Jesus' death on the cross and the Trinity

[ttoews]

..., does it not logically follow that, to use classical terminology, God "turned His back" on His Son? And, how else do you explain Jesus statement on the cross?

Jac, I have a bit more time so allow me to expand on the difficulty I have with your explanation.

Yes, Jesus calls out from the cross in a manner that would be suggestive of a "separation" or rejection by the Father, calls out a second time and dies. Matthew 27:45-50 the second call from the cross is recorded here Luke 23:46 and if the first call is suggestive of rejection this call is suggestive of a reconciliation already having occurred. Therefore, the "separation" you suggest would not have occurred at Jesus' death but moments before the death and with reconciliation occurring before death arrived.

Moreover, when Jesus inaugurates the Lord's Supper, He speaks of His body which was broken and His blood which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt 26:28 Paul, in the first known creed here 1 Cor 15: 3-5 declares that Jesus died for our sins was buried and rose again. To my recollection scripture makes no mention of the significance of the cross being a separation from the Father (or a spiritual death if you will). The scripture (again from the above references and what else I recall) places the emphasis of importance entirely on the physicality of the death (of the perfect Passover Lamb) and the resurrection (and from Luke 23:46 the alleged separation would be a thing of the past at the time of Christ's physical death...and that God could suffer a spiritual death would seem to be inconsistent with His nature.)

[Anonymous]

You confuse me a bit. You said: Like I said, I believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And they are ONE in UNITY not in NUMBER.

What I mean is this: They, being THREE, are UNITED just like man and wife are united as ONE. God sees man and wife as ONE (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31,32a ) so the Three Divine Beings are seen by themselves as ONE since they are united in a mystical union (Eph. 5:32) like man and wife.

But you believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all divine. Would you agree that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of the same essence or substance and that only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can make that claim?

No. I dont agree that the Father is one and the same (homoousios) substance/essence/nature with the Son.

Man and wife do share the same nature. They are both human. So we can say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are also of the same nature—divine. Again, who else can make that claim?

Yes, man and wife have the same ( homoiousios, not homoousios ) nature/essence/substance, that's why they are called humans or human beings. If the man ceases to exist the wife continues to exixt because they dont have one and the same substance ot nature. But Traditional Trinitarians dont called the Three as Divines or Divine Beings and that they believe that if the Son ceases to exist, so does the Father. Therfore, your analogy doesn't fit with the Trinitarian doctrine.

Could you look at the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in terms of relationship? A man can be a father, son, and husband in relationship (all human nature)—three in relationship—but still one person. A man cannot be his own father, his own son, or his own spouse. So, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be one in nature—divine, but three in relationships.

That illustration best describes Sabellianism/Modalism or better known as "Oneness" doctrine. That's not Traditional Trinitarianism.

[Christian2]

Would you be willing to tell me what denomination of Christianity best describes your views?

Thanks.

[Jac3510]

A'ight ttoews . . .

I note the NIV also provides for "be a sin offering on our behalf". In any event, I would not interpret "to be sin" literally. The Son is God and as God must always be holy. If the verse is taken literally, it means God became sin, or in other words, became the thing opposite of holy. If somebody paid a traffic ticket on my behalf, that person would have bore my penalty but would not have become guilty in the process.

I both agree and disagree . . . first, I think the equation of Jesus with sin (that's the correct interpretation so far as the grammar goes) is meant to emphasize a point. Jesus Himself wasn't sin. It is to say that God took all the sin and placed in on Him so that, when God looked at Jesus, what He saw way sin. That's the important aspect. It, for me, is the basic truth that explains the entire doctrine of justification! Gal. 3:13 probably puts it a little better.

That enough is really enough to validate the idea of spiritual separation between Jesus and God. God can't look on sin, and when God saw Jesus, He saw sin (Jesus was made sin; He was made a curse. How else would you interpret these?)

My question would have to do with the holiness of Christ. Yes, He Himself was without sin. It is why that He could be resurrected. I'd say that while He was under sin, He was still Holy, for He Himself was sinless. He simply took the price of sin onto Himself. We know that because Christ was our propitiation (Rom. 3:25). Literally, God poured out His wrath on Jesus instead of on us, but God pours out His wrath on sin. He could do that because Christ became sin--He became the curse. In the same way that we are not righteous, but rather God chooses to view us as righteous, Jesus was not unholy, but chose to view Him for a time as such.

