Did Jesus experience a separation from God on the cross?

[JonC]

We are blessed in having the word translated 'forsaken' in both Hebrew and Greek for us to study.

The Hebrew word in Psalm 22:1 is Azab. According to Young's Analytical Concordance, it appears in the O.T. exactly 200 times. Of those, it is translated in the KJV 'Forsake' 123 times, 'leave' 67 times, 'leave destitute' once, and 'refuse' once (also 'leave off' 4 times). So the overwhelming usage of the word is to forsake or to leave.

The Greek word in Matt 27 and Mark 15 is enkataleipo. The same word is used in 2 Cor. 4:9; 2 Tim. 4:10 & 16; Heb. 10:25; 13:5. Why not check these out to see if they mean anything else except 'forsake'? The word is also translated 'leave' on two occasions: Acts 2:27 and Rom. 9:19.

N.B. The word Sabachthani is Aramaic, not Hebrew.

To refuse to believe the plain meaning of the words because they do not fit one's own theological constructs is not good theology (to put it mildly).

The people around the cross mistook His cry of 'Eloi' for 'Elia,' the Greek vocative form of Elijah- they thought that He was expecting that Elijah would come and rescue Him- in other words, they completely misunderstood- so to read anything theological into their actions would be unwise.

Brother, the Hebrew word is used over 200 times. Perhaps you should revisit the topic. "Forsake" does not imply "separate". When I came to work I did not forsake my family (although I did leave and we were separated).

Look at the definition and its implication. You are assuming separation. But regardless, what I think is worse is the fact you have ignored a significant amount of scripture to build a doctrine on this one word.

And it was spoken in Aramaic, but it is a quote from the Hebrew scripture.

And the point here was not the opinion the people misheard or intentionally misrepresented. Either way we are dealing with "forsaken" and in the context of Psalm 22 it refers to that state of suffering with the anticipation of rescue.

And lest we forget, those standing by did recognize the cry as a petition and not a declaration of isolation. In fact it was the Holy One calling on the Father. What does scripture say? The Jews knew. If you would look to Scripture instead of dictionaries and choice commentaries you would know also. God will deliver his Holy One. He will not abandon his soul to Sheol. And to highlight this truth, our faith is grounded in the fact he did. Think of that. You have God abandoning Jesus but your faith is actually grounded in the fact that God didn't...your very salvation is proof of the fact that you are mistaken.

 

[heisrisen]

This is very simple to answer. All you have to do is look at how Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?". He obviously did feel a separation from God the Father on the cross. Because he was taking on the sins of the world. Sin is what separates us from God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Brother, the Hebrew word is used over 200 times. Perhaps you should revisit the topic.

If you say so. How many times does it mean what you want it to mean?

You cannot alter the basic meaning of a word to make it fit with your theology. That way lies madness.

 

[JonC]

If you say so. How many times does it mean what you want it to mean?

You cannot alter the basic meaning of a word to make it fit with your theology. That way lies madness.

Brother, I don't say so. Scripture dictates the meanings of these words we use. God says so. I think that if you would allow Scripture to provide the context you would arrive at a more biblical understanding. But you cannot say that Jesus was separated from God spiritually on the cross, provide nothing but what you believe to be a definition of one word, refuse to address scripture in opposition to your claim and consider yourself biblical. Instead of arguing a word turn to the Bible. You have ignored every passage I mentioned. Is not Scripture worth engaging?

 

[JonC]

This is very simple to answer. All you have to do is look at how Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?". He obviously did feel a separation from God the Father on the cross. Because he was taking on the sins of the world. Sin is what separates us from God.

Or he was quoting scripture. It can't be both as psalm 22 is not about God abandoning his righteous one.

He was forsaken in that he was given over to suffer. We can not deny one passage to prove another.

 

[JonC]

That's because ultimately, in the final analysis, "I and the Father are one" Jn 10:30.

But that doesn't change the fact:

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

God HEARD His supplications and saved Him from death by raising Him from the dead.

The Jews killed Him but God raised Him from the dead.

