Christ experience separation from God on Cross?

[Madaglan]

Did Christ experience separation from God on the Cross? Several Protestant theologians teach that Christ, in his redemptive work on the Cross, suffered the pains of Hell–i.e. separation from God.

Several [Latin] Catholic theologians of late have taken this line as well. While avoiding language of punishment, or the wrath of God vent on the Son, they do not hesitate to advance that Christ *experienced *separation from God, as when he said, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

Personally, something about this never seemed right. It struck me as rather Nestorian in outlook.

What are your thoughts on this view, coming from an Eastern Christian background?

 

[Derwin_James]

OK, lets talk about the “My God, why have you forsaken me”

Point 1- the rosary grew out of the practice of reciting the psalms (150 psalms, 50 Hail Mary’s. coincidence?)

Point 2- Psalm 22 is one of the clearest Messianic prophecies of the crucifixion.

Point 3- Psalm 22 begins with “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”

Conclusion- Christ, in his last moments, was revealing himself to all of the witnesses. This is solidified in Matt 27:54 “When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, ‘Surely he was the Son[e] of God!’”

 

[Madaglan]

OK, lets talk about the “My God, why have you forsaken me”

Point 1- the rosary grew out of the practice of reciting the psalms (150 psalms, 50 Hail Mary’s. coincidence?)

Point 2- Psalm 22 is one of the clearest Messianic prophecies of the crucifixion.

Point 3- Psalm 22 begins with “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”

Conclusion- Christ, in his last moments, was revealing himself to all of the witnesses. This is solidified in Matt 27:54 “When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, ‘Surely he was the Son[e] of God!’”

Very interesting! Thank you.

Last night, a person at my church said that Psalm 22 was one of the Psalms Jews of the time would have said in their daily prayer rule. So, Jesus was keeping his prayer rule, even on the Cross!

My priest mentioned that, while the beginning of Psalm 22 starts on a desperate note, the Psalm ends in triumph. The gospel account provides only the first words of the Psalm, but the whole Psalm suggests victory.

 

[Formosus]

It would be impossible for Christ to be separated from God being that He is God. I imagine its more to point out the victory seen at the end of the psalm rather then the “abandonment” at the beginning.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

It would be impossible for Christ to be separated from God being that He is God.

lol, thank you.

Some call it the hypostatic union.

 

[Eucharisted]

As Man, Jesus felt separated from God, abandonded by the Father. As the Son, He cannot be separated from the Father, becuase They are one in substance, but as Man, He felt abandoned by God. However, Jesus’ words are always with more than one meaning, so His words not only exclaim His agony on the Cross but also His triumph as King and His identity as the Messiah.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Did Christ experience separation from God on the Cross? Several Protestant theologians teach that Christ, in his redemptive work on the Cross, suffered the pains of Hell–i.e. separation from God.

Several [Latin] Catholic theologians of late have taken this line as well. While avoiding language of punishment, or the wrath of God vent on the Son, they do not hesitate to advance that Christ *experienced *separation from God, as when he said, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

Personally, something about this never seemed right. It struck me as rather Nestorian in outlook.

What are your thoughts on this view, coming from an Eastern Christian background?

The words of Jesus “My God MY God why have you forsaken me?” always leave the reader with a ??? It left me feeling that somehow Jesus doubted the Father’s presence at that moment when death was approaching.
I have heard all the arguments about Ps 22 and it being the ultimate Messianic Psalm. But still there was a sense of unease in me until one day whilst reading scripture I came across a line which for me answered it beautifully and have held onto this without violating any of the scriptures or Jesus’s trust in His Father. The line which did it for me ccomes from the prophet Habakuk Hb 1:13. “Thine eyes are too pure to gaze upon iniquity”
On the Cross Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world. He became as sin, though in His own Self, He was pure (like a diamond hidden in a mountain of coal) and Jesus because of the “sin” (or mountain of coal) could not see His Father’s Face.
Jesus who was always in His Father’s vision and His Father in His own vision could not for the moment see His father and in this He experienced the human being’s loss of the sense of God when sin is made part of our life.
I have even thought that Jesus being free from the Sin of Origins was in His natural state and therefore able to continually see His Father and when he became “Sin” He experienced the loss as Adam and all of his descendents have done since him.
I think catechesis on the words of Jesus on the cross is very poor. They are loaded with so much if only we would take time to see it.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
GraceAngel.