I've heard some say that death means separation, but I don't agree. Death was common for those of the biblical ages and as such death was a thing commonly observed and spoken of. I would suggest "death" to them meant the same as "death" means to us. When they spoke of a dead tree, it wasn't contemplated that the tree was separated from life or from God,... it just meant the tree was dead (a simple idea really versus some complex concept of separation). Same for a dead lamb or dead man.

Don't get me wrong--yes, death is just that. It is death. But, what IS death? It is the state of not being alive, right? And are we not dead in the spirit prior to being saved? What is life? That is a bit harder to define, but, in the Hebrew sense, it had to do with the breath of God. Adam came to life when God breathed into him. In fact, the word for "life" in Hebrew can also be translated "wind" or "breath."

So God is the source of life. Of that much, we can be sure. We can be equally sure that the Jews thought the same way. We can be especially sure that the early Christians thought that way, and that included the concept that "true death" was separation from God. In Revelations 20, we are told that those who are cast into the lake of fire experience "the second death." Clearly, that is in the concept of the spiritual separation from God. I don't believe in annialation in Hell. I believe it will be just that--everlasting punishment.

So, again, I think the idea of death=separation is the most fundamental view, and it's the one that is more appropriate to apply to Jesus on the cross (more on that below, though).

this I think is the core of the matter. Did the Father and Son have a break of sorts in their "interconnectedness" at a point on the cross?

I think they had to have. How could Jesus have become the curse, or become sin . . . how could God have poured His wrath on Him if not? And how else would you interpret Jesus' asking why God had forsaken Him?

see here you are straying from a literal interpretation...the Son doesn't actually become sin, but the Father chooses to consider Him to be sin

I was a bit unclear previously. Here, you phrase my position correctly, as I have argued above. All this is about God's perception. The comparison we can make is to our own righteousness in Christ. We are not righteous, but we are perceived to be righteous. God chooses to view us as such even though we are not. He can do that and satisfy His sense of justice because He has already paid the price in full. In the same way, God chose to view His Son as sin, even though He was not. In that regard, Jesus really was sin, just like we really are righteous!

Yes, Jesus calls out from the cross in a manner that would be suggestive of a "separation" or rejection by the Father, calls out a second time and dies. Matthew 27:45-50 the second call from the cross is recorded here Luke 23:46 and if the first call is suggestive of rejection this call is suggestive of a reconciliation already having occurred. Therefore, the "separation" you suggest would not have occurred at Jesus' death but moments before the death and with reconciliation occurring before death arrived.

I can see how you could come to that conclusion, but I'll tell you why I don't agree. Separation must be followed by unification, but how can that happen? How, in your opinion, did the unification happen without the physical death of Christ? To argue that He "spiritually died" and was "spiritually brought back to life" all before physical death puts even more emphasis than I do on the aspect of spiritual separation. It does seem to be an awkward position. It seems better to me that Christ was reunited with God spiritually at the resurrection. He died spiritually, died physically, and rose both physically and spiritually. If not, then you are saying that Jesus died in a righteous state, but if so, what happened to the sin? And what is the need for physical death? Why didn't He just come off the Cross right there? Or why the cross at all? Why didn't God just lay all the sin of the world on Him in the Garden of Gethsemene and then consider it all paid for? Remember, the wages of sin is death, and while ultimately this refers to spiritual death, I think that physical death is involved as well because you can't allow someone to live forever who has sinned. That would mean that God, who is the source of life, is forever sustaining a sinful being, which is unjust. Hence, the idea of a "second death" in the Lake of Fire.

So, it seems to me that the physical death of Jesus was necessary before His spiritual reunion could take place. Don't take this next part too literally--this is just an illustration. It has helped me to think of it in these terms: Jesus died embracing the curse of sin. In death, He took sin into Sheol, and then He rose again, but He left it there, effectively confining it forever.

Moreover, when Jesus inaugurates the Lord's Supper, He speaks of His body which was broken and His blood which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt 26:28 Paul, in the first known creed here 1 Cor 15: 3-5 declares that Jesus died for our sins was buried and rose again. To my recollection scripture makes no mention of the significance of the cross being a separation from the Father (or a spiritual death if you will). The scripture (again from the above references and what else I recall) places the emphasis of importance entirely on the physicality of the death (of the perfect Passover Lamb) and the resurrection (and from Luke 23:46 the alleged separation would be a thing of the past at the time of Christ's physical death...and that God could suffer a spiritual death would seem to be inconsistent with His nature.)

