Did Jesus experience a separation from God on the cross?

[JonC]

Jon,
I'm sorry, but it really, really does. Its dictionary definition is to 'desert' or 'abandon.' If separation is not directly, rather than 'vaguely,' implied in those two words, I am a banana. If I think that I can forsake my sins without separating myself from them I am deceiving myself.

It's been a busy Lord's day. I'll try to come back on the other stuff tomorrow.

OK...you're a banana .......Brother......I don't know where to begin or if it is even worth it. First, sins are not material, they are manifestations of our sinfulness. It is therefore logically impossible for you to forsake your own sins by separating from them. If they are your sins that you've committed then they are acts you have done. You can't separate from them. They are forgiven you through the blood shed for you. You have a good way with words, but sometimes I think you need to be a bit more precise.

Second, as J.I. Packer noted. Forsake here is not separation but God's full presence in abandoning him to that suffering, offering him as a guilt offering.

Finally, Forsake simply does not mean separate from even in English. You saying it over and over does not make it so, and won't make me agree. I have a dictionary as well. It could mean to abandon, or to abandon to something, to refuse, to renounce....to withdraw in the face of danger, withhold aid. We simply disagree. Why keep on?

Look, brother....I've been sick for the past several days and I'm pretty much on edge...I can't sleep so my patience is wearing a bit thin I believe. If I sound rude you have my sincere apologies - it is not my intention. But we will never agree on this point.

Everything I know from Scripture denounces the idea that God will abandon his Holy One in terms of separation. Abandon to the cross, yes. In physical suffering, yes. The Father offered His Son...He was there at the Cross offering His Son as well. No separation. It was the love of God (Father, Son, and Spirit) present in the shedding of that blood through which you were given life.

We disagree. Just leave it at that. I don't think you are unorthodox (MacArthur and Sproul would agree with you) and don't think I'm unorthodox (J.I. Packer and Dodd would agree with me). I know what you believe, you know what I believe...let's just go our merry ways, part as friendly terms as we can and leave it be. Maybe we can pick it up next year, maybe not. I don't know if there is a reason for us to keep on keeping on.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I hold a Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement, but I do not believe that the theory itself can contain the whole work of Christ on the Cross.

Brother,
I'm delighted to see that we are in substantial, if not in perfect, agreement on this most important doctrine. As you suggest, I think we can leave it here. If I had read your Post #161 first, I would not have bothered with #163. I agree with you that P.S. is not the whole of the Cross, though a vital part thereof. I hope that our debate may have been helpful to others who have been reading it.

As I have looked back through my posts on this thread I can see where my tone and content has slipped below the standard I set myself for these discussions. I ask your forgiveness for those occasions and hope that you will see them as an excess of zeal over wisdom and self-control rather than maliciousness.

Finally, may I commend to everyone the book I mentioned at the start:
Pierced for Our Transgressions- Recovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach (Inter-Varsity Press. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6). It is a most comprehensive treatment of the doctrine. The Chapter divisions are:
1. Introduction.
2. Searching the Scriptures: the biblical foundation of P.S.
3. Assembling the pieces: the theological Framework of P.P.
4. Exploring the Implications: the Pastoral Implications of P.S.
5. Surveying the Heritage: the Historical Pedigree of P.S.
6. Answering the Critics: Introduction.
7. P.S. and the Bible.
8. P.S. and Culture
9. P.S. and Violence.
10. P.S. and Justice
11. P.S. and our Understanding of God.
12. P.P and the Christian LIfe.
13. A Final Word. The 'Vague Objection' and the 'Emotional Objection.'
Appendix: A Personal Note to Preachers.

I believe it is one of the most important theological books to have been written in recent years, and I am not alone in that view.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

No, as Jesus was/is fully God, so in His essense God cannot tear Himself apart, but he was/is also fully man, and as a man, he did experience exactly same thing all lost sinners do, a separation from God!

Jesus was experiencing 'hell" for those 3 hours on the Cross, and thank God that salvation was accomplished while he was still on the Cross, and not afterward in hell as so many seem to think today!

 

[JonC]

No, as Jesus was/is fully God, so in His essense God cannot tear Himself apart, but he was/is also fully man, and as a man, he did experience exactly same thing all lost sinners do, a separation from God!

Jesus was experiencing 'hell" for those 3 hours on the Cross, and thank God that salvation was accomplished while he was still on the Cross, and not afterward in hell as so many seem to think today!

Jesus never had two separate natures. What Jesus experienced he experienced as God-Man. Likewise, sitting at the right hand of the Father is Jesus, God-Man.

Y1, I’ve been wondering something and perhaps you can help (as you seem to hold that view). Some view Hell (the “second death” as “death and Hades are cast into Hell”) as not only a place of separation whereby the lost are separated from God, but also as an intentional and just punishment (as in God eternally exercising punishment towards those in Hell). Do you define “Hell” as God turning his back on the lost as a final judgment? What do you make of the physical torment and sufferings on the Cross (did they contribute towards our redemption?

