Did the Cross Separate Jesus from God?
Was Jesus separated from God on the cross? Mk15:34 - forsaken: the idea of deserting someone in a set of circumstances that are against them. Commentary on whether Jesus Christ was separated from God centres on the time between his death and resurrection. But can the question be fully understood in this one event alone? A broader analysis might include God's design as the architect of salvation, the purpose in Jesus' life, definitions of death, and the difference between spiritual and physical separation.
Death is used in several ways. The Bible speaks of death metaphorically for spiritual separation from God, about emotional and psychological stress, and matters concerning baptism into Christ (Rom6:3). Mostly it refers to the death of the flesh when there's an irreversible cessation of all the biological functions that sustain life. Lazareth died this type of death and after 4 days, God raised him to life, restoring his body and spirit. This miracle serves as an archetype for the death and resurrection of Christ, whose death was confirmed by the Romans, and witnessed by those who were there and buried him. By any metric his flesh ceased being alive (1Pet3:18). Spiritual death is more nuanced, and nested inside the idea of separation from God, not the death of the flesh. This is where the public debate about whether Jesus separated from God resides. The scriptures don't suggest the spirit can cease to exist, so the term spiritual death is a metaphor that conveys the weight and pain of eternal separation from God.
The doctrine of salvation draws heavily from the Genesis account of the fall which defines sin, and details what was lost that needs to be restored. Eating the apple exposed the sin, and being cast out (separated) of the garden by God, conveyed the punishment. So it seems that what sin does is more weighty than sin itself. Therefore, sin must be atoned for, and the relationship restored. The first question might be, what purpose did the cross serve? The penalty for sin must be paid for through a blood sacrifice, but when the Bible says Jesus took our sin upon himself, are we saying this refers to his experience of pain and suffering on the cross, or are we saying that by his death he took our position of separation which is the death referred to? I would suggest the physical pain of the cross is eschatologically irrelevant, and that Christ’s separation from God is more consistent with the pain of separation conveyed in the Genesis account. Adam and Eve were led out of the presence of God due to their disobedience, and there was nothing specifically related to the apple itself because eating the apple was evidence of a sin they had already committed in their decision to eat it. Thus they were separated from God and removal from the garden defines “hell” itself, which is the same position of separation imputed to humanity, before we are born and before we sin. Therefore, when Jesus went to the cross he was paying the price in his blood, but primarily to die the spiritual death we deserved and assume our position of separation from God so that the resurrection could restore Man’s relationship with God. Adam and Eve did not die physically, they died a spiritual death by way of separation from God. By rising from death, the consequences of the Genesis account are redeemed. In this analysis, I'm making the case that our disobedience (idolatry) instigated physical and spiritual separation that only Jesus could redeem. And if Jesus wasn’t separated from God, the resurrection has nothing to restore. Jesus died, and his Spirit was separated from God for 3 days because he took upon himself a position we assume through inherited guilt. The central issue is that Jesus had to be separated so the resurrection could become “the way, the truth, and the life”. Jesus bridged the divide between spiritual death and spiritual rebirth.
Heb 2:6-9 "But there is a place where someone has testified: "What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him? You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honour and put everything under their feet." In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present, we do not see everything subject to them. But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone".
The following are two examples of public commentary on the topic:
The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association stated, "There is an unfathomable mystery here. Jesus was both God and man united in one divine person. He COULD NOT SUFFER AND DIE in terms of his deity (1Pe 3:18), but he COULD SUFFER THE AGONY OF SEPARATION and DIE, in terms of his humanity. And he did, that we might, through repentance from sin and faith in Him as our Savior and Lord, be forgiven of our sin and reconciled with God".
In response to this someone has stated, "If we say that He could be separated from God even if only in terms of His humanity, this would imply separation not only from God the Father but also from Himself as God since God the Father and God the Son are forever one and are inseparable". The implication is that separation from the Godhead isn’t possible, but the possibility is far more nuanced than the statement suggests.