Well, I hope I've shown that the physical death is definitely necessary. In fact, I can use that as primary support for the necessity of physical death before spiritual resurrection. Secondly, Jesus doesn't have to emphasize separation here. That is explained elsewhere. It is interesting to note that nowhere in the entire Bible is a doctrine laid out in full. Even justification, which is the entire theme of Romans, isn't completely explained there! We still have to have other texts to finish out the concept.

Thirdly, the physical death of Jesus was necessary because our physical death is necessary. In order for us to be raised, Jesus had to be raised (see 1 Cor. 15). It helps to remember that the entire concept of the cross was for us . . . He went through what He did so that we wouldn't have to, so if we have to go through something, He did it instead. We have to die, so He did. We have to be separated from God, so He was, etc. Therefore, it is the spiritual death of Jesus that is the ultimate propitiation of sin, but you may say that it is the physical resurrection of Jesus that is the ultimate expiation of our sin. Physical resurrection, though, requires physical death, and as I outlined earlier, I don't think that Jesus could serve as a propitiation if He was not dead under sin. In other words, He had to die in that state.

Oh, and just for fun (it's not much of an argument--it can be used for either side), do you think Jesus more represented the Passover Lamb or the Scapegoat? Check out the system God set in place at the Day of Atonement. It is interesting that the goat doesn't die. It is simply separated from the community where God deals with it.

So, all in all, it seems to me that spiritual separation is the ultimate meaning behind the Cross, and this necessitated a physical death, which enabled a physical resurrection to everlasting glory, first in Jesus, then in us.

God bless

[Anonymous]

Would you be willing to tell me what denomination of Christianity best describes your views?

Thanks.

Sure. I belong to a Baptist Church. But my church has nothing to do with my doctrinal make up. I love the fellowship there in our church. We are brothers and sisters in that church. It just so happened that i think independently at times. Im not the type who easily believes what others teach. I search the Scriptures for myself to find out what the Bible really teaches. I also love reading Christian authors and theologians like Max Lucado, Charles Swindoll, A.W. Tozer, Millard Erickson, Wayne Grudem, John Sanders, and Clark Pinnock. Yet I do not agree with all of what these men are saying or teaching. There is no such thing as monopoly of truth. Therefore, I respect these men though I do not agree with all of what they teach. An open yet critical mind is better than being gullible and unteachable.

[ttoews]

thanks for the response Jac...your position is the one I last held...its just that when the question came up I questioned the presumptions that founded that position and my doubts remain notwithstanding your efforts. For what's its worth I'll continue to point out the weaknesses that I see in your explanation.

I both agree and disagree . . . first, I think the equation of Jesus with sin (that's the correct interpretation so far as the grammar goes) is meant to emphasize a point. Jesus Himself wasn't sin. It is to say that God took all the sin and placed in on Him so that, when God looked at Jesus, what He saw way sin.

I think we are on the same page here. Sin is not a physical thing that can be physically placed on the body of Christ like a suit of clothes so as to hide Christ behind this suit so that when God looks at Christ He sees sin and not His beloved Son. This is metaphorical wording that tries to convey a deeper truth. So when you get to this remark:

God can't look on sin, and when God saw Jesus, He saw sin (Jesus was made sin; He was made a curse. How else would you interpret these?)

you are overly literal in your understanding. Surely you can't be suggesting that the all-knowing Father somehow is unable to see His Son for what He really is. You can perhaps say the Father chose to act as if His Son was full of sin. Your comment is also internally inconsistent in that you first say that God (do you mean all 3 persons or just one or two?) can't look on sin, but then you say that He saw sin when He looked on Jesus (sounds like He can look on sin).

Literally, God poured out His wrath on Jesus instead of on us, but God pours out His wrath on sin.

sin is not an entity that receives wrath. Sin is an attitude, an action a thought. One does not punish sin or pore out wrath on sin, rather one punishes the sinner.

