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?

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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?’

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 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

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.

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

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?”