11

From my limited understanding of this matter, some people believe that Jesus was in some sense separated from the Father. This has come up in the context of discussions of the indivisibility of the Trinity, so this seems to me like a very unorthodox view at best, perhaps even a heresy at worst, since it seems to contradict the Athanasian Creed:

... we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal.

And the writings of Lactantius (Divine Institutes, 4:28–29):

when we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father

Perhaps there is no contradiction. For example, I understand the first two of the following senses of "separation" to be perfectly orthodox:

  1. The Persons are distinct, in that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. So in that sense, the Son and Father are "separate".

  2. The Father was not conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. The Father did not die on the cross, but the Son died on the cross. So in that sense, the Father and Son are "separate".

  3. The persons were separated: not "in a sense", but actually separated in such a way that the indivisible Trinity was, without qualification, separated.

  4. The Trinity is not indivisible, but is instead divisible, and was separated.
  5. The substance was divided.
  6. The Father was God, and Jesus was God, but they were, without qualification, separated.
  7. The Son and Father were divided in Spirit: the Spirit of the Son was separated from the Spirit of the Father.

I do not think that these first two senses of separation are what is meant, though I could be wrong. However, I suspect that the last five senses (3-7) are also not meant. Though again, I could be wrong. I do not actually know, and I don't see where to place this view among the views that I am familiar with.

  • What exactly is this view? Have I listed it above, in one of the numbered lines? What is meant by "separated"? Would those who profess this view deny the Athanasian Creed and the Divine Institutes, and certain other works?
  • What is the origin and basis of this view among those who hold it? If the source of this view is the fact that Jesus quoted Psalm 22 when he died, how did this interpretation arise? Do those who hold this view claim that Jesus was professing separation, and reject the idea that Jesus was confirming the fulfillment of prophesy? If possible, which denominations actually hold this view? And why and how did the word "separation" end up being used for this?

In particular, I am in this case looking for an answer that is well-sourced: not an explanation of personal views, nor a personal interpretation of scripture, but something "relatively well established", according to our best standards of "relatively well established".