He could do that because Christ became sin--He became the curse. In the same way that we are not righteous, but rather God chooses to view us as righteous, Jesus was not unholy, but chose to view Him for a time as such.

again metaphorical on the first "became" bit and perhaps right on the "chose" bit

So God is the source of life. Of that much, we can be sure. We can be equally sure that the Jews thought the same way. We can be especially sure that the early Christians thought that way, and that included the concept that "true death" was separation from God. In Revelations 20, we are told that those who are cast into the lake of fire experience "the second death." Clearly, that is in the concept of the spiritual separation from God. I don't believe in annialation in Hell. I believe it will be just that--everlasting punishment.

and I believe in annihilation in Hell, I believe it will be just that--an everlasting punishment (I understand you believe in an everlasting punishing)...and if God is the sustainer of all, would not total separation from Him result in cessation of existence?

... How could Jesus have become the curse, or become sin . . . how could God have poured His wrath on Him if not? And how else would you interpret Jesus' asking why God had forsaken Him?

you are saying the Father saw sin when He looked at Christ (ie He saw what He had chosen to place there, not what was actually there) and in so doing you focus on the Father's perception and then assume that the Son's comments are reflective of reality. Perhaps the call from the cross should be seen as an expression of how the Son felt at that moment Put crudely, is it a) the Father saw the Son as sin even though the Son was sinless, or b) the Son felt foresaken even though He was not separated from the Father?.

I was a bit unclear previously. Here, you phrase my position correctly, as I have argued above. All this is about God's perception. The comparison we can make is to our own righteousness in Christ. We are not righteous, but we are perceived to be righteous. God chooses to view us as such even though we are not. He can do that and satisfy His sense of justice because He has already paid the price in full. In the same way, God chose to view His Son as sin, even though He was not. In that regard, Jesus really was sin, just like we really are righteous!

a couple of things: sin and righteousness are two different categories (noun and adjective) I believe you should substitute "sinful" for "sin" in your last sentence. Charles Price does an intriguing bit on this. He would say that the Father doesn't choose to view us as righteous, but that His just nature requires that He view us as righteous b/c the penalty for our sin has been paid in full by Christ. Any guilt associated with our sin has been fully expunged by Jesus' payment and so if the Father still viewed us as guilty/non-righteous He would not be giving just credit to the completeness and fullness of Christ's payment on our behalf.

Separation must be followed by unification, but how can that happen? How, in your opinion, did the unification happen without the physical death of Christ?

the unification is only required if separation has occurred. If there is no pre-death separation then no pre-resurrection unification is required. Both the timing of the "rejection" call from the cross and the timing of the "reconciliation" call from the cross pose a problem for the separation theory.

He died spiritually, died physically, and rose both physically and spiritually. If not, then you are saying that Jesus died in a righteous state, but if so, what happened to the sin?

on the other hand, if He didn't die in a righteous state, how is the penalty for sin paid? The penalty is paid by the death of a perfect (spotless/sinless) sacrificial Lamb not by the Lamb being viewed as sinful. Undergoing death is what paid the price, not undergoing a certain perception. Further, how could Jesus be anything but righteous at any time? For Him to be in an unrighteous state would be contrary to His entire nature.

... I think that physical death is involved as well because you can't allow someone to live forever who has sinned. That would mean that God, who is the source of life, is forever sustaining a sinful being, which is unjust.

we agree with the need for a physical death. That seems to be something that God required. And we agree that it wouldn't make sense for God to sustain a sinful being forever, yet you believe God does just that for the purpose of an eternal act of punishing.

So, it seems to me that the physical death of Jesus was necessary before His spiritual reunion could take place.

I'm not sure you fully understand my objection. Christian2 was asking the right questions and I am not clear on your answers. You say a separation within the trinity occurred but that the trinity still existed. It is an odd separation you contemplate. Before the separation we have one God in three persons. After the separation we have a person of the trinity who you say is still God but both in an unrighteous state and separate from the other 2 persons. That sounds to me as if you are saying there are two Gods for a time, one with one will and who has taken on a sinful nature and one with two persons and still absolutely righteous in nature. This is a grave problem for the separation theory.

. That is explained elsewhere. It is interesting to note that nowhere in the entire Bible is a doctrine laid out in full.

so then what are the texts that lay out in full Christ's separation from the Father? There are a lot of passages that actually refer to justification (the comparison you make). Where are the actual passages that refer to a separation arising within the Godhead?