There seems to be two distinct views here as well. Would you say that we are saved by Jesus experiencing the punishment for those God chose to save by dying this “spiritual death,” satisfying the anger of God due the elect, or are we saved by being cleansed by the blood of Christ as he was being offered as a guilt offering for us as the Father makes us anew and puts His Spirit in us? It’s tempting to simply say “yes…it’s both,” but in reality (and although elements may transcend the positions) it is really one or the other.

 

[agedman]

No, as Jesus was/is fully God, so in His essense God cannot tear Himself apart, but he was/is also fully man, and as a man, he did experience exactly same thing all lost sinners do, a separation from God!

Jesus was experiencing 'hell" for those 3 hours on the Cross, and thank God that salvation was accomplished while he was still on the Cross, and not afterward in hell as so many seem to think today!

The Lord Jesus Christ at no time could be nor was separated from Himself on the Cross. He was not schizophrenic.

Rather, as has been shown through the thread by others, the Father remained silent, the same as any earthly father has at one time or another to allow their child to experience.

Forsake does not mean abandon, nor does it mean separate from. It means in this instance to allow without interference, as a farmer may forsake a field to allow it a season of rest. Doesn't mean He lost control over or was not attentive to that field.

 

[JonC]

Y1, now that this thread has calmed down a bit, let me explain off the front that my reasoning for bringing this up on another thread was to find out why you believe that the Father and Son were separated at all. There was one verse offered in support (“why have you forsaken me”) and the argument on this thread became if “forsake” means “separate” (or necessarily includes a separation).

To save reading through all the threads, in the English language “forsake” does not mean “separate.” I offered examples where a person was forsaken by another, but what was withdrawn was support – not presence. Scripture offers more examples in that the word has also been used as “neglect”, “ignore”, “free”, fail”, “failed”, commits”, “release”, and “withdrawn.”

So there appears to be two pictures of this “forsakenness.” One is your position, that the Father forsook his Son by departing from him, or turning his back on him, in the form of a separation. Another position is that Christ was forsaken in the sense of being allowed to suffer, in a “forsaken” condition. Regardless, the fact that IF God separated from Jesus and left him suffering alone would be a “forsakenness” does not mean that it defines the word. If there was never a separation, yet the Father offered the Son as a guilt offering that through his blood we might be redeemed, that would also constitute a “forsakenness.” So it boils down to the reason you believe that the Father and the Son separated, and how this affects other doctrines and passages of Scripture. Is this belief a passage that you have read, or an explanation someone has given you?

For my part, I do believe that Scripture interprets itself. This is particularly true in the psalms. Psalm 22 uses a parallelism. Many have taken one part (vs. 1a) and completely ignored the other half (vs. 1b) in the psalm. Not only that, but the psalm builds in meaning through these parallels until the end. So I believe Jesus is fulfilling Psalm 22, that the psalm is a Messianic prophesy looking not only at the cross but through the cross to redemption and reconciliation fulfilled in Christ.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Lord Jesus Christ at no time could be nor was separated from Himself on the Cross. He was not schizophrenic.

Obviously not; but that does not mean that the Father did not forsake the Son, to which the Scriptures so eloquently bear witness. We must beware of the error of Sabellianism or Modalism. There are three Persons in the Trinity. And I'm sorry, but 'forsake' definitely does mean 'desert' or 'abandon.' Because you don't like the idea, it does not mean it isn't so.

Rather, as has been shown through the thread by others, the Father remained silent, the same as any earthly father has at one time or another to allow their child to experience.

Certainly He was silent; but that is not all He was. 'Why are you so far from helping Me, and from the word of My groaning' (Psalm 22:2). For the first time in all eternity the Father was infinitely distant from Him. Hence the cry of desolation.

Forsake does not mean abandon, nor does it mean separate from.

Yes it does. Look it up in any good dictionary.

It means in this instance to allow without interference, as a farmer may forsake a field to allow it a season of rest. Doesn't mean He lost control over or was not attentive to that field.

God never loses control over anything. Ever. He is also omnipresent, so nothing escapes His attention for a second. But Jesus was not 'taking a rest' on the cross!! The Father left Him, departed from Him, abandoned Him. He wasn't there holding His hand or mopping His brow. Do you not realise that Christ on the cross was under the Father's curse? 'For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree"' (Gal. 3:13). Who pronounced the curse? Yahweh Himself! (Deut. 21:23).

Why do you think that our Lord refused the wine mixed with myrrh when it was offered to Him (Mark 15:23)? It was an analgesic. What harm could there be in easing His pain a little? Because He must pay the full price of our sins to save us from paying it! 'For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red. It is fully mixed, and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain and drink down' (Psalm 75:8). In hell there are no analgesics. If Christ does not drink the cup of the Lord's wrath down to the very dregs, then you and I must drink it for ourselves. Otherwise how can God be 'Just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus' (Rom. 3:26)?

