"My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?"

[Arial]

The Hypostatic Union is very carefully stated so that we don't go wild and heretical; no matter how well meant, private interpretation produces words that are too easily taken to imply false things. It's always easier to say what the truth is not, than to say what it is.

Well that's people for you. It is impossible to describe or define something that is completely outside our functioning realm---such as the Trinity. Bottom line, it is revealed knowledge, and no hypostatic union or Trinity, or a bucket full of other things, no matter how well explained, on its own, will reveal that knowledge, that holds it in faith no matter how unexplainable it is to our finite minds. Only the Holy Spirit can do that, and through his word.

BTW, I know a little how bad his crucifixion was, at least from a human standpoint. I'm just saying that the horror that it was, it doesn't seem to me reasonable to suppose that his physical suffering and death was all that was involved in God performing justice upon Jesus in our place. Conversely, he didn't just take a "dirt nap" as mockers like to say. His suffering and shame and mental/emotional anguish were not without meaning.

I completely agree that his physical suffering was not all that was involved in God performing justice on Jesus in our place. It was as big and powerful as all eternity. It is another thing we cannot fathom, and for those in Christ by grace, we will never experience. Brings one to his knees just knowing that much, right?

 

[fastfredy0]

Maybe? But if Christ died a spiritual death, wouldn't that make him a sinner?

Well, I see a "spiritual death" as being separated from God. Granted, this is usually caused by one's sin, but this is Christ imputing our sin to himself and thus He incurs a "spiritual death". (aside: anyone that gives a reason of Christ's being forsaken by God is speculating)

If Christ died our death in our place, and as you say, it was a spiritual death (as well as a real one (not what you said)) would that put him at enmity with God when he was forsaken?

To be "forsaken' is evidence of "enmity".
Enmity - the state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something
Forsaken - abandoned or deserted

3. Or, is "substitute" the key word in his atonement?
What I mean by that is, that he suffered as though he were those things, even though he wasn't those thugs in actuality?

That works for me. God forsakes and has enmity for Christ because Christ is imputing sin to Himself.

 

[Carbon]

deleted.

Hmmm, I dont know whether I agree or disagree with that.

 

[Carbon]

As an aside: The three hours was a mercy in and of itself. The usual time of death from crucifixion is 6 hours to 4 days.

I suppose so.

It may be that his divine nature could be removed and was intended to be at that point, as a temporary forsaking, without dividing him, but rather a stepping away. The two natures are distinct, after all, not mixed. And for the single purpose of making the experience of his flesh, as one of us, fully as ours (the believer) would be without the grace and mercy of the substitutionary atonement. I cannot see how that would be dividing the Trinity.

How can his divine nature be removed? It is who he is. If you remove his divine nature, you remove him.

Otherwise, if his divine nature remained with his human nature at his death, would not divinity also experience death (which of course is impossible, therefore, my questions)? All of what I have said, doesn't sound right to me, but is that because it is something I really cannot imagine?

I dont believe anyone can totally figure it out.

I may have just opened up a can of worms and in a place we may not have finite access to.

That's to be expected. We cannot go any further than the written word.

 

[makesends]

Arial said:
3. Or, is "substitute" the key word in his atonement?
What I mean by that is, that he suffered as though he were those things, even though he wasn't those thugs in actuality?

That works for me. God forsakes and has enmity for Christ because Christ is imputing sin to Himself.

As reasonable as it sounds to say, "...he suffered as though he were those things, even though he wasn't those thugs in actuality.", we don't know the nature of fact well enough to know whether he actually was (became) those things. He did not actually commit sin —yes— but what do know about imputation? Are we sure it is only a figure of speech to say, "he became sin"?

Not that I can attribute personhood to sin, but it sits in permanent opposition to God: If God is a willed entity, why should we think sin does not at least attach to a person? Speculation —granted. But I keep hearing language in Scripture that sounds like it is not a separate principle from its attendees. Consider that other thread we have been working on, where the question of the eternal state / non-state of the reprobate seems to depend on what they are at that point of judgement.

 

[Carbon]

I'm not going to say he is wrong —after all, what do I know— but he seems to me to put what seems to him to fit, as though it was what Scripture means by this or that. For example, "This explains the hours of darkness and the roar of dereliction". Well, no, I doubt very much it explains it. It may help understand it, or help us to see the immensity of what happened there, but, "explain it"? —No.