[Jac3510]

ttoews, I understand your concerns, but part of the problem I have with your entire line of thought is that you aren't offering an alternative. What we know for 100% fact is that Jesus' death somehow served as a propitiation and expiation of God's wrath. He died so that we didn't have to. We know that Jesus, who IS God, died. We know that He paid the penalty that we would have had to have paid. Those those are all 100% fact. Now, apart from everything else you have said, I simply submit that Jesus MUST HAVE been separated from God (the Father) on the basic fact that separation from the Father is the due penalty from sin. That's basic theology. He couldn't be a propitiation and expiation without that, so if you deny the separation of Jesus, you have to explain that foundational fact. It is, as I have said before, the very basis of justification, and if you take that away, you are left with an empty doctrine.

you are overly literal in your understanding. Surely you can't be suggesting that the all-knowing Father somehow is unable to see His Son for what He really is. You can perhaps say the Father chose to act as if His Son was full of sin. Your comment is also internally inconsistent in that you first say that God (do you mean all 3 persons or just one or two?) can't look on sin, but then you say that He saw sin when He looked on Jesus (sounds like He can look on sin).

I don't want to have to get into a word study

Yes, ttoews, what I am suggesting is that "the all-knowing Father somehow [was] unable to see His Son for what He really [was]." That is exactly what I am suggesting. I think that's all I really have to show, because it will deal with the rest of your objections as well. Please point out anywhere that my reasoning is flawed here, because, from my understanding, this is all simple A->B->C.

First, we have the two verses previously mentioned:

• He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Cor. 5:21, NASB)

• Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE" (Gal. 3:13, NASB)

Dealing with Corinthians first, the Greek reads "τον γαρ μη γνοντα αμαρτιαν υπερ ημων αμαρτιαν εποιησεν ινα ημεις γενωμεθα γινωμεθα δικαιοσυνη θεου εν αυτω." Conserving the Greek order, a literal translation reads: "The [one] not knowing sin on behalf of us sin he made, in order that we might become [the] righteousness of God in him." (KJV-NIV Interlinear, Marshall). This means that we are interested in "υπερ ημων αμαρτιαν εποιησεν," lit: "on behalf of us sin he made." "Sin" in this passage (αμαρτιαν) is a noun . . . God made Jesus the thing that is sin. That's why the NASB, KJV, and other formal equivalents put the words "to be" in front of the noun (not in the Greek, but supplied to aid in conveying the original idea). This word "made" is εποιησεν, here a constative aorist. The word roughly means "to make or to do." "To do" is clearly out of context here . . . God didn't make Jesus go and sin. So He made Him sin . . . He made Him the representative of it. Vincent says it this way:

Not a sin-offering, nor a sinner, but the representative of sin. On Him, representatively, fell the collective consequence of sin, in His enduring “the contradiction of sinners against Himself” (Heb_12:3), in His agony in the garden, and in His death on the cross.

As for Galatians 3:13, "having become a curse" is the phrase of interest. "γενομενος υπερ ημων καταρα." "Having become" or "becoming" (γενομενος) lit. "to cause to be." "Curse" (καταρα) is also a noun--again, Christ becomes the representative.

So, in both verses, we have a very explicit verb followed by a very specific noun. Christ was made sin. He was caused to be a curse. We, of course, understand that to mean Christ is the representative of those things, but we have to have a biblical reason for that. I find that reason in the word for "righteousness." δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosune), and this is not an adjective. It is a noun. The word is also closely related to the concept of righteousness. In short, we know that we are not literally righteous, but that God chooses to see us as such. If you want a reference on that, see the following article out of the ISBE (Justification 3.5.b) [note, references removed, as is all italics from original. Here, emphasis added by me]:

• The declaring or approving as righteous or just . C.F. Schmid is perfectly right when he says that Paul (and James) always uses dikaioun in the sense of esteeming and pronouncing and treating as righteous, both according to the measure of the law and also according to grace. The word is a forensic one, and Godet goes so far as to say that the word is never used in all Greek literature for making righteous. This is shown further by the fact that it is the ungodly who are justified, and that the justification is a reckoning or imputation (logízesthai) of righteousness, not an infusing or making righteous. The contrast of “to justify” is not “to be a sinner” but is “to accuse” or “to condemn”, and the, contrast of “justification” is “condemnation”. Besides, it is not the infusing of a new life, of a new holiness, which is counted for righteousness, but it is faith which is so counted. That upon which God looks when He justifies is not the righteousness He has imparted or is to impart, but the atonement He has made in Christ. It is one of the truest paradoxes of Christianity that unless a righteous life follows, there has been no justification, while the justification itself is for the sake of Christ alone through faith alone. It is a “status, rather than a character,” says Stevens; “it bears the stamp of a legal rather than of an ethical conception.” . . . An interesting illustration of how further study may correct a wrong impression is given by Lipsius, who . . . maintained that righteousness or justification meant not “exclusively an objectively given external relation to God, but always at the same time a real inner condition of righteousness”, whereas in his Lehrbuch der evangelisch-protestantischen Dogmatik, he makes the righteousness of God properly an “objective gift of grace, not simply in the sense in which the Old Testament just one judged his position of salvation as a gift of grace, but as a righteousness specially reckoned and adjudicated by way of grace and acknowledged before the judgment (or court) of God. This is always the meaning of dikaioun, dikaioústhai, or dikaiōsis in Paul. It consists in the not-reckoning of sins,” etc. Of course justification is only a part of the process of salvation, which includes regeneration and sanctification, but these are one thing and justification is another.

