What happened on the cross?

[OldRegular]

Absolutely. The Father turned his back on the Son as Jesus Who knew no sin literally became sin for us. In those hours on the cross I believe the Trinity was literally ripped apart and Jesus went into the wilderness of God-forsakenness as our sinbearer/scapegoat...

Absolutely nonsense and as far as I am concerned heretical. Scripture tells us:

Deuteronomy 6:4. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

The Triune Godhead is One. The Apostle Paul tells us in Colossians 2:9, speaking of Jesus Christ: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

To state that the Godhead was rent asunder is to assert disharmony in the Godhead, an impossibility since God is ONE When Jesus Christ hung on the cross the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt in Him that is unless you want to embrace the heretical claim claim that Jesus Christ was not truly God Incarnate but was born human and then indwelt with the Godhead which left Him when He went to the cross.

 

[Steven2006]

2Cr 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

.

I am going to repost this verse because I think this verse answers the question and makes it clear God was in Christ.

 

[Zenas]

The only way I know to balance that with "My God My God, why hast Thou forsaken me!?" is to say that the Father was with Him till Jesus bore the full weight of our sin, at which point, God, Who is of purer eyes than to behold sin had to turn His back on His Son.

The Father was with Him in the garden, during the trial, in the first hours of the cross and then turned away. After the sin debt was paid, the fellowship/relationship was restored. Jesus was forsaken by the Father that we may never have to be (Heb 13:5).

What else can you do with "why hast thou forsaken me" without taking the meaning right out of the words?

The same language is in the 22nd Psalm, but we know that God did not forsake David even during his times of despair. We use the same language today in referring to a God-forsaken place, but it is a figure of speech. Jesus words in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 were a cry of anguish, not a statement of fact.

 

[Amy.G]

I agree that Christ never ceased to be God.

Jesus was fully God and fully man, so is it possible that God forsook the human side (for lack of a better term) of Christ?

I'm not really sure that we can even grasp the details of what happened at that moment.

 

[Marcia]

I agree that Christ never ceased to be God.

Jesus was fully God and fully man, so is it possible that God forsook the human side (for lack of a better term) of Christ?

I'm not really sure that we can even grasp the details of what happened at that moment.

I'm with you on this one. This is how I've been thinking. What happened on the cross and the incarnation and Jesus dying on the cross are something we can't really grasp because all these things have to do with the nature of God, which is not totally comprehensible for us.

 

[OldRegular]

I agree that Christ never ceased to be God.

Jesus was fully God and fully man, so is it possible that God forsook the human side (for lack of a better term) of Christ?

I'm not really sure that we can even grasp the details of what happened at that moment.

Amy and Marcia

Obviously much of what took place on the cross is beyond our understanding but I basically believe that you are correct. When Jesus Christ said My God, My God I believe he was speaking as the Man Jesus Christ, not as the Second Person of the Triune Godhead. When He sweat drops of blood in the garden I believe that it was as a man, not because He dreaded the pain of the cross but the pain of becoming an offering for sin.

John Gill writes of the passage Matthew 27:46:

He calls him his God, not as he was God, but as he was man; who, as such, was chosen by him to the grace of union to the Son of God; was made and formed by him; was anointed by him with the oil of gladness; was supported and upheld by him in the day of salvation; was raised by him from the dead, and highly exalted by him at his own right hand; and Christ, as man, prayed to him as his God,believed in him, loved him, and obeyed him as such: and though now he hid his face from him, yet he expressed strong faith and confidence of his interest in him. When he is said to be "forsaken" of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him: nor was he separated from the love of God; he had the same interest in his Father's heart and favour, both as his Son, and as mediator, as ever: nor was the principle and habit of joy and comfort lost in his soul, as man, but he was now without a sense of the gracious presence of God, and was filled, as the surety of his people, with a sense of divine wrath, which their iniquities he now bore, deserved, and which was necessary for him to endure, in order to make full satisfaction for them; for one part of the punishment of sin is loss of the divine presence.

 

[rjprince]

Absolutely nonsense and as far as I am concerned heretical. Scripture tells us:

Deuteronomy 6:4. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

The Triune Godhead is One. The Apostle Paul tells us in Colossians 2:9, speaking of Jesus Christ: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

To state that the Godhead was rent asunder is to assert disharmony in the Godhead, an impossibility since God is ONE When Jesus Christ hung on the cross the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt in Him that is unless you want to embrace the heretical claim claim that Jesus Christ was not truly God Incarnate but was born human and then indwelt with the Godhead which left Him when He went to the cross.

