Forsaken in Matthew 27:46

[JonC]

My problem is that when I think we are in agreement, you say something (as in the Calvinism/Arminianism thread) which makes me realise that we are not. You have objected furiously in the past to any suggestion that Christ was 'abandoned.' We argued uphill and down dale over that last year. Then you have posted quotes in which both Beeke and Piper say he was abandoned. "Great!" I think; "we've got agreement," but now you seem to be presenting that abandonment as nothing greater than a communication failure.

Christ was made sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). [The suggestion that He was made a sin offering fails, if no other way, to John 3:14. The brazen serpent is a figure of sin, not a sin offering] God's wrath against sin was poured out full-strength against sin upon Christ. That included separation from the Father. Exactly how that worked I don't know; I only know that it was so. The Trinity was not broken up (silly suggestion), nor was the Spirit withdrawn from Him (I have never suggested such a thing), but He experienced absolutely the abandonment of the Father, as both Piper and Beeke agree.

God the Father departed absolutely. "O My God, I cry in the daytime but You do not hear; and in the night season and am not silent." That completely close relationship that had existed between Father and Son from eternity past was severed. The Christ felt Himself to be utterly abandoned, and He hung desolate upon the cross in the darkness, in terrible agony, with the Jews mocking Him and taunting Him. This was Him experiencing hell on our account, and if He did not do so on your behalf and on mine, we must experience it for ourselves.

I have re-stated my understanding above. You can agree or disagree from there.

Thank you for your restatement. I'll start here (but have to run, so I'll pick up a bit later):

The difference is that prior to Beeke, Piper, Gill, etc. stating that Christ was ‘abandoned’ they take the measure of saying what this ‘abandonment’ does not mean. With them I believe their intent is very clear. They reject a separation between Jesus and God, and they reject the idea that there was a separation between Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

For example, after pressing that God was not separated from Jesus Beeke makes the statement that God withdrew his “loving presence”. After confirming that there was no detachment between Son and Spirit, Beeke makes the statement that Jesus lacked the “comforts of the Spirit”.

On this one, and other threads, you disagreed with me when I said that God did not abandon Jesus in terms of withdrawing his presence. I did not say “loving presence”, or “comforts of the Spirit” as I agree these are obviously withdrawn. I was speaking of a whole and complete withdrawal (as the lost will experience at Judgment).

I disagree with your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 (perhaps this would be another topic). Jesus being made literal sin simply does not make sense (it denies Habakkuk’s comment about Jesus, that He is too pure to condone sin/evil, much less become sin/evil).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

On this one, and other threads, you disagreed with me when I said that God did not abandon Jesus in terms of withdrawing his presence. I did not say “loving presence”, or “comforts of the Spirit” as I agree these are obviously withdrawn. I was speaking of a whole and complete withdrawal (as the lost will experience at Judgment).

I agree with Beeke. And Jesus is expressing the agony of unassisted solitariness. In His hour of greatest need comes a pain unlike anything the Son has ever experienced: His Father’s abandonment…Christ was made sin for us, dear believers.

I also agree with Piper: “This was a real forsakenness…He is bearing our sin. He bore our judgment. The judgment was to have God the Father pour out his wrath on us, and instead, he pours it out on him – and that necessarily involves a kind of abandonment. This is what wrath means. He gave him up to suffer the weight of all the sins of all of his people and the judgment for those sins….He had embedded in his soul both the horrors of the moment of abandonment and he had embedded in his soul for the joy that was set before him: I have got a promise…So he said these words, one, because there was a real forsakenness for our sake. Two, he was expressing desolation, not asking for an answer. And three, he was amazingly fulfilling Scripture in the horror of it all and witnessing to the perfection of the plan of salvation.”

 

[JonC]

I agree with Beeke. And Jesus is expressing the agony of unassisted solitariness. In His hour of greatest need comes a pain unlike anything the Son has ever experienced: His Father’s abandonment…Christ was made sin for us, dear believers.