Alypius
  • 6,466
  • 10
  • 44
  • 85
  • 2
    Good question. I have not personally encountered of any view that considers Jesus to be truly separated. Usually with Math 27:46 where Jesus became sin (2 Cor 5:2) God's wrath was poured out and Jesus feels forsaken, people might say his humanity was in a sense separated from a Holy God as he became sin, but this is a limited separation. The Son was one with the Father at all times and his human nature could not be separated from his divine. Actual separation would be heresy, someone has probably asserted it in history. This is probably be an early church historical heresy question. – Mike Apr 15 '13 at 05:17
  • Oofta, this is too complicated for a layperson to answer. I think I heard the answer on EWTN during holy week this year, but I can't put it into my own words. Basically, the Jesus' Human Nature was clearly tremulous about the notion of being cut off from the land of the living. The bond of love between Him and God the Father is beyond the strongest bond imaginable and the very thought was enough to make Him want to sweat blood. But it's not that it actually happened, it's just that it crossed Jesus' mind. If that's actual theology, then woah, that's a pretty amazing thing to think about. – Peter Turner Apr 15 '13 at 05:33
  • @Mike The first time I ran into this was here (look for the link), but I have heard it repeated a few times recently, too. Calling it separation in the context of the inseparable God is pretty serious: people must mean it, but I am not sure what doctrine is actually meant. What you mention at the end, about how the hypostatic union does not come apart, is something like #6 above, and I would agree that it did not happen. – Alypius Apr 15 '13 at 06:08
  • 1
    I read the link. The way Caleb describes it is the way I have often encountered it and have no objection. It is not to be understood as an absolute separation but some kind of experience of death and separation that is implied by putting sin and death on him. I understand Caleb as meaning something along that line, a mystical separation that supports the indivisibility of the Trinity and indivisibility of the God-Man. That is how I understand Caleb's post. However it would not surprise me if you saw more careless language somewhere else. Cheers. – Mike Apr 15 '13 at 06:28
  • One thing I think I saw somewhere that sort of makes sense is that in the moment that he cried out and became sin, 'all the comfort of the Holy Spirt was withdrawn from the human soul of Christ while he endured our death.' Worth considering I think. – Mike Apr 15 '13 at 06:34
  • If by "some people" you mean the portion of Caleb's answer wherein he clarifies death as separation from God, I'd be interested to know on what or whom that specific clarification is based and the prevalence of the belief before pursuing a more general basis for it. I suspect it was more of a semi-half-thunk statement, rather than a good representation of any major denominations' doctrine. – svidgen Apr 15 '13 at 16:11
  • When it comes to Biblical interpretations, I think traditional source may not be always right or agreeable. Sometimes personal views if well-sourced may be sometimes better. – Mawia Apr 15 '13 at 16:18
  • 1
    @Mawia Personal interpretation is fine on a personal level. And it's fine for insertion into and development in conversation. But, in addition to lacking the foundation of well-established beliefs, it's not the topic of this site. – svidgen Apr 15 '13 at 17:19
  • 2
    @svidgen: I did a lot more than semi-half-think putting that answer together! I deliberately chose words to convey the seriousness of what was going on without using language that any major tradition could lodge a doctrinal complaint with. I linked to the definition of death because it was theologically significant, but I specifically said "experienced" in such away that it did not introduce potential logical contradictions and did not get into details about the Trinity because it wasn't significant to the question and couldn't be done without making the answering disagreeable to somebody. – Caleb Apr 15 '13 at 20:18
  • 1
    @Caleb I may be mistaken (or getting hung up on the phrasing), but it does seem like many, if not most, denominations would have a doctrinal complaint with the notion that death, in the capacity that Jesus experienced it, is a separation from God. – svidgen Apr 15 '13 at 20:29
  • 1
    @svidgen The phrasing thing you are hung up on is just as problematic if you drop the issue of death and separation altogether and look at other statements made about Jesus. "God made him to be sin". How does that square with God being sinless? The details of how it worked are kind of beyond us and the Bible isn't very explicit, but Christianity is fairly broadly in agreement that Jesus in some very real way experienced something outside the normal state of affairs -- else he accomplished nothing at all. God cannot sin, yet Jesus became our unrighteousness! – Caleb Apr 15 '13 at 20:36
  • 1
    @Caleb The other linguistic contradictions aren't nearly as problematic though. They're all doctrinal and intentionally mysterious. Unless my current brain fog is heavier than I know, the claim that Jesus was at some point separated from the Trinity/God isn't doctrinal in any major denomination. And, if it is doctrinal in any (or most) traditions, the specifics of the belief are foreign-sounding enough to warrant expounding! – svidgen Apr 15 '13 at 20:45
  • This is not about Caleb's answer, and while some of those points are very relevant to this question, discussion of that answer (and of what he had meant to say) should continue elsewhere. I bring it up as an example (in the comments, not in the question), but this question arose as I saw this language used in several other contexts recently. It is clear that something important happened on the cross. The question is about why the concept of "separation" is often invoked (at least from a certain view: I had not heard of it until recently), and in exactly what sense it is being invoked. – Alypius Apr 15 '13 at 21:05
  • @Alypius Understood. I've selfishly dragged Caleb into the conversation because he seems to hold the opinion you're asking about. I only intend to clarify to Caleb that his input might therefore be quite valuable here. – svidgen Apr 15 '13 at 21:14
  • @Alypius How do you define hell, into which Jesus Christ descended, as it is referred to in The Athanasian Creed? And how do you define person? For, it's clear that the person of Christ descended into hell, such that Christ's person was separate to the extent that hell demands, but no more. – svidgen Apr 16 '13 at 13:58
  • @svidgen I have no personal definitions of these except the traditional definitions. But a difference in Persons allows us to say, e.g. "it was Christ and not the Father who was born of the Virgin Mary", and here the two are "separate" to the extent demanded, but this is not truly separation, but only a distinction in Persons. This is #2. Certainly it does not imply #3-7, though. At face value, all of those are heresies. – Alypius Apr 16 '13 at 14:58
  • @Alypius I think there's enough variation in the "traditional" understandings to warrant clarification -- especially in regards to hell, especially since the very creed we're trying to reconcile God-separation with explicitly states that Christ descended into hell, and since hell is oft-defined, though not always, as a willful rejection of and/or separation from God. – svidgen Apr 16 '13 at 15:06
  • Perhaps the reason I bring it up is because the creed itself, at least by some understandings, explicitly asserts a paradox. So, the proper understanding may be "it's a mystery" for those who interpret hell as a "full" separation from God. ... Are "There's no official teaching" and "It's a mystery" valid answers? – svidgen Apr 16 '13 at 15:17
  • I've made a chat room for discussing this question here - the points here are all relevant, but it's getting quite long. @svidgen Perhaps another question could be asked about the meaning of hell in the Athanasian creed (then, I could link--the question is quite long already). Yes, those are valid answers, but they should be expanded, and they should come from a clear denomination that actually professes a relevant form of separation. – Alypius Apr 16 '13 at 16:08
  • "Father, father, why have you forsaken me?" probably has something to do with it. – khaverim May 03 '14 at 07:02