Well as long as someone is gathering the wood for a fire, why stop now?

I will assert that there was some degree of disharmony within the nature of the Lord Jesus Himself. “Father let this cup pass... Not my will but thine...” Seems to me that within the hypostatic union of God and man there was a conflict of some kind taking place. I believe that it related not to physical suffering of the cross but to the separation that was about to take place as Jesus became the sin bearer.

As far as heretical ideas do you believe that God died? How could the eternal God die? Doesn’t that sound almost heretical? Or maybe some would split the nature of the God-Man and suggest that Jesus died as a man, but not as God? Talk about confusing?

Even the very idea that God would die for His creatures sounds repulsive to the very essence of Who He is. But die He did!

Here is another bit of confusion for you, the shema (Deut 6) uses the plural for “God”. That must be a bit of a problem for young Jews to say, “Hear O Israel, Yahweh our Elohiym (Gods) is One Yahweh”. OK, I know they did not pronounce it, but it still must have been a bit confusing.

Personally, I think the plurality of Elohiym is another one of those “shadows” in the OT that reflects the Triunity of God.

Oh, and if we acknowledge that God died for our sins, did all of God die? If only part of Him died is that not a division in the Trinity in and of itself? The Father and Spirit did not die, did they? But the Son did, didn’t He? That seems to be a bit of a division to me.

The mystery of the Trinity defies understanding. To assume that any one statement as to the nature of the Trinity is complete and adequate is the height of arrogance. God cannot be defined or explained in term that are adequate to encompass all the mystery.

If the Son died, while the Father and Spirit lived, that is division of sorts. If one denies the death of the Son, now that is heresy.

RJP

 

[rjprince]

OldReg

Might as well get some more of Gill on Matt 27:46....

“The whole of it evinces the truth of Christ's human nature, that he was in all things made like unto his brethren; that he had an human soul, and endured sorrows and sufferings in it, of which this of desertion was not the least: the heinousness of sin may be learnt from hence, which not only drove the angels out of heaven, and Adam out of the garden, and separates, with respect to communion, between God and his children; but even caused him to hide his face from his own Son, whilst he was bearing, and suffering for, the sins of his people. The condescending grace of Christ is here to be seen, that he, who was the word, that was with God from everlasting, and his only begotten Son that lay in his bosom, that he should descend from heaven by the assumption of human nature, and be for a while forsaken by God, to bring us near unto him:”

Gill clearly says that He was “for a while forsaken by God”.

I am sure you know this, but for clarification for those who may not, the “hypostatic union” (Gill uses “hypostatical”) is the union between the humanity and the Deity of the Lord Jesus. That was not broken. He was still fully the God man. Not really sure how Gill can intimate that the suffering and separation somehow applied more to the human side of His nature than the Divine. But then I have only read that section it Gill about four times. Will have to work on it some more...

RJP

 

[rjprince]

I agree that Christ never ceased to be God.

Jesus was fully God and fully man, so is it possible that God forsook the human side (for lack of a better term) of Christ?

I'm not really sure that we can even grasp the details of what happened at that moment.

and Marcia and OldReg (sure got a lot of posts in a short time after it sat most of the day)

If God forsook the human side only then did only the human side die? OldReg, how can accept this splitting of the nature of Christ and not that the Trinity may have been divided for a brief time?

That BTW was part of Gill's point re the Hypostatical union, that you CANNOT split the divine/human nature of Christ!

RJP

 

[Amy.G]

OR, you stated what I was trying to say better than I did in my previous post.

 

[rjprince]

Gill's comment at 2Cor 5:21 is also worthy of note:


he was made sin itself by imputation; the sins of all his people were transferred unto him, laid upon him, and placed to his account; he sustained their persons, and bore their sins; and having them upon him, and being chargeable with, and answerable for them, he was treated by the justice of God as if he had been not only a sinner, but a mass of sin; for to be made sin, is a stronger expression than to be made a sinner: but now that this may appear to be only by imputation, and that none may conclude from hence that he was really and actually a sinner, or in himself so, it is said he was "made sin"; he did not become sin, or a sinner, through any sinful act of his own, but through his Father's act of imputation, to which he agreed; for it was "he" that made him sin: it is not said that men made him sin; not but that they traduced him as a sinner, pretended they knew he was one, and arraigned him at Pilate's bar as such; nor is he said to make himself so, though he readily engaged to be the surety of his people, and voluntarily took upon him their sins, and gave himself an offering for them; but he, his Father, is said to make him sin...

