;)
Can God Look Upon Evil?
Posted by Les Puryear in Bible & Theology
A few days ago, I was perusing some new blogs and came across the following statement: “God cannot bear to behold such things but responds to them only by turning Himself away and executing justice against such evil.” I copied the statement because I knew I wanted to write about it but I neglected to get the blog reference. If this statement is from your blog, please let me know and I will give you the proper credit.
The statement above was written in the context of saying that God the Father turned His back on Jesus at the cross because as God, while He was carrying out His justice against sin laid on Christ at the cross, He was too holy to look upon it.
Now this is a theological position I have heard many others take as well. As a matter of fact, a few years ago, I attended an Easter drama at a large church near me during which this particular view of God was on display. The choir were supposed to be angels in heaven looking down on Jesus at the cross. At the point when the narrator said, “And God turned His back on His Son because He is too pure to look upon sin,” the entire choir turned their back to audience as the lights dimmed in the auditorium.
Did God the Father turn away from God the Son while He was dying for our sin? Not according to the Gospels. There is no explicit statement in the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ that says God turned His back on Jesus at the cross.
This view of God forsaking Jesus at the cross seems to be derived from three verses of scripture: Hab. 1:13; Matt. 27:45-46; and Mark 15:34.
First, let’s examine the question of whether God can look upon sin. Many scriptures tell us that God is all-seeing. Here are a few:
“For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him.” 2 Chr. 16:9
“For His eyes are on the ways of man, And He sees all his steps.” Job 34:21
“The Lord looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks On all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.” Ps. 33:13-15
“For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, And He ponders all his paths.” Prov. 5:21
“The eyes of the Lord are in every place, Keeping watch on the evil and the good.” Prov. 15:3
“For My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from My face, nor is their iniquity hidden from My eyes.” Jer. 16:17
“You are great in counsel and mighty in work, for your eyes are open to all the ways of the sons of men, to give everyone according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings.” Jer. 32:19
“And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.” Heb. 4:13
Does God look upon evil? IMHO, the preponderance of the biblical evidence leads me to conclude a resounding “Yes!”. But what about Hab. 1:13? Doesn’t that say that God is too holy to look upon evil? Let’s take a look. The following are Hab. 1:13 translated in several different translations:
Hab. 1:13 (NKJ) – You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness.
Hab. 1:13 (KJV) – Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity.
Hab. 1:13 (NIV) – Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong.
Hab. 1:13 (ESV) – You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong,why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?
All of these transaltions seem to suggest that God cannot look upon evil. However, when we look at the NASB, we see a different translation:
Hab. 1:13 (NASB) – Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, and You cannot look on wickedness with favor (emphasis mine).
In the NASB, a more complete translation of the Hebrew “nabat” is rendered. According to Strong’s, the word ”look,” in Hab. 1:13 is the Hebrew word “nabat” (5027) and the definition is as follows:
“nabat” def. “to look intently at; by implication, to regard with pleasure, favor or care.”
Therefore, what Habbakuk is saying in 1:13 is not that God cannot look upon evil. He’s saying that God cannot look upon evil with approval or favor. The NASB transaltion of Hab. 1:13 seems to be the more accurate rendering of this verse and it squares with the rest of the biblical witness regarding the ability of God to see everything, including sin.
Therefore, I conclude that when Jesus cried “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (Matt. 27:45-46; Mark 15:34.), the Father did not turn His back on Jesus. No. Sin separates us from God (Isa. 59:2), not God from us. When Jesus was on the cross, He became sin (2 Cor. 5:21) and thus, for the very first time, He could not sense the fellowship of the Father. Our sin blinded Christ to the connection to the Father and He cried out in His agony of separation by our sin. God did not forsake Jesus on the cross (John 16:32; 2 Cor. 5:18-19). God will not forsake His Son nor His people. This biblical fact should be a wonderful encouragement to us all.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=logo}
;)
The understanding of Matt. 27:45-46/Mark 15:34 which I have consistently used is that never did anyone speak truer words based on their feelings (i.e., it was Jesus in His humanity/pain speaking). However, in reality(could it be a reality Jesus could not see from the cross?), God the Father never turned away from God the Son, nor will He from us. I think your exegesis is consistent with that, that God could not look upon evil with approval.
