If you are a Christian you most likely hold a belief that goes something like this: during his crucifixion, Jesus Christ was forsaken by God the Father who, due to his intoleration of sin, “turned his back” on Christ as Christ took on himself the sin of the world by penal substitution.
The textual support offered for this doctrine is Christ’s quotation of Psalm 22:1 - ”My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34). Usually this verse is considered to be the showstopper for the question of whether Christ was forsaken by his Father. Despite the initial force of this interpretation there’s more to this issue than meets the eye since it faces challenges at both the exegetical and the theological level.
Exegetical Problems
The primary exegetical problem for this God-forsaken interpretation (pun intended) comes from the theme of the whole of Psalm 22. The psalm is not a psalm of despair and abandonment by God. The conclusion of the psalm indicates that the psalmist is confident of God’s presence and attention to his suffering:
24 For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help. 25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly; before those who fear you will I fulfill my vows. 26 The poor will eat and be satisfied; they who seek the Lord will praise him– may your hearts live forever! 27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, 28 for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations.
The way in which the opening line of the psalm (“My God, my God…”) fits with the verses quoted above is illumined by examining the thematic pattern of several other psalms. In numerous psalms the psalmist begins with a lament over the forsakeness or abandonment by God (which seems to be true from his experience) but concludes with confidence in the character of Yahweh that finally overrules the perceptions of his experience (see Psalms 10; 13; 73; 42; 6; 3). None of these psalms promote despair. Rather, they demonstrate that the psalmist is confident about what God has said and done in spite of what appears to be true according to the psalmist’s human judgment. The hopeful theme of these psalms becomes even more evident against the backdrop of a pessimistic theme found in psalms which expresses a cry for Yahweh to cease neglecting his people and lacks the kind of confidence which we see in Psalm 22 that God has not in fact abandoned his people (see Psalms 38; 79; 88). So then there are two categories of psalms:
1. Those in which the psalmist is confident that God is with him in spite of what his circumstances appear to indicate, 2. Those in which the psalmist believes himself to be abandoned by God but omits the confident expression of the reality of God’s goodness found in the psalms of the former category.
“My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” is the first word on the matter not the last. It is an expression that ultimately yields to a confidence that God has not forsaken the psalmist. Thus, Psalm 22 is clearly in the first category and thus is distinct from the Psalms which clearly express forsakeness.
In spite of this, however, we are left with the question of how much of the Psalm Jesus intended by his quotation of the first verse. Did Jesus mean to express that he was truly abandoned by his father or was his quotation merely representative of the teaching of the entire Psalm? Commentator William Barclay criticizes the idea that Christ would have intended the entire Psalm in his quotation stating that “On a cross a man does not repeat poetry to himself” (The Gospel of Matthew, vol. 2, rev. ed [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975], 368). Barclay is wrong by the obvious fact that Jesus did repeat poetry to himself (or to his father) on a cross when he spoke the opening line of the psalm. So the question cannot be “Did Jesus quote poetry?” but should be instead “Why did Jesus quote poetry?”.
If we consider that hanging on a cross produces asphyxiation, a man on a cross would be limited to far fewer words than he would ordinarily be able to express. Jesus would not need to quote all of the psalm in order to take all of it into consideration in relating it to himself. Furthermore, if we understand that the entire psalm is a messianic psalm which applies finally to Christ as Jn 19:24 indicates, then surely Christ understood it this way as well and applied the psalm to himself holistically in his quotation of the opening line.
Theological Problems
While I don’t think the God-forsaken interpretation can be ruled out on exegetical grounds, I find it to be the less favorable interpretation in light of the exegetical data. The bigger problems with this interpretation, in my judgment, is found in the theology which it expresses and implies. The most obvious theological issue surrounds the question of how this interpretation comports with Trinitarian theology. What does it mean for the strongest of all unions that the Father forsakes his son in his darkest hour? Typically, those who hold the God-forsaken interpretation invoke the ontological/relational (economic) distinction by saying that it was only relationally that the Son experienced separation from the Father and not a separation of the divine essence. A clever manuvure to be sure, but this only solves the problem by creating another (bigger?) problem. It divorces the Father and Son’s relational union from their ontological union. The relational unity between the Father and Son exists because of the unity of essence. To disturb the relational unity without disturbing the ontological unity requires that they operate independently. The result is that this view makes possible a Trinity in which the persons could hate one another but still have a fellowship according to their essence. (I’m imagining a rather humorous picture of siamese triplets who can’t get along but can’t get away from one another, a fact which only makes the conflict worse).
