Did God separate from Jesus?

I do not think it right to make Mark 15:34 say the opposite of what it so plainly does. In the early Church, the reality that there is one God in three Persons (not ‘members’) was safeguarded by speaking of a single divine ‘substance’ shared by Father, Son and Spirit. This substance is simply what God is, the thing that makes Father, Son and Spirit divine without implying three deities.

The Lord Jesus tells us that He and His father mutually indwell each other (John 14:11; c.f. also John 10:38; 14:10, 20). The technical term for this is perichoresis. This implies both union and distinction between Father and Son. One of the many problems with polytheism is the idea that different deities may make different demands of people and compete with one another as we see in the poems of Homer and Hesiod. Within the Trinity this is avoided, not because the Persons fortuitously happen to agree on most things, but because they must agree, for they are one God. The idea therefore that on the cross the Father inflicts a punishment upon the Son that He is unwilling to bear, or that the Son draws from the Father a forgiveness that He is unwilling to bestow is a non-starter.

But there is also a distinction between the Persons. Without it, it would be ridiculous to talk of a distinct Father, Son and Spirit at all, and it would be impossible for them to relate to each other as separate Persons as the Scripture teaches they do. But if Son, Father and Spirit are all fully Divine and equal in their possession of all the Divine attributes (e.g. holiness, wisdom, truth etc.), what distinguishes them? The answer is their asymmetric in their relationship with each other. The Father is in a relationship of Fatherhood to the Son and the Son is in a relationship of Sonship to the Father. The Son is everything the Father is, save that He is not the Father, the Spirit is not the Son and so forth.

It must surely be agreed that God’s actions reflect His nature. He does what is holy because He is holy; what is good because He is good. Therefore God’s nature will be reflected in the actions of each Person of the Trinity and both unity and distinction between the Persons will be reflected in what God does.

So the actions of the Persons reflect their unity. In John 14:10-11, the Lord Jesus teaches that His works are at the same time His Father’s works and this is grounded in the Perichoretic Union. In John 5:19, He testifies that ‘Whatever He [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner.’ The fundamental unity in their actions mirrors the fundamental union of their Persons.

On the other hand, the actions of the Persons reflect their distinctions. The Bible teaches that the Father sent the Son, and that the Son willingly obeyed the Father (John 10:15-18; Philippians 2:5-9). Father and Son send the Spirit, but the Spirit does not send the Father. The work of the Trinity in salvation is outlined in Ephesians 1:3-14. The Three work in perfect harmony to accomplish their single goal, but their roles are quite different.

In order to represent this unity and distinction between the Persons, Augustine taught that the Father’s actions are not without the Son and the Son’s actions not without the Father. That seems to work rather well. Augustine affirmed that while the Persons of the Trinity do not perform the same action in the same way, nevertheless they do not act independently of one another– their respective contributions to any given activity are inseparable.

So it is not meaningless to say that God the Son propitiated God the Father. The same Person is not the subject and object of the verb. Nor does the fact that the Father exacts a punishment borne by the Son mean that they are divided or act independently. Their relationship is asymmetric, but they are mutually and inseparably engaged upon two aspects of the same action with one purpose– the salvation of guilty sinners while satisfying the justice of the Triune God.

I now want to look at the Lord Jesus being ‘forsaken’ on the cross. First of all I want to repeat what I said above. We must never imagine that God the father imposed upon the Son any burden that He was unwilling to bear. On the contrary, He declares, “I delight to do Your will, O My God….” (Psalm 40:8; Hebrews 10:7; c.f. John 4:34; 6:38). Nor should we imagine that on the cross, the Son extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to give (John 3:16; Romans 5:8). On the contrary, on the cross, ‘Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed’ (Psalm 85:10).

[continued]

[continuation]
We should now consider the various references to the Lord Jesus drinking a cup. In Mark 10:38, He asks James and John, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” Then in Gethsamene, ‘deeply distressed and troubled’ Mark 14:33), He cries out to the Father, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will but as You will” (Matthew 26:39, 42 etc.), and then in John 18:11, “Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?” It is clear that this cup is something horrific which the Father requires Him to drink. He knows all about it, has willingly (see above) agreed to drink it, but as the cup approaches, He is filled with dread and horror at the anticipation of it. On an night when it was cold enough for a fire to be kindled in the courtyard of the high priest’s house (Luke 22:55), the Lord Jesus sweats copiously (Luke 22:44)– the psychosomatic response of a human to impending trauma.