3 Answers3

7

tl;dr> If Jesus isn't separated from the Father on the Cross, then the heresy of patripassianism is true, and more importantly, the notion that God does not change is not.

1. Scripture sets up cases that separate the Father from the Son

Scripturally the idea that Jesus was separated from the Father is typically supported from when Jesus cries out in Matthew 27:46

"Father, Why have you forsaken me?" (a reference to Psalm 22).

To be forsaken implies that indeed, the Father is absent from Jesus in a very real way.

Additionally, 2 Corinthians 5:21 says:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

We know that sin cannot abide in the presence of God ([Jude](For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.)), and therefore there must have been a separation.

Of this forsaking, the church fathers wrote:

ORIGEN. But it must be asked, What means this, that Christ is forsaken of God? Some, unable to explain how Christ could be forsaken of God, say that this was spoken out of humility. But you will be able clearly to comprehend His meaning if you make a comparison of the glory which He had with the Father with the shame which He despised when He endured the cross.

HILARY. (de Trin. x. 50 &c.) From these words heretical spirits contend either that God the Word was entirely absorbed into the soul at the time it discharged the function of a soul in quickening the body; or that Christ could not have been born man, because the Divine Word dwelt in Him after the manner of a prophetical spirit. As though Jesus Christ was a man of ordinary soul and body, having His beginning then when He began to be man, and thus now deserted upon the withdrawal of the protection of God’s word cries out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Or at least that the nature of the Word being transmuted into soul, Christ, who had depended in all things upon His Father’s support, now deserted and left to death, mourns over this desertion, and pleads with Him departing. But amidst these impious and feeble opinions, the faith of the Church imbued with Apostolic teaching does not sever Christ that He should be considered as Son of God and not as Son of Man. The complaint of His being deserted is the weakness of the dying man; the promise of Paradise is the kingdom of the living God. You have Him complaining that He is left to death, and thus He is Man; you have Him as He is dying declaring that He reigns in Paradise; and thus He is God. Wonder not then at the humility of these words, when you know the form of a servant, and see the offence of the cross

DAMASCENE. (de Fid. Orth. iii. 27.) Although He died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His unstained body, yet His Godhead remained inseparate from either body or soul. Yet was not the one Person divided into two; for as both body and soul had from the beginning an existence in the Person of the Word, so also had they in death. For neither soul nor body had ever a Person of their own, besides the Person of the Word.

Thomas Aquinas, S., & Newman, J. H. (1841). Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 1: St. Matthew (958–959). Oxford: John Henry Parker.