Unless we invite problems for Trinitarian theology in another area we cannot hold that the Father forsook the Son relationally without holding that the entire Trinitarian relationship was broken.
The God-forsaken interpretation creates another theological problem. To deny that Christ invoked the whole theology of Psalm 22 in his quotation of the first line, makes David greater than Christ. The whole theme of Psalm 22 is that for David the promises of God triumphed above the circumstances of his misery. However, for Christ to truly be forsaken by his father the opposite must be true: the promises of God must give way to the misery of the cross.
Not only does this interpretation not fit with Psalm 22, it doesn’t fit with Christ’s other expressions on the cross. At several points during his time on the cross he is in conversation with his father. He prays, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34) and “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Lk 23:46). The latter statement is the quotation from another psalm:
Into your hands I commit my spirit; redeem me, O Lord, the God of truth. I hate those who cling to worthless idols; I trust in the Lord. I will be glad and rejoice in your love, for you saw my affliction and knew the anguish of my soul. You have not handed me over to the enemy but have set my feet in a spacious place (Ps 31:5-8).
These are not the words of one who has been forsaken by the one with whom he has shared the most intimate union possible for all of past eternity.
A third theological problem tied to this interpretation concerns our relationship with the Father. If the Father can forsake his only son what confidence can we have that he will not forsake us? Those to whom I have posed this question are wont to respond that we can be confident that the Father will not forsake us because Christ was forsaken for our sake. It is precisely because Christ was forsaken that we will not be forsaken. This answer, however, misunderstands substitutionary atonement. To be able to take the sinner’s place Christ cannot be abandoned by the Father. Forsakenness is something that requires changing the relationship that qualifies Christ as the sacrifice. To be forsaken during the moment in which Christ is supposed to be the substitute for the sinner is to cease being the perfect Son loved of the Father given up as a sacrifice. The logic of penal substitution is that not that Christ became what the sinner is, rather, the logic follows that Christ, who did not become what we are, was treated like we should’ve been. (Though space does not permit an explanation, this also makes the best sense of both 2 Cor 5:21 and Gal 3:13).
A fourth problem for the view is that implies that the Son is more tolerant of sin than the Father. If the Father cannot look on his son because he hates sin, why should Christ be tolerant to bear the worse relationship to sin of taking it on himself? Yet if Christ can bear the sin, then the Father can certainly maintain fellowship with his son who bears the sin.
A fifth problem is that aside from the inference one draws from Christ’s quotation of Psalm 22:1, this doctrine is nowhere taught in Scripture, and yet, if true, it is a significant theological point.
A Way Forward
It is not my opinion that those who hold the God-forsaken view lack intelligence or orthodoxy. Unfortunately both Luther and many of those in my own denomination hold this view. However, I think there is a better way of looking at the relation of the Father to the Son on the cross. We know that Yahweh poured out his wrath against sin on the crucified servant (Is 53:10), but this does not imply or require abandonment on the Father’s part. A better explanation is that the Father sustained Christ as he visited his wrath on him. In this way, the Father maintains perfect fellowship while exacting punishment for sin.
John –
[Disclaimer: I can't carry on a long dialogue over the blog, but this may kick off some discussion for others; we can talk more over coffee
]
You have given us some good things to think about. Your synoptical reading of the Psalms (22 and 31) may have clinched it for me, but here may be a couple of other things to think about.
1. Psalm 22.1 is the only verse quoted by Jesus, and his words are not qualified by either the narrator or any other character in the crucifixion narrative. On the cross, “forsaken” is the emphatic point made.
2. I’m not sure how far one can use Is. 53 in this connection. Surely, God is pouring out his wrath on the Servant. But the Servant is set up as the offering and the scape goat of Lev. 16. The scape goat dies in the wilderness (lit. the land of cutting off or the cut off land). Whether God is present at that moment or not is not made clear (some find reference to demons here, but I’m not sure about this), but again the emphasis is on “alone.”