So what is this cup which the Lord Jesus must drink? The O.T. tells us; it is a cup of judgement and wrath against the wicked. ‘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 down and drink’ (Psalm 75:8). ‘For thus says the LORD GOD of Israel to me, “Take this wine cup from My hand and cause all the nations, to whom I send you to drink it. And they will drink and stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them……..”‘ (Jeremiah 25:15-32).

As one reads on, it becomes clear that this judgement is for the whole world to drink. See also Isaiah 51:17; Ezekiel 23:32-34; Habakkuk 2:16). So why should the Lord Jesus drink this cup? Mark 10:45 tells us, He came, ‘To give His life as a ransom for many;’ to drink the cup destined for sinners in their place. “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed {lit. ‘handed over.’ Gk. paradidomai) to the chief priests and to the scribes; and the will condemn Him to death and deliver [Gk. paradidomai] Him to the Gentiles [lit. ‘nations.’ Gk. ethnoi], and they will mock Him and scourge Him, and spit on Him, and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.’

Now compare with Psalm 106:40-41. ‘Therefore the wrath of the LORD was kindled against His people, so that He abhorred His own inheritance. And He gave them [LXX paradidomai] into the hand of the Gentiles [or ‘nations’] and those who hated them ruled over them.’ So for our Lord Jesus to be handed over to the nations is tantamount to being delivered over to God’s wrath. Christ gave His life as a ransom for many, being handed over to God’s wrath in the place of many. The ransom is, of course, not money, but a life being given up in death, and pain being suffered in the place of others who would otherwise suffer the pains of hell.

[For much of the post so far I have drawn on Pierced for our Transgressions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach (IVP, 2007. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6)]

So now we can look at our Lord’s cry of dereliction. ‘Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the sixth hour. And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” Which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”‘ (Mark 15:33-34).

We will first look at the supernatural darkness that came over the land. There are several places in the O.T. where darkness denotes God’s wrath and judgement, especially connected to the ‘day of the Lord,’ e.g. Joel 2:31; Amos 5:18-20; Zephaniah 1:14-15 and particularly Isaiah 13:9-11 (quoted in Mark 13:24-25). so the darkness indicates the righteous anger of God, but against whom? The Lord Jesus Himself tells us that it is against Himself. ‘Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered'”‘ (Mark 14:27). The quotation is from Zechariah 13:7 which makes it perfectly clear that God Himself is the One who will strike the Shepherd. The Lord Jesus was made sin, and God’s righteous anger against sin was poured out upon Him instead of us, with His full knowledge and consent.

We now come to the dereliction of Christ. As I have said at the start, I cannot accept that “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me” can possibly be read as “My God, My God, You haven’t forsaken Me.” Nor can I accept that David, who is described as a prophet in Acts 2:30, was actually a false prophet in that he made an error in Psalm 22:1 (c.f. Deuteronomy 18:20-22). Nor is it a case of ‘God forsaking God’ any more than God prays to God (e.g. John 17). The Son prays to the Father, although the Father does not pray to the Son, and on the cross, the Father temporarily forsakes the Son. To be sure, we need to be careful here. We must not suggest that the Father was not present at Calvary for the very good reason that He is Omni-present. ‘”Do I not fill heaven and earth?” Declares the LORD’ (Jeremiah 23:23-24; c.f. Psalm 139:7-12). Rather it means that the Son, who had enjoyed the constant and closest possible relationship with His Father, now lacked completely any sense of His presence until the sun appeared once more and He cried, “It is finished!” The Greek word tetelestai can also mean, ‘It is paid’ (c.f. Matthew 17:14) or ‘it is accomplished (c.f. Luke 9:31). In fact, our Lord’s cry meant all those things. The ransom was paid in full, reconciliation between Man and God was accomplished, and His suffering was about to be ended.

This forsaking of Christ is an integral part of the atonement. Christ ‘is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him.’ His is a complete salvation. I shall not be condemned for my sins because Christ was made sin for me. I shall not suffer the pains of hell because Christ has suffered them on my behalf on the cross. I shall not be shut out from the presence of God (2 Thessalonians 1:9) because Christ was shut out from the felt presence of His Father on my behalf.

