that He was offered (Mark 15:23). Why? Because it was an analgesic, and there are no analgesics in hell. Christ must pay the full penalty for His people. He must drain the cup of God's wrath against sin down to the very dregs. Read Psalm 75:8 and then Matt. 26:42 and understand.

Then hell is acted out in front of Him. In the stygian gloom between the sixth and ninth hour, in the most terrible pain, He experiences all the mocking and scoffing of the wicked. Here is the context of Psalm 22:6-18 and Mark 15:27-32. Initially, 'even those who were crucified with Him reviled Him' (v.32). In the darkness, I doubt that He could see His mother looking on helplessly, until the ninth hour. That, I imagine, is what hell is like. Because My Saviour has experienced it for me, I shan't have to find out.

In those three hours, He experienced, as a Man, separation from God. Hence the cry. He must have done, because He had to take my punishment, and part of that is the second death.

One last thing. Whoever it was who said that Christ could not die as God, is, of course quite correct. Jesus 'gave up His spirit' (John 19:30) and returned to the Father. 'No one takes [My life] from Me, but I lay it down of Myself' (John 10:18).

 

[JonC]

JonC keeps on wittering about 'context' without giving any, so let's consider the context of our Lord's cry of desolation.

Brother, you may disagree as to the relevancy and sufficiency of the context I have provided, but this comment is extraordinarily dishonest. I provided the context of God’s Holy One crying out in faith that he will be delivered. I spelled out what I believe to be the context plainly. And don't worry, I'm not gong to ask you to apologize. We disagree, so be it. But at least have a little integrity in our disagreement. We are fellow heirs in Christ.

That the Godhead cannot be severed is a given, as is John 14:7 of course.

Yes, absolutely, it should be a given. There can be no separation between Father, Son and Spirit. Of course, there also can be no separation within Father, Son or Spirit. We can’t picture that Jesus suffered in his human body isolated from God as his divine nature sat by sipping tea.

The cross was His hell.

Was it really? Are you speaking of hell as Sheol, where it is said of God “he is there”? Or are you speaking of Hell in terms of the second death which is not but includes spiritual separation? You say that Jesus experienced the second death in our stead and as our punishment. But now you say that his separation was not spiritual but was somehow physical? Jesus died a spiritual second death in our place by being separated from God in the flesh?

In those three hours, He experienced, as a Man, separation from God. Hence the cry. He must have done, because He had to take my punishment, and part of that is the second death.

This reconciliation, this suffering, was not only at the cross. What of the beating at the hands of the Romans? What of the crown of thorns? What of the ridicule, the attempted stones, the slanders? What of experiencing hunger and thirst? What of growing weary? What of his lowly birth? What of becoming man to begin with? What you need to see, brother, is that if Jesus and God were separated at the cross then they had been separated since the incarnation. What Jesus suffered, as God, was reconciling humanity to himself by bearing our sins in his flesh. He carried us, put on humanity and lived a sinless life.

One last thing. Whoever it was who said that Christ could not die as God, is, of course quite correct. Jesus 'gave up His spirit' (John 19:30) and returned to the Father. 'No one takes [My life] from Me, but I lay it down of Myself' (John 10:18).

That was Reformed, I believe. And yes, God cannot die. Jesus died in the body, not the spirit. Incidentally, it is the same with all men. It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment. The lost will experience a spiritual death (the second death) when death and Hades is cast into Hell in God’s future act of judgment.

But make no mistake, there was never a moment when Jesus was not God. There was never a moment when the Father and Son were separated. Jesus never cried out in desolation. He cried out as God's Holy One suffering and dying in complete faith that God would deliver him. And He did. (There's that context for you again....in case you missed it).

There are two issues that we really haven't covered but that apply. First, in this work of redemption God was reconciling us to himself. This is God, the Godhead, not separate persons. The fact that Jesus as God/Man suffered for us is how we can be redeemed. Otherwise, you are left with Jesus being God by necessity to live a perfect life and then left to die as a mere man. Second, when you say that the Father abandoned his Holy One in his time of need you are speaking much against God and Scripture.