John
Les,
That’s great! I’ve never really looked into those verses in the Hebrew. In my opinion (which I adopted from someone I read) and it is basically made up – when Jesus was on the cross and he said “Why have you forsaken me?” It wasn’t because God actually forsook Jesus and “turned away from him” as some suggest. But that because of the work that Jesus had accomplished he had the immediate feeling that God had done just that. I believe the power of sin to blind us from God’s love is the exact power that Jesus felt at that moment – blinding him of his father’s love.
That’s purely opinion though
… I could be very wrong 
.
Great post, thanks for the teaching points – very beneficial to me.
God’s Glory,
Lew
Brother Les,
Thanks for the post,… I too hear this type of banter among folks on occasion. It seems to me that believers try to make God so much like their own lives… they end up justifying their thoughts of God not being able to do something.
If God could not look upon evil, He would not be God…. and He would not be able to rescue anyone from sin.
Blessings,
Chris
Les,
I think we can agree that the idea of God “looking” on someone or something is anthropomorphic and metaphorical language. Thus, we should not stretch the apparent contradictions in Scripture related to this particular phrase too far.
I do think we need to careful, though, to not minimize the importance of substitutionary atonement. I have always linked Matthew 27:46 with Isaiah 53, especially verses like:
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
David Rogers,
Well said in regard to our need for careful consideration “to not minimize the importance of substitutionary atonement.”
Les, you will do well to consider David’s admonition.
cb
Brother cb,
Have you been on a two month all expenses paid cruise around the world….
Its good to see your words again!
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I have been away from Blogtown looking for a new home due to the fact that so many nuts and flakes have moved into the neighborhood.
I am an intolerant bigot against nuts and flakes as you know and do not want to live among them.
I did keep a vacation home down by Blogtown Lake and am just taking a holiday there this weekend. So I thought I would stroll out among the various “booths” and sample what is going on in town.
I did notice David Rogers making a valid observation on Les’ post and thought I would join in.
I also make an open assault on Robin Foster over at SBCTODAY for his rude behavior.
I won’t be around long. I will be going back home. I have not posted here at IMPACT in a long time.(truth make the owners mad and they started crying foul) Way too many nuts and flakes over here. But the doctrine of substitution atonement is important and should be addressed, especially among nuts and flakes because so many of them need it in their lives.
Chris, I do not think you are among the nuts and flakes.
cb
David,
Hmmm…I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was attempting to minimize the substitutionary atonement of Christ. I don’t see how the fact that God the Father did not turn His back on Christ on the cross in any diminishes the substitutionary atonement.
Christ died in my place for my sins. He took my punishment and yours too. I preach that with fervor and passion. I think you make too giant of a leap from my post to your conclusion, my friend.
If I have missed your point, please enlighten me.
CB,
Thanks for the comic relief.
Les
This view is a departure from the more common reformed view. I’ll have to give it some thought and study. In the meantime, I suggest that we be careful of a dismissive attitude toward those who hold the opposite view as if they haven’t really thought about it. Interestingly, Tim Keller has written some things that have caused me to ask if he might be leaning in this direction. Does anyone have anything specific from Keller regarding his view. Thanks.
Les,
I did not mean to infer that you specifically were minimizing the importance of substitutionary atonement. However, I did want to bring out that point, since it could possibly be a next logical step in some of what I understand you to be saying.
I think it is important that Jesus, although He suffered for us willingly, was also being obedient to the will of the Father, when He went to the cross. God’s judgment and wrath, which is directed towards the children of disobedience (Eph. 5:5-7; Col. 3:5-7), in the cross, was poured out on Jesus, as He took upon Himself, as the Substitute the Father had provided, the just punishment for our sins.
As you already allude to in your post, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor. 5:21) As such, Jesus incurred the wrath of God, and paid the price for us, so that we will not have to suffer condemnation and eternal punishment.
Again, thank you David and we both know I don’t say that often:-)
Les,
Jesus was never “blinded” to anything not even during the atonement. That is one of the things that made it all so terrible. Jesus did suffer our hell and none of it blindly.
cb
David,
I completely agree with everything you said in your last comment. I disagree that the next logical step of my exegesis is diminishing the substitutionary atonement of Christ.