Steve Owen said:

The technical term for this is perichoresis. This implies both union and distinction between Father and Son.

Click to expand...

first thanks for your reply, but the definition you gave "perichoresis" is nothing but another form of modalism. Perichoresis (from Greek: περιχώρησις perikhōrēsis, "rotation") is a term referring to the relationship of the three persons of the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to one another.

Let us make ourself clear on "perichoresis" maybe some don't understand our view. it was said, "The same Person is not the subject and object of the verb." a rotation of roles?, no.
so we must disagree with that assessment, and here's why? it is the action of the one sending who is the same one person that is sent, or “diversified”. scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." one's own (possession) covers the "subjective" the sender, and the "objective" he who was sent. for the "ARM" of God is God (per John 1:1c) as said, which means he is “diversified” or is THE "Shared" of one's ownself. so both the subject and the object is the same one person, and the distinction is that the share, (the Object) is in flesh, meaning observable vs (the subject) who is not observable.
but the rest of your assessment is ok.

PICJAG.

John Caldwell said:

I like the teachings of the Early Church when it comes to the penalty of sin. They focused on physical death as the penalty and Christ as deliverance through this death into eternal life. We still experience the wages of sin (death) but are saved through this physical death (through dying to our flesh in Christ).

Click to expand...

Yes, because "sin" was condemned in the flesh, that why God/Jesus died from the flesh which is the FIRST DEATH, natural. scripture, Romans 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" Romans 8:4 "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
so no righteousness without that death, so this was the plan of God all alone.
PICJAG.

You can take the Son out of the Eternal, but you can't take the Eternal out of the Son.

101G said:

first thanks for your reply, but the definition you gave "perichoresis" is nothing but another form of modalism. Perichoresis (from Greek: περιχώρησις perikhōrēsis, "rotation") is a term referring to the relationship of the three persons of the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to one another.

Click to expand...

This is what I wrote: The Lord Jesus tells us that He and His father mutually indwell each other (John 14:11; c.f. also John 10:38; 14:10, 20). The technical term for this is perichoresis. This implies both union and distinction between Father and Son.
It was not supposed to be a definition, but I can't see how it implies modalism.

God did not <<separate from Jesus>>; He separated, viz., sanctified Jesus for "God's Eternal Purpose".

101G said:

Let us make ourself clear on "perichoresis" maybe some don't understand our view. it was said, "The same Person is not the subject and object of the verb." a rotation of roles?, no.
so we must disagree with that assessment, and here's why? it is the action of the one sending who is the same one person that is sent, or “diversified”. scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." one's own (possession) covers the "subjective" the sender, and the "objective" he who was sent. for the "ARM" of God is God (per John 1:1c) as said, which means he is “diversified” or is THE "Shared" of one's ownself. so both the subject and the object is the same one person, and the distinction is that the share, (the Object) is in flesh, meaning observable vs (the subject) who is not observable.
but the rest of your assessment is ok. PICJAG.

Click to expand...

Now for this paper you need to get 99% or fail.

101G said:

first thanks for your reply, but the definition you gave "perichoresis" is nothing but another form of modalism. Perichoresis (from Greek: περιχώρησις perikhōrēsis, "rotation") is a term referring to the relationship of the three persons of the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to one another.

Click to expand...

What Brother @Steve Owen posted was nothing even remotely close to modalism. You are the one averring that doctrine on here, not him.

@Steve Owen

Reading your posts brings joy to my heart, to my spirit. I see how grounded in the scriptures you are and rejoice in seeing the work God has wrought in and through you. If I could, I and my wife(we'd have a long hard fought battle over this ) would move to merry old England and gladly set under your ministry.

BTW, this Brother and I go way back to a couple other forums, and we used to lock horns some times before God opened my eyes to the Doctrines of Grace.

John Caldwell said:

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46)

I believe that Christ suffered and died on the cross by the actions of godless men and in accordance with God's plan. Jesus was "forsaken" to suffer the cross.

I have seen it argued that on the cross God separated from Jesus.

My argument against that view is it presents God as faithless to the righteous and unrighteous to His word. We can expect God to be ever present in us because he was present with Christ through His sufferings and vindicated Him by raising Him from the dead.

What are the opinions (on either side)?

Click to expand...