So, hopefully we agree on everything so far. To summarize:

1) God is capable of viewing a person as righteous or as unrighteous, regardless of the actual state. So far as it goes, God's perceived state of the person may as well be true, for it is that perception that results in their relationship to Him.
2) On the Cross, God perceived Jesus Christ as the representative of all sin, regardless (arguably, because of) His sinless nature.

That's a lot of text to make those two small points, I know . . .

All this, of course, has a very direct bearing on the concept of Christ's separation from God (the Father . . . note, when I use the term "God" I am always referring to the Father. If I want to refer to the Being that is One Essence in Three Persons, I will use the term "Godhead").

Another thing that just occurred to me that we may need to deal with is the very idea of separation. I disagree with Lewis here. He argues somewhere that Hell is one of the great mysteries of Christianity, because to be in Hell is to somehow be outside of that which is everywhere, and it is to be put out of the mind of Him who knows all. It does sound wonderfully spiritual and terrible at that, but Scripture simply does not support this idea of "separation," so neither do I. The Bible actually teaches that those in Hell will be in the presence of God for all of eternity! Look at the fate of those who take the mark of the beast in Rev. 14:9-10:

• Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. (NASB)

This is definitely a reference to their being cast in the Lake of Fire, and this is the second death, but we are told here that this will happen in the presence of God (c.f. Isaiah 66:24).

What, then, is separation? I argue that it is the removal of fellowship. The idea actually comes from the ancient Jewish customs. The word in the Pent. for this is niddah (see Lev. 12:2, Lev. 12:5; Lev. 15:20; Num. 6:4; Num. 12:13; Num. 19:21). Lepers, for instance, were to be separated from the rest of the camp because they were ritually unclean. Remember that God is holy, so separation, ultimately, has to do with the removal of that proper relationship one should have with the Father because one is spiritually unclean.

Now, I ask you: was Jesus spiritually unclean on the Cross? Well, what we can agree on is that God considered Jesus spiritually unclean.

This should go a long way in answering the objection that the Trinity was somehow compromised or that there were two gods at some point. I'm not arguing for that at all. There is only One Godhead. What happened on the cross was that the Father chose to look on the Son as unclean. He wasn't actually, of course, and in that sense, Jesus the Son (and therefore God) was still Holy (and therefore God), but as far as His relationship with the Father goes, it was indeed severed for a time. The Son was out of proper relationship with the Father. That is spiritual death.

Anyway, I take it that this is long enough. Hopefully, this will clear up the misunderstandings in my position earlier. Again, feel free to point out any weaknesses you see. I'll not do an explanation of the doctrine again . . . I just felt that there were some foundational issues that we had been overlooking. If you have any specific problems with the above reasoning, but all means, point them out, and we'll deal with them. In the meantime, I'm very comfortable with this answer.

God bless

[ttoews]

ttoews, I understand your concerns, but part of the problem I have with your entire line of thought is that you aren't offering an alternative.

you were supposed to do that too

Now, apart from everything else you have said, I simply submit that Jesus MUST HAVE been separated from God (the Father) on the basic fact that separation from the Father is the due penalty from sin.

if one goes to a weaker or limited definition of separation I think the separation theory may work

He couldn't be a propitiation and expiation without that, so if you deny the separation of Jesus, you have to explain that foundational fact. It is, as I have said before, the very basis of justification, and if you take that away, you are left with an empty doctrine.

