Did Jesus bear Gods wrath and was He forsaken ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now since many have had their say about the HU, some acting as if they have it figured out, others admitting they don’t, I believe we have come to a place where we should realize there are parts of this no man can fully understand.
But at the same time, IMO it does cast some light on the subject of the op.

That is, did Jesus bear God’s wrath and was he forsaken? Again I say, yes and yes.
It seems the subject of the HU which cannot be fully understood and or explained helps us to better understand the subject of the op.

First, after reading this next part there will be those who say, “I never denied Christ suffered.”
But this is just the first stop, let’s try to go further.

The humiliation of Christ has two elements, his suffering for the purpose of making satisfaction, and the placing of Himself under the law in order to merit salvation for all his elect.
His suffering can further be subdivided into His suffering of soul and his suffering in body, to which the suffering of soul was conjoined.
But according to His divine nature He neither can suffer nor has suffered.
 
Carbon said:
Now since many have had their say about the HU, some acting as if they have it figured out, others admitting they don’t, I believe we have come to a place where we should realize there are parts of this no man can fully understand.
But at the same time, IMO it does cast some light on the subject of the op.

That is, did Jesus bear God’s wrath and was he forsaken? Again I say, yes and yes.
It seems the subject of the HU which cannot be fully understood and or explained helps us to better understand the subject of the op.

First, after reading this next part there will be those who say, “I never denied Christ suffered.”
But this is just the first stop, let’s try to go further.

The humiliation of Christ has two elements, his suffering for the purpose of making satisfaction, and the placing of Himself under the law in order to merit salvation for all his elect.
His suffering can further be subdivided into His suffering of soul and his suffering in body, to which the suffering of soul was conjoined.
But according to His divine nature He neither can suffer nor has suffered.
Click to expand...
@ReverendRV
Brakel writes:
Christ did not only suffer in his body, but especially in his soul. He did so rationally, and thus not merely by identifying and sympathizing with the suffering of the body. He who considers the suffering of the soul to be no more that a sympathizing with the suffering of the body is exceedingly ignorant.
The sense of God’s wrath in the soul is the soul of suffering, even when the body does not suffer.
 
Carbon said:
@ReverendRV
Brakel writes:
Christ did not only suffer in his body, but especially in his soul. He did so rationally, and thus not merely by identifying and sympathizing with the suffering of the body. He who considers the suffering of the soul to be no more that a sympathizing with the suffering of the body is exceedingly ignorant.
The sense of God’s wrath in the soul is the soul of suffering, even when the body does not suffer.
Click to expand...
Jesus was punished for our sins.
 
Carbon said:
What’s your thoughts on this statement?


The sense of God’s wrath in the soul is the soul of suffering, even when the body does not suffer.
Click to expand...
When Jesus was imputed our sins, there was a separation of the Father from His Son. However, seeing God is omnipresent, there is not one place where God is not, so it’s not that Christ was separated from His Father’s presence, but His Father divine favor.
 
SovereignGrace said:
When Jesus was imputed our sins, there was a separation of the Father from His Son. However, seeing God is omnipresent, there is not one place where God is not, so it’s not that Christ was separated from His Father’s presence, but His Father divine favor.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree. This is what I was getting at with my first post on this thread.
Here it is again.


I believe when Christ was on the cross He did not feel the present effects of the Fathers grace.
Why has Thou forsaken me, are expressions of His humanity. On the one side, fully assured of the Fathers love and on the other, brought into extreme agonies, to give God’s wrath satisfaction for the sins of the world.
 
Brakel also writes:

The fact that Christ had to suffer in soul, and indeed has done so, is evident for the following reasons.

First, this is so typologically, the sacrifices typified the suffering which had come upon Christ. In the sacrifices the blood of animals had to be offered. Why the blood? The blood constitutes the soul of the animal, typifying that atonement could not be made for the souls of men except by the soul-offering of the Surety.
For the blood is the life, Deut 12:23; For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the alter to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul Lev 17:11.

This is confirmed by the prophets.
When Thou shall make his soul an offering for sin….. He shall see of the travail of His soul…. Because he has poured out His soul unto death Isaiah 53:10-12
 
ReverendRV said:
He shows the NT quoting an OT Verse about God, and Jesus says the Verse is talking about him. But in the OT the Verse refers to the Father. I don't remember it, but if we ask nicely; he might tell us...
Click to expand...
Well, if he doesn't answer, we will ask Seth, he'll know.

It appears if that were the case oneness folk would use it as evidence.

That said, I think the Scriptures don't speak much on the Father, but would like to see the evidence.
 
Carbon said:
Brakel also writes:

The fact that Christ had to suffer in soul, and indeed has done so, is evident for the following reasons.

First, this is so typologically, the sacrifices typified the suffering which had come upon Christ. In the sacrifices the blood of animals had to be offered. Why the blood? The blood constitutes the soul of the animal, typifying that atonement could not be made for the souls of men except by the soul-offering of the Surety.
For the blood is the life, Deut 12:23; For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the alter to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul Lev 17:11.

This is confirmed by the prophets.
When Thou shall make his soul an offering for sin….. He shall see of the travail of His soul…. Because he has poured out His soul unto death Isaiah 53:10-12
Click to expand...
That runs along with what I've come to believe.
 
Carbon said:
Now since many have had their say about the HU, some acting as if they have it figured out, others admitting they don’t, I believe we have come to a place where we should realize there are parts of this no man can fully understand.
But at the same time, IMO it does cast some light on the subject of the op.

That is, did Jesus bear God’s wrath and was he forsaken? Again I say, yes and yes.
It seems the subject of the HU which cannot be fully understood and or explained helps us to better understand the subject of the op.

First, after reading this next part there will be those who say, “I never denied Christ suffered.”
But this is just the first stop, let’s try to go further.

The humiliation of Christ has two elements, his suffering for the purpose of making satisfaction, and the placing of Himself under the law in order to merit salvation for all his elect.
His suffering can further be subdivided into His suffering of soul and his suffering in body, to which the suffering of soul was conjoined.
But according to His divine nature He neither can suffer nor has suffered.
Click to expand...
I think I read in one of your earlier posts where you mentioned this before about HU relating to the OP. I could see what you were saying then and have been thinking about it. And understanding more about why we Are discussing all of this. I know I'm learning a lot of new stuff. And I've decided just to dig deeper into Christology, the branch of Christian theology relating to the person, nature, and role of Christ. I think I have about 15 videos by RC and I'm going to dig up all the material I can and really enjoy myself. I've often said "it's all about Jesus.." Now I can see it really is.

The part you wrote in this post about no man can fully understand all the different parts. I must have read that at least five times in the last week in different books and on different webpages. I think by getting a good grasp on the whole enchilada of Christology will help me understand the different parts we've been talking about here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top