I also agree with Piper: “This was a real forsakenness…He is bearing our sin. He bore our judgment. The judgment was to have God the Father pour out his wrath on us, and instead, he pours it out on him – and that necessarily involves a kind of abandonment. This is what wrath means. He gave him up to suffer the weight of all the sins of all of his people and the judgment for those sins….He had embedded in his soul both the horrors of the moment of abandonment and he had embedded in his soul for the joy that was set before him: I have got a promise…So he said these words, one, because there was a real forsakenness for our sake. Two, he was expressing desolation, not asking for an answer. And three, he was amazingly fulfilling Scripture in the horror of it all and witnessing to the perfection of the plan of salvation.”

If I understand you correctly (please let me know if I have not) then we both agree with Beeke's explanation except that you depart with the assertion that Jesus and God are immutably united (a fellowship of persons in one Godhead that cannot be undone), and Beeke's conclusion that this abandonment (and solitariness) is related to divine "assistance", "loving" disposition, or "deliverance" as the Son remains completely dependent on the Father (not an abandonment in terms of division or separation of persons, nature, being, will, or so forth).

I believe the difference is enough for you to simply disagree with Beeke. Insofar as Piper, I think that both agree with what he has said (although we disagree with each other). Like Carson, Piper will be difficult to nail down on this one (Carson sees it as a mystery, Piper that it is asking the wrong question).

And to be clear where I stand on this issue:

Jesus was forsaken by the Father, but not in such a minimal way as a separation or withdrawal of persons. The Father was there, as Abraham was there, offering his Son. There was not an absentee moment as God offered His Son as an atoning sacrifice for us, for God is not an absentee God. The Atonement was the sacrifice of the Son, but it was also the sacrifice of the Father. There was not a moment when Jesus became less than God’s beloved Son, in Whom He is well pleased.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If I understand you correctly (please let me know if I have not) then we both agree with Beeke's explanation except that you depart with the assertion that Jesus and God are immutably united (a fellowship of persons in one Godhead that cannot be undone), and Beeke's conclusion that this abandonment (and solitariness) is related to divine "assistance", "loving" disposition, or "deliverance" as the Son remains completely dependent on the Father (not an abandonment in terms of division or separation of persons, nature, being, will, or so forth).

I believe the difference is enough for you to simply disagree with Beeke.

No! I absolutely agree with Beeke; it is you that either disagree with him or have misunderstood him. Here it is again:

Joel Beeke

- “Jesus’ cry does not in any way diminish His deity…Jesus’ cry does not divide His human nature from His divine person or destroy the Trinity. Nor does it detach Him from the Holy Spirit. The Son lacks the comforts of the Spirit, but He does not lose the holiness of the Spirit

I agree absolutely with this. You keep trying to claim that I want to dismantle the Trinity. I do not and in all our discussion on this issue, you will not find a single place where I have ever suggested such a thing. NOW WILL YOU PLEASE STOP IMPUTING TO ME A VIEW THAT I UTTERLY REPUDIATE? THANK YOU.
However, there is a threeness as well as on oneness in the Trinity. God does not get tired (Isaiah 40:28) but the Lord Jesus gets tired (Mark 4:38). God does not get hungry (Psalm 50:13), but Jesus gets hungry (Matthew 4:2). God does not die (Revelation 4:9), but Jesus dies (John 19:33). God knows everything (Job 21:22), but there is at least one thing that Jesus does not know (Mark 13:32). The way I was taught this is that Jesus is Man as though He were not God, and He is God as though He were not Man. It is possible for the Father temporarily to forsake the Son without rending the Trinity.

.….Jesus is experiencing the agony of unanswered supplication (Ps. 22:1-2).

Yes.

Unanswered, Jesus feels forgotten of God.

Yes.

He is also expressing the agony of unbearable stress. It is the kind of ‘roaring’ mentioned in Psalm 22: the roar of a desperate agony without rebellion. It is the hellish cry uttered when the undiluted wrath of God overwhelms the soul. It is heart-piercing, heaven-piercing, and hell-piercing.

Yes.

Further, Jesus is expressing the agony of unmitigated sin. All the sins of the elect, and the hell that they deserve for eternity, are laid upon Him.