I agree with you. Jesus appears to be pointing to Psalm 22 which describes the place Jesus has reached, being mocked, insulted, scorned by men, despised.
Emotionally it is a desperate alone place, of great pain and suffering, each breath being agony, and if you do not pull yourself up to breath, you cannot breath.

I see God is with Jesus, as this place is the ultimate statement of love to man, that God can take the worst man can throw at Him and still forgive them, the true forgiveness for our salvation.

Those who hold Jesus became sin for us, taking on all the sin of the world and therefore unable to be acknowledged by God, was the separation from God. Jesus became the representation of all our sinful actions that deserved death and cancelled them out, through His sacrifice, but this is a theological representation of the meaning of the cross, rather than its relationship reality. Jesus was suffering, was scorned and hurting, to cry out as He did was the most restrained anyone could ever respond.

John Caldwell said:

I like the teachings of the Early Church when it comes to the penalty of sin. They focused on physical death as the penalty and Christ as deliverance through this death into eternal life. We still experience the wages of sin (death) but are saved through this physical death (through dying to our flesh in Christ).

Because of Christ Satan is defeated (this is where the "second death" comes [Rev. 20:14], as it was prepared for Satan and his angles and is a distinctly Christ-centered judgment based on His victory). Those who are not "in Christ" will face this "second death", but it is also a Christ-centered judgment based on the work of Christ.

Tradition has colored Scripture, and (IMHO) not for the better.

Click to expand...

I have seen some like to look at the cross as some distant, legal transaction between the Father and the Son representing sinful man. This is extended that these 8 hours on the cross, turned the sinful world into a cleansed world, in Gods eyes, as if we are the same sinners, except viewed by God as righteous redeemed individuals.

But this exalts our internal conflicts over our failures and walk, above the word of God and how love transforms us. Like any child, the child knows its weaknesses and vulnerability, that grace rules over our lives as we work through our issues and behaviour, in heart, mind and soul.

If one believes Jesus is openning the door to our walk in love and change, then the cross is the seal of God on us, so we can literally become and walk as His people.

But equally the language can be used as if we become Gods people while remaining sinners continuing to sin. Hebrews expresses the tension of sowing to the flesh or to the Spirit, by suggesting maturity

14 solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Heb 5

Maturity is in knowing good from evil. It is attaining to our walk like Jesus.
Though this is hard to say, it is by opening to this aspiration that we can begin to realise how we can move toward attaining it, though even Paul pointed out, we are always striving towards it, only Jesus fully understands when we have arrived, which is like saying are we always at peace.

Steve Owen said:

This forsaking of Christ is an integral part of the atonement.

Click to expand...

Spurgeon~Then David said in his heart, now I shall perish one day by the hand of Saul. There is nothing better for me then that I should escape to the land of the philistines. Then Saul will despair of seeking me any longer within the borders of Israel, and I shall escape out of his hand. 1 Samuel 27:1
The thought of David's heart at this time was a false thought. He certainly had no ground for thinking that God's anointing him by Samuel was intended to be left As an empty, meaningless act. Never on Any occasion had the Lord deserted His servant. He had been placed in perilous positions often, but not one instance had occurred in which divine intervention had not delivered him. The trials to which he had been exposed had been varied, They had not assumed one form only, but many. Yet, in every case, he who sent this trial had also graciously ordained a way of escape.
He should have realized from what God had done for him that God would be his defender Still. But do we doubt God's help in this same way? Is it not mistrust without a cause? Have we ever had the shadow of a reason to doubt our father's goodness? Has he once failed to justify our trust? Let us not, reason contrary to evidence. How can we ever be so ungenerous as to doubt our God? Lord, Throw down the Jezebel of our unbelief, and let the dogs devour it.~Spurgeon

Steve Owen said:

This is what I wrote: The Lord Jesus tells us that He and His father mutually indwell each other (John 14:11; c.f. also John 10:38; 14:10, 20). The technical term for this is perichoresis. This implies both union and distinction between Father and Son.
It was not supposed to be a definition, but I can't see how it implies modalism.

Click to expand...