 

[RobbyS]

It would be impossible for Christ to be separated from God being that He is God. I imagine its more to point out the victory seen at the end of the psalm rather then the “abandonment” at the beginning.

Rather through his suffering, he was linking man to God,

 

[jimmy]

Did Christ experience separation from God on the Cross? Several Protestant theologians teach that Christ, in his redemptive work on the Cross, suffered the pains of Hell–i.e. separation from God.

Several [Latin] Catholic theologians of late have taken this line as well. While avoiding language of punishment, or the wrath of God vent on the Son, they do not hesitate to advance that Christ *experienced *separation from God, as when he said, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

Personally, something about this never seemed right. It struck me as rather Nestorian in outlook.

What are your thoughts on this view, coming from an Eastern Christian background?

No, the hypostatic union says otherwise. Read the definition of Chalcedon, it recognizes two natures of Christ, “without division, without seperation”. The natures of Christ are permanently united.

Second, it is God who saves. To say that God was seperated from Christ comepletely contradicts this. It is to say that man was saved through suffering. It is to say that man saves himself so the protestant arguement is false and self-contradictory.

 

[jimmy]

As Man, Jesus felt separated from God, abandonded by the Father. As the Son, He cannot be separated from the Father, becuase They are one in substance, but as Man, He felt abandoned by God. However, Jesus’ words are always with more than one meaning, so His words not only exclaim His agony on the Cross but also His triumph as King and His identity as the Messiah.

What is predicated of the divinity of Christ must also bepredicated to the humanity of Christ and vice versa because of the hypostatic union. Christ’s humanity did not experience one thing while His divinity experienced something else. There is a union of natures. Two physis (natures) are united in one hypostasis (person).

 

[Madaglan]

What is predicated of the divinity of Christ must also bepredicated to the humanity of Christ and vice versa because of the hypostatic union. Christ’s humanity did not experience one thing while His divinity experienced something else. There is a union of natures. Two physis (natures) are united in one hypostasis (person).

Hey jimmy, yes that’s what I was thinking.

But then I thought about an orthodox expression: Christ suffered in his humanity but not in his divinity.

 

[jimmy]

Hey jimmy, yes that’s what I was thinking.

But then I thought about an orthodox expression: Christ suffered in his humanity but not in his divinity.

The expression “Christ suffered in his humanity but not in his divinity” speaks about the impassibility of God. But at the same time you must remember that Christ is a divine person who has a human nature so we could say that God died on the cross although God didn’t cease to exist. Christ’s human nature was truely His and so death and suffering can be applied to Christ and consequently it can be said that God died or God suffered.

 

[Madaglan]

The expression “Christ suffered in his humanity but not in his divinity” speaks about the impassibility of God. But at the same time you must remember that Christ is a divine person who has a human nature so we could say that God died on the cross although God didn’t cease to exist. Christ’s human nature was truely His and so death and suffering can be applied to Christ and consequently it can be said that God died or God suffered.

Yes, I know, and I understand most of what you write. I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with “God died…although God didn’t cease to exist.” I can’t think of any case in which death results in cessation of existence.

 

[drforjc]

The expression “Christ suffered in his humanity but not in his divinity” speaks about the impassibility of God. But at the same time you must remember that Christ is a divine person who has a human nature so we could say that God died on the cross although God didn’t cease to exist. Christ’s human nature was truely His and so death and suffering can be applied to Christ and consequently it can be said that God died or God suffered.

Correct. This is called, in Latin, the communicatio idiomata.

Karl Adam has a good explanation in his work The Christ of Faith.

 

[Eucharisted]

Madgalen, you might want to read Saint Theodoret’s Dialogues, which discuss the Divinity and Christ and how God died on the Cross. You can read them here. I won’t lie to you, they are pretty long, but if you have the patience, you should read them.

 

[jimmy]

Yes, I know, and I understand most of what you write. I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with “God died…although God didn’t cease to exist.” I can’t think of any case in which death results in cessation of existence.

I simply mean to say that death and everything that is applied to Christ’s humanity is applied to Christ as a person and so it is said that God died since Christ died.

Death is normally not applied to God. It is a strange statement and kind of sounds like it implies a ceasing to exist but it doesn’t.

Correct. This is called, in Latin, the communicatio idiomata.

Karl Adam has a good explanation in his work The Christ of Faith.

Yes, the communication of properties. The same thing can be applied the other way around. The properties of the divine nature can be applied to the saints. So they can be said to be immortal, eternal and etc. because they recieve communion with the divine nature.