The Father poured out all of His wrath against our sin (propitiation) on Christ and thus, through Christ, we are not subject to the wrath of God.
Nothing in my analysis even hints toward what you’re saying. Or at least I have no intention that way.
Jesus perceived being forsaken through the separation of sin, however He was not forsaken. That does not mean He was wrong or sinned. Christ was holy, pure, and clean and had never experienced the filthiness of sin. Call His cry of forsakenness what you will, His humanity or something else, but scripture is abundantly clear that the Father does not forsake His own, much less His Son.
CB,
Perhaps you’re getting hung up on the word “blinded.” Choose another word if you will. But just imagine the sin of billions of people being laid on Christ. The implication of Christ “becoming” sin for us is that He touched, felt, tasted, heard, saw every sin all of us ever have and ever will commit. I submit that through the multitude of sin of billions of people, Jesus could no longer sense the presence of the Father. You may disagree and that’s okay. However, in no way does that diminish the magnitude of what Christ did on the cross, nor His deity or His humanity.
Regards,
Les
Les,
You used the word “blinded” not I. It was a poor choice.
Words matter when we make theological statements.
Think about it.
cb
Thank you, CB.
Les
Les,
You are welcome. Glad to be of help. Take care and thanks for not throwing me off the comment thread this time.
cb
Seriously Les,
Keep up the good work with the small church ministries. It is a good, worthy and needful thing you do.
cb
With the Father judging our sin in His Son Jesus; did He not in a fashion turn His back on Him?
We are told by the Psalmist that “God is angry with the wicked every day” (Ps. 7:11)
Was the judgment Jesus endured just how He was feeling?
All the wickedness of the world was on Jesus for our benefit, and all the wrath of God was upon Jesus as He died for us.
I really think you need to rethink your position. It sounds more like the Crystal Cathedral theology, than gospel.
T.A.
Tim,
Thanks for your input. I agree with every thing you said regarding the cross. Nothing Crystal Cathedral about my theology. My theology is as orthodox as is yours.
I have provided my exegesis of the scriptures cited. All of God’s wrath was poured out on all of our sin which was laid on Christ. No problem with that. Perhaps you’ve heard this “God turned His back on Christ” thing so long you think the Bible actually teaches it.
I appreciate how you think it “sounds.” Demonstrate your position biblically.
Regards,
Les
Habbakuk 1;13 says, He is of purer eyes than to behold evil.
The FATHER did FORSAKE The Son, when He was made sin-”My GOD, my GOD, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME/”
Jesus offered Himself as our Sin offering. The Father turned His back, and the Holy Spirit gave the death blow to the sacrifice [Hebrews 9;14-20].
Paul,
Perhaps you did not actually read my post. Read it again and show me where I am in error.
Les
Les,
If I might step in here again, it seems to me the question boils down to this:
Are you dealing here specifically with the metaphor of God “looking upon” evil, or, rather, with the basic concept of the Father pouring out His wrath upon His beloved Son, who had voluntarily taken upon Himself the sin-guilt of all of humanity?
If it is the first of the two options, then I refer you back to my first paragraph in Comment #4. If, however, it is the second option, it seems to me the most direct Scriptural evidence has to do with the actual words of Jesus, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” If the Father had not actually “forsaken” His Son in this moment, it seems to me we must come up with a satisfactory alternative reason for Jesus, who was all-knowing, and all-truthful, to have made such a bold proclamation. Was it reflective of a moment of human weakness? My understanding of biblical Christology does not allow me to go there.
In addition to the passages I mentioned in Comment #10, we could also add to this discussion Romans 1:18, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men…” I also think that what is symbolized in OT passages such as Isaiah 53, the story of Abraham and Isaac, and the Mosaic instructions regarding the scapegoat, etc. are sufficient to cement in our understanding the idea that God the Father, in this moment, really did vicariously direct His wrath toward sin upon His Son, who bore the weight of the just and righteous punishment for the sins of all humanity.
Although it is indeed a true general principle that God does not forsake His own, I think we have good warrant to accept what happened on the cross as the greatest exception in human history.