I agree. This is exactly what Psalm 22 is speaking of. It is also the message that Paul presents as the gospel, and the reconciliation of 2 Cor 5:19.

It is an issue when some confuse the nature of prophesy (Psalm 22 looks forward to Jesus' statement, Jesus is not looking back to the Psalm 22 to see what to say). Jesus was on the cross, dying, and he cried out to God. If you want to know the situation you can read Psalm 22, or you can read the gospel account in the New Testament. Jesus cried out and God delivered him. His body was in the tomb, but Jesus had committed his spirit to the Father. God never abandoned Jesus. Not even on the cross. As Clarke pointed out, any aspect of the atonement that excludes God lacks any redemptive quality.

 

[percho]

I agree. This is exactly what Psalm 22 is speaking of. It is also the message that Paul presents as the gospel, and the reconciliation of 2 Cor 5:19.

It is an issue when some confuse the nature of prophesy (Psalm 22 looks forward to Jesus' statement, Jesus is not looking back to the Psalm 22 to see what to say). Jesus was on the cross, dying, and he cried out to God. If you want to know the situation you can read Psalm 22, or you can read the gospel account in the New Testament. Jesus cried out and God delivered him. His body was in the tomb, but Jesus had committed his spirit to the Father. God never abandoned Jesus. Not even on the cross. As Clarke pointed out, any aspect of the atonement that excludes God lacks any redemptive quality.

then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you:
on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Did Jesus on the morrow after the Sabbath, following the Passover, as high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, ascend to his Father to be accepted for us, as the firstfruit of them that slept, had died. Do you think the Father and the Son communed with one another from the death of the Son as the Passover Lamb until the morrow after the Sabbath following that death?

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Ecc 9:5 Was Jesus this kind of dead?

You brought up Psalms???

Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies' sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave (Sheol) who shall give thee thanks? Psalms 6:4,5 Jesus?
The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence. Psalms 115:17 Jesus?

 

[JonC]

then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you:
on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Did Jesus on the morrow after the Sabbath, following the Passover, as high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, ascend to his Father to be accepted for us, as the firstfruit of them that slept, had died. Do you think the Father and the Son communed with one another from the death of the Son as the Passover Lamb until the morrow after the Sabbath following that death?

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Ecc 9:5 Was Jesus this kind of dead?

You brought up Psalms???

Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies' sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave (Sheol) who shall give thee thanks? Psalms 6:4,5 Jesus?
The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence. Psalms 115:17 Jesus?

I think that when Jesus died his spirit went to the Father. I also believe that day he and the thief were in Paradise. I also believe that there is a greater emphasis on redeeming the flesh in terms of human redemption than we often consider, but I am not equipped to make an argument there. I will say that penal substitution focuses on spiritual redemption, Christ paying a spiritual debt, and experiencing a spiritual separation from God but the scripture you have posted looks more to redeeming humanity or man. If it were not for the Resurrection I suppose we could say it were allegory. Paul, however, keeps our hope in a bodily resurrection.

But there is an emphasis on reconciliation and redeeming humanity with Jesus as the first fruit. The purchase transaction model fails to capture (IMHO) the sense of this.

 

[JonShaff]

I think that when Jesus died his spirit went to the Father. I also believe that day he and the thief were in Paradise. I also believe that there is a greater emphasis on redeeming the flesh in terms of human redemption than we often consider, but I am not equipped to make an argument there. I will say that penal substitution focuses on spiritual redemption, Christ paying a spiritual debt, and experiencing a spiritual separation from God but the scripture you have posted looks more to redeeming humanity or man. If it were not for the Resurrection I suppose we could say it were allegory. Paul, however, keeps our hope in a bodily resurrection.

Where/When did Christ Go when the Scriptures Say He went into the Lower Parts of the Earth?

Ephesians 4:9
1 Peter 3:19

And Where did Jesus Go when He likened His death to Jonah going into the belly of the fish?

 

[JonC]

Where/When did Christ Go when the Scriptures Say He went into the Lower Parts of the Earth?

Is this what you mean?

"Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee form Your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there." (Ps. 139:9)

The whole point of Jesus' statement "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" is that God is faithful and will not abandon his Holy One in Sheol. It is a psalm of anticipation, a psalm of deliverance. The whole point is that God did not separate from Jesus, yet for some people turn the passage on its head to justify their theories. For years I held the same view, but when I let scripture dictate my belief it was Psalm 22 that came out clear. And it is this same hope that we have. Just as the Father never separated from the Son, just as he did not abandon his righteous one to Sheol, neither will he abandon us as fellow heirs in Christ. Jesus was the firstborn and he substantiates our hope.

Why? Because instead of this separation, instead of abandoning his Son, he was laying our iniquity on him and offering him a sin offering and reconciling the world to himself through Christ. He made he who knew no sin to be a sin offering to us so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. Instead of abandoning Jesus, God justified and delivered him. That is how we know that we, being in Christ, will also be delivered.

 

[JonShaff]

I don't know. Scripture says God wouldn't abandon his soul in Sheol. But it also says his spirit was committed into Gods hands and he told the thief he would be with him in Paradise. In other words God was faithful to Jesus. Is that what you mean?

i edited it with some scriptures.

 

[JonC]

i edited it with some scriptures.

Thank goodness....for a minute I thought it may be dementia setting in.

 

[percho]

Where/When did Christ Go when the Scriptures Say He went into the Lower Parts of the Earth?

Ephesians 4:9
1 Peter 3:19

And Where did Jesus Go when He likened His death to Jonah going into the belly of the fish?

I am going to go with this.

To my knowledge currently there has been only one man born of woman who has been resurrected, to die no more and no more to return to corruption. Jesus of Nazareth. There is a statement made concerning had there been no resurrection.

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15:16,17

If the only one who has been resurrected to die no more had not been resurrected then all would still be in their sin and there would be no, faith.

What then would be the state of Jesus, had he not been resurrected. Where did he go?

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Ecc 12:7 I would say that the spirit he commended into the hands of the Father would still be in the hands of the Father. I would say his flesh would have corrupted and returned to the dust from whence it came. Well, what about the soul? Where would the soul, Jesus, be?

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol/Hades, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Acts 2:27 If the soul Jesus had not been resurrected the soul Jesus would have been left in Sheol/Hades, the lowest parts of the earth, the heart of the earth.

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in Hades, neither his flesh did see corruption.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Or he was quoting scripture. It can't be both as psalm 22 is not about God abandoning his righteous one.

He was forsaken in that he was given over to suffer. We can not deny one passage to prove another.

Of course our Lord was quoting Scripture. He was quoting Psalm 22, which is absolutely about someone who feels that He is forsaken by God.

'My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me? Why are you so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning? O My God, I cry in the daytime but You do not hear; in the night season , and am not silent.'

How is that not about someone who feels himself abandoned by God? The Lord Jesus appropriates the verses to Himself at the very time that day had become night (Mark 15:33).. To try and deny that the verses say what they so patently do say is eisogesis of the worst sort.

Of course. our Lord was not forsaken permanently, and nor are any of God's people. 'For a mere moment I have forsaken you, but with great mercies I will gather you.' 'For in My wrath I struck you, but in My favour I have had mercy on you' (Isaiah 54:7; 60:10).

The fact that the Father forsook Christ briefly is a great comfort to His people. For when we feel ourselves bereft of God's felt presence (what the Puritans called 'the dark night of the soul'), we can comfort ourselves with the thought that our Saviour passed this way (Heb. 2:18; 4:15).

 

[JonC]

Of course our Lord was quoting Scripture. He was quoting Psalm 22, which is absolutely about someone who feels that He is forsaken by God.

'My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me? Why are you so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning? O My God, I cry in the daytime but You do not hear; in the night season , and am not silent.'

How is that not about someone who feels himself abandoned by God? The Lord Jesus appropriates the verses to Himself at the very time that day had become night (Mark 15:33).. To try and deny that the verses say what they so patently do say is eisogesis of the worst sort.

Of course. our Lord was not forsaken permanently, and nor are any of God's people. 'For a mere moment I have forsaken you, but with great mercies I will gather you.' 'For in My wrath I struck you, but in My favour I have had mercy on you' (Isaiah 54:7; 60:10).