It was for your sake and mine that the Lord Jesus suffered in this terrible way and that the Father had to treat His Beloved Son so dreadfully. Nothing else sufficed to save us. Instead of trying to water the thing down, we should be down on our knees crying out

'Love so amazing, so divine
Demands my soul, my life, my all!'

 

[JonC]

Martin, I understand our disagreement and I understand that it transcends interpretation by including the English language itself. I understand the "curse" and I understand Jesus bearing our sins. We have been through this, brother. We agree on many things, but not on God separating from Christ. Until we go step by step down Scripture to see the evidences and also deal with possible violations of other passages and doctrines then we simply will not agree. And I am not certain either of us are of proper disposition to do that (we both tend to respond spitefully when the other is not apprehending our comments).

So one thing at a time, and perhaps we can get through this while showing the love of Christ - even if we don't completely agree.

And I'm sorry, but 'forsake' definitely does mean 'desert' or 'abandon.' '

1a : to give up to the control or influence of another person or agentb : to give up with the intent of never again claiming a right or interest in <abandonproperty> 2: to withdraw from often in the face of danger or encroachment <abandon ship>3: to withdraw protection, support, or help from <he abandoned his family>4: to give (oneself) over unrestrainedly5a : to cease from maintaining, practicing, or using <abandoned their native language>b : to cease intending or attempting to perform <abandoned the escape>

No one is saying that God did not abandon Jesus to the cross. No one is saying that Jesus was not in a forsaken state while he was suffering the physical pain and dying as a propitiation for our sins. We are saying that there was no separation.

Because you don't like the idea, it does not mean it isn't so.'

Now, as to your claim previously that ‏עָזַב‎ is used some 200 times in the Bible and it always carries this idea of "to separate," I have to object. Often it is translated "forsaken," yet the meaning does not denote a "separation." Here are a few examples. The word in bold red is ‏עָזַב‎ (the word translated "forsaken" in Psalm 22).

1 Kings 19:10 He said, "I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars and killed Your prophets with the sword. And I alone am left; and they seek my life, to take it away."

Proverbs 10:17 He is on the path of life who heeds instruction, But he who ignores reproof goes astray.

Psalm 10:14 You have seen it, for You have beheld mischief and vexation to take it into Your hand. The unfortunate commits himself to You; You have been the helper of the orphan.

If we use your interpretative method, this verse would have the unfortunate separating themselves from God - this is not what the verse is saying, brother.

It is as if we are looking at the same painting but describing entirely different scenes. You quoted "far from helping me" as evidence of your position. But in reality this is exactly what I am saying. It is not a matter of separation but of deliverance. Even if you had a correct definition, you can't do word studies like that and ever hope to come up with a good interpretation. If you are interested, I can recommend a few books on hermenutics (I especially like Gordon Fee here, but if you object Fee there are others who offer excellent resources).

 

[tyndale1946]

The Lord Jesus Christ at no time could be nor was separated from Himself on the Cross. He was not schizophrenic.

Rather, as has been shown through the thread by others, the Father remained silent, the same as any earthly father has at one time or another to allow their child to experience.

Forsake does not mean abandon, nor does it mean separate from. It means in this instance to allow without interference, as a farmer may forsake a field to allow it a season of rest. Doesn't mean He lost control over or was not attentive to that field.

Obviously not; but that does not mean that the Father did not forsake the Son, to which the Scriptures so eloquently bear witness. We must beware of the error of Sabellianism or Modalism. There are three Persons in the Trinity. And I'm sorry, but 'forsake' definitely does mean 'desert' or 'abandon.' Because you don't like the idea, it does not mean it isn't so.


Certainly He was silent; but that is not all He was. 'Why are you so far from helping Me, and from the word of My groaning' (Psalm 22:2). For the first time in all eternity the Father was infinitely distant from Him. Hence the cry of desolation.


Yes it does. Look it up in any good dictionary.

God never loses control over anything. Ever. He is also omnipresent, so nothing escapes His attention for a second. But Jesus was not 'taking a rest' on the cross!! The Father left Him, departed from Him, abandoned Him. He wasn't there holding His hand or mopping His brow. Do you not realise that Christ on the cross was under the Father's curse? 'For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree"' (Gal. 3:13). Who pronounced the curse? Yahweh Himself! (Deut. 21:23).

Why do you think that our Lord refused the wine mixed with myrrh when it was offered to Him (Mark 15:23)? It was an analgesic. What harm could there be in easing His pain a little? Because He must pay the full price of our sins to save us from paying it! 'For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red. It is fully mixed, and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain and drink down' (Psalm 75:8). In hell there are no analgesics. If Christ does not drink the cup of the Lord's wrath down to the very dregs, then you and I must drink it for ourselves. Otherwise how can God be 'Just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus' (Rom. 3:26)?

It was for your sake and mine that the Lord Jesus suffered in this terrible way and that the Father had to treat His Beloved Son so dreadfully. Nothing else sufficed to save us. Instead of trying to water the thing down, we should be down on our knees crying out

'Love so amazing, so divine
Demands my soul, my life, my all!'