Yes.

And Jesus is expressing the agony of unassisted solitariness. In His hour of greatest need comes a pain unlike anything the Son has ever experienced: His Father’s abandonment

Yes! Yes! Yes!

…Christ was made sin for us, dear believers.

Yes. Made sin, not a sin offering.

Among all the mysteries of salvation, this little word ‘for’ exceeds all. This small word illuminates our darkness and unites Jesus Christ with sinners. Christ was acting on behalf of His people as their representative and for their benefit. With Jesus as our substitute, God’s wrath is satisfied and God can justify those who believe in Jesus. Christ’s penal suffering, therefore, is vicarious – He suffered on our behalf.”

Yes. The word 'vicarious is very important.
Now would you like to go through that quote of Beeke and let me know whether you agree with it all?

Insofar as Piper, I think that both agree with what he has said (although we disagree with each other). Like Carson, Piper will be difficult to nail down on this one (Carson sees it as a mystery, Piper that it is asking the wrong question).

I don't find Piper (in the quote you gave) the least bit difficult to nail down. He is perfectly clear and I agree with him. I haven't really looked at the Carson quote.

And to be clear where I stand on this issue:

Jesus was forsaken by the Father, but not in such a minimal way as a separation or withdrawal of persons. The Father was there, as Abraham was there, offering his Son. There was not an absentee moment as God offered His Son as an atoning sacrifice for us, for God is not an absentee God.

God is Omni-present- to that extent He was there. But as far as the Son was concerned, He might have been a million miles away. During those three hours of darkness, and perhaps a little more, He was utterly bereft of any sense of the Father's presence; He was forsaken, abandoned, deserted. This is the meaning of vicarious suffering. Our condemnation is eternal separation from God. Jesus Christ suffered that vicariously- on our behalf- until that point where the Father's wrath against sin was satisfied. Isaac would never have said to Abraham, "Why have you forsaken me?" because Abraham was right in front of him. He might have said, "Why are you killing me?" The Son was not merely obedient in death; He was obedient unto death

The Atonement was the sacrifice of the Son, but it was also the sacrifice of the Father. There was not a moment when Jesus became less than God’s beloved Son, in Whom He is well pleased.

Here I agree with you completely. When we read that 'It pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief' it should amaze us and fill us with love to think how much God must love us that He would give His beloved Son for sinners such as we, and that the Son should willingly suffer such horrors on our behalf.

What was it, O our God,
Led You to give Your Son,
To yield Your well-beloved
For us by sin undone?
Unbounded love led You to give
Your well-beloved that we might live.

What led the Son of God
To leave His throne on high,
To shed His precious blood,
To suffer and to die?
Unbounded love for sinners lost
Led Him to suffer at such cost.

 

[JonC]

No! I absolutely agree with Beeke; it is you that either disagree with him or have misunderstood him. Here it is again:


I agree absolutely with this. You keep trying to claim that I want to dismantle the Trinity. I do not and in all our discussion on this issue, you will not find a single place where I have ever suggested such a thing. NOW WILL YOU PLEASE STOP IMPUTING TO ME A VIEW THAT I UTTERLY REPUDIATE? THANK YOU.
However, there is a threeness as well as on oneness in the Trinity. God does not get tired (Isaiah 40:28) but the Lord Jesus gets tired (Mark 4:38). God does not get hungry (Psalm 50:13), but Jesus gets hungry (Matthew 4:2). God does not die (Revelation 4:9), but Jesus dies (John 19:33). God knows everything (Job 21:22), but there is at least one thing that Jesus does not know (Mark 13:32). The way I was taught this is that Jesus is Man as though He were not God, and He is God as though He were not Man. It is possible for the Father temporarily to forsake the Son without rending the Trinity.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Yes. Made sin, not a sin offering.

Yes. The word 'vicarious is very important.
Now would you like to go through that quote of Beeke and let me know whether you agree with it all?

I don't find Piper (in the quote you gave) the least bit difficult to nail down. He is perfectly clear and I agree with him. I haven't really looked at the Carson quote.