Perhaps it would help to make even more clear the point I am making by copying the following verses from Isaiah 53 again, emphasizing the phrases in ALL CAPS:
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him STRICKEN BY GOD, SMITTEN BY HIM, AND AFFLICTED.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; THE PUNISHMENT that brought us peace WAS UPON HIM, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and THE LORD HAS LAID ON HIM the iniquity of us all.
10 Yet IT WAS THE LORD’S WILL TO CRUSH HIM AND CAUSE HIM TO SUFFER, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
Les ,
You said God did not forsake Christ on the cross I disagree.
Secondly you went to various translations all based on the spurious Vaticanus, Aleph B, and
Sinaiticus texts, other then stay with The Av1611, based on the Textus Receptus, [Received
Text].
I believe that God turned his back on Christ even if it was just for a moment. I believe this is why Christ prayed for this cup to pass him, not because of the physical but because of the separation from God the Father.
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” I take the first part literally.
God does not turn his back on his back on us because when he sees us, he sees Christ.
God the Father turned His back on God the Son. Right? Not so fast.
Let’s look at the Psalm that Jesus was quoting when He said “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”
Psalm 22: The psalm is a messianic psalm which details some of the suffering that the Messiah would face and how God would respond to that suffering.
Let’s presume for a minute that Jesus was consciously quoting this Psalm and not merely yelling in anguish. I have never heard anyone argue that position, but let me just make it clear: I think He was quoting the first line to theis psalm. If you disagree, then you may come to a vastly different conclusion, so just track with me for a moment while I make my case.
The Psalm details the pain and suffering of the cross first from the perspective of Jesus, then it gives the response of the Father and the world’s reaction to Him.
Let’s summarize it:
vv. 1-21–
Messiah: God, I am suffering! Will you not come and rescue me? My enemies surround me–my strength is gone. Come quickly to help!
vv. 22ff–
The Father’s response and the world’s reaction: The world will praise God because “he has not despised or detested the torment of the afflicted. He DID NOT HIDE HIS FACE from him, but LISTENED when he cried to Him for help.” All over the world praise will come to God for rescuing the afflicted one (resurrecting Jesus!). People yet to be born will praise His name!
I believe that the fact that God DID NOT turn His back on His Son is the great miracle here. He kept loving Jesus through the suffering. He never despised Jesus nor did He hide His face.
If we derive the idea that Father God turned His back on Jesus from this one quotation from Jesus on the cross, then we should recognize that the psalm that Jesus quoted opposes that view. (Look specifically at 22:24) God the Father was right there listening to Jesus when our Lord was crying out for help.
Some theological musings:
We might look at the terrible wrath of God that Jesus took on when He became sin for us as the key to His punishment, rather than the Father turning from Him as His punishment. Imagine BEING sin in the presence of God–that is a terrible concept. Imagine yourself being in the presence of God WITHOUT a mediator–just sinful old YOU. That is terrifying. Imagine the wrath you’d face. Imagine how His holiness would cut through you like a knife. Isaiah got a tiny glimpse of this in his vision of the throne room of God. He was utterly devastated. Now consider the full brunt of God’s presence to Jesus as Jesus BECOMES sin. There is the punishment.
Some theologians talk about the suffering of the Father here. What did the Father have to experience if He never despised His Son during this process? What did He see as His Son became sin?
Some think that hell is not full “separation from God.” Because you can’t hide from God in the grave. But instead it is the white hot presence of God while you remain naked in your sins. It is His wrath with no mediating grace. It is His holiness without the work of the cross.
I wonder if this is more along the lines of what Jesus experienced?
Sin can not exist in God’s Presence, hence He turned his back on Christ, Who was made sin for us
\Also V,24 of psalm 22 does not negate the fact, that He did. Verse 24 is after Christ was restored to fellowship with his father.
If the Trinity is three persons with one essence, and the essence of God is that He cannot look on sin, then how in the world did Jesus look on sin?
Can we not understand the “looking on” sin is an anthropomorphism? God does not APPROVE of sin. He hates it. But there is no place that God cannot “see.” He “sees” all. He “sees” sin in a sense, while in another sense, He cannot “look on” it.