3. Biblical theology wise, there is both continuity and discontinuity with David. Regarding discontinuity, David never dies in his distress, but his Greater Son undergoes death for his people. Davidic Psalms of this sort always stop just short of the death of David (Ps. 18 is classic). But Christ dies and so undergoes the greater Messianic woes of death (Acts 2:24), which also makes his deliverance from death much greater than any other deliverance of the Davidic King in the past (Acts 2:29ff). In type, David foreshadows the woes of the coming Messiah, but the antitype underwent greater pain and suffering than the type. The type felt death, whereas the antitype died. If this is the case, I wonder if Jesus knew/knows the abandonment of the Father to a greater degree as well, since he went to the point of real abandonment, to the point of death on a cross.
4. A theological point to consider may come from the Christology side. Did the second member of the Trinity die or did the Messiah according to David’s lineage die? I do not have firm answers here, but I think Calvin and the Reformed tradition, at least, hold that only the Davidic Messiah died, Jesus according to the flesh. Again, not quite sure what I think here, but I offer it up as a possible explanation to the Trinity conundrum, knowing that it may create a Christological problem
.
Also, if I remember right, Luther understands Ps. 88 as Messianic, this Psalm may be evidence that darkness was Jesus’ closest friend, while undergoing the Messianic woes.
Thanks for posting. It’s always good to have great content on the blogosphere.
John M
I agree with you, John, your post is exactly right in my opinion. Have you read “Jesus and the Undoing of Adam” by Baxter Kruger? It is excellent and he makes the same points you do. I would recommend it to anyone interested in this subject.
Jonathan,
I haven’t read or heard of Baxter Kruger before, I’m glad to know that there are others who challenge this interpretation as well. Thanks for stopping in, hope you’ll come back often.
-Fraiser
Hello Fraiser,
In your exposition, I think you begin with our feelings, rather than proclaim what is at the heart of judgment. God made him, Jesus, ‘to be sin’. Such a strange statement.
I think you have recoiled from the truth of scripture, here, and misinterpreted the cross, in this devotion. If you do not mind, I will call on the words of others, who have taught the apostolic gospel far longer, and more skillfully than I, to bring through this point.
Firstly in the words of R.W. Dale:
‘I shrink from saying that even in my calmest and brightest hours I have a knowledge of God and the ways of God which is truer than Christ had, even in His agony. I dare not stand before His cross and tell Him that even for a moment He imagines something concerning God which is not a fact and cannot be a fact’.
Australian scholar Dr. Leon Morris, “The meaning of Jesus words, are that he was cut off from the Father.” (The Cross in the New Testament).
And, again, these words of Dr. Geoffrey C. Bingham:
“If he were not separated, then would sin have been really dealt with? If this alienation of the human spirit from God is the very essence of wrath, then was God’s wrath really poured out on the Cross upon sin, and was it borne by Christ, if he were not forsaken? The answer must surely be, ‘The wrath was poured out upon sin, and for man’s sake he was forsaken’… What we fail to understand is the utter desolation that is indicated by the cry. If to be forsaken is the utterness of suffering (and it is), then he actually has to suffer this. If some special knowledge tells him he is not essentially forsaken, then he does not suffer to the full. Let us understand this: he did suffer to the full. Failure to understand this cry is failure to understand the terrible nature of sin and the high wrath of the eternal God, who must destroy evil by His burning action of holiness.” (Christ’s Cross Over Man’s Abyss).
“He must, as man, be taken from the Holy Presence and go out into the place of the damned. He must suffer it all, or not at all” (Bingham).
It seems clear, that Jesus must know and bear the dreadful anger of God upon all sin, once, for all. It is only as a person by the Spirit, sees these facts, by faith, that one can be truly at peace.
The mending of a wrecked world, in its evil, requires something very deep; deeper indeed than a feeling of punishment, and, as others have commented preservation of ‘our views’ of what the Tri-unity of God can do. (And I am very grateful for good Trinitarian theology). We are not firstly, preserving logic, but listening to Scripture, with faith, engaging in the mystery of the world. If that entails paradox, so be it:
P.T. Forsyth said that our problem is that we approach the event of the cross, with prior unbelief. We rule out, before we even begin, what we think would be a theological absurdity:
“Things are so profoundly out of joint that only something deeper than the wrecked world can mend them, only a God of love and power infinite, making his sovereignty good once for all, though mountains are cast into the sea. The only theodicy is not a system, but a salvation; it is God’s own saving Act and final judgment, incarnate historically and personally. The Cross of Christ, eternal and universal, immutable and invincible, is the moral goal and principle of nations and affairs.