I also agree with Brother Martin and add this thought Psalms says that that the Son of God was forsaken... Matthew also says so... Now I do not understand how this can be so but I'm not questioning scripture either... What I do not understand I accept with an eye of faith as I know that God cannot lie... I also know this that no scripture is of any private interpretation... I see well intentioned brethren on here doing just that instead of accepting just what the scriptures say... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

I also agree with Brother Martin and add this thought Psalms says that that the Son of God was forsaken... Matthew also says so... Now I do not understand how this can be so but I'm not questioning scripture either... What I do not understand I accept with an eye of faith as I know that God cannot lie... I also know this that no scripture is of any private interpretation... I see well intentioned brethren on here doing just that instead of accepting just what the scriptures say... Brother Glen

Brother, there is something I have to say and I pray that you don't take offense. I do not believe that God separated from Christ when he was on the cross, but it is not a matter of not accepting what scriptures say. It is exactly the opposite. You see, no one is saying that Christ was not forsaken. He was suffering on the cross....I don't see how else you could see it - Christ is suffering and dying and it is his Father's will. But we are not arguing "forsake," we are arguing "separate." If you look up that Hebrew word used in Psalm 22 as "forsake" you will find that in other places it means "neglect" and "ignore," only to name two. None of us are ignoring Scripture when it comes to this quote.

Now on your statement that God cannot lie - I applaud that observation! That is exactly why some of us hold that the God will never abandon - as in "separate" - from His Holy One, or that Jesus is ever to be considered separated from the Father or Spirit. If I believe that God separated himself from Christ then I make God a liar. God cannot lie - the Father will never abandon his Holy One, but He will offer him as a guilt offering. God cannot lie - Jesus is One, never separate, with the Father. God cannot lie - he was not inactive on the cross, turning his back and separating from him....the Father was offering his Son, shedding the blood of his precious Holy One so that we could be redeemed, and the Son was laying down his own life.

So the passage you speak of says "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" But you see it as saying "My God, my God, why have you separated yourself from me?" How is this accepting what Scripture says, especially given that this is an OT quote that explains itself (Jesus is quoting a Messianic psalm, a prophesy that speaks of and through the Cross to this redemption of God)?

Also, this is not "private interpretation." Our Church forefathers made it very clear that Jesus does not have two separate natures, but one nature (divine/man). Then a decade later they made it very clear that the Trinity can contain no separation. Adam Clarke and J.I. Packer also only two that have offered challenges to this notion of separation. So this is certainly not a new or private interpretation. In fact, if anything, the view that God has separated from his Christ is at least a bit unorthodox.

So, I know that emotions sometimes get high when one's view is challenged and I don't want to stir up stuff, but I think this a fair question - since you do seem to put a great deal of emphasis on Scripture (and rightly so), are there any passages that state that God separated from Jesus on the cross or is this a tradition that you read into the text? If the former, what are the passages, and if the latter what is the explanation?

 

[tyndale1946]

Brother, there is something I have to say and I pray that you don't take offense. I do not believe that God separated from Christ when he was on the cross, but it is not a matter of not accepting what scriptures say. It is exactly the opposite. You see, no one is saying that Christ was not forsaken. He was suffering on the cross....I don't see how else you could see it - Christ is suffering and dying and it is his Father's will. But we are not arguing "forsake," we are arguing "separate." If you look up that Hebrew word used in Psalm 22 as "forsake" you will find that in other places it means "neglect" and "ignore," only to name two. None of us are ignoring Scripture when it comes to this quote.

Now on your statement that God cannot lie - I applaud that observation! That is exactly why some of us hold that the God will never abandon - as in "separate" - from His Holy One, or that Jesus is ever to be considered separated from the Father or Spirit. If I believe that God separated himself from Christ then I make God a liar. God cannot lie - the Father will never abandon his Holy One, but He will offer him as a guilt offering. God cannot lie - Jesus is One, never separate, with the Father. God cannot lie - he was not inactive on the cross, turning his back and separating from him....the Father was offering his Son, shedding the blood of his precious Holy One so that we could be redeemed, and the Son was laying down his own life.

So the passage you speak of says "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" But you see it as saying "My God, my God, why have you separated yourself from me?" How is this accepting what Scripture says, especially given that this is an OT quote that explains itself (Jesus is quoting a Messianic psalm, a prophesy that speaks of and through the Cross to this redemption of God)?

Also, this is not "private interpretation." Our Church forefathers made it very clear that Jesus does not have two separate natures, but one nature (divine/man). Then a decade later they made it very clear that the Trinity can contain no separation. Adam Clarke and J.I. Packer also only two that have offered challenges to this notion of separation. So this is certainly not a new or private interpretation. In fact, if anything, the view that God has separated from his Christ is at least a bit unorthodox.

So, I know that emotions sometimes get high when one's view is challenged and I don't want to stir up stuff, but I think this a fair question - since you do seem to put a great deal of emphasis on Scripture (and rightly so), are there any passages that state that God separated from Jesus on the cross or is this a tradition that you read into the text? If the former, what are the passages, and if the latter what is the explanation?