(emphasis added by RJP)

 

[Zenas]

Well, it is certainly possible that I am wrong. That happened once several years ago!


A couple of important principles of hermeneutics are worthy of mention.

1) Consider the meaning of the words in the original languages
2) Consider how the words are used in Scripture
3) Consider how the passage compares with other passages
4) Interpret a difficult passage in light of clear passages, not vice versa


. . . .

In regard to the 2Cor 5:21, there is no good reason to fail to understand it in a clearly direct and literal sense. Further, such a sense is not that far from the sense of Isa 53:6, “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all”.

Like you, rj, I have been wrong before. In fact I believe most of us carry pencils with an eraser. In view of that possibility, I did some more research as soon as I could get somewhere to do it and here is what I found. The word for "sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is "hamartia." This is the same Greek word that the Septuagint uses for sin-offering in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Therefore, the readers of Paul's epistle would have understood that Christ became a sin offering for us. I cannot read Greek and so I cannot verify that this is correct but it makes a lot more sense in the context of the whole Bible than saying Jesus became sin itself.

Incidentally, I note that you would not take any of the four verses I cited to you at face value. I won't argue those verses on this thread and in fact I agree with you on one of them, but they do show we can't always take scripture literalistically. Sometimes we must search for either a hidden meaning or a meaning that would have been better understood at the time it was written. The latter is probably the case with 2 Corinthians 5:21.

 

[annsni]

and Marcia and OldReg (sure got a lot of posts in a short time after it sat most of the day)

If God forsook the human side only then did only the human side die? OldReg, how can accept this splitting of the nature of Christ and not that the Trinity may have been divided for a brief time?

That BTW was part of Gill's point re the Hypostatical union, that you CANNOT split the divine/human nature of Christ!

RJP

We CAN split the divine/human nature of Christ because Christ did it before He died in the Transfiguration. He was no longer the human nature - even His clothing changed from what He was wearing.

The divine nature of Jesus Christ cannot die. His humanness can but not His divinity. Death is a result of sin and God does not sin.

 

[Zenas]

We CAN split the divine/human nature of Christ because Christ did it before He died in the Transfiguration. He was no longer the human nature - even His clothing changed from what He was wearing.

The divine nature of Jesus Christ cannot die. His humanness can but not His divinity. Death is a result of sin and God does not sin.

Ann, you are articulating an ancient heresy called Nestorianism, which says Christ existed as two beings in one body--the human and the divine. This heresy was denounced at the Council of Ephesus during the 5th Century, although a few people claim to adhere to it today. As far as the transfiguration is concerned, Jesus did not lose His earthly body and form. He was still recocnizable as Jesus. This was a process not unlike what Paul described in 1 Corinthians 15:52.

 

[annsni]

Ann, you are articulating an ancient heresy called Nestorianism, which says Christ existed as two beings in one body--the human and the divine. This heresy was denounced at the Council of Ephesus during the 5th Century, although a few people claim to adhere to it today. As far as the transfiguration is concerned, Jesus did not lose His earthly body and form. He was still recocnizable as Jesus. This was a process not unlike what Paul described in 1 Corinthians 15:52.

During Christ's life, the human and the divine were completely one. I absolutely do not disagree with that. But that doesn't mean that the divine Jesus died. God cannot die.

 

[Zenas]

During Christ's life, the human and the divine were completely one. I absolutely do not disagree with that. But that doesn't mean that the divine Jesus died. God cannot die.

Nor can we. Our bodies may turn to dust but the spirit lives on forever, to be rejoined with heavenly bodies at the end of the age.

 

[annsni]

Nor can we. Our bodies may turn to dust but the spirit lives on forever, to be rejoined with heavenly bodies at the end of the age.

Exactly. Jesus' physical body died - and rose again in 3 days. But during that 3 days, Jesus was not dead - only His body was.

 

[OldRegular]

OldReg

Might as well get some more of Gill on Matt 27:46....