The fact that the Father forsook Christ briefly is a great comfort to His people. For when we feel ourselves bereft of God's felt presence (what the Puritans called 'the dark night of the soul'), we can comfort ourselves with the thought that our Saviour passed this way (Heb. 2:18; 4:15).

If you read the entire psalm and consider the context, I do not understand how you can come to the conclusion that God had separated or abandoned his Holy One. “Abandoned to suffering”, yes. But not in the context of a separation. The psalm itself as a whole denies this possibility, as does the many other passages I have provided.

The problem with your interpretation here is not that you are unable to find passages that use the words you want. The problem is that the context does not dictate what you would like for them to say. Isaiah 54 deals with the imagery of the barren woman, and that desolation, forsakenness, desertedness is not (in the context of the passage) a state of separation from God. Isaiah 60 proves the point well. “I struck you in my wrath, but in my favor I have had mercy on you.” Forsaken? Yes, I can see that there was a period of forsakenness during the period of wrath endured. Separation? No, that is reading into the text. It also denies too much of scripture to be considered.

Your parallel in Isaiah has shown this to be true. Isaiah 54 deals with the analogy of the “Lord calling you like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit.” Verse 7 even says “For a brief moment I deserted you, but with great passion I will gather you.” Yet if you look at the passage as a whole you cannot arrive at the conclusion that “deserted” here means “separated from” for Isaiah clarifies for us that he is speaking of the desolate and barren, yet God was always there.

God lays our iniquity on His Righteous One and offers him as a guilt offering. He is suffering, but God will not abandon him. It is not a matter of separation, but an issue of God delivering him from that suffering. This is a theme throughout Scripture and especially the psalms. God will never abandon his righteous. Through our circumstances and through our sufferings, if we belong to him we can know that he will deliver us. He is faithful. If you read the passage as a whole and consider this divine truth woven throughout scripture, then I believe you will begin to apprehend a more biblical perspective and understanding in the work of the Cross, and the Incarnation, than your current theory will allow. Instead of a payment made and punishment suffered within a forensic transaction, you will (I believe) start realizing the unconstrained depth of love the Father exhibited towards us as he offered his Son, the unimaginable richness of love that the Son poured upon us as he offered himself in obedience, and the wonderful assurance that we also have that God will never abandon us precisely because he did not abandon the One in whom we have life.

 

[agedman]

Is there anything in the OT that would show; Because of our sins being placed upon the Passover Lamb, the Son of God, that as we are being unleavened by him, the Son relative to the Father would be unclean? Untouchable of the Father for a given period. After a given period of time say, three days, then, washing of regeneration? Sprinkled with living water.

If I have understood your statement and question above, I would offer this thinking to be placed in view.

Was the lamb at anytime during the process "made unclean?"

Would such automatically and by definition make such a lamb (or offering) unacceptable?

Was it for the sins of the those who placed the blood upon the door posts and lintel?

Were the sins placed on the lamb being consumed by the people?
Is that the statement and picture(s) of Scriptures?

Not abandoned,, but separated in being unclean through death because of our sins?

Throughout the Scriptures, the focus is not upon some thought of abandonment by God because of our sin.

Rather, the focus is continually upon the blood shed for the remission of sin. Look at the statement of Christ at the "last supper."

“This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
Here we are to remember the example of His daily life giving sacrifice (not just the cross) that we remember in every situation and in every moment Christ also gives us example, even to death and hope (assurance) of resurrection. Most of us take this portion of the passage as particularly applicable to that sacrifice of the Cross, but it is in deed more about the character that allowed injustice, persecution, heartache, and all manner of evil. Such example is given to us to understand we too face these for the world despises those of Christ.

“This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."
Here is the importance and focus of the new covenant. It was not formed from abandonment, from wrath, from some payment made by obligation. The new covenant is established by the blood.

BTW I like you believe the Psalms actually are about the Son therefore Ps 139 also, that is even being in Sheol/Hades he cannot escape the presence of the Spirit of God. However even in that Psalm the Son, is from the lowest parts of the earth perfected and so also is his church in Him.