2. If Jesus did not separate from the Father, then you are stuck with Modalism or Nestoriansism

2a. Modalism

Theologically, the idea that Jesus was separated from the Father whilst dying on the cross is necessary if one is to avoid the heresy of Patripassianism. Patripassianism states that the Son literally was the Father, so whatever the Son suffered, the Father suffered also. However, the problem with this is that when Jesus dies, it is important that God the Father does not die with Him. If he does, then God has changed state - from live to dead - and is therefore "passable" meaning that he can change. If he can change, the thinking goes, then he cannot be fully 'perfect' because change implies going from a less perfect to more perfect state.

Most directly, Hippolytus wrote against Noetus who held this view.

Patripassianism is sometimes called "Monarchical Modalism," because it is inherently modal in its underpinning. If as Sabelius believed, God is modal, then patripassianism is tautological. If Jesus is God the Father incarnate, then the death of Jesus = the death of the Father. As it is essential that Jesus actually died (and did not just appear to die as the Muslims believe) and if it is equally essential that God the Father not die, since he is perfect, then by definition, Jesus and the Father must have been separated at this point.

Since modalism was rejected as heresy, it was natural to make heretical the idea of patripassiansm.

The book "No one Like Him" explains it well:

Modalism, if adopted, has the further consequence that the Father literally suffered on the cross with Christ. This notion is called “patripassianism,” and initially it may seem innocuous, for all Christians would say that the Father’s heart broke and he empathized and sympathized with Jesus while he was on the cross. But that is not what patripassianism means. It means that the Father, in playing the “Son role” while Christ was on earth, actually suffered and died on the cross. This conclusion seemed inescapably to follow from belief in only one divine nature and in the three “persons” as nothing more than different names that designate different roles or activities played at one time and another. But patripassianism met with strong resistance for a very simple reason. Typically, early Christians believed that God is atemporally eternal. As such, he is absolutely immutable, for change comes with time but is absent from an atemporal being. Moreover, if God is absolutely immutable, he cannot experience changes of any sort, including changes in his emotional and physical state (if he is at all physical). Therefore, patripassianism was clearly objectionable. It destroyed atemporal eternity and divine immutability and impassibility. God could suffer, he could undergo change; and if the divine nature was thoroughly resident in Jesus, then God was subject to time, or so it seemed

Pope Leo the Great, in the Post-Nicene Fathers, directly connects this patripassianism to the essence of the Trinity:

This species of blasphemy they borrowed from Sabellius, whose followers were rightly called Patripassians also: because if the Son is identical with the Father, the Son’s cross is the Father’s passion (patris-passio): and the Father took on Himself all that the Son took in the form of a slave, and in obedience to the Father. Which without doubt is contrary to the catholic faith, which acknowledges the Trinity of the Godhead to be of one essence (ὁμοούσιον) in such a way that it believes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost indivisible without confusion, eternal without time, equal without difference: because it is not the same person but the same essence which fills the Unity in Trinity

2b. Nestorianism

It is possible to make an argument that says only the human nature of Jesus died on the cross - the nature of God did not. This maintains passability, but it presents, in my mind, an even worse problem. It turns God into a monster and doesn't actually involve sacrifice.

Imagine, for a moment that this was "God's plan." First and foremost, it inherently presumes a Nestorian understanding of the hypostatic union - also condemned as heresy. In over-emphasizing Jesus' humanity, it turns him into a dual-natured person. It exalts the created human (who was not, as it says in John 1, with God in the beginning, for it was created)

Leaving that aside, for a moment though, if the Divine nature of God the Son were to have left his human side, we have two unfortunate outcomes.

  1. God himself never actually sacrifices himself in this scenario. He sacrifices a created thing - it's like he tore off a soiled suit, rather than actually descending into Hell.

  2. In this scenario, God creates a human being for the sole purpose of being tortured and abandoned. At the moment of greatest pain and suffering, God abandons him. If only the human is crying out, "Father, why hast thou forsaken me!" then God has turned his back on the best human ever made. Talk about sadistic! Would you follow that vengeful, cruel, and hateful God? I certainly wouldn't!

