NetChaplain
Active
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,490
“For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are” (Heb 4:15).
Would not the “feeling” of the “infirmity” of being forsaken by His Father be the greatest among the sufferings which our Lord Jesus chose to endure? The Creator could not have related more to us than in the partaking of becoming the incarnate Word (Jhn 1:14), taking on our human infirmities, but not our human nature, for His is divine!
Another clear significant manifestation of His humanity is seen in “the cup” (Mat 26:39, 42), which contained the sufferings and death He was presently about to enter. There were other evidences manifesting the humanity of Christ, such as His weeping at the death of Lazarus, and just noting, was not for him, because He knew He was about to raise him. His sadness was over the Jews that were with them (Jhn 11:19, 31, 33, 37, 38), who He knew would not believe, even after seeing the miracle (Jhn 11:46 – but “many believed” – v 45).
Much has been said about the theory of God’s abandonment of His Son while on the Cross, but I think it lacks Scriptural support for the concept. The purpose of this article is to support the truth that God never abandons His own—especially His “own” Son, who knew prior to the sacrifice of His covenant with the Father, that He would resurrect Him after suffering and dying for the sins of those becoming reborn (Heb 13:20, 21).
The abandonment theory is based on the concept that God could not look on His Son with all the sin in the world on Him. Scripture demonstrates that God’s “face” is against sinners, but this is not so that He would not see their sin, but so they cannot see or sense Him; which in my opinion is to denote distaste and disapproval for the purpose that they might of seek His face.
Some of the basis for this is the misunderstanding of passages like, “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity (Hab 1:13). Here, the terms “behold” and “look” are hyperbolic expressions (which are often used in Scripture) that God does not regard or accept their persons. Another prime passage is, “the face of the Lord is against them that do evil” (Psa 34:16; 1Pe 3:12). It’s not as though God cannot endure seeing all the evil, as if He would be somehow alarmed concerning it (not necessarily in order - Pro 5:21; 15:3; Job 34:21, 22; Jer 16:17; Isa 59:2; Deu 31:18; 32:20; Eze 39:23, and a multitude of other like passages).
The Father Himself could have become incarnate to be the sacrifice, but in His desire to relate His love to us in the highest manner, He sent the far greater sacrifice of His Son!
NC
Would not the “feeling” of the “infirmity” of being forsaken by His Father be the greatest among the sufferings which our Lord Jesus chose to endure? The Creator could not have related more to us than in the partaking of becoming the incarnate Word (Jhn 1:14), taking on our human infirmities, but not our human nature, for His is divine!
Another clear significant manifestation of His humanity is seen in “the