If it seem ridiculous to say that a riot and devilry of wickedness like war is still not out of the providence of Christ’s holy love, it is because we are victims of a prior unfaith. It is because we have come to think it a theological absurdity to say that the Cross of Christ outweighs for God in awful tragedy, historic moment, and eternal effect a whole world ranged in inhuman arms. We do not really believe that it is Christ, ‘crucified to the end of the world’ (as Pascal says), that pays the last cost of war. That God spared not His own Son is a greater shock to the natural conscience than the collapse of civilisation in blood would be.” (Forsyth)
I ask, again, would a brief feeling only, of forsaken-ness, from a secure man of faith, actually acheive anything, in dealing with sin? Certainly were read nothing of ‘equivalents’ of punishment. Indeed, as P.T. Forsyth says: God did not punish Christ, but Christ entered the dark shadow of God’s penalty on sin (p. 248 Positive Preaching…)
We are touching upon mystery. We are included, through his forsaken-ness.
S, then, from one included by grace, to another included by grace (not by theology), I say.. kind regards!
“Psalm 22.1 is the only verse quoted by Jesus, and his words are not qualified by either the narrator or any other character in the crucifixion narrative. On the cross, “forsaken” is the emphatic point made.”
While Psalm 22:1 is the only verse quoted by Jesus, it is the not the only verse from this psalm applied to Christ by a NT author. The fact that Jn 19 applies a later verse of this psalm to Christ indicates that the whole psalm applies to him. If Christ’s quotation of Ps 22:1 is the basis on which we make this judgment that he was forsaken, then we can only do so by distancing Christ from the rest of the Psalm. John doesn’t qualify his use of this psalm either, but I don’t see that either author has to. As you know, the use of the OT in the NT is complex if not baffling. The fact that the authors don’t qualify these words is really not an issue that I can see, when there are so many OT quotations in the NT that require us to look at the OT context in order to make sense of it.
I find the scape goat typology to be the strongest argument against my view. Even here, though, the link seems to be that the scape goat carries the sin away from the people, and as you have said, Lev 16 doesn’t make clear whether God is present or not, so I’m sure one can press the forsakeness point strongly here. Even if the emphasis is on “alone,” one can make sense of this by the goat being separated from the people, alone in the wilderness and away from the camp.
I agree with you on the continuity and discontinuity with David, but I think it works in favor of my view. David’s trust in God’s promises was not perfect, but Christ’s was. God’s favor toward David is not qualitatively the same as his favor toward his unique Son. Thus, if God does not forsake David in Psalm 22 then he will not forsake the greater David. As far as the discontinuity of Christ’s suffering with David’s, we don’t have to say that Christ was actually forsaken by the Father to draw this discontinuity. But if we can explain David’s use of Psalm 22:1 without needing to say that he was actually forsaken then we can explain Christ’s use of it without needing to say that he was forsaken.
“Did the second member of the Trinity die or did the Messiah according to David’s lineage die?”
Yes. We can answer “yes” to both because the second member of the Trinity is the Messiah according to David’s lineage and vice versa. I think we ought to consider it a theological axiom that whatever we say about the natures of Christ we have to finally say about the whole person. Otherwise, we are speaking about Christ no differently than we would if he were two persons. So to dichotomize Christ by asking whether the second member of the Trinity died or the human Messiah died is to avoid the question of what we should say about the person of Christ. Did the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God die? Yes. The NT speaks this way. Paul says that it was the Son of God who gave himself up (Gal 2:20) and the author of Hebrews speaks of those who “crucify to themselves the Son of God” (Heb 6:6). And of course Scripture speaks of the Messiah dying as well (Acts 2:22-23). So whatever we say about one of the natures of Christ we have to say is true of his person. Now, it is fair to ask whether Christ’s body died or whether his soul/spirit died since we know that these are separable parts of a human but the union of the second person of the Trinity to human flesh means that we cannot not simply speak about Christ in his divinity or Christ in his humanity without finally speaking about Christ as a whole divine-human person.
John,
Thanks for the response.
Just a qualifying question or two on your final paragraph. First, are you appealing to texts such as Heb. 6.6 to say that the second member of the Trinity dies? “Son” in Hebrews is a little tricky since the author beginning in 1:4-5ff weds sonship language to David’s greater Son. The same book in 1:3 also notes that it is the Son who sustains or holds up the universe by the word of his power. If it is the second person of the Trinity who upholds the universe, how can he be dead and rise on the third day? Again, I am simply trying to gain clarification since I have been puzzled over this issue for a while.