If someone else was to write on the same subject for the same reasons, believing the same basics, with that much self-assured understanding, they would not write the same thing. He's only giving some good thoughts.

Personally, I agree with him. Do I understand everything he is saying completely? No. But, that's okay, of the things I know are true, it weighs the scale greatly and gives confidence that he may be right, and if he is not, it's not a terrible sin. I also believe Beeke knows much more that I do, so before I dismiss some of his teachings, I would rather look into them with an open mind.

That's my take anyway.

 

[makesends]

Personally, I agree with him. Do I understand everything he is saying completely? No. But, that's okay, of the things I know are true, it weighs the scale greatly and gives confidence that he may be right, and if he is not, it's not a terrible sin. I also believe Beeke knows much more that I do, so before I dismiss some of his teachings, I would rather look into them with an open mind.

That's my take anyway.

I'm not dismissing anything he is teaching. I'm disliking some of his statements, as I don't think he can know for sure that it is all there is to, for example, the why of the darkness etc. He's partly right; no doubt what he speaks of has something to do with it, but the statement seems hyperbolic to me.

Lol, I'm told I'm overly critical and negative. So why am I usually comparatively cheerful?

 

[Carbon]

I'm not dismissing anything he is teaching. I'm disliking some of his statements, as I don't think he can know for sure that it is all there is to, for example, the why of the darkness etc. He's partly right; no doubt what he speaks of has something to do with it, but the statement seems hyperbolic to me.

Lol, I'm told I'm overly critical and negative. So why am I usually comparatively cheerful?

I understand, brother.

 

[makesends]

I understand, brother.

"Post tenebras lux"
“They make night into day, saying, ‘The light is near,’ in the presence of darkness.

I took Latin a couple of years in high school, but I apparently missed the word, TENEBRAS. In Spanish, the word for darkness, in this kind of context, anyway, is not "oscuridad" (—"obscurity"), but "tinieblas". And, light, is "luz" (the z sounds like s, there, vaguely like English's, "loose"). In my upbringing, in Biblical context was the only time I heard the word, 'tinieblas', which I usually took almost synonymously with, "sin", or moral darkness.

 

[fastfredy0]

He did not actually commit sin —yes— but what do know about imputation? Are we sure it is only a figure of speech to say, "he became sin"?

Agreed

 

[Arial]

Well, I see a "spiritual death" as being separated from God. Granted, this is usually caused by one's sin, but this is Christ imputing our sin to himself and thus He incurs a "spiritual death". (aside: anyone that gives a reason of Christ's being forsaken by God is speculating)

All mankind is born spiritually dead because of Adam, our federal head. It goes to the writings of Paul in 1 Cor. No one can understand the things of the Spirit and cannot because they are spiritually discerned.

I don't think it is speculation to give a reason for Christ's being forsaken. The Bible tells us that quite plainly. It was part of him bearing the punishment for our sins upon his own body. The speculating part would be more involved with what we are doing here, at my instigation. How he was forsaken.

To be "forsaken' is evidence of "enmity".
Enmity - the state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something
Forsaken - abandoned or deserted

All mankind with the exceptiongof those placed in Christ, are at enmity with God and he has not forsaken all mankind---yet. There was no enmity between Jesus and God, not even on the cross. Christ was substituting for our transgressions, not our enmity.

That works for me. God forsakes and has enmity for Christ because Christ is imputing sin to Himself.

But that is not what I said. God forsook Christ for a "moment" to fulfill all Substitionary Atonement (my view and substitutionary being the guiding principle). He had no enmity towards his Son. Were that the case, would it not be necessary for someone to reconcile that enmity, just as Jesus is doing for us?

 

[Arial]

How can his divine nature be removed? It is who he is. If you remove his divine nature, you remove him.

You may have a point. It is too far beyond me to mess with. The only answer I could give is "Nothing is impossible with God." But really, I am more inclined to think that the forsaking was a removal of all help. Even though Jesus was the only person ever who deserved his help.

I dont believe anyone can totally figure it out.

Agreed.

That's to be expected. We cannot go any further than the written word.

And I agree again.

 

[atpollard]

Hmmm, I dont know whether I agree or disagree with that.

You disagree with what I had said and agree that it was best deleted … thus maintaining the ‘Pax CCC’.

[Some points are not worth arguing.]