If God the Father CANNOT do something, then we should have a very difficult time saying that Jesus could do such a thing. The distinctions in the persons of the Trinity are NOT in the nature of Character. The church fathers hammered this one out pretty well. The essence that is God the Father is the same as the essence of God the Son and God the Spirit. They are three persons, not three essences.
It is hard to reconcile a solid understanding of the Trinity with a scene in which Jesus becomes sin, the Holy Spirit gives the death blow, yet God the Father is making Himself scarce.
Rather, (I think) the Scripture would attest that the Three were (the Trinity was, properly) in it (the crucifixion) together. We would expect differing roles (due to the difference in personhood), yet we would not expect differing participation (due to the same essence).
Is Psalm 22, we read that God (the Father) heard/heeded/listened to/hearkened to the Messiah’s cry for help. The Hebrew concept is both to hear in the auditory sense and to respond in the volitional sense. This at the least implies that God the Father heard the cry of Jesus on the cross and responded in the affirmative. How? By raising His Son from the grave. But why not right away? Because ALL three persons of the Trinity knew that the sign of Jonah must be given to an unbelieving world.
Also, if we believe that God “turned His back on Jesus” AND we believe that Jesus suffered the wrath of God, then we have to adjust our understanding of the wrath of God to mean something like “God is going to ignore you,” rather than “God is going to inflict His white hot majesty on you in your naked sin.”
Which sounds more like the wrath of God?
Shane: You cannot go by logic. What does scripture specifically say?
Shane,
I agree with you that it is highly likely that Jesus, when He said “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”, was quoting from Psalm 22. Like most Messianic psalms, however, it is difficult to divide between what part we must take as a literal prophecy referring to the Lord Jesus, and what part has a more immediate application in the life of the psalmist, or of anyone else who may identify with the emotions being expressed. I believe that if we take v. 24 as the hermeneutical key to the question we are discussing here, we must also consider v. 20 – “Deliver my life from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs.” The truth is that Jesus’ life was NOT delivered from “the sword” or from the “power of the dogs.” That is, unless you want to say that the resurrection was the Father’s delayed and ultimate answer to this prayer on Jesus’ part. But, from my perspective, a more straightforward reading of the text, if we apply it all literally as a prophecy of what happened to Jesus on the cross, would demand Him being rescued from death before He actually died.
Perhaps a similar argument could be made for Isaiah 53. Of course, the Jews have traditionally seen the Suffering Servant not as Jesus, but as Israel. However, from a Christian perspective, it is hard for me to dismiss the weight of statements such as “stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted” and “it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer.”
Whether or not “looking on sin” is literal or anthropomorphic (it is obviously anthropomorphic, in my opinion) is beside the point. It does seem to me to be an important point, though, that the wrath of God, which is otherwise directed toward human sin, was directed toward Jesus while He was on the cross. If I am understanding you correctly, it appears you agree with me on this.
Brother Les & All,
I am really enjoying this discussion!
His grace to all,
From the Middle East
David,
Good point on verse 24. Relying on this verse to MAKE my point is a bit of a leap, but I think fitting if considered in context of the rest of the Bible.
We do agree that Jesus took the full brunt of the Father’s wrath against sin on the cross.
I believe that there is little evidence (outside of the number of times it is said from pulpits) for any sort of betrayal (a strong word) or even an abandonment (more along the lines of what is normally suggested) of Jesus by the Father during the crucifixion. With that in mind it is important to look at what the crucifixion WAS, rather than what we want it to be.
It was NOT:
It was not Jesus fending off His angry Father for our protection.
It was not God the Father walking away, sniffling sadly as He left His Son hanging on the cross.
It was not the Trinity ripping into parts.
It WAS:
All three persons of the Trinity, while having different roles, were on the same page with regard to the crucifixion.
God the Son, becoming sin, suffered the full wrath of God the Father during his death.
God the Father set JOY before God the Son in the shame of the cross. The JOY was in the Son reconciling the world back to the Godhead.
