Did Jesus experience a separation from God on the cross?

[JonC]

It seems that the two views of separation are Martin's view that Jesus was separated from God for the three hours on the cross and Percho's view that it was for the three days in the tomb.

In the latter view, we are speaking of the three days after the cross but before Jesus' bodily resurrection. Are we also saying, then, that when we die we are separated from God until our bodily resurrection (and does the body in the grave constitute "us")?

The issue is largely in this separation. Both accounts seem to either separate the Son from the Father, create and separate two natures within Christ (a human nature and a divine nature), or both. I think Martin does the latter (he seems to insist that Jesus was two natures possessing one body, toggling between the two as necessary...i.e., as God he forgave sin, as man he hungered, etc). But I am not sure about your position, Percho.

 

[percho]

It seems that the two views of separation are Martin's view that Jesus was separated from God for the three hours on the cross and Percho's view that it was for the three days in the tomb.

In the latter view, we are speaking of the three days after the cross but before Jesus' bodily resurrection. Are we also saying, then, that when we die we are separated from God until our bodily resurrection?

The issue is largely in this separation. Both accounts seem to either separate the Son from the Father and damage the doctrine of Trinity or separate the natures within Christ (a human nature and a divine nature). I think Martin does the latter (he seems to insist that Jesus was two natures possessing one body, toggling between the two as necessary...i.e., as God he forgave sin, as man he hungered, etc). But I am not sure about your position, Percho.

I believe God through Son, incarnated, came as a man. I believe the, " I am that I Am," is the literal, "I will be who I will Be," thus the Son being the I Am, who I said, I would be.

I believe the passage stating that Levi paid tithes in Abraham; Heb 7:9,10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. Tells us a lot about, Jesus of the tribe of Juda V14. Jesus was in the loins of Abraham also being of his seed through Mary see Gal 3:16 and also God his Father which does not dispute John 1 nor Heb 1 nor any of the word of God or John 17 for that matter. The virgin Mary found herself with Child by the over powering of Spirit the God. Jesus was as much her son as he was the Son of the living God. He was also Holy without sin and would remain so through sufferings unto obedience unto death even the death of the cross. He called himself the Son of man and he called God his Father. Jesus is our Lord.

 

[JonC]

I believe God through Son, incarnated, came as a man. I believe the, " I am that I Am," is the literal, "I will be who I will Be," thus the Son being the I Am, who I said, I would be.

I believe the passage stating that Levi paid tithes in Abraham; Heb 7:9,10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. Tells us a lot about, Jesus of the tribe of Juda V14. Jesus was in the loins of Abraham also being of his seed through Mary see Gal 3:16 and also God his Father which does not dispute John 1 nor Heb 1 nor any of the word of God or John 17 for that matter. The virgin Mary found herself with Child by the over powering of Spirit the God. Jesus was as much her son as he was the Son of the living God. He was also Holy without sin and would remain so through sufferings unto obedience unto death even the death of the cross. He called himself the Son of man and he called God his Father. Jesus is our Lord.

Would you consider then the idea of "Christophanies" to be in error as the Son did not exist prior to the Incarnation? Instead God existed from eternity past and upon taking on flesh he took on the distinctions that we would consider "Father" and "Son"?

 

[percho]

Would you consider then the idea of "Christophanies" to be in error as the Son did not exist prior to the Incarnation? Instead God existed from eternity past and upon taking on flesh he took on the distinctions that we would consider "Father" and "Son"?

I Googled. Looks like a lot of reading. I believe Adam was created, in the image of God, for the purpose of the manifestation of the Son of God, to rectify a problem, that is Satan and his works, that pre existed Adam and continued after Adam and will continue until the coming again of Jesus.

 

[JonC]

I Googled. Looks like a lot of reading. I believe Adam was created, in the image of God, for the purpose of the manifestation of the Son of God, to rectify a problem, that is Satan and his works, that pre existed Adam and continued after Adam and will continue until the coming again of Jesus.

Not really much reading. I was just wondering if you believed that God the Son was active as distinct person within the Godhead in the Old Testament narrative. Some, for example, attribute God speaking to Moses as the second Person of the Trinity pre-incarnate.