Second but related, is there a sense in which we can say that the authors of Scripture refer to the person of Christ with these type of statements, but their language is accommodated? For example, the reference to God’s blood redeeming the church (Acts 20:28) is a reference to the person of Christ, but it is a reference to what the person accomplished through his human nature, since God does not have blood.
John (Meade),
Yes, I am appealing to texts such as Heb 6:6 to say that the second member of the Trinity dies. I agree that davidic language is used to speak of Christ’s sonship, but this doesn’t imply that it is not also a reference to his status as the second person of the Trinity. About David it was never said, “the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (1:3)… The son that possesses the same glory as God in 1:3 is the same son who is referenced as crucified in (6:6).
I think the second person of the Trinity can die and still uphold the universe because we know that in dying his spirit does not die. As the Nicene Creed confesses “he decended into hell.” In his death his spirit is separated from his body but this does not mean that his divinity is separated from his humanity. His spirit is a human spirit, just as his body is a human body. Christ does not enter into some kind of soul-sleep when he dies. Rather, as with all humans his soul/spirit maintains consciousness when separated from his body.
I think that language such as that in Acts 20:28 is accomodated language, but only in the sense that all of scripture is accomodated language. Certainly if the author wanted to say that the redemption of the church by blood takes place according to Christ’s human nature he could’ve done so. Even accomodated language can express this belief. But I don’t think the language in Acts 20:28 is accomodated the way that you’ve indicated it may be. God does have blood. Jesus Christ is wedded to human flesh. If Jesus is God and Jesus has blood then it is proper to say that God (so long as by “God” we mean Jesus Christ) has blood. Because (as Chalcedon states) the natures of Christ are not mixed, when we say that God has blood, it does not mean that it is divine blood or that the divine nature of Christ has blood. Rather, the person who is both divine and human has human blood. Divinity cannot bleed and divinity cannot die, but the person who is divine and human can bleed and can die. In the end, we can’t speak of what the human nature of Christ accomplished without ultimately saying that it was the person who did it and that it was a divine person who did it. Unless we do so, we are really speaking of two people and not one.
Fraiser,
Excellent thoughts. Naturally, when anyone says Jesus was “forsaken” they must mean this in a qualified sense, whether they realize it or not. This is not unique to this concept but applies in many areas. This is most obvious in quantifiers (e.g. “I can do all things through…”) which Arminians often struggle with.
We should not forget that every time Jesus calls the Father his God there is something covenantal going on. Dr. John Gill is most helpful on this:
Psa 22:1 – My God, my God,…. God is the God of Christ as he is man; he prepared a body for him, an human nature; anointed it with the oil of gladness; supported it under all its sorrows and sufferings, and at last exalted it at his own right hand:, and Christ behaved towards him as his covenant God; prayed to him, believed in him, loved him, and was obedient to him as such; and here expresses his faith of interest in him, when he hid his face from him, on account of which he expostulates with him thus, “why hast thou forsaken me?” which is to be understood, not as if the hypostatical or personal union of the divine and human natures were dissolved, or that the one was now separated from the other: for the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him; nor that he ceased to be the object of the Father’s love; for so he was in the midst of all his sufferings, yea, his Father loved him because he laid down his life for the sheep; nor that the principle of joy and comfort was lost in him, only the act and sense of it; he was now deprived of the gracious presence of God, of the manifestations of his love to his human soul, and had a sense of divine wrath, not for his own sins, but for the sins of his people, and was for a while destitute of help and comfort; all which were necessary in order to make satisfaction for sin: for as he had the sins of his people imputed to him, he must bear the whole punishment of them, which is twofold the punishment of loss and the punishment of sense; the former lies in a deprivation of the divine presence, and the latter in a sense of divine wrath, and both Christ sustained as the surety of his people. This expostulation is made not as ignorant of the reason of it; he knew that as he was wounded and bruised for the sins of his people, he was deserted on the same account; nor as impatient, for he was a mirror of patience in all his sufferings; and much less as in despair; for, in these very words, he strongly expresses and repeats his faith of interest in God; see Psa_22:8; and also Isa_50:6. But this is done to set forth the greatness and bitterness of his sufferings; that not only men hid their faces from him, and the sun in the firmament withdrew its light and heat from him, but, what was most grievous of all, his God departed from him. From hence it appears that he was truly man, had an human soul, and endured sorrows and sufferings in it; and this may be of use to his members, to expect the hidings of God’s face, though on another account; and to teach them to wait patiently for him, and to trust in the Lord, and stay themselves upon their God, even while they walk in darkness and see no light;
why art thou so far from helping me? or from my salvation; from saving and delivering him out of his sorrows and sufferings? not that he despaired of help; he firmly believed he should have it, and accordingly had it: but he expostulates about the deferring of it. He adds,
and from the words of my roaring? which expresses the vehemency of his spirit in crying to God, the exceeding greatness of his sorrows, and his excruciating pains and sufferings: this is what the apostle means by his “strong crying and tears”, Heb. 5:7; or “the words of my roaring are far from my salvation”; there is a great space or interval between the one and the other, as Gussetius observes.