God is Omni-present- to that extent He was there. But as far as the Son was concerned, He might have been a million miles away. During those three hours of darkness, and perhaps a little more, He had no sense whatsoever of the Father's presence. He was utterly bereft of any sense of the Father's presence; He was forsaken, abandoned, deserted. This is the meaning of vicarious suffering. Our condemnation is eternal separation from God. Jesus Christ suffered that vicariously- on our behalf- until that point where the Father's wrath against sin was satisfied. Isaac would never have said to Abraham, "Why have you forsaken me?" because Abraham was right in front of him. He might have said, "Why are you killing me?" The Son was not merely obedient in death; He was obedient unto death

Here I agree with you completely. When we read that 'It pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief' it should amaze us and fill us with love to think how much God must love us that He would give His beloved Son for sinners such as we, and that the Son should willingly suffer such horrors on our behalf.

What was it, O our God,
Led You to give Your Son,
To yield Your well-beloved
For us by sin undone?
Unbounded love led You to give
Your well-beloved that we might live.

What led the Son of God
To leave His throne on high,
To shed His precious blood,
To suffer and to die?
Unbounded love for sinners lost
Led Him to suffer at such cost.

Then you have my apologies for misunderstanding your position. I really don't know why you've chosen to disagree with me at every turn possible and across threads when I say that God did not depart or separate from Jesus (God's Spirit remained on Jesus, Jesus remained God) if in truth you believe the same thing. Because of you marking my posts with "disagree" I took it that you disagreed.

But now that we are clear - the passage does not mean God withdrew his Spirit (as will occur at the "second death"), but God did not deliver Christ at the moment (he abandoned him to suffer, not withdrew Himself or His Spirit but his loving presence).

I agree absolutely with this. You keep trying to claim that I want to dismantle the Trinity.

I don’t believe you want to dismantle the Trinity.

God does not get tired (Isaiah 40:28) but the Lord Jesus gets tired (Mark 4:38). God does not get hungry (Psalm 50:13), but Jesus gets hungry (Matthew 4:2). God does not die (Revelation 4:9), but Jesus dies (John 19:33). God knows everything (Job 21:22), but there is at least one thing that Jesus does not know (Mark 13:32). The way I was taught this is that Jesus is Man as though He were not God, and He is God as though He were not Man. It is possible for the Father temporarily to forsake the Son without rending the Trinity.

By your logic here, God is spirit so it is impossible that he become man.

And, either Jesus was literally made to be evil (made sin) or he suffered for the consequences of our sin (he was made a sin offering). Habakkuk denounces the former interpretation.

 

[JonC]

Now would you like to go through that quote of Beeke and let me know whether you agree with it all?

“Jesus’ cry does not divide His human nature from His divine person … Nor does it detach Him from the Holy Spirit. The Son lacks the comforts of the Spirit, but He does not lose the holiness of the Spirit. And finally, it does not cause Him to disavow His mission. … It is unthinkable that the Son of God might question what is happening or be perplexed when His Father’s loving presence departs.”

I agree.

“Jesus is expressing the agony of unanswered supplication (Ps. 22:1–2). Unanswered, Jesus feelsforgotten of God… Further, Jesus is expressing the agony of unmitigated sin. All the sins of the elect, and the hell that they deserve for eternity, are laid upon Him. And Jesus is expressing the agony of unassisted solitariness. In His hour of greatest need comes a pain unlike anything the Son has ever experienced: His Father’s abandonment. When Jesus most needs encouragement, no voice cries from heaven, “This is my beloved Son.” No angel is sent to strengthen Him; no “well done, thou good and faithful servant” resounds in His ears. The women who supported Him are silent. The disciples, cowardly and terrified, have fled. Feeling disowned by all, Jesus endures the way of suffering alone, deserted, and forsaken in utter darkness.”


I agree except maybe with the point all the disciples fled as not all disciples and women were absent at the cross (at this point, they have not all fled).