Back to Psalm 22 and the general tenor of the Psalm. While it is challenging to figure out in Messianic passages when the gear is engaged and when it is disengaged. For instance, when Solomon is portrayed as a type of Christ, when are the statements about him only about him, and when are they about both him and Jesus, and when are they really just about Jesus? This is hard work, and I really glossed over that in my prior post. But after a closer analysis, I think we see that the general tenor of the psalm is that God does hear the cry of His anointed one and will not leave him without rescue. Whether this is David or Jesus, I think it is still true. While not strong enough to stand against explicit evidence to the contrary (i.e. a quote somewhere in the Bible that says “God the Father turned His Back on God the Son on the cross”), it does hold to the pattern of unity of purpose and character within the Trinity, when we look at it with NT eyes, knowing that the anointed one in the psalm in none other than the 2nd person in the Trinity.
Together in the Task,
Shane
If the Psalm that Jesus is quoting shows that God does not despise or reject the cry of His anointed, then don’t we think that Jesus is fully cognizant of this when he makes His plea on the cross?
This makes for a tough question for me, since I believe that God the Father was, anthropomorphically speaking, “facing” Jesus during the crucifixion.
Tough issue: I do not believe that God the Father relationally “forsook” Jesus on the cross.
But doesn’t Jesus use that word?
Yes, but He also uses the word “why.” Don’t you think He knows why? He said He knew why before He ever went to the cross. He said it was for the Father’s glory in Jesus and Jesus’ glory in the Father and so He might grant eternal life to His followers.
So why did Jesus say “why”?
If He said “why” to make a point other than “I don’t know the reason, so I am asking God the Father,” then don’t you think the whole cry was making some sort of point?
*************
“My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”
Common understanding: God the Father forsook Jesus while He was on the cross. If you take it that way, then you also must explain why Jesus appeared not to know why God would do such a thing. Also, if Jesus didn’t know, then how do you know?
Or, we can conclude that Jesus was making a point by quoting a messianic psalm in the midst of His anguish. Could He have possibly been calling to memory this Psalm, in which the anointed of God is suffering in the beginning of the passage for mysterious reasons, but is lifted up by God by the end of the Psalm?? Could this not have been a forshadowing of the hope of the resurrection?? Could this not have actually been a cry of just the OPPOSITE of what is commonly suggested?? That God has “not hidden his face from him but listened to his cry for help.” And more so, just what Jesus prayed in the high priestly prayer that: “a people yet unborn” (v.31) would hear of this great gospel.
Is this cry of Jesus not a statement of great hope in the midst of anguish?
Read in context, Ps 22:1 is turned on its ear by the end of the psalm. What appears to be a God-forsaken servant, is, in fact, the one who would be rescued by the hand of God who would never hide His face from His servant.
Would we expect Jesus to mean something just the opposite?
Shane,
What you say here makes a lot of sense. For me, the important thing is “God the Son, becoming sin, suffered the full wrath of God the Father during his death.” If we are in agreement on this, speculation on the precise details of what Jesus was actually thinking and intending to convey when quoting Psalm 22:1 take on less importance. Thanks for your insights on this.
Sorry I had to “turn my back” on this thread.
I’ve been on vacation and doing revival. Great discussion folks.
Paul,
You do nothing to support your case. KJV-onlyism isn’t a serious point here.
David,
Once again, I think we’re in violent agreement.
Debbie,
Where does it say that God turned His back on Christ in scripture? Doesn’t say it. He poured out all of His wrath on the sin which Jesus bore. No question, no problem. Still, the Father did not abandon Him.
Shane,
Good stuff.
Les
Great discussion guys. I am a week from getting my BA in Religion from East Texas Baptist University and a pastor. I just had this discussion with my church tonight.
Shane,
GREAT STUFF. Thank you for your faithful study. I challenged my congregation with many of the same arguments you used here and you would have thought I was denying Jesus Himself because I do not believe God turned his back on his son.
The proper interpretation would demand that we see what Jesus said in the cultural context it was spoken.
How would early Jewish readers understand the cry from the cross?
They would immediately understand His cry in the context of Psalm 22.
What does Psalm 22 say about the one who is suffering?
That He would be vindicated. That God had not turned his back on him, but instead would answer his cry.
This is clearly a reassurance.