 

[agedman]

No I am saying the Christ came into the world as corruptible flesh, just as Adam was created; He came into the world in the figure of the created Adam Rom 5:14 a living soul. A living soul that derived his being through spirit life from God the Father circulated to his flesh through his blood. The soul (translated life in Lev 17:11) of the flesh is in the blood. Jesus said: Matt 20:28 Mark 10:40 For even the Son of man (the Son of God) came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life (ψυχὴν soul of the flesh in the blood) a ransom for many. The soul of the flesh. in the blood was poured out unto death Isa 53:12 as, back to Lev. atonement for the soul of man. Someone tell be about this word for atonement and how close is it to the word for appeasement for the wrath of God. BTW Jesus was then dead. Now look at Numbers 19 and all tell me, how long after touching a dead body (Oops here is that word again translated life in Lev 17:11; nephesh, soul) would it be before the one touching that soul could begin to be made clean?

After the Father laid our sin upon the Son and the Son was a dead soul do you thing it might have been three days before regeneration could take place? Before the cleansing of the Son could take place? Psalms 139 again I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; The soul, dead in Sheol/Hades the body of corruptible flesh, dead, laying in a borrowed tomb yet in three days would not see corruption. Both unclean, needing to be renewed with spirit Holy.

Question. After the resurrection of Jesus was his life/soul in the blood? That is where his life soul was before death but after the resurrection I believe the soul of his flesh, flesh and bone, was in his spirit Holy being. He received the life in himself that he said the Father gives him.
John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;



The soul Jesus the Christ: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Jesus was sinless yet he came into the world in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin.

I broke this post into blocks with bold headers, not for emphasis, but for more ease of reading with the focus of that section in mind.


Sometimes folks will use a passage such as "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to mean that Christ came in some manner able to be corrupted, corruptible, or corrupt.

The likeness has to do with the appearance and not the nature.

The Scriptures state, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. "

Hebrew 1:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
​

The "exact representation of His nature" indicates not just a resemblance, but made up the exact same way. Back in the day, one would use carbon paper between sheets to make exact copies, then there were photo copies, and now... but the copies were not mere representations, but exact in every detail.

The Lord Jesus Christ was as no other human, because He was God in the flesh. He had the very nature of God, and the fleshly form of human. In the union of being fully God and fully human, the nature of God was not relegated to being lesser, and the human nature not elevated to being more.

Some desire to place emphasis upon the fleshly and relegate the God to such areas as miracles and knowledge and even suggest that in the flesh He suffered stomach ailments, disease, skin lesions, measles, muscle strain, ear aches, eye strain, ... Look upon that mountain in which the three apostles joined the Lord who met with Moses and Elijah.

Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him.​

What then is His glory? Is it not the "exact representation of His nature" that was shrouded in flesh? "The Word became flesh" did not relegate the Lord Jesus to a second hand estate of corruptible. He was "found in fashion as a man" does not indicate that He was totally a man without regard to Him also being totally God. God cannot in any manner be corruptible. Such cannot occur because it is not a part of the core nature of God.

The hypostatic union does not allow for a separation anymore than a person upon death ceases to exist.


Verses about "corruption" fit into the experience of Christ as it relates to the cross.

The verses about "corruption" are those that apply to the natural bloating and decay that sets in upon the body when it ceases to be viable.

Forensic investigation indicates that decay starts immediately upon death, and not after three days. That is why in our modern times, harvesting of organs takes place after a pronouncement of death, yet just before the body actually dies. If a body dies, the organs cannot be harvested. The body must be kept on some type of support system as the tissues are harvested, and death and the pronouncement of death is now considered a process and flexible as to exact time it occurred so doctors are not accused of removing organs from one living and causing that person's death.

The "three day" is then to be taken more as some tradition, and not some biology. But there is also the mater of how one reads such passages as in the Psalms and Acts, "not see corruption."

The "corruption" is decay, and "see" is the undergoing process. Neither occurred. Christ was not corruptible, nor able to undergo the process to be corruptible.

Why is this important - The place of tradition when compared to forensics.