 

[percho]

Not really much reading. I was just wondering if you believed that God the Son was active as distinct person within the Godhead in the Old Testament narrative. Some, for example, attribute God speaking to Moses as the second Person of the Trinity pre-incarnate.

I do not. However you have passages such as the Rock in the wilderness but even there it can be inclusive in, "'Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God, one Jehovah," for I believe all the word points to Christ, the Word made flesh, the Son of God.

in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages;

I believe, all, is through and for, the Son of God and the adopted children and even they are for the Son, his body. I believe Gal 4:4-6 are powerful words and I wonder how extensive they are when you consider passages like Gal 3:29 and things God told Abraham concerning the sand of the sea shore and the stars of heaven and passages as Eph 1:9-10 and every knee bowing?

Our God is an awesome God.

 

[JonC]

Indeed our God is an awesome God.

Essentially, and if I understand you correctly, God did not exist in three persons literally in the OT. Instead the Son was foreshadowed until the time came when the Word became flesh. Jesus was that promise of God fulfilled. Is that fair, or have I misunderstood?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

Firstly, I apologize for my use of the word 'wittering.' It was unnecessary. But your attempt at putting Psalm 22 in context was wholly lacking. The context is Christ upon the cross as I described above.

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. Was it really?

God does not tire or sleep (Isaiah 40:28; Psalm 121:4); The Lord Jesus was tired, so He slept (Mark 4:38). God does not hunger (Psalm 50:12-13); the Lord Jesus was hungry (Matt. 4:2). This is possibly not the place to discuss the doctrine of divine impassibility, but Jesus wept. These are great mysteries, but Jesus slept as a Man, hungered as a Man, and wept as a Man. He also suffered as a Man.

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.

He suffered the pains of hell during those three hours of darkness on the cross. I do not believe that He descended into hell after His death, but I don't think it would be helpful to discuss Eph. 4:9 or 1 Peter 3:19 on this thread.

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?

No, I have not said that. I think it will be helpful to discuss the Presence of God before we discuss His absence and I am preparing a post on this.

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?

All Reformed folk agree that the whole of Christ's life was propitiation and I agree with them. But there is something special in what happened at the cross. Paul does not say, "God forbid that I should glory save in the life of Christ." He glories in the cross! On the cross, Christ was made a curse for His people by hanging on the tree; on the cross He was numbered with the transgressors; on the cross He received the wages of sin on our behalf.

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.

Absolute non sequitur!

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.

You need to be careful here that you do not commit the ancient error of Sabellianism or Patripassionism (sp?). God did not suffer on the cross. Jesus Christ who is God suffered and died for our sins. Otherwise, I agree with you. That He was reconciling humanity does not alter the fact that He was doing it by paying the penalty for its sins.

But make no mistake, there was never a moment when Jesus was not God.

Agreed.

There was never a moment when the Father and Son were separated. Jesus never cried out in desolation.

I think you'll find He did. Just read Psalm 22:1-18 again, will you?

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).

Why yes. I hope you are not suggesting that I think that Christ did not have faith in His deliverance. After the three hours of darkness, the sun came out. Propitiation had been made, save for the final act of giving up His spirit, and doubtless that special unity between Father and Son was restored. He could lead the thief to salvation, make arrangements for His mother and fulfil the final prophecy by asking for a drink (Psalm 22:15; John 19:28-29). Then He could truly say, "It is finished!" and give up His spirit into the hands of His Father (Luke 23:46).

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.

I am realising the at you completely and utterly misunderstand what I have been arguing. Christ did not cease to be God upon the cross. But that does not mean that the Father did not forsake Him. But yes, I do agree that God was reconciling sinners to Himself.

Second, when you say that the Father abandoned his Holy One in his time of need you are speaking much against God and Scripture.

If it makes you happy to change the word 'abandoned' to 'forsook' I really have no problems. The meaning does not change. But the Scriptures are absolutely clear that that is what happened. And the fact that Christ was forsaken/ abandoned by the Father is an incredibly blessed one. It means that that fate will not happen to us. He has taken our punishment upon Himself (Isaiah 53:5).

 

[agedman]

I am out of this discussion.

When posters state that God can separate from Himself, and / or that Christ was not God during some supposed separation time from God, it is just too much. There is no Holy Spirit agreement with such posts.

 

[percho]

Let's shoot for something we might all can agree on. Assuming a moment can be measured in seconds, would all agree that when Christ cried out my God my God why has thou forsaken me, was the moment the Father laid the iniquity of us all upon him?

How long from that moment would each or you think he breathed his last?

I am going with a minute or less.

I think this is relative to the OP in that I believe the forsaking preceded his death by less than, let's say, ninety seconds and is what keyed Jesus (his purpose was accomplished) to give up the spirit of himself. Death, giving up the spirit, began the separation. I understand you do not agree with this. That's ok. Just my thought.

 

[JonC]

Firstly, I apologize for my use of the word 'wittering.' It was unnecessary. But your attempt at putting Psalm 22 in context was wholly lacking. The context is Christ upon the cross as I described above.

Ok, where to start…. First, there is no need to apologize for using “wittering,” and I am not offended. The word reminds me of a Pink Floyd song (except I think that’s “frittering”) and I had to look it up. Anyway, the definition is something like that last sentence I wrote. You may certainly view my exploration of Psalm 22 as non-germane to the topic, and if “wittering” accurately captures your honest assessment of my position then by all means don’t apologize. I always value honest discourse, however harsh it may be, over kind but insincere assessments. If we disagree then we simply disagree, but we walk away knowing a little more of each other’s views. I was not offended (even after I looked up the word).

Now, what you and I need to keep in mind is that both of us are speaking in context of the cross. It is how we define that context that is different. I think that the issue at hand here is adequately defined within the psalms I have provided, not to take away from the cross but because they were prophesies of the cross (Jesus didn’t just look back and quote a psalm, the psalm looked forward to the cross). You view the cross through a systematic theology that provides a context. Your context is perhaps more complete, certainly more compact. It has some advantages. I say this because I both held and preached your view until quite recently (except the 3 hours of separation, I was not that precise but I understand where you come from there). I say this only to say that I understand your argument.

Here is where I stand. I understand because we once would have agreed on this issue. This is what happened to me. I realized that if the forensic sense of divine justice missed a beat then other things could fall away. My theology was beautiful, logical, and concise. It covered all of the bases. And then one evening the unthinkable happened. I was reading scripture and I saw that theology skip a beat. I can’t unlearn what is learned, and I can’t ignore the questions that I once vaguely addressed or left to “mystery.” I don’t expect you to share my understanding, or even accept my argument. If you would like to know why I refined my views away from what I held for over 40 years then I am willing to discuss it with the understanding that I expect to work through my understanding for the rest of my life and I do not expect to convert but to explain. If you are not interested then that is fine as well.

You need to be careful here that you do not commit the ancient error of Sabellianism or Patripassionism (sp?). God did not suffer on the cross. Jesus Christ who is God suffered and died for our sins.

You accuse me of coming dangerously close to an “ancient error.” You may be right. I do believe that Jesus suffered as God-Man, I believe he hungered, thirsted and died. But that death was of the flesh and not the spirit (God didn’t die, but Jesus as God-man did experience the flesh die). God cannot die. Ironically, upon my death I expect my body to die but I expect to be with the Lord. I will also point out that you are also head long into heresy with me, brother. From the Council of Chalcedon: “our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man…..Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and substance, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son.” At least we’re in good company…heretics of different heresies.

I did read Psalm 22 again, as a whole (not just verses 1-18). I still insist that your interpretation of “forsake” as a separation or as necessitating separation is a result of your theological leanings rather than scripture itself. We are not going to agree here, brother.

I am realising the at you completely and utterly misunderstand what I have been arguing. Christ did not cease to be God upon the cross. But that does not mean that the Father did not forsake Him. But yes, I do agree that God was reconciling sinners to Himself.

I actually do not think that you believe Jesus ceased being God on the cross. I believe that you think that there was a separation between the Father and Son on the cross. I do believe, however, that the logical conclusion is Jesus stopped being God. That was the point I was trying to get across, and I do apologize if it seems I misrepresented your position. I am thankful you made it clear here.

If it makes you happy to change the word 'abandoned' to 'forsook' I really have no problems. The meaning does not change. But the Scriptures are absolutely clear that that is what happened.

You miss so much of the passage here, brother. Even in English the word does not necessitate a separation. I don’t know why you do not realize that fact. To forsake is to “leave to something,” “abandon to” something, not just leave or abandon. Your theology fails you in understanding much of this psalm, and I fear much of the reality of the Cross. But it does not fail to bring you to our Lord and Savior and I am grateful that we can argue as brothers and not as enemies.

He has taken our punishment upon Himself (Isaiah 53:5).

Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

I know that you read into this passage “our punishment” but it is simply not there. But I also know that you do not see that. You sincerely believe that Isaiah 53:5 states that Jesus took our punishment upon himself. Until you see your theology skip a beat, I think you will confidently stand on that understanding. And that's fine I guess. We can agree on other things.

 

[JonC]

Let's shoot for something we might all can agree on. Assuming a moment can be measured in seconds, would all agree that when Christ cried out my God my God why has thou forsaken me, was the moment the Father laid the iniquity of us all upon him?

How long from that moment would each or you think he breathed his last?

I am going with a minute or less.

I think this is relative to the OP in that I believe the forsaking preceded his death by less than, let's say, ninety seconds and is what keyed Jesus (his purpose was accomplished) to give up the spirit of himself. Death, giving up the spirit, began the separation. I understand you do not agree with this. That's ok. Just my thought.

I think you excluded me from the "we might all agree on part."

This is not what the reference "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" means. We simply cannot understand the New Testament divorced from the Old. The entire psalm is one looking to God for deliverance. The very next verse shows that the people understood this to be a cry for deliverance instead of one of abandonment.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I know that you read into this passage “our punishment” but it is simply not there

Well obviously it is there, but your new theological construct cannot accept it.
You have made a decision to side with the Socinians against the Reformers, Puritans and Particular Baptists; with the proponents of the Downgrade against Spurgeon, and with the Liberals and men like Steve Chalke against Lloyd-Jones, Packer, Beeke, Mohler, Piper etc. Those are your cheer-leaders and bed-fellows. What you see as a 'beat-skipping' moment, I see as a 2 Tim. 4:3 moment.

The temptation to bore you with my theological history is very great. You seem to think that I was brought up in a certain tradition. I will only say that I had no religion until I was 38, and I had never heard of Reformed Theology until I was in my 40s.

I am going to leave the discussion now until I have written something on the Presence of God. Until I do that, I don't think we can properly understand how the Father forsook the Son.

 

[JonC]

Well obviously it is there, but your new theological construct cannot accept it.
You have made a decision to side with the Socinians against the Reformers, Puritans and Particular Baptists; with the proponents of the Downgrade against Spurgeon, and with the Liberals and men like Steve Chalke against Lloyd-Jones, Packer, Beeke, Mohler, Piper etc. Those are your cheer-leaders and bed-fellows. What you see as a 'beat-skipping' moment, I see as a 2 Tim. 4:3 moment.

The temptation to bore you with my theological history is very great. You seem to think that I was brought up in a certain tradition. I will only say that I had no religion until I was 38, and I had never heard of Reformed Theology until I was in my 40s.

I am going to leave the discussion now until I have written something on the Presence of God. Until I do that, I don't think we can properly understand how the Father forsook the Son.

No, brother, it is not obviously there. It is not there at all. "He has taken our punishment on himself" is completely absent from the passage and is a product of your theology and perhaps a commentator. That is why I provided the verse. Diagram it. You see it there because you have put it there. It is not even a matter of interpretation, brother. If it were then we could find common ground for discussion, but what you have done is place your reasoning into the text and have called it "scripture." I'm arguing a passage in God's Word against you arguing commentary. Examine the ground upon which you stand. Look at the verse, diagram the verse, and you will find "He has taken our punishment on himself" distinctly absent.

Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

It is the same with other topics we have discussed. And I think you hit at the reason in your post. It is not that you have chosen the "Reformers, Puritans, and Particular Baptists" and I have chosen the Socinians. You have indeed chosen the Reformed commentators and are arguing your interpretation of those commentators but I have chosen Scripture. If you will slow down and look at each verse, I think that you will come to see the error in this.

It is a problem in our contemporary church that so many people simply choose a "side" and built their faith on commentaries and human opinion rather than Scripture itself. For my part, there was a time when I refrained from strictly examining those alike Spurgeon, John Owen, and John Gill (these, BTW, remain favorites of mine). But these are mere men offering their understanding, and we are mere men working through Scripture. I think that if you can lay aside commentary and simply concentrate on God's Word you will at least be able to separate your explanation and reasoning from Scripture itself (even if your position stays the same). I encourage you to start by actually examining in detail this verse in Isaiah. You will find that you have added content to the passage, and I think that you may even be surprised at how obvious that addition stands apart from the actual text.

 

[kyredneck]

It is a problem in our contemporary church that so many people simply choose a "side" and built their faith on commentaries and human opinion rather than Scripture itself.

Not very many Bereans around it seems.

 

[JonC]

Not very many Bereans around it seems.

I think this is a product of our culture. We tend to just choose a camp and indoctrinate ourselves. In general (not speaking of anyone here) biblical literacy has been lost. So many simply do not know how to study and they don't care to learn as long as they have someone to offer an explanation they find reasonable. We no longer allow Scripture to shape our theology because we are always fighting to defend our theological understanding. Apologetics have replaced hermeneutics in personal study.

In a real sense, many hold the view of "why bother with Scripture when we have all these commentators who have done that part for us.". And that is, IMHO, nothing short of heresy.

 

[percho]

I think you excluded me from the "we might all agree on part."

This is not what the reference "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" means. We simply cannot understand the New Testament divorced from the Old. The entire psalm is one looking to God for deliverance. The very next verse shows that the people understood this to be a cry for deliverance instead of one of abandonment.

I thirst.

Ps 42 [[To the chief Musician, Maschil, for the sons of Korah.]] As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God? (After the resurrection I might add. John 20:17)

Matt 27 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.

It is finished, Father into your hands I commend the spirit of me, he gave up the spirit.

 

[JonC]

I thirst.

Ps 42 [[To the chief Musician, Maschil, for the sons of Korah.]] As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God? (After the resurrection I might add. John 20:17)

Matt 27 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.

It is finished, Father into your hands I commend the spirit of me, he gave up the spirit.

Exactly. No separation but an expression of God's Holy One crying out for deliverance. And God is faithful.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You have indeed chosen the Reformed commentators and are arguing your interpretation of those commentators but I have chosen Scripture.

Ah! Now I see! Your amazing spiritual perspicacity has enabled you to discern that my posts are the mere regurgitation of long-dead scribblers while yours are the unmediated synergy of the Holy Spirit and a brilliant intellect. I was quite wrong in my assessment of you. You are one of those rare people who do not need to study other folks' works. You can blaze your own trail through the Scriptures. You follow in the tradition of such pioneers as Charles Taze Russell and Harold Camping.

Proverbs 24:6. 'In a multitude of counsellors there is safety.'
Matt. 13:52. "Therefore every scribe instructed concerning kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things old and new."

 

[JonC]

Ah! Now I see! Your amazing spiritual perspicacity has enabled you to discern that my posts are the mere regurgitation of long-dead scribblers while yours are the unmediated synergy of the Holy Spirit and a brilliant intellect. I was quite wrong in my assessment of you. You are one of those rare people who do not need to study other folks' works. You can blaze your own trail through the Scriptures. You follow in the tradition of such pioneers as Charles Taze Russell and Harold Camping.

Proverbs 24:6. 'In a multitude of counsellors there is safety.'
Matt. 13:52. "Therefore every scribe instructed concerning kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things old and new."

No, brother, you have misunderstood my comments. I certainly do not think you take in commentary apart from Scripture and I certainly do not interpret Scripture in a vacuum.

What I was saying was as general principle. But I do believe that you have been influenced by theory and theology to such a degree as to have been genuine and honest when you saw God punishing Jesus stated in Isaiah 53.