It just so happens that I just recently heard a sermon by a preacher friend of mine that has been in the ministry over 50 years. He spoke upon this very subject and he quoted a passage of scripture that pertains to this very topic and I will leave it for all you brethren to consider... It is prophecy from Isaiah and some may say that it is taken out of context but the more one thinks about it, is it... or is it right on the mark. I will let each one decide for themselves... Brother Glen

Isaiah 54:7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.

54:8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.

 

[JonC]

It just so happens that I just recently heard a sermon by a preacher friend of mine that has been in the ministry over 50 years. He spoke upon this very subject and he quoted a passage of scripture that pertains to this very topic and I will leave it for all you brethren to consider... It is prophecy from Isaiah and some may say that it is taken out of context but the more one thinks about it, is it... or is it right on the mark. I will let each one decide for themselves... Brother Glen

Isaiah 54:7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.

54:8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.

I recently read Isaiah 54....I really can't remember what I was studying, but it was recent. Anyway, I think perhaps this is taking the passage out of context (it is speaking of the "barren one, you who have borne no child." I think it Israel (true Israel awaiting the Messiah), but perhaps I am wrong. Either way, it does not affect my stand on this topic.

No one is saying that Jesus was not forsaken. Many of us are saying that this "separation" is an unnecessary figment of poor theology and exegesis, but no one is denying the passages that have been thus far offered. The idea that it is in God's nature to desert his "Holy One" is, to put it bluntly, blasphemy. When you say that God deserted Christ, I cannot help but view that comment as saying God deserted his Holy One. I understand it fits well in our theologies (but our theologies are not dependent on this desertion). My point is that if you are willing to say that God separated from Jesus on the Cross then you should be willing to address all of the passages that speak of this an an impossibility. Before you say such a thing, make sure you can answer what it calls into question and by all means have more support than "forsake" means "desert". Too many dictionaries state other meanings, and the word has been used much too often scripture to mean other things than a separation.

Remember the quote I offered from Cyril of Jerusalem? The incarnation is God becoming flesh, completely God yet completely man, in such a way as there is no separation or distinction (God-Man). This is the biblical stance, and this is reconciliation. Jesus suffered the cross, obedient to the Father's will and by the power of the Spirit. The reason I've stuck around this discussion so long is that there is much too severe damage being done to the gospel of the Cross through tradition. The reason that you can find so many theologians that reject your view is that it is tradition built on tradition built on tradition. Not Scripture. It is an attempt at narrowing Scripture towards a theological interpretation (i.e., "throughout history so many have been wrong because "forsake" has to mean "desert" and therefore our theories have to be right"). If you are not careful in the end, you will end up with a tight but unbiblical theology.

Consider some other renderings that do not violate other passages. For example, J.I. Packer - "God never left him, but he did refuse him [deliverance on the cross]." Consider C.H. Dodd's view that at the cross the communion between Father and Son was not broken, but it's light was withdrawn (the Father never separated from the Son, but he did offer him as a sacrifice and forsake him to suffer on the Cross, not delivering him except through his divine providence in the Resurrection. Consider Albrecht Ritschlian's definition that the Father forsook Christ not by separation but by refusing to save him from the physical death and torment on the cross. Consider Joel Beeke (president of systematic theology and homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary) - rather than separation Jesus is "experiencing the agony of unanswered supplication." This is not an unorthodox or new view, brother.

We do not have to agree, and hopefully your argument will help you develop something upon which to stand, even if we disagree.

 

[JonC]

I had this discussion on another board and was met by a “preacher” who dogmatically clung to his theories to the point he could not even discuss Scripture. He had put himself in the place of God and regardless of the correctness/incorrectness of his position he was worshiping a god of his own making. I understand it is difficult to discuss our views when the only support we can come up with is “I’m Reformed” or “I’m Arminian”, but the foundation of “that’s just what I believe” is heretical….it is RCC faith (the church told me so) and not based on the Word of God. That “preacher” I spoke of, if truly a minister, is a disgrace – not necessarily because of the beliefs he holds but because of the reason he holds them. I truly believe that we have to be careful in that we are able to give an answer for our beliefs. Commentaries are good, not as our primary source but for understanding Scripture. Even then, however, we need to use them to develop our own understanding of the Bible and never take them as our understanding.

I brought this discussion to the BB because there is not only a broader range of views, but also there are those willing to look at the Word of God honestly and walk through Scripture. I am not saying “convert” to my way of thinking. I am not asking you to convert me to yours. I am saying that we should look to Scripture for an interpretation, and then take those passages and form our doctrines. Even if we disagree we can, I believe, at least know where that disagreement lies. Is it in the interpretation of Scripture itself (and if so, then we should stay there for a while) or is it merely in our explanations, or theories?