GINOLJC, to all.
First thanks for the reply. second, yes the Father and son indwells each other, but not as in your definition of perichoresis states. listen, the term union means "the action or fact of joining or being joined". ok, when was God separate to be unified? well.... never, God was never divided, nor separate. as for as the union of the indwelling of each other and his distiction, it is called G243 allos, which Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort. ANOTHER?, are we saying that are two Spirits/Gods, NO, but the same one Spirit, diverfied, or the technical term "differentiation". and this "differentiation" comes by way of "SHARING" of oneself in another "FORM". this is clearly stated in Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" this verse certifys the term G243 allos, because it's root word bare this out. because "another as G243 allos states is the "EQUAL" share of himself. hence the difference of "diversity" vs perichoresis. diversity is the same person only shares in Intrinsic Spatial. as G243 states, "the same sort", and the sort is Spirit.
"Diversity" is confirmed throught the bible. it is clearly seem in John 1:1 in the term "With" as also in Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the LORD who is the FIRST is with the LASThimself. one more to be sure, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."
here clearly, the LORD/God said that he is the "FIRST", and the LORD/God clearly says he's the Last ALSO. he is "WITH" himself, and yet he's "ALSO" himself. are one seeing it now?

the only way one can be "WITH" themself, and be "ALSO" themself at the same time is "EQUAL" with themself, is by being ... THE EQUAL "SHARE" OF THEMSELF IN "ANOTHER" FORM.
SO WE SUGGEST YOU STUDY UP ON "another" WHICH IS THE GREEK WORD G243 ALLOS, VS WHAT PERICHORESIS STATES.
and for "distinction", look up G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n. and it's root G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros), which means portion and see what it is synonymous, or Similar with ..... "SHARE". BINGO.

Hoped this helped.
PICJAG.

101G said:

First thanks for the reply. second, yes the Father and son indwells [sic] each other, but not as in your definition of perichoresis states

Click to expand...

First of all, I did not define perichoresis. Had I done so it would have been somewhat longer. The best thing to do is to look it up in a Systematic Theology.
But do you deny that there is union and distinction between the Persons of the Trinity? You have copied your definition of allos out of Vine's Dictionary, which is regarded as very old-fashioned these days, but in any case I don't think it helps.

To get an idea of the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, I always think it's helpful to look at the incident of the stilling of the storm (Mark 6:35ff etc.).
When the Lord Jesus comes on the boat, He is tired and goes to sleep on a cushion. God does not grow tired or weary (Isaiah 40:28). Elsewhere He is described as being hungry. He is a Man; man as if He were not God. But when the storm arises, and the disciples wake Him in a panic, He rebukes the wind and waves and they immediately cease. A man cannot do that; nor does the Lord Jesus pray to the Father to do it for Him. He is God, God in all His fullness, and His Deity is entirely unrestricted by His humanity. He is God as though He were not man.

So yes, the Lord Jesus is 'another of the same kind' as God, but He is also truly human; and in His humanity He felt Himself entirely separated from the Father, except for the Father's wrath - not against Him, but against the sin which He bore on our behalf.

God's righteous sentence against sinners is this:'They shall be punished with everlasting destruction, and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power' (2 Thes. 1:9). Because Christ was shut out from the presence of His Father during the hours of darkness on the cross, it means that I never shall be. Praise His name!

FollowHim said:

If one believes Jesus is openning the door to our walk in love and change, then the cross is the seal of God on us, so we can literally become and walk as His people.

Click to expand...

Not I that lives but Christ in me. Is it you walking or God walking in you

2 Corinthians 6:16 KJV
[16] And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Tecarta Bible

Waiting on him said:

Not I that lives but Christ in me. Is it you walking or God walking in you

2 Corinthians 6:16 KJV
[16] And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Tecarta Bible

Click to expand...

Communion implies both at the same time. We are God's workmanship, the fruit of His word, yet also freely choosing to follow.

David and Samson demonstrate the dilemma of choosing the road and it being laid before one. Flawed, with struggles but always looking to God for direction and inspiration. And we are more privileged, filled with the Spirit, in worship and praise. Amen.

FollowHim said:

Communion implies both at the same time. We are God's workmanship, the fruit of His word, yet also freely choosing to follow.

David and Samson demonstrate the dilemma of choosing the road and it being laid before one. Flawed, with struggles but always looking to God for direction and inspiration. And we are more privileged, filled with the Spirit, in worship and praise. Amen.

Click to expand...

I don’t see it brother, David and Samson?
I hope I don’t compare with either