On Matthew 27:46
that is to say, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 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. Wherefore he made not this expostulation out of ignorance: he knew the reason of it, and that it was not out of personal disrespect to him, or for any sin of his own; or because he was not a righteous, but a wicked man, as the Jew blasphemously objects to him from hence; but because he stood in the legal place, and stead of sinners: nor was it out of impatience, that he so expressed himself; for he was entirely resigned to the will of God, and content to drink the whole of the bitter cup: nor out of despair; for he at the same time strongly claims and asserts his interest in God, and repeats it; but to show, that he bore all the griefs of his people, and this among the rest, divine desertion; and to set forth the bitterness of his sorrows, that not only the sun in the firmament hid its face from him, and he was forsaken by his friends and disciples, but even left by his God; and also to express the strength of his faith at such a time. 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: nor should it be wondered at, that this is sometimes the case of the saints, who should, in imitation of Christ, trust in the Lord at such seasons, and stay themselves on their God, and which may be some support unto them, they may be assured of the sympathy of Christ, who having been in this same condition, cannot but have a fellow feeling with them. The Jews themselves own, that these words were said by Jesus when he was in their hands. They indeed apply the passage to Esther; and say (o), that “she stood in the innermost court of the king’s house; and when she came to the house of the images, the Shekinah departed from her, and she said, “Eli, Eli, lama Azabthani?” my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Though others apply the “Psalm” to David, and others to the people of Israel in captivity: but certain it is, that it belongs to the Messiah; and many things in it were fulfilled with respect to Jesus, most clearly show him to be the Messiah, and the person pointed at: the first words of it were spoken by him, as the Jews themselves allow, and the very expressions which his enemies used concerning him while suffering, together with their gestures, are there recorded; and the parting his garments, and casting lots on his vesture, done by the Roman soldiers, are there prophesied of; and indeed there are so many things in it which agree with him, and cannot with any other, that leave it without all doubt that he is the subject of it…
RJS1,
Thanks for the (rather) lengthy Owen quotes. I like some of what he says here but I also disagree with some of it as well. For example:
“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.”
Owen is simply stating the view that I criticized in the post that Christ was not separated ontologically from the Father but he was separated relationally. Or as Owen puts it, he experienced the “loss of the divine presence.” I strongly disagree with this statement. It’s interesting to note that Owen is in disagreement with Calvin here, who says basically the same thing that I say in this post (I became aware of this after writing this post). See Calvin’s commentary on Matthew 27 and Mk 15. Owen can only say what he says because he divorces Christ’s relational unity with the Father from his ontological unity, or unity of essence. The result is that you can have a Trinity that is in ontological union that hate one another, if, in fact, the ontological unity does not affect their relational unity.
Still, I think that Owen is better on this passage than many I have read and heard.
Fraiser,
Just a note, I was quoting John Gill, not John Owen. Could you quote the relevant statements by Calvin as I read through his commentary on this and failed to see your point being made by him?
You state “The result is that you can have a Trinity that is in ontological union that hate one another, if, in fact, the ontological unity does not affect their relational unity.” My reply is simply to point out that we need to bear in mind the covenantal relationship between the Father and the Son in which the Son became subordinate to the Father. This pactum salutis means that we can use language to describe the economical trinity that is alien to the ontological.
IMO, Gill’s explanation, whilst not to your satisfaction, is far better. That is not to discourage you. Modern trinitarian thinking is not my cup of tea
God bless!