Both are incomplete statements with both having just enough truth to appear plausible. Both argue the impossibility of God and Jesus, as creators of the universe, to separate themselves from each other, yet in a fundamental sense that’s exactly what Jesus did in lowering himself to a position below the Angels when he became a Man. Secondly, placing highly subjective limitations on what God can or can’t do seems to be a somewhat low-resolution argument considering who God is. However, the devil's in the details. The Billy Graham Foundation states that only Jesus' human nature could suffer, die, and experience separation, and this begs the question, who then paid the price for sin, Jesus' flesh, or Jesus' Spirit? Are we saying that Jesus' spirit went through the crucifixion, but never suffered? The Bible suggests that both suffered the agony of physical death (Heb2:9), and it seems unreasonable to suggest that under the same circumstances, our Spirit would not feel the agony of pain and suffering. Hebrews 2:14-15 states that the Spirit and the flesh break the power of the Devil. I can understand an interpretation that starts with an impossibility, especially from those who reject a trinitarian view of the Godhead, but separation and the entire purpose of the cross can't be understood without it. If God hadn't turned his face from the “position of sin” that Jesus assumed on our behalf, the entire purpose of the cross would have been convoluted and inconsistent. The second commentator utilizes John1:1-3 to support his critique of the Billy Graham Foundation, but these texts have nothing to do with whether God can or can't, separate from himself.
1Pe 3:18-19 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made a proclamation to the imprisoned spirits". The word "but" is a primary particle (continuative) which moves "put to death" forward to "made alive" in the Spirit (Jesus' spirit) which left the body, after his flesh had died. In this context "Made alive", is not referring to a return from absolute death, but the end of the flesh and moving on of the Spirit. Jesus had only one spirit, and the definite article "the" refers to his own Spirit that left. No evidence suggests that Jesus had two spirits. His human nature was flesh, and his God nature was spirit. Therefore, Jesus's spirit was separated from God by sin, between his death and resurrection. The definite article in "The Spirit", is not referring to the Holy Spirit, or Jesus' human nature.
The scriptures convey the cross as an act of God's sovereign will, in choosing to become a man and die, by his power and authority. God is the architect of salvation and made himself a little lower than the Angels (Heb2:6-9). By any level of theological supposition, making himself lower, and fully human, required, at the very least, that Jesus separate himself from the power, authority, and status, he held within the Godhead (John 17:5). Jesus demonstrated this, in that no healing or miracle was done in his power, it was always God working through him by the power of the Holy Spirit. He reinforced this in his statements about God, his prayer life, his clear submission to his “Head”, and the one who had ultimate authority to save him from death (Heb 5:7).
God is omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnipresent (everywhere present), so any decision to lower and separate himself from the Godhead, or himself on the cross, is a small thing for the creator of the universe. If Jesus divine nature didn't live our experience he couldn't claim to overcome it. When we die our fleshly bodies cease to exist, this is the first death (death of the flesh). Our spirit lives on, and some will rise on the last day, to be with God, through Jesus Christ, and some will rise to be separated from God, this is the second death. This second death is eternal separation from God, and thus hell finds its full meaning in the idea of separation. Jesus had to pay for our sins so that we could overcome the second death. Another example of separation is Mar 13:32 "But about that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”. Here, Jesus makes it clear, that while he was fully man and God, he wasn’t privy to all God knew during his time on earth. This appears to show some degree of separation or at least the ability of the Godhead to separate itself in a manner that’s beyond our ability to understand.
Both aspects of Jesus' nature had to suffer the same experience together, he wasn't part God and part Man. His God nature wasn't excluded from the temptations of the human experience (Heb4:15), otherwise, his sacrifice on the cross would not be that of genuine pain and suffering. Some commentary tends to minimize this by creating the impression that because Jesus was fully God, he couldn't be tempted, and was thus incapable of sin. Consider this: just because he didn't sin doesn't mean he couldn't. What's the point of 40 days of temptation in the desert, if he couldn't be tempted? Indeed, if he couldn't be tempted, his testimony of overcoming sin is meaningless and misrepresents the narrative of an empathetic saviour. Other commentators suggest that Jesus continues to pay for sin like an ongoing agony, that he continues to endure for humanity. The statement is theologically provocative and extremely subtle, but ultimately it undermines the finished statement of the resurrection and, therefore, the entire salvation narrative (Rom6:10).
Salvation pivots on the idea that Jesus had to be God and Man. If Jesus wasn't fully God, he couldn't satisfy the righteous requirements of the Law, or legitimize the resurrection itself. Jesus couldn't be tempted by sin unless he was fully man, and he couldn't resist and overcome sin unless he was fully God. And so we see both Man and God working as one in the same person.
In conclusion, we find that all opinions about whether Jesus's divine nature (spirit) can die, or be separated from God the Father, rests on the meaning of the words death and separation. The word death can be used to describe the final destruction of the physical body, or as a metaphor for separation from God. The words death and separation underpin the definition of hell, but they cannot be used to suggest the final destruction or cessation of the human Spirit. In the same way, God's Spirit continued after the destruction of the flesh. For Jesus to become our righteousness he had to die a human death, and his Spirit had to endure separation for our sin. However, the hope of salvation is not found in Jesus' death, but in moving forward in his resurrection.