“But why would God bruise His own Son (Isa. 53:10)? The Father is not capricious, malicious, or being merely didactic. The real purpose is penal; it is the just punishment for the sin of Christ’s people. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”… Among all the mysteries of salvation, this little word “for” exceeds all. This small word illuminates our darkness and unites Jesus Christ with sinners. Christ was acting on behalf of His people as their representative and for their benefit.”


I agree.


“With Jesus as our substitute, God’s wrath is satisfied and God can justify those who believe in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). Christ’s penal suffering, therefore, is vicarious — He suffered on our behalf. He did not simply share our forsakenness, but He saved us from it. He endured it for us, not with us.”


I agree.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Then you have my apologies for misunderstanding your position. I really don't know why you've chosen to disagree with me at every turn possible and across threads when I say that God did not depart or separate from Jesus (God's Spirit remained on Jesus, Jesus remained God) if in truth you believe the same thing. Because of you marking my posts with "disagree" I took it that you disagreed.

I have thought that we agreed several times and stopped posting on the subject, but then you keep coming up with something else which makes me realise we don't agree. For instance this on the Calvinism/Arminianism board:

It would mean that God is unfaithful (just as God abandoning Christ on the cross would mean He is unfaithful). That God did not abandon Christ is our assurance He will not abandon us. There is a consistency to scripture.

I take it that since you have agreed, on this thread,with me, Beeke and Piper that the Lord Jesus was abandoned on the cross, that you now repudiate this.

But now that we are clear - the passage does not mean God withdrew his Spirit (as will occur at the "second death"), but God did not deliver Christ at the moment (he abandoned him to suffer, not withdrew Himself or His Spirit but his loving presence).

Christ was utterly abandoned by the Father. It was not just His loving presence that He withdrew but any sense of presence whatsoever. That is the clear and only reasonable inference of Psalm 22:1-2 and is demanded by Habakkuk 1:13. Yet He Himself did not cease to be very God.

By your logic here, God is spirit so it is impossible that he become man.

I try not to use human logic when I'm posting (Isaiah 55:8-9). I was merely quoting Scripture to you. What was it that you disagree with? Do you believe that Jesus did not get hungry or that God does? Do you believe that Jesus did not get tired or that God does? Or perhaps that Jesus did not die but that God did?

And, either Jesus was literally made to be evil (made sin) or he suffered for the consequences of our sin (he was made a sin offering). Habakkuk denounces the former interpretation.

John 3:14. 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.' It was not a sin offering-- a bull, a goat or a lamb--- that was lifted up, but a serpent, the personification (if that's the right word) of evil, and we are bid to look at Christ made, not a sin offering, but sin itself. He was not made a sinner, but all our sin was laid upon Him and imputed to Him. And God the Father, who is of purer eyes that to behold evil, turned His face away until propitiation had been made.

 

[JonC]

I have thought that we agreed several times and stopped posting on the subject, but then you keep coming up with something else which makes me realise we don't agree. For instance this on the Calvinism/Arminianism board:

I take it that since you have agreed, on this thread,with me, Beeke and Piper that the Lord Jesus was abandoned on the cross, that you now repudiate this.

Christ was utterly abandoned by the Father. It was not just His loving presence that He withdrew but any sense of presence whatsoever. That is the clear and only reasonable inference of Psalm 22:1-2 and is demanded by Habakkuk 1:13. Yet He Himself did not cease to be very God.

I try not to use human logic when I'm posting (Isaiah 55:8-9). I was merely quoting Scripture to you. What was it that you disagree with? Do you believe that Jesus did not get hungry or that God does? Do you believe that Jesus did not get tired or that God does? Or perhaps that Jesus did not die but that God did?

John 3:14. 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.' It was not a sin offering-- a bull, a goat or a lamb--- that was lifted up, but a serpent, the personification (if that's the right word) of evil, and we are bid to look at Christ made, not a sin offering, but sin itself. He was not made a sinner, but all our sin was laid upon Him and imputed to Him. And God the Father, who is of purer eyes that to behold evil, turned His face away until propitiation had been made.