I agreed with your doctrinal statement until this. You haven't established by logic or scripture that separation is a prerequisite for propitiation. An adequate payment/sacrifice is such a prerequisite, but you haven't proven that separation is that sacrifice (it may well be part of it or all of it)

Yes, ttoews, what I am suggesting is that "the all-knowing Father somehow [was] unable to see His Son for what He really [was]." .....Please point out anywhere that my reasoning is flawed here, because, from my understanding, this is all simple A->B->C.

what you say here doesn't seem to jive with what you quote from Vincent here:

Not a sin-offering, nor a sinner, but the representative of sin. On Him, representatively, fell the collective consequence of sin, in His enduring “the contradiction of sinners against Himself” (Heb_12:3), in His agony in the garden, and in His death on the cross.

I agree with Vincent as I do not see being a representative of sin as being the same as being sin. So the Father sees Jesus exactly as Jesus is, a representative of sin, but not as sin itself or as a representative of unrighteousness but not as unrighteous. So if you agree with Vincent, then we agree and it seems we do when you say:

2) On the Cross, God perceived Jesus Christ as the representative of all sin, regardless (arguably, because of) His sinless nature.

What, then, is separation? I argue that it is the removal of fellowship.

and it is this more limited definition of separation that I think could work...I understood you to be meaning more than the removal of fellowship when you said the Son was separated from the Father.

Now, I ask you: was Jesus spiritually unclean on the Cross?...What happened on the cross was that the Father chose to look on the Son as unclean. He wasn't actually, of course, and in that sense, Jesus the Son (and therefore God) was still Holy (and therefore God), but as far as His relationship with the Father goes, it was indeed severed for a time.

thanks for this clarification. Your use of "unrighteous state" caused me to misunderstand.

Anyway, I take it that this is long enough. Hopefully, this will clear up the misunderstandings in my position earlier.
God bless

I believe you have cleared up a lot and enhanced my understanding of what happened on the cross...thanks.

[1stjohn0666]

Luke 1:35 tells me Jesus came into this world by a virginal birth. This "Incarnation" idea or word is never found in scripture. Psalm 2:7 the prophetic message of the "looking forward" to his coming. Gives a temporal statement "Today I have begotten thee" I don't feed on the serpents lie "you will not surely die" Jesus fully died and therefore cannot be the doctrine that was developing 200 years after Jesus.

[PaulSacramento]

The word became flesh = Incarnation of the divine Logos.
Incarnation - to become flesh.

[PaulSacramento]

Dude, I am not a trinitarian per say ( don't agree with the doctrine and how it is presented) but even i can see that you do NOT understand it and are criticizing without full knowledge of it or scripture it is based on.

[RickD]

Luke 1:35 tells me Jesus came into this world by a virginal birth. This "Incarnation" idea or word is never found in scripture. Psalm 2:7 the prophetic message of the "looking forward" to his coming. Gives a temporal statement "Today I have begotten thee" I don't feed on the serpents lie "you will not surely die" Jesus fully died and therefore cannot be the doctrine that was developing 200 years after Jesus.

John, the concept of the trinity and Christ's incarnation is throughout scripture. Old Testament included. Just because the word "trinity" isn't in the bible, that doesn't mean that what the doctrine of the trinity describes, is not in the bible.

PaulS wrote:
I am not a trinitarian per say ( don't agree with the doctrine and how it is presented)

Paul, please explain what you mean here.

[PaulSacramento]

Paul, please explain what you mean here.

Oh I just thing the doctrine is in need of redemption, LOL !
I mean that it is in need of being modernized as the archaic terms tend to cause more confusion than a more modern and more relative wording.
IT may have been fine for people with a Hellenistic understanding of the world, but not for today.
I feel that it causes far too much confusion, as we have seen here.

[RickD]

Do you have a better way to explain the essence of God to humans who really can't completely understand God? I'd love to hear your more modern view of God.

I really don't see confusion with the Trinity. I only see confusion when someone tries to overthink the concept.

[PaulSacramento]

Do you have a better way to explain the essence of God to humans who really can't completely understand God? I'd love to hear your more modern view of God.

I really don't see confusion with the Trinity. I only see confusion when someone tries to overthink the concept.

You forget that I have dealt with JW's for years and see how easily they pervert the doctrine because of how badly it si worded in the modern sense.
Tell me, how many Christians do you think can give a decent defense of the Trinity doctrine?

It is a doctrine of Nature, stating that Father, Son and HS share the same nature, a divine nature we call "God".