Community
  • 1
Affable Geek
  • 64,044
  • 28
  • 189
  • 354
  • Indicating worries over uncertainty. I don't think this can be right -- at least, not in any denomination I am familiar with. We can avoid the heresy of Patripassianism here by confessing the Hypostatic Union. Are these sources really suggesting that we need to separate Jesus from the Father so that Jesus could die, without affecting the Father? Jesus is True God, God unchanging. All that is required for the death of Jesus is that, in the human nature of the hypostasis (not the Divine nature), the body and soul come apart. The "No one Like Him" seems to be asserting #2 in the question, no? – Alypius Apr 15 '13 at 22:08
  • I'll refrain from voting here, because there's more information here than I was aware of. But, I don't see the discussion on shared or not-shared suffering between the Father and Son as have meaningful relevance to their unity and whether God could have at any point been divided in matter -- or if divided in some "non-material" way by the death of the Son, in what way. – svidgen Apr 15 '13 at 22:31
  • I guess in a related objection to the relevance, we're also told that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Hebrews 13:8) So, the non-modality is not a distinct characteristic of the Father. It also, somewhat confusingly, applies to Christ -- the same Christ who apparently changed state. – svidgen Apr 15 '13 at 22:39
  • @svidgen Jesus cried during His life, but we would not need to posit that He separated for this to happen. I think that whole issue is something apart, because "separation" is being invoked specifically at death, not in general (which is simply #2 in the question). My main worry here is not the content, but the fact that it needs a source or several that actually says "Patripassianism is the reason for this doctrine of separation", and a comment on why this does or does not contradict the Divine Institutes/Athanasian Creed etc. – Alypius Apr 15 '13 at 22:49
  • Interestingly, I believe it is Catholic dogma that is more concerned with the impassability of the Father. Personally, it is not a doctrine that I am as comfortable defending. I'll leave that to my Roman brothers. As to condemning Patripassiansim, I believe I've made the logical link explicit as possible, and then pointed to Leo to say its heretical. – Affable Geek Apr 16 '13 at 03:18
  • I'm not sure a human-only death is as problematic as you suggest. – svidgen Apr 16 '13 at 13:53
  • I guess I should clarify. Why must we insist that that Christ's bodily death necessarily entails a spiritual death? Isn't this mixed-state precisely what we say of all the other deceased? Why not for Christ then? (And loosely related, angels and demons, who are spiritually alive, though some in heaven, some in hell, but neither with living human or corporeal components.) – svidgen Apr 16 '13 at 14:19
  • @svidgen Just looking at the Father, He cannot die. But Christ can die: He was made flesh, and died for our salvation. We need not worry about a human-only death, because when Christ dies, death is attributed to the Person (Divine), not one of the two natures. Hilary (quote above) says that before Jesus died, the Father had withdrawn "the protection of God’s word". This does not sound like separation, and it happens a short time before Christ's actual death. So the implication above is that the living Christ was literally separated. Weird! (Probably heretical in Catholicism/Orthodox.) – Alypius Apr 16 '13 at 15:24
  • @Alypius Yeah. I'm hesitant to settle on an understanding of the Hilary above -- for Jesus Christ is God's Word. (He withdraws from Himself?) It's confusing. But, at the heart of it all, I still fail to see why we would assume Christ's death differs in nature from our own death, which, according to every Christian denomination I know, makes no claim that the soul/spirit dies ... ever. So, why should Christ's? – svidgen Apr 16 '13 at 15:27
  • @Alypius Well, I half take that back. We do assert spiritual death. But, we also claim the spirit lives forever. Paradox upon paradox, confounded by language. – svidgen Apr 16 '13 at 15:29
  • @svidgen Right, spiritual death is not a destruction of the soul. Christ suffering a destruction of His Spirit would be Christ suffering the destruction of the Holy Spirit, which is clearly impossible. I've made a chat room for discussing this question here. – Alypius Apr 16 '13 at 16:12
  • Nestorianism also has the unfortunate consequence (for many Christians) of denying Mary the title "Mother of God". If only the humanity of Jesus died on the cross, it logically means that Mary was only responsible for bringing that human portion of Jesus into the world. – Jon Ericson Apr 16 '13 at 20:52
  • @JonEricson Thinking "aloud," I'm not sure we'd could accurately claim that Mary brought the spiritual Jesus into the world though, if that's what you're implying. Jesus, being God, is omnipresent. I think it's more accurate to say she's vehicle by which the Divinity of Jesus unites with the Humanity of Jesus. – svidgen Apr 17 '13 at 16:26
  • @svidgen: I should point out that Nestorius rejected the title "Mother of God" because he believed that Jesus' divinity could (and at times, must) be separated from His humanity. The heresy is a slippery little bugger, so it's not surprising that we lapse into it when we aren't on guard for it. – Jon Ericson Apr 17 '13 at 19:55
  • 1
    This answer severely misunderstands or misrepresented the hypostatic union. The conclusion commits the opposite of the heresies it speaks against by acting like Jesus was only the spiritual divine nature, lowering the body to a suit. That is Eutychianism/Monophysitism. Orthodoxy upholds Miaphysitism, the two nature's of Christ. The human Jesus was Jesus. Him dying was no less real than any one of us dying. The divine nature of Jesus did not cease to exist, but it was certainly separated in communion. But not in union of substance. Also, you misunderstand impassIbility... – Joshua Jul 07 '16 at 11:32
3

