What is the origin of the idea that God turned away from Jesus?

[tmac1956]

All:

I am curious… does anyone know the origin of the idea that God turned away from Jesus on the cross because he became sin? I have many Protestant Southern Baptist friends who firmly believe this idea but when pressed on scripture, they can’t come up with a verse(s) that explicitly states this. Granted, I am new to the Catholic faith (so let me apologize up front if I have misstated anything), but I do not find this to be not scripture based. I must therefore conclude that this idea came from some exegetical extrapolation written by some theologian long ago and has, over time, become part of their own tradition.

When pressed, their response is that the belief is “based in faith”. Since they hold to sola scriptura and do not believe in sacred tradition, I thought that finding this information might be a good vehicle with which to further the discussion.

Thanks in advance and may God bless!
tmac1956

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

Prior to my conversion Easter 2006 I was an adult SB Sunday School teacher for many years. The last SBC I attended had a Senior Pastor that didn’t even finish seminary.

God turning his back on Jesus is right up there with Sola-Scriptura, OSAS, baptism and Lord’s supper being signs only. In many communities to be ordained as “Deacon” requires just “money”. SB has no liturgy, no sacraments, no priesthood, an incomplete Bible. No Magesterium, No Eucharist, No Blessed Virgin Mary, No Liturgical Seasons.

So consider the “source”.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Tmac,

It could be Jesus’ words on the cross : “Why has thou forsaken me?”

But this is not a cry of despair. Jesus is reciting Psalm 22, which ends in thanksgiving and hope.

Verbum

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

First some background,

Ransom to Satan: This view sees the atonement of Christ as a ransom that was paid to Satan to purchase man’s freedom from being enslaved to Satan. It is based on a belief that man’s spiritual condition is in bondage to Satan and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to secure God’s victory over Satan. This theory has little, if any, scriptural support and has had few supporters throughout church history. It is heretical in that it thinks of Satan, rather than God, as the one who required a payment be made for sin and thus completely ignores the demands of God’s justice as seen throughout Scripture. It also has a higher view of Satan than it should and views him as having more power than he really does. There is no scriptural support for the idea that sinners owe anything to Satan, but throughout Scripture we see that God is the One who requires a payment for sin.

gotquestions.org/atonement-theories.html

Some may also call this the Feberialist Theory.

Anyway the idea of God turning his back on his Son comes believe it or not from Pentecostal preaching of this Ransom to Satan view of the atonement. Basically, in this system it is neccessary for the Son ( who is God ) to be cut off from God the Father ( who is God ). I have never understood how God can be cut off from himself.

In short, the claim that God the Father was seperated from Jesus comes from a faulty view of the atonement.

I would start out by asking them, How can God be cut off from himself?

And, from there I would discuss the different theories of the atonement outlined in the link above.

 

[tmac1956]

Daniel Marsh:
Thanks! This will certainly help.
tmac1956

 

[FranciscoIsrael]

All:
I am curious… does anyone know the origin of the idea that God turned away from Jesus on the cross because he became sin? I have many Protestant Southern Baptist friends who firmly believe this idea but when pressed on scripture, they can’t come up with a verse(s) that explicitly states this. Granted, I am new to the Catholic faith (so let me apologize up front if I have misstated anything), but I do not find this to be not scripture based. I must therefore conclude that this idea came from some exegetical extrapolation written by some theologian long ago and has, over time, become part of their own tradition.

When pressed, their response is that the belief is “based in faith”. Since they hold to sola scriptura and do not believe in sacred tradition, I thought that finding this information might be a good vehicle with which to further the discussion.

Thanks in advance and may God bless!
tmac1956

Shalom!

Here’s an answer for you!

Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

Jesus became a curse for you and for me so that we may live a vitorious life reigning in all its aspects!

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I hate to seem obtuse but except for Fransco’s answer has anyone really addressed the question? The idea of God forsaking Jesus surely comes from Jesus’ own words. That the partial quote from Jesus lips ends in a prayer of thanksgiving in the source of those words in the Psalm does not change the fact that Jesus said from the cross “My God, my God, why have you foresaken me.” That the SBC makes more of it than they should doesn’t really answer the question of what exactly Jesus meant by saying those words, does it?

Don’t misunderstand. I’m not setting a trap. I’m not sure I can explain it any better myself. But I don’t think it’s been explained here, do you?

CDL

 

[thistle]

I hate to seem obtuse but except for Fransco’s answer has anyone really addressed the question? The idea of God forsaking Jesus surely comes from Jesus’ own words. That the partial quote from Jesus lips ends in a prayer of thanksgiving in the source of those words in the Psalm does not change the fact that Jesus said from the cross “My God, my God, why have you foresaken me.” That the SBC makes more of it than they should doesn’t really answer the question of what exactly Jesus meant by saying those words, does it?

Don’t misunderstand. I’m not setting a trap. I’m not sure I can explain it any better myself. But I don’t think it’s been explained here, do you?

CDL

He was saying the first words of Psalm 22. The Jews would have known that at the time and know that it was about the messiah and he was referring to himself.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

He was saying the first words of Psalm 22. The Jews would have known that at the time and know that it was about the messiah and he was referring to himself.

Yes, I know that. One usually doesn’t going around quoting scriptures as if one is in a classroom without having a greater meaning. The obvious meaning is the literal meaning of His words. The analogy is certainly there but what is the literal meaning?

CDL

 

[thistle]

Yes, I know that. One usually doesn’t going around quoting scriptures as if one is in a classroom without having a greater meaning. The obvious meaning is the literal meaning of His words. The analogy is certainly there but what is the literal meaning?

CDL

Have you actually read Psalm 22? The meaning is pretty obvious and unambiguous.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Yes, I know that. One usually doesn’t going around quoting scriptures as if one is in a classroom without having a greater meaning. The obvious meaning is the literal meaning of His words. The analogy is certainly there but what is the literal meaning?

CDL

The “literal meaning” is what’s at the end of Psalm 22, which would have been as familiar to the Jews of Jerusalem as “Mary had a little lamb” is to us:

[28] For dominion belongs to the LORD,
and he rules over the nations.
[29] Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down;
before him shall bow all who go down to the dust,
and he who cannot keep himself alive.
[30] Posterity shall serve him;
men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation,
[31] and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn,
that he has wrought it.

Psalm 22 ends with the Lord being proclaimed to all the nations, to a people yet unborn (Christians). In other words, Jesus is prophesizing about his triumph even while he is suffering on the Cross. God the Father did not forsake God the Son on the Cross. To think that that’s even possible is nonsense.