Because decay begins immediately at the time of death, it is impossible for the verses to be taken in the manner of someone who did not die, but rather as one who is proclaimed dead by tradition. The difference between the raising of the widows child, the child raised on the way to burial and Lazarus, is the first two had not been dead three days, and Lazarus had. So, the tradition of Jews would discount the death of the first two and place them in events as perhaps one who drowned and was resuscitated. It is what some of the Jews teach when relating the story of how Elijah was stretched over the child, face to face. So, three days was important for traditional proof of death, but has no forensic value as proof of death.

So, taking "corruption" as decay, and then placing that in the passages, it shows that not only was the Lord not corrupt, but had not even forensically the capacity to "see" corruption.

Again, the body undergoing the pain and suffering of crucifixion is horrible, and in our ease of living and sensibility to the point of unimaginable. But the mode of death had to be that which shed blood.

Strangulation, drowning, or some other means of suffocation (which is really how people died in crucifixion) would not do. For each of those would not be a method of shedding blood. It is the shed blood that is the focus.

When Christ appeared before the apostles, He showed Thomas the hands and side. The other wounds were no doubt also easily seen, but these were important. For out of these wounds the blood did not merely ooze but dripped from the hands and feet, and poured from the side pierced by the spear.

Keep the focus upon the blood, as the apostles did.

The resurrection is a statement of victory and final hope of all believers, but that victory and final hope would be of no value without the blood being shed.

 

[percho]

That the Godhead cannot be severed is a given, as is John 14:7 of course.
However, the question is not whether the Lord Jesus was torn asunder from the Trinity, but whether, as a man, He experienced 'a' (ie. some sort of) separation from His Father. The answer is yes.

JonC keeps on wittering about 'context' without giving any, so let's consider the context of our Lord's cry of desolation.

First of all, the scene in the garden. Jesus says to His disciples, "Look guys, this isn't costing Me a thing. It's all been sorted out. Just hang around for three days and we'll get the kingdom of God going." No! He says, "My heart is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death!" (Matt. 26:38). 'Then He fell on His face and prayed,' "Father, if there is a Plan B, now would be a very good time to consider it" (v.39).

'Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him' (Luke 22:43). So that was alright then, wasn't it? He jumped up, sang a chorus, turned a few cartwheels and off He went. No! No! 'And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly.' Whatever it was that the angel did, it didn't make the bad stuff go away. Here is the Creator and Saviour of the world horrified and bewildered at the ordeal that is approaching Him. Why? Because of the pain? No! Because of the separation from the Father that He knew He was about to experience. Because He had to experience the full horror of hell on our behalf. There would be no angel mopping His brow where He was about to go. 'Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.' On a night when it was cold enough to need a fire in the high priest's courtyard (Luke 22:55), our Lord sweats copiously- the psychosomatic response of a human being to impending trauma. He was true Man as well as true God.

Finally, in Gethsemane, we hear Him say, '"If you seek Me, let these go their way" that the saying might be fulfilled which He spoke, "Of those whom you gave Me I have lost none"' (John 18:8). He lost none because He was about to pay the penalty for them in full. We go our way because He went the way of the cross.

On the cross, the first thing we must notice is that He initially refused the wine and vinegar that He was offered (Mark 15:23). Why? Because it was an analgesic, and there are no analgesics in hell. Christ must pay the full penalty for His people. He must drain the cup of God's wrath against sin down to the very dregs. Read Psalm 75:8 and then Matt. 26:42 and understand.

Then hell is acted out in front of Him. In the stygian gloom between the sixth and ninth hour, in the most terrible pain, He experiences all the mocking and scoffing of the wicked. Here is the context of Psalm 22:6-18 and Mark 15:27-32. Initially, 'even those who were crucified with Him reviled Him' (v.32). In the darkness, I doubt that He could see His mother looking on helplessly, until the ninth hour. That, I imagine, is what hell is like. Because My Saviour has experienced it for me, I shan't have to find out.

In those three hours, He experienced, as a Man, separation from God. Hence the cry. He must have done, because He had to take my punishment, and part of that is the second death.

One last thing. Whoever it was who said that Christ could not die as God, is, of course quite correct. Jesus 'gave up His spirit' (John 19:30) and returned to the Father. 'No one takes [My life] from Me, but I lay it down of Myself' (John 10:18).