[...] Christ Forsaken by His Father? Was Christ Forsaken by His Father? Chaos & Old Night Thoughts? __________________ Name: Richard Church: Church of England, [...]
RSJ1,
Sorry to say Owen. I meant to say Gill. Thanks for the correction.
Here’s the quotation from Calvin, which I suspect is going to carry much more weight in convincing you than what I’ve said (even though I provide more argumentation and support than Calvin).
He further writes,
From your comments, it appears that you disagree with Rahner’s Rule: The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity (it’s fine if you do).
My only question on this is, how do you know that “we can use language to describe the economical trinity that is alien to the ontological”?
By “can” I assume you mean “is/am/are correct to”
Gill: “not only the sun in the firmament hid its face from him, and he was forsaken by his friends and disciples, but even left by his God.”
Calvin: “…by the shield of faith he courageously expels that appearance of forsaking which presented itself on the other side…while he complained of being forsaken, he still relied on the aid of God as at hand” (emphasis added).
So who will you choose: Calvin or Gill? You can’t have it both ways.
Also if you take Christ’s statement to indicate that the Father forsook his Son then do you also take Christ’s statement to indicate that he didn’t know why he was forsaken? “My God, my God, WHY have you forsaken me?”
Fraiser,
You ask: …do you also take Christ’s statement to indicate that he didn’t know why he was forsaken?
I reply: As Gill notes, “This expostulation is made not as ignorant of the reason of it; he knew that as he was wounded and bruised for the sins of his people, he was deserted on the same account; nor as impatient, for he was a mirror of patience in all his sufferings; and much less as in despair; for, in these very words, he strongly expresses and repeats his faith of interest in God…But this is done to set forth the greatness and bitterness of his sufferings; that not only men hid their faces from him, and the sun in the firmament withdrew its light and heat from him, but, what was most grievous of all, his God departed from him.”
You ask: My only question on this is, how do you know that “we can use language to describe the economical trinity that is alien to the ontological”?
I reply: Because of the evidence of Scripture, namely the intratrinitarian covenant between the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) that divines term the Covenant of Redemption. Ontologically the Son is equal with the Father and knows all things, economically the Son is subordinate to the Father and does not know all things. That is one reason why I do disagree with Rahner.
God bless!
Richard
Richard,
Gill saying it is so doesn’t make it so. If we choose to take the question “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” to indicate that God forsook Christ then how can we not also take it to mean that he didn’t know why he was there? Gill’s view is incoherent. Christ “strongly expresses and repeats his faith of interest in God” even though “his God departed from him.” What good is it for Christ to trust in a God that departs from him? What good is that faith? Why would we value it?
You say that we can describe the economic Trinity in language that is alien to the ontological because of the evidence of Scripture. What Scriptural evidence? I see arguments from Reformed theology that you are assuming but I don’t see evidence from Scripture. Secondly, even if one does accept that there is such a thing as a “covenant of redemption”, what requires that this covenant is only economical and in no way dependent on the ontological relationship of the Trinity?
Third, you say that economically the son does not know all things. How can Christ’s knowledge be a relational matter and not an ontological one? And if we can take away one divine attribute (such as knowledge) from Christ economically, what other divine attributes can we take away?
You’ve fallen into what I criticized in the post of cutting the strings between who Christ is ontologically and who he is economically. Once this is done, we have a Christ who acts arbitrarily and does not act according to his nature.
Fraiser,
I certainly hope that you keep asking such interesting questions and I hope that you find someone who can answer them to your satisfaction, I have neither the time nor the ability to do so. All I will say is that the problems you raise are not problems in my eyes.
I suppose one reason I find Gill’s position to be satisfactory is because I agree with his explanations of the trinity. So I will link to them so you can read them at your leisure. I would also suggest you re-look at the ‘Covenant of Redemption’. The reason I was making an argument from Reformed theology was because I accept it as biblical and assumed (mistakenly?) that you did also.
If I get any brainwaves I will post them but until them try:
General
An Introduction To the Doctrine of the Covenant by Rev. Dr. Iain D. Campbell
John Gill
Of A Plurality In The Godhead; Or, A Trinity Of Persons In The Unity Of The Divine Essence
Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative Properties Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity
Of Christ’s State of Humiliation
Covenant of Redemption
Of the Covenant of Redemption by David Dickson
Of the Nature, Properties, & Parties of the Covenant of Redemption by Patrick Gillespie
Richard,
While there are some aspects of Reformed theology that I value (such as perseverance), I do not accept Covenant theology. I find it is a system imposed on Scripture rather than derived from it.