I am really not sure the degree that we disagree, but I find my self in the same situation with your posts.

What I mean when I say God did not abandon Jesus on the cross is that there was no separation, and by this I mean God did not withdraw His Spirit (as Beeke put it, there is no "detachment from the Holy Spirit").

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What I mean when I say God did not abandon Jesus on the cross is that there was no separation, and by this I mean God did not withdraw His Spirit (as Beeke put it, there is no "detachment from the Holy Spirit").

Well Beeke says (rightly) that there is no "detachment from the Holy Spirit," but he also says that God did abandon Jesus, and you have said that you agree with Beeke. What is going on?

I'm sorry to keep on pressing, but I believe that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution and a right understanding of it is absolutely fundamental to the well-being of the Church. A low view of what went on at the cross will lead to a low view of sin, and a low view of sin leads to a low view of Justification, and a low view of Justification will lead to a low view of Christ. That is why the Puritans wrote books with titles like The Sinfulness of Sin

 

[JonC]

Well Beeke says (rightly) that there is no "detachment from the Holy Spirit," but he also says that God did abandon Jesus, and you have said that you agree with Beeke. What is going on?


I'm sorry to keep on pressing, but I believe that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution and a right understanding of it is absolutely fundamental to the well-being of the Church. A low view of what went on at the cross will lead to a low view of sin, and a low view of sin leads to a low view of Justification, and a low view of Justification will lead to a low view of Christ. That is why the Puritans wrote books with titles like The Sinfulness of Sin

That’s fine, brother, keep on pressing. I want to be as clear as I can possibly make myself here.

I agree with Beeke that the “abandonment” of the Father can only be in a context that does not:

1. Diminish His deity. Jesus IS God, without separation or diminishment.

2. Jesus’ human nature is not separate from His divine person.

3. Jesus is not detached from God’s Spirit.

4. Jesus is not detached from faithfully obeying the Father.

So where does this leave us? I believe it leaves us with a different definition of “forsaken” insofar as this abandonment cannot be a separation between Jesus and God.

By definition “abandon” can mean “to leave completely”. But it can also mean “to give up” or to “withdraw from”. Dictionary.com gives this example “to abandon hopes for a stage career”. Or “to yield over” as in “to abandon oneself to grief”. “Forsake” carries the same meaning.

You are stuck on one definition and use of “abandon” (to withdraw one’s presence), but Beeke specifies that this is impossible. What is withdrawn is God’s “loving presence” as the Father abandons His Son to the consequences of sin.

How do you reconcile using “abandon” to be God separating from Jesus yet Jesus does not cease being God, His human nature is not separated from His divine person, He is not detached from God’s Spirit, ect.?

 

[JonC]

Well Beeke says (rightly) that there is no "detachment from the Holy Spirit," but he also says that God did abandon Jesus, and you have said that you agree with Beeke. What is going on?

Think of it this way, brother:

When we speak of the atonement (in terms of appeasing God’s wrath) we are speaking of propitiation (at least as one important aspect). To propitiate means to appease or atone. If you anger someone, you make propitiation for your offense in one way or another to appease that person. You offer a peace offering so that your guilt is atoned and your relationship can be restored.

On the Cross we find God’s hatred and God’s love coming together. God hates sin and only His Beloved Son can satisfy His justice and redeem us. Apart from Christ’s blood, God’s wrath will send sinners to hell forever. However, even when God hated sin so much, He loved sinners so much that He willingly sent His Son to suffer that wrath for the very sinners who hated Him. Jesus remained God's Beloved Son, even as He offered His Son as a propitiation for sin.

When I argue against God “abandoning” Christ on the Cross it is without those qualifiers (God’s Spirit present with Jesus - , God present with Jesus in the Godhead, ect). To me, abandonment as a separation means a state of moving or being (Jesus “apart” or detached from God’s Spirit, Jesus “apart” or detached from the presence of the full Godhead, Jesus “apart” or detached from the Father).

 

[Yeshua1]

You mean he would have been able to take back that "equality" that was set aside prior to the Cross, had He chosen to. Scripture tells us he didn't.