This has been a good discussion.

I want to know how one may be perfected who is already perfect?

Again, the sacrifice presented to the priests was to be perfect. Without blemish, no scars, no sickness, no internal or external abnormality.

That lamb was then sacrificed. It was done without wrath, or separation. The blood was collected and sprinkled for atonement.

At no time during that process was the lamb made imperfect, needing to be made more perfect, or in some manner perfected.

I, too, have enjoyed this thread.
It has been most edifying.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

i

The problem with your interpretation here is not that you are unable to find passages that use the words you want. The problem is that the context does not dictate what you would like for them to say. Isaiah 54 deals with the imagery of the barren woman, and that desolation, forsakenness, desertedness is not (in the context of the passage) a state of separation from God. Isaiah 60 proves the point well. “I struck you in my wrath, but in my favor I have had mercy on you.” Forsaken? Yes, I can see that there was a period of forsakenness during the period of wrath endured. Separation? No, that is reading into the text. It also denies too much of scripture to be considered.

This is very interesting. I have looked through my posts on this thread and I cannot see where I have used the words 'separate' or 'separation.' I may have missed something; perhaps you will check this out and let me know.

The words I have used are 'forsake' and 'abandon.' I checked the two words out in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, and lo and behold, a primary meaning of 'forsake is 'abandon' and vice versa. So when you write,

Forsaken? Yes, I can see that there was a period of forsakenness during the period of wrath endured.

You are conceding my point that God the Father forsook Christ during the three hours of darkness on the cross. Thank you. That is all I have been claiming, although I cannot see how there can be a forsaking without some sort of separation.

I think it will be helpful if we consider what the Presence of God is, and if and how it can be lost. I will put my mind prayerfully to this and (DV) start another thread in a day or three.

Finally, I gave a sermon on Christ forsaken on the cross some years ago. Here it is transcribed if anyone is interested to read it. https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/the-cry-of-desolation/

 

[JonC]

i
This is very interesting. I have looked through my posts on this thread and I cannot see where I have used the words 'separate' or 'separation.' I may have missed something; perhaps you will check this out and let me know.

Look up (the thread title... aka the topic of discussion...should be at the top of your screen). What did you think we were discussing? But if I have misunderstood, then I apologize. 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). And it is that starting point from which the psalmist prophesies Christ's deliverance as God will never abandon his Holy One. I am glad that we can at least agree on something, brother, and am now not really sure what you had been arguing.

 

[percho]

If I have understood your statement and question above, I would offer this thinking to be placed in view.

Was the lamb at anytime during the process "made unclean?"

Would such automatically and by definition make such a lamb (or offering) unacceptable?

Was it for the sins of the those who placed the blood upon the door posts and lintel?

Were the sins placed on the lamb being consumed by the people?
Is that the statement and picture(s) of Scriptures?



Throughout the Scriptures, the focus is not upon some thought of abandonment by God because of our sin.

Rather, the focus is continually upon the blood shed for the remission of sin. Look at the statement of Christ at the "last supper."

“This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
Here we are to remember the example of His daily life giving sacrifice (not just the cross) that we remember in every situation and in every moment Christ also gives us example, even to death and hope (assurance) of resurrection. Most of us take this portion of the passage as particularly applicable to that sacrifice of the Cross, but it is in deed more about the character that allowed injustice, persecution, heartache, and all manner of evil. Such example is given to us to understand we too face these for the world despises those of Christ.

“This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."
Here is the importance and focus of the new covenant. It was not formed from abandonment, from wrath, from some payment made by obligation. The new covenant is established by the blood.



I want to know how one may be perfected who is already perfect?

Again, the sacrifice presented to the priests was to be perfect. Without blemish, no scars, no sickness, no internal or external abnormality.

That lamb was then sacrificed. It was done without wrath, or separation. The blood was collected and sprinkled for atonement.

At no time during that process was the lamb made imperfect, needing to be made more perfect, or in some manner perfected.

I, too, have enjoyed this thread.
It has been most edifying.

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?

 

[agedman]

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?

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?