I agree with you. His suffering built upon itself until he felt the sin of the world laid upon him and he felt forsaken of by God and at that moment gave his life for our sin, it is finished, Father into your hands I commend my spirit, the breath of life. Jesus died separated from God the Father for three days. Upon washing of regeneration and quickened by the spirit Holy he ascended to his God and his Father to be accepted for us therefore our God and our Father. Then and only then could the Holy Spirit be shed upon us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Lord Jesus Christ was as no other human, because He was God in the flesh. He had the very nature of God, and the fleshly form of human. In the union of being fully God and fully human, the nature of God was not relegated to being lesser, and the human nature not elevated to being more.

The way I prefer to express this (and it is not original to me) is that He was Man as if He were not God, and God as if He were not Man. The two natures are not mixed or blended. So the Lord Jesus Christ as a Man, 'increased in wisdom and stature' (Luke 2:52); He 'was hungry' (Luke 4:2), and thirsty (John 4:7); 19:28); He was so tired that He fell asleep on a boat (Luke 8:23 etc.); He was sometimes happy (Luke 10:21); He was sometimes sad (John 11:35, 38). His body was not free from the ravages of time- He looked older than His years (John 8:57).

But as God, He knew what was in men's hearts (John 2:25); He could still a storm with a word (Luke 8:24 etc.); He had power over disease, over nature and over death.

Some desire to place emphasis upon the fleshly and relegate the God to such areas as miracles and knowledge and even suggest that in the flesh He suffered stomach ailments, disease, skin lesions, measles, muscle strain, ear aches, eye strain, ...

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Lord Jesus suffered from any of those ailments, but if He was real man, and if He 'was tempted (or 'tested') in every way just as we are' (Heb. 4:15), then He must have ben susceptible to these things.

Look upon that mountain in which the three apostles joined the Lord who met with Moses and Elijah.
Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him.

Our Lord 'made Himself nothing' (Phil. 2:7) during His time on earth. His divine glory was veiled (Isaiah 53:2). At the Transfiguration, that veil was removed for a moment and Peter, James and John 'were eyewitnesses of His majesty' (2 Peter 1:16-18).

 

[percho]

Keep the focus upon the blood, as the apostles did.

The resurrection is a statement of victory and final hope of all believers, but that victory and final hope would be of no value without the blood being shed.

I cut short and will try to keep response short. The focus is on the blood because that is where the soul of the flesh, "is." The very, "being," of one. As you will, "life," "being."
Satan, the devil sinned from the beginning we are told in 1 John 3:8. Satan is of an angel, shall we say class, and is not subject to death yet his sin from the beginning brought death to something. Satan lusted to be God and to replace God upon his throne. From James 1 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Satan brought death to God's creation Gen 1:1, I believe, for we find the earth to be without form and void and darkness upon the face of the deep. I believe somewhere in the word of God it states God does not create in that manner. Spirit the God can not die yet he knows the only for His to destroy death and Satan is through death of which Satan has the power thereof. So before Adam is created in the image of his creator God determines to send his Anointed into the world to die and destroy the works of Satan, the devil. The Anointed is going to have to come through a being subject to the power of Satan, the devil in order to destroy him and his works including the death. Thus the first man Adam is created for the purpose of the last Adam who can die and then be given, "life," "being," in the flesh apart from the blood. Jesus, the Anointed the Son of God born of the virgin Mary, who in the flesh died, shed his blood, and then was quickened by the Spirit.

We see what is man made a little lower than the angels, who can not die, man who we see not yet all things put under his feet but we see Jesus, made a little lower than the angels, because of the death, who died the death and then was given a new kind of life and all things put under his feet, of whom we can be joint heirs.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

For that to take place God had to be able to die, thus the Son of God born of woman taken from man made in the image of his creator, yet fleshly sold under sin, which Satan did from the beginning.

Romans 8:20 NKJV For the creation (Adam was the crown of that creation) was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; (Hope was the Son of God born of woman)

Jesus is the Son of man, the Son of God, equal unto God. God of God. Who say ye that I am. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Sorry, went lot longer than intended.