He still was very equal to the father, as he was still God, but choose to layaside "showing off" His divine attributes! He allowed himself to become a man and accpt limitations of the flesh!

 

[Yeshua1]

My problem is that when I think we are in agreement, you say something (as in the Calvinism/Arminianism thread) which makes me realise that we are not. You have objected furiously in the past to any suggestion that Christ was 'abandoned.' We argued uphill and down dale over that last year. Then you have posted quotes in which both Beeke and Piper say he was abandoned. "Great!" I think; "we've got agreement," but now you seem to be presenting that abandonment as nothing greater than a communication failure.

Christ was made sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). [The suggestion that He was made a sin offering fails, if no other way, to John 3:14. The brazen serpent is a figure of sin, not a sin offering] God's wrath against sin was poured out full-strength against sin upon Christ. That included separation from the Father. Exactly how that worked I don't know; I only know that it was so. The Trinity was not broken up (silly suggestion), nor was the Spirit withdrawn from Him (I have never suggested such a thing), but He experienced absolutely the abandonment of the Father, as both Piper and Beeke agree.

God the Father departed absolutely. "O My God, I cry in the daytime but You do not hear; and in the night season and am not silent." That completely close relationship that had existed between Father and Son from eternity past was severed. The Christ felt Himself to be utterly abandoned, and He hung desolate upon the cross in the darkness, in terrible agony, with the Jews mocking Him and taunting Him. This was Him experiencing hell on our account, and if He did not do so on your behalf and on mine, we must experience it for ourselves.

I have re-stated my understanding above. You can agree or disagree from there.

That is the mystery here. as Jesus stayed fully God all of the time, but while on the Cross He became the Sin Bearer before God, and so experienced the same as the lost will for those 3 hours...

 

[Yeshua1]

It was not the separation of the 'second death' because it was not permanent, but the pain and the desertion felt by the Christ was the same. It was, for those three or four hours, a complete separation, 'for one part of the punishment is loss of the divine presence.' There was no point, in those hours, when the Father whispered to Him, "Don't worry! I'm still here." That is not to say that the Father ceased to love the Son- not at all!-, but judicially, He was condemned to all the penalties of hell.

Jesus experience literally the effects of hell while on the Cross for our sakes!

 

[Yeshua1]

Think of it this way, brother:

When we speak of the atonement (in terms of appeasing God’s wrath) we are speaking of propitiation (at least as one important aspect). To propitiate means to appease or atone. If you anger someone, you make propitiation for your offense in one way or another to appease that person. You offer a peace offering so that your guilt is atoned and your relationship can be restored.

On the Cross we find God’s hatred and God’s love coming together. God hates sin and only His Beloved Son can satisfy His justice and redeem us. Apart from Christ’s blood, God’s wrath will send sinners to hell forever. However, even when God hated sin so much, He loved sinners so much that He willingly sent His Son to suffer that wrath for the very sinners who hated Him. Jesus remained God's Beloved Son, even as He offered His Son as a propitiation for sin.

When I argue against God “abandoning” Christ on the Cross it is without those qualifiers (God’s Spirit present with Jesus - , God present with Jesus in the Godhead, ect). To me, abandonment as a separation means a state of moving or being (Jesus “apart” or detached from God’s Spirit, Jesus “apart” or detached from the presence of the full Godhead, Jesus “apart” or detached from the Father).

God was actively punishing Jesus as the sin bearer as God poured out His wrath in a real sense upon jesus, correct?

So whatever lost sinners experence away/banished from presence of God, jesus felt that full effect, also?