There are some here that insist that God separated from Christ. If this is true, then it is something that I need to examine because as it stands I believe that there are too many passages that deny this possibility. I need to see the evidence of this interpretation, and thus far no one has provided anything except Jesus was forsaken to suffer, and God was far from delivering him as he suffered in the flesh. Brothers, this is a far cry from "for 3 hours God separated from Jesus." Can you at least understand why, just based on what has been presented so far, why I cannot abandon passages I've relied on since a young man - that just as God would not desert his Holy One, he will not desert me because I am in Christ? I need to examine actual Scripture against these passages because if what you are saying is true, then many passages need to be reinterpreted as Scripture does not deny Scripture.

I hope this helps explain why I am persistent here. I also believed that on the Cross God turned his back on Christ, but I have come to realize I believed it as that "preacher" held his tradition. I can find no passage that allows for that extreme a position, but I can find many that is problematic for that view. I am, as always, open to correction provided it is via Scripture.

 

[tyndale1946]

I had this discussion on another board and was met by a “preacher” who dogmatically clung to his theories to the point he could not even discuss Scripture. He had put himself in the place of God and regardless of the correctness/incorrectness of his position he was worshiping a god of his own making. I understand it is difficult to discuss our views when the only support we can come up with is “I’m Reformed” or “I’m Arminian”, but the foundation of “that’s just what I believe” is heretical….it is RCC faith (the church told me so) and not based on the Word of God. That “preacher” I spoke of, if truly a minister, is a disgrace – not necessarily because of the beliefs he holds but because of the reason he holds them. I truly believe that we have to be careful in that we are able to give an answer for our beliefs. Commentaries are good, not as our primary source but for understanding Scripture. Even then, however, we need to use them to develop our own understanding of the Bible and never take them as our understanding.

I brought this discussion to the BB because there is not only a broader range of views, but also there are those willing to look at the Word of God honestly and walk through Scripture. I am not saying “convert” to my way of thinking. I am not asking you to convert me to yours. I am saying that we should look to Scripture for an interpretation, and then take those passages and form our doctrines. Even if we disagree we can, I believe, at least know where that disagreement lies. Is it in the interpretation of Scripture itself (and if so, then we should stay there for a while) or is it merely in our explanations, or theories?

There are some here that insist that God separated from Christ. If this is true, then it is something that I need to examine because as it stands I believe that there are too many passages that deny this possibility. I need to see the evidence of this interpretation, and thus far no one has provided anything except Jesus was forsaken to suffer, and God was far from delivering him as he suffered in the flesh. Brothers, this is a far cry from "for 3 hours God separated from Jesus." Can you at least understand why, just based on what has been presented so far, why I cannot abandon passages I've relied on since a young man - that just as God would not desert his Holy One, he will not desert me because I am in Christ? I need to examine actual Scripture against these passages because if what you are saying is true, then many passages need to be reinterpreted as Scripture does not deny Scripture.

I hope this helps explain why I am persistent here. I also believed that on the Cross God turned his back on Christ, but I have come to realize I believed it as that "preacher" held his tradition. I can find no passage that allows for that extreme a position, but I can find many that is problematic for that view. I am, as always, open to correction provided it is via Scripture.

I believe that we should always search the scriptures. As far as I have searched the scriptures I've come to my understanding of the topic at hand. I also observed the discussion you were talking about. That discussion and this discussion has not changed my mind but only reinforced what I already believe... I have weighed it all and I am completely satisfied to my finite limited understanding of it... I have not now but in the future if I receive any further light on it from the Lord I may change my mind... But for now I'm completely satisfied and no need for further discussion... Brother Glen

 

[Martin Marprelate]

2: to withdraw from often in the face of danger or encroachment <abandon ship>3: to withdraw protection, support, or help from <he abandoned his family>

That's it precisely. The father withdrew from the Son. During those three hours of darkness, the Lord Jesus felt Himself utterly abandoned by God. Obviously the 'often in the face of danger etc.' does not apply, but the rest is fine.

I understand it is difficult to discuss our views when the only support we can come up with is “I’m Reformed” or “I’m Arminian”, but the foundation of “that’s just what I believe” is heretical….it is RCC faith (the church told me so) and not based on the Word of God.

Now brother, when have I done this? On my post above I have quoted four different Scriptures. You have a nasty habit of trying to claim that those who oppose you are hidebound by tradition while you are gloriously free and untrammelled by it. You need to stop it.

I believe that this discussion is exceedingly important to our understanding. Therefore as long as you keep arguing your case I shall argue what I believe to be the clear Biblical position.

 

[JonC]

That's it precisely. The father withdrew from the Son. During those three hours of darkness, the Lord Jesus felt Himself utterly abandoned by God. Obviously the 'often in the face of danger etc.' does not apply, but the rest is fine.

Now brother, when have I done this? On my post above I have quoted four different Scriptures. You have a nasty habit of trying to claim that those who oppose you are hidebound by tradition while you are gloriously free and untrammelled by it. You need to stop it.

I believe that this discussion is exceedingly important to our understanding. Therefore as long as you keep arguing your case I shall argue what I believe to be the clear Biblical position.