I completely agree with you that G-d did not turn away from Jesus. It is impossible for G-d to turn his back on Himself; “I and the Father are one!” (John 10:13) However, the matter of Jesus not feeling connected with the Father cannot be, nor is that what Jesus is alluding to. Look in any bible at this point of the crucifixion and you will most likely come across a referential which brings our attention to Psalm 22. This was, in the day of Jesus and his disciples, an extremely well known passage which spans the following two chapter, detailing David’s feelings of being despised and hated by his accusers. It starts out with the words in question, “My G-d, my G-d. Why hast thou forsaken me?” It continues to speak of David’s distance from the L-rd at this time. But later on, David recants and speaks of his closeness. Why is that? David is not speaking about his own feelings of being distant from G-d, rather he is mirroring what the people have been saying about, i.e., “why hast thou forsaken me?” G-d had not forsaken David and David knew this. So is it with the case of Jesus on the cross. He (Jesus) was going through a very similar rejection by the religious leadership of the time, and Jesus, always setting an example through his life, utters these words, not to G-d, but to those who put him in this situation, for they knew the rest of the Psalm and they knew that it was not about G-d’s rejection of David, and it is therefor not about G-d’s rejection of himself, in the person of Jesus.
Les,
I just came across this discussion after a search on the topic of God forsaking Jesus on the cross, a teaching I’ve found impossible to accept the more thought I’ve given it.
You’ve laid out a good argument against it. You’ve correctly pointed out the problem with the common teaching on Habbakkuk 1:13. I will only take issue with the end of your argument, that Jesus ‘felt’ forsaken and cried out “Why?”.
A few points in summary:
1. Jesus would have known why the Father had forsaken him if He actually had. It would have been part of the plan from the beginning.
2. I don’t believe Jesus ever ‘addressed’ the Father as “God”. He always addressed him as ‘Father’ when speaking to him. So when Jesus said “My God, My God…” he wasn’t talking to the Father, he was quoting Psalm 22 for the benefit of the people who were watching and mocking him. Some of the later posts make good arguments about Jesus quoting Ps 22 so I’ll leave it at that.
3. I think you’ve fallen prey to the teachings regarding Jesus “carrying the sins of the world”, or “bearing the weight of the sins of the world”, etc. We, Christians, in this situation tend to make sin something that is felt or sensed somehow by Jesus. This concept is never taught in the New Testament. This would require the question to be asked “Where were the sins kept up until that moment?” “Where were they gathered from?” “How were they applied to Jesus? As a sort of goo? or more like a backpack?”. I know these seem like silly questions but that’s where we’re left when we give the “sins of the world” some sort of physical characteristics.
4. The verse has been mentioned about Jesus “who knew no sin became sin on our behalf”. This is a verse I’ve tried to understand in the past and have concluded that the best way to understand “became sin” is as “became our sin-bearer” which would correspond well with the second half of the verse about us “becom(ing) the righeousness of God” which wouldn’t mean the literal righteousness of God but that we would be imputed with the righteousness of God, just as Jesus is imputed with our sins, hence, our sin-bearer. It took me a while to arrive at this interpretation because the verse is so specific, but understanding it literally creates a lot of theological problems.
4b. Related to the last point. Jesus bore our sins in his BODY on the tree. All through the NT our sins are portrayed as having been paid for by the physical death of Jesus. “in his body”, “by his death”, “by his stripes”, “by his blood”. WE are the ones who feel like we need to make the torment on the cross worse by adding a spiritual/metaphysical element to Jesus’ suffering. Nowhere does scripture do this, except through this erroneous teaching you have refuted. The unintended consequences of leaving this error still breathing are heard on TBN and other places frequently. Such as Jesus taking on the nature of Satan on the cross, or Jesus suffering in hell after he died, and others like that.
Please consider these points openly. I know I don’t change my mind easily and I don’t expect you would either. But maybe if I can change your mind we can be that much closer to removing this teaching from the churches.
p.s. I also wanted to say I think the reason we want to believe that Jesus suffered something more than physical pain and death (plus the emotional stuff that went with it) is that we have unwittingly undervalued His Person. We forget where he came from to be here to suffer for us. We intellectually know he’s God but we see him more as a man hanging on the cross.
The reason his physical pain and death were sufficient is because of the Quality of the Person being sacrificed. His quality is equivalent to the distance between the Infinite and the finite. If we can remember that it will remove the inclinations to try to add the Father/Son seperation view(or perception by Jesus of seperation).
Thanks,
Sam