 

[JonC]

“The apostle John wrote, “he is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2). He also said, ‘Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (1 John 4:10). To propitiate means to appease or atone. If you anger someone, you make propitiation for your offense in one way or another to appease him. You offer a peace offering so that your guilt is atoned and your relationship can be restored…. we find God’s hatred and God’s love coming together in an astonishing fashion. God hates sin and is so angry with sinners that nothing less than the death of His Son will appease His anger, satisfy His justice, and set them free. Apart from Christ’s blood, God’s wrath will send sinners to hell forever. However, even when God hated sin so much, He loved sinners so much that He willingly sent His Son to suffer that wrath for the very sinners who hated Him. Amazing love! How can it be, that Thou, My God, shouldst die for me?.” (Joel Beeke, http://www.joelbeeke.org/page/5/)

That is the mystery here. as Jesus stayed fully God all of the time, but while on the Cross He became the Sin Bearer before God, and so experienced the same as the lost will for those 3 hours...

Right. Jesus became a sin offering (the Sin Bearer) as our iniquities are laid upon HIm, not sin itself. I agree.

I still don't understand how you can hold that Jesus experienced the same as the lost will for those 3 hours, yet also hold that what he experienced for those 3 hours was in fact not the same as the lost will experience at Judgment. I am simply not clear what you mean (as the lost will experience a complete absence of the Holy Spirit while we already agreed that Jesus was not detached from the Spirit; as the lost will be cast out from God, but we already agreed that Jesus remained one with God; that the lost will be turned over to their evil, yet we already agreed that Jesus is without sin; that the lost will be hopeless, yet such a faithless state is foreign to Jesus; that the lost will be unloved by God, while Jesus is the eternally Beloved of God).

 

[JonC]

God was actively punishing Jesus as the sin bearer as God poured out His wrath in a real sense upon jesus, correct?

So whatever lost sinners experence away/banished from presence of God, jesus felt that full effect, also?

No. The lost will experience a state that is foreign to God. They will be, by definition, evil and void of "light" and "truth". They will be in a hopeless state, not even able to look to God in hopes of deliverance. Now they experience some common grace through the Spirit. But then God's Spirit will be withdrawn. They will be evil, by definition (eternally opposed to God). Jesus experienced none of this.

But what Jesus experienced was far more extreme than the eternal damnation of every man who lived because He is God, and God hung on the cross - Jesus' humanity was not separated from His divine person - and suffered at the hands of those He had created, those He had come to save, by the Father's design.

 

[Yeshua1]

“The apostle John wrote, “he is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2). He also said, ‘Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (1 John 4:10). To propitiate means to appease or atone. If you anger someone, you make propitiation for your offense in one way or another to appease him. You offer a peace offering so that your guilt is atoned and your relationship can be restored…. we find God’s hatred and God’s love coming together in an astonishing fashion. God hates sin and is so angry with sinners that nothing less than the death of His Son will appease His anger, satisfy His justice, and set them free. Apart from Christ’s blood, God’s wrath will send sinners to hell forever. However, even when God hated sin so much, He loved sinners so much that He willingly sent His Son to suffer that wrath for the very sinners who hated Him. Amazing love! How can it be, that Thou, My God, shouldst die for me?.” (Joel Beeke, http://www.joelbeeke.org/page/5/)
Right. Jesus became a sin offering (the Sin Bearer) as our iniquities are laid upon HIm, not sin itself. I agree.

I still don't understand how you can hold that Jesus experienced the same as the lost will for those 3 hours, yet also hold that what he experienced for those 3 hours was in fact not the same as the lost will experience at Judgment. I am simply not clear what you mean (as the lost will experience a complete absence of the Holy Spirit while we already agreed that Jesus was not detached from the Spirit; as the lost will be cast out from God, but we already agreed that Jesus remained one with God; that the lost will be turned over to their evil, yet we already agreed that Jesus is without sin; that the lost will be hopeless, yet such a faithless state is foreign to Jesus; that the lost will be unloved by God, while Jesus is the eternally Beloved of God).

Jesus in His humanity suffered/experienced just a s a sinner does in hell, and felt the rejection of the father for those 3 hours///

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 8 PM Pacific.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am really not sure the degree that we disagree, but I find my self in the same situation with your posts.

What I mean when I say God did not abandon Jesus on the cross is that there was no separation, and by this I mean God did not withdraw His Spirit (as Beeke put it, there is no "detachment from the Holy Spirit").

To Jesus, during that time on the Cross, he felt as if the father had rejected Him!