You said you would link to these readings, but there are no links attached. Can you repost the links?
Also, does it bother you that Calvin and Gill disagree on whether Christ was forsaken on the cross? Which then counts as “the reformed view”?
Thanks.
I tried to post the links but your comments would not let me. Just copy and paste them into google and you should be able to find them easily. For Gill just search for “Gill Archive”.
If you are correct and Calvin and Gill disagree that does not bother me for the simple reason that both were bright men who got things wrong.
‘Once Martin Luther sat for hours in deep contemplation as if in a trance. Finally he arose and exclaimed, God forsaken by God! Who can understand that?’
I think Gill comes close to what I had thought about it. First off, the Crucifixion and Resurrection were an essential part of the Plan. Without them, we’d still be heathens – unsaved.
Accepting that, can we really be so hard on Judas? The Crucifixion had to happen. (I still don’t see why there had to be a Judas, as Jesus wasn’t exactly unknown in those parts.)
I think that Jesus’ apparent frustration was a reflection of his human nature. (Why “My God” rather than “My Father”?) Twice in the 7 Last Words, Jesus uses “Father”.
Fraiser, great post! I haven’t had time to read all the comments, so forgive me if I repeat something said by someone else. Some have, in their attempts to explain what you call the “God-forsaken” doctrine have said that Jesus, as a man, was forsaken by the Father, and that Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity was not forsaken. I think this is both unnecessary and problematic. A committment to Chalcedonian orthodoxy should not lead us to make Jesus out to be some kind of freak. And, by the way, John Stott has articulated the view of the dereliction of the Son too, but that doesn’t make it so. Great post.
Chris,
Long time, no see. Thanks for stopping in. I’m in strong agreement with you on the mistaken ways people use Chalcedonian christology. Often, I find that people end up speaking only of Christ in his human nature or Christ in his divine nature, but not speaking much of Christ the person. Whatever we say about his natures, we must finally speak about the person of Christ.
John, I have been out of the blogosphere for a while (different life situation).
I have encountered much criticism because of my view on the supposed “dereliction of the Son.” I think most people don’t think past Psalm 22.1, and as you say, read the rest of the Psalm. And I definitely don’t think most people think of the theological implications of the second person of the Trinity being “turned away from.” You are absolutely right. We must speak of Christ the “person,” wholistically.
A good example of what we are talking about is the last comment by ZZMike above. He speaks of the human nature of Jesus as if Jesus could have done anything that did not reflect the fact that he was both God and Man. Jesus may indeed have been frustrated (his disciples left him, his people turned against him–pretty frustrating). But that does not mean we have to divide him into some kind of skitzo. I think Jesus was meditating on Ps. 22, and taking comfort in the final word that the Father would NOT forsake him. Again, Fraiser, great post.
Fraiser, I especially like what you say regarding the 2nd person of the Trinity (i.e. the incarnate Son of God) dying and still upholding the universe. You are exactly right. That is the only way we should be thinking about the person of Christ. Some of us need to be reminded that when the Son became a man, he became something that he never was before (i.e. a Man), and something that he will always be (i.e. a Man). Christ neither ceased to be man or God when he died.
We also need to be reminded that to make too stark a distinction between the natures of Christ is to fall into some of the worst heresies in church history.
I wonder how your (our) position on Jesus death and supposed forsakeness relates to Philllipians 2:5-11–that Jesus “emptied himself?”
Grace and Peace.
Chris,
What I’m about to say here is not my own observation. But Philippians 2 indicates that Christ’s emptying himself was by addition not subtraction. Philippians 2:7 says, “but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” Making himself nothing was done by taking on the nature of a servant, or more specifically done by taking human flesh.
Think of a new BMW 6-Series 650i (that’s a car) it runs for about $100,000. If someone were to drive it out in the muddy backroads of Louisiana and it became covered in mud, the glory of this automobile would be diminished but only by addition not subtraction. The full glory of the automobile is still there but only covered (in mud). So Christ does not relenquish his deity but veils its full expression by the taking on of human flesh.
So Christ on the cross does not give up his deity, or lose his Trinitarian fellowship with his father. His humanity never threatens his deity it only conceals its full expression.
What do you think?
[...] Imagem de Chaos & Old Night. [...]