A warning

We must be very careful when defending the honor of Jesus that we do not contradict the sort of glory that He claimed for Himself:

And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”—Mark 8:31-33 (ESV)

The cross

On the cross, Jesus certainly seems to be separated from the other two Persons of the the Trinity:

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.—Matthew 27:45-50 (ESV)

First, Jesus quotes Psalm 22, which was David's cry of distress at the hands of some enemy (which, we don't know). It shows his utter despair nearly to the point of death. The psalm was later interpreted as a word of judgment and redemption of sinful people. Just as God allowed David to be overwhelmed by his enemies, He also allowed the people of Israel to be separated from Him at the hands of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. In Jesus' day, the Romans occupied the land of Judaea, thereby preventing full worship of their God. THose same Romans divided the Father from the Son.

We also read that he "yielded up his spirit". On the one hand, this seems to be an expression meaning that he died. Mark and Luke instead report that Jesus "breathed his last". But Luke, John, and Matthew emphasise that Jesus' spirit left him. A reasonable interpretation is that Jesus was, at that moment, separated from both the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus alone died that dreadful, wonderful, momentous day.

Purpose of a temporary separation

The author of Hebrews comments on the cross:

But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.—Hebrews 2:9-10 (ESV)

We find ourselves in deep waters, but it seems that Jesus ("the founder of their salvation") was made "perfect through suffering" by the Father ("for whom and by whom all things exist"). Over and over Hebrews tells us that Jesus can rescue his people because he went first. Here's how Paul puts it:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?—Romans 8:31-35 (ESV)

The paradox at the center of the cross is that by descending as low as any man can go (and David calls himself "a worm and not a man"), Jesus was able to rise to a height of glory that no other can hope to obtain without His leading. And then He pulls us (undeserved) up with Him. We dare not limit the cost that Jesus paid for us lest we limit the depth of God's love for us.

Conclusion

To the extent that any man can be separated from God, we know that Jesus went before us. However abandoned David felt, Jesus lost more. We do not fear temptation if we put our trust in Jesus who was tempted beyond what we could bear and did not curse his Father.

Community
  • 1
Jon Ericson
  • 9,716
  • 1
  • 49
  • 99
1

The Three persons are one God. They are not three Gods but one. The Father and the Son, being two distinct persons,are separate in person not in nature.

What this means is that the Son who died at the cross wasn't the Father yet fully God as the Father.

Nature and personhood are not the same thing. Nature exists in persons that is why although the Son is not half God but fully God, he can and did die by reason of being the second person , the sole one, to took on human nature(John 1:1,14).

R. Brown
  • 6,441
  • 4
  • 32
  • 62