“The whole of it evinces the truth of Christ's human nature, that he was in all things made like unto his brethren; that he had an human soul, and endured sorrows and sufferings in it, of which this of desertion was not the least: the heinousness of sin may be learnt from hence, which not only drove the angels out of heaven, and Adam out of the garden, and separates, with respect to communion, between God and his children; but even caused him to hide his face from his own Son, whilst he was bearing, and suffering for, the sins of his people. The condescending grace of Christ is here to be seen, that he, who was the word, that was with God from everlasting, and his only begotten Son that lay in his bosom, that he should descend from heaven by the assumption of human nature, and be for a while forsaken by God, to bring us near unto him:”

Gill clearly says that He was “for a while forsaken by God”.

I am sure you know this, but for clarification for those who may not, the “hypostatic union” (Gill uses “hypostatical”) is the union between the humanity and the Deity of the Lord Jesus. That was not broken. He was still fully the God man. Not really sure how Gill can intimate that the suffering and separation somehow applied more to the human side of His nature than the Divine. But then I have only read that section it Gill about four times. Will have to work on it some more...

RJP

I will respond to you on this one post but since I am either ignorant or unethical I will refrain in the future.

Examine what Gill said:

“The whole of it evinces the truth of Christ's human nature, that he was in all things made like unto his brethren; that he had an human soul, and endured sorrows and sufferings in it, of which this of desertion was not the least: the heinousness of sin may be learnt from hence, which not only drove the angels out of heaven, and Adam out of the garden, and separates, with respect to communion, between God and his children; but even caused him to hide his face from his own Son, whilst he was bearing, and suffering for, the sins of his people. The condescending grace of Christ is here to be seen, that he, who was the word, that was with God from everlasting, and his only begotten Son that lay in his bosom, that he should descend from heaven by the assumption of human nature, and be for a while forsaken by God, to bring us near unto him:”

If God forsook Jesus Christ in any way it was his humanity as clearly shown above. To say that the Trinity was literally ripped apart as you did in your initial statement is heretical and shows a lack of understanding of the Scriptural teaching about the ONE GOD.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by Amy.G
I agree that Christ never ceased to be God.

Jesus was fully God and fully man, so is it possible that God forsook the human side (for lack of a better term) of Christ?

I'm not really sure that we can even grasp the details of what happened at that moment.

Amy

I am going to expand on my earlier remarks on the above post using the same comments by Gill. May I say that in your last sentence above you present the essence of this entire question. What took place on the cross is beyond our comprehension and we would probably be wise to accept that.


John Gill writes of the passage Matthew 27:46:

He calls him his God, not as he was God, but as he was man; who, as such, was chosen by him to the grace of union to the Son of God; was made and formed by him; was anointed by him with the oil of gladness; was supported and upheld by him in the day of salvation; was raised by him from the dead, and highly exalted by him at his own right hand; and Christ, as man, prayed to him as his God,believed in him, loved him, and obeyed him as such: and though now he hid his face from him, yet he expressed strong faith and confidence of his interest in him. When he is said to be "forsaken" of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him: nor was he separated from the love of God; he had the same interest in his Father's heart and favour, both as his Son, and as mediator, as ever: nor was the principle and habit of joy and comfort lost in his soul, as man, but he was now without a sense of the gracious presence of God, and was filled, as the surety of his people, with a sense of divine wrath, which their iniquities he now bore, deserved, and which was necessary for him to endure, in order to make full satisfaction for them; for one part of the punishment of sin is loss of the divine presence.

Please note the comment by Gill: but he was now without a sense of the gracious presence of God, and was filled, as the surety of his people, with a sense of divine wrath. It seems to me that only Jesus Christ the man is being considered here. The divine nature of Jesus Christ, God, could not be without a sense of the gracious presence of God neither could He experience divine wrath.

Now Gill could be wrong in his exposition but I do not believe that there is any way that anyone can say that the Trinity was literally ripped apart on the cross.

 

[rjprince]

I will respond to you on this one post but since I am either ignorant or unethical I will refrain in the future.

My bad. Please accept my most sincere apology and I will post it on the other thread as well, think that is where I said it.

It should not have been applied to you in a personal manner. I was wrong. Sometimes in the intensity of the argument I get carried away, whenever I see others do it, I get really toasted. This time it was me. Please continue the dialogue and if I overstep, please remind me...

RJP