First, brother, you misunderstand my comment about those unable to defend their faith. I was not speaking of you at all. In part, I was speaking of when I believed that the Father turned from Christ. I interpreted Scripture based on my tradition and not on what was necessarily conveyed through the Word. I was also speaking in general cautioning against such things (I do see it fairly regularly). I apologize if it came across I was speaking of you. I promise you that was not my intent.

Insofar as the definition, we disagree. We seem to agree in part, that in the Cross the Father abandoned Christ to suffer. But while this could mean to separate, it is not necessary that it takes on that definition. Withdrawing support it help doesn't mean withdrawing presence of a separation. We simply disagree based, I hope, not on English definitions but on the context of the passage. Perhaps that is the direction we should go - why do we interpret as we do?

I think it is obvious by definition that to "withdraw protection, support, or help" is not to separate. For me this is obvious because I have seen countless orphans forsaken as an entire country withdrew protection and support and left these children to find food in the trash and die in the street. It may have been better if this abandonment included separation, I don't know. But neither the English, and certainly not the Hebrew of Psalm 22, demands the definition of "separation," although it is not prohibited by the word itself. What evidences (other than what we have both already agreed on) are there that God separated from Christ on the Cross? If you are willing, please walk me through the theology.

Yes, I want you to present your points. Yes, this is too important an issue for me not to present mine. We are in reality very close, except on two points (and they are important points, but not vital points). That is what this discussion is about - presenting our best arguments and looking at Scripture for evaluation.

Again, Martin, please accept my apologies if you believed my opening comments on the previous post was about you. I assure you they were not. I believed God turned his back on Christ because my tradition had raised me to interpret the passage in that manner. The "preacher" I spoke of is not on this board, and I am not alone in refraining from calling him "brother." I was not speaking of you. We disagree, but I firmly believe that our disagreement is a family argument. If you feel we cannot discuss this as brothers, then simply respond and let me know. For if that is the case, then we needn't discuss it at all. Our comprehension is finite as we struggle to explain the Infinite. We may arrive at an impasse simply due to our own inadequacies. Regardless we are fellow heirs in Christ. It is better to walk in Christ and disagree than to abandon Christ to fight for our understandings.

 

[JonC]

Why don’t we simply look at a few of the difficulties I have with your position one at a time. Here is one (of several) reason that has proved a challenge for me to accept the idea that God separated from Christ.

Throughout the Old Testament we see the prophets relying on several promises that God has made. These promises reflect God’s own nature. One of these promises is that when we feel forsaken, when we are in need, God will never forsake his faithful ones. Throughout scripture we see people crying out that they are forsaken, broken, suffering, etc., but they are crying out not to indicate that God has departed from them. Instead they are crying out to God in full expectation that he is faithful to his promises (Deut 31:6; 31:8; Joshua 1:5; 1 Kings 8:57; 1 Chronicals 28:20; Psalm 37:28; Psalm 94:14; Isaiah 41:17; Isaiah 42:16; Hebrews 13:5).

The reason I deny that God separated from Christ is not that I deny Psalm 22:1. It is that I interpret Psalm 22:1 in such a way as not to violate the doctrine of God’s faithfulness. Throughout history this idea that when God’s people are forsaken, when they are in distress,

With that in mind, an obstacle for me would be overcoming the doctrine that God is faithful to deliver his Holy One as this is the premise that I lean on for my own deliverance. How does your view overcome the passages I mentioned?

 

[agedman]

Obviously not; but that does not mean that the Father did not forsake the Son, to which the Scriptures so eloquently bear witness. We must beware of the error of Sabellianism or Modalism. There are three Persons in the Trinity. And I'm sorry, but 'forsake' definitely does mean 'desert' or 'abandon.' Because you don't like the idea, it does not mean it isn't so.

But is not taking the view that God could somehow separated from Himself in the manner of not just ignoring, or withdrawing support, but by presence and relationship stating in effect, "You are no longer my only begotten son? "

Basically, if one takes the "abandonment" to mean a separation of desertion rather than a separation of withdrawing support and distance, then at some point on the Cross the Son could no longer be considered the Son, and therefore lost. The Son would then have need of a redeemer, and disqualified as the pure lamb of God and the believer's redeemer. The trinity would indeed, under such thinking, become a duet. God would have to be shown in Scriptures as reconciling Himself to Himself. Rather, the Scriptures state God reconciles the world to Himself.

God never loses control over anything. Ever. He is also omnipresent, so nothing escapes His attention for a second. But Jesus was not 'taking a rest' on the cross!! The Father left Him, departed from Him, abandoned Him. He wasn't there holding His hand or mopping His brow. Do you not realise that Christ on the cross was under the Father's curse? 'For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree"' (Gal. 3:13). Who pronounced the curse? Yahweh Himself! (Deut. 21:23).

Suggesting that the Father in some manner deserted the Son could be taken as a statement of God loosing control, because at that point in time, God would have been separated from His word, mute, unable to proclaim, and the universe cast into chaos. Such thinking is unsupportable in Scriptures.

There is a problem with using Galatians and Deuteronomy in supporting desertion. To do so would make the passages imply that God is incapable of interaction with one who is "cursed." Such is not the presentation of God in the Scriptures (example, rich man and Lazarus).

From the time of Adam, God has interacts with "cursed" humans, without regard to their condition, for His purpose. Galatians (taken from Deuteronomy) is not a passage that speaks of God separating by desertion, nor does it even imply such took place. Rather, it speaks of the Law not being faith, and the sufficiency of Christ bringing the "promise of the Spirit through faith." That Christ took upon Himself that curse the law would impose allowing the promise. God did not curse Him, the Law cursed Him.

Why do you think that our Lord refused the wine mixed with myrrh when it was offered to Him (Mark 15:23)? It was an analgesic. What harm could there be in easing His pain a little? Because He must pay the full price of our sins to save us from paying it! 'For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red. It is fully mixed, and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain and drink down' (Psalm 75:8). In hell there are no analgesics. If Christ does not drink the cup of the Lord's wrath down to the very dregs, then you and I must drink it for ourselves. Otherwise how can God be 'Just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus' (Rom. 3:26)?

I agree with the above statement. No doubt. But, again, this passage does not support that the Father in any manner separated by desertion from the Son.

On a side note for the readers of this thread:

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

It was for your sake and mine that the Lord Jesus suffered in this terrible way and that the Father had to treat His Beloved Son so dreadfully. Nothing else sufficed to save us. Instead of trying to water the thing down, we should be down on our knees crying out

'Love so amazing, so divine
Demands my soul, my life, my all!'

I do not diminish the suffering aspect of Christ in any manner.

However, as I have posted before, the suffering is not the redemption.

It is the blood that is the focus of redemption. Each part of the suffering was a blood letting (bruised, wounded, chastised - Isaiah 53).

Others suffered crucifixion, and there are accounts of great suffering that is given throughout history. Christ states as much when presenting the challenge to the apostles. So the "suffering" of the cross is certainly to be esteemed, but it is to be taken as the tool to shed the blood, just as the whipping, and the beating.

What is remarkable is that God's own Son would allow the suffering, would provide no immediate rebuke to those who physically, emotionally, mentally brought Him pain. That such pain was the tool God choose to shed the blood, where He had given far more human treatment to shedding the blood of OT sacrifices.

God presents to the believers the suffering savior, not as a redeemer, but as an example to believers that the suffering conforms us to Him and that the reward of suffering for Him is glorification.

One should never diminish the Blood by mingling the suffering as redemptive, "and according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Why don’t we simply look at a few of the difficulties I have with your position one at a time. Here is one (of several) reason that has proved a challenge for me to accept the idea that God separated from Christ.

Throughout the Old Testament we see the prophets relying on several promises that God has made. These promises reflect God’s own nature. One of these promises is that when we feel forsaken, when we are in need, God will never forsake his faithful ones. Throughout scripture we see people crying out that they are forsaken, broken, suffering, etc., but they are crying out not to indicate that God has departed from them. Instead they are crying out to God in full expectation that he is faithful to his promises (Deut 31:6; 31:8; Joshua 1:5; 1 Kings 8:57; 1 Chronicals 28:20; Psalm 37:28; Psalm 94:14; Isaiah 41:17; Isaiah 42:16; Hebrews 13:5).

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

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

The reason I deny that God separated from Christ is not that I deny Psalm 22:1. It is that I interpret Psalm 22:1 in such a way as not to violate the doctrine of God’s faithfulness. Throughout history this idea that when God’s people are forsaken, when they are in distress,

With that in mind, an obstacle for me would be overcoming the doctrine that God is faithful to deliver his Holy One as this is the premise that I lean on for my own deliverance. How does your view overcome the passages I mentioned?

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But is not taking the view that God could somehow separated from Himself in the manner of not just ignoring, or withdrawing support, but by presence and relationship stating in effect, "You are no longer my only begotten son? "

Basically, if one takes the "abandonment" to mean a separation of desertion rather than a separation of withdrawing support and distance, then at some point on the Cross the Son could no longer be considered the Son, and therefore lost. The Son would then have need of a redeemer, and disqualified as the pure lamb of God and the believer's redeemer. The trinity would indeed, under such thinking, become a duet. God would have to be shown in Scriptures as reconciling Himself to Himself. Rather, the Scriptures state God reconciles the world to Himself.

I hope that perhaps I have answered your question in my reply to JonC, but I would say that on the cross for those hours of darkness our Lord experienced what it is to be utterly separated from God, as if He were no longer the only begotten Son, but the worst of criminals. Of course, He never ceased to be what He always had been, but His cries and moans of agony received no comfort, no support, no recognition (Psalm 22:1-2). But after the three hours, expiation for the sin of His people had been made, the sun came out, and He could cry out, "It is finished!" And indeed it was.

On a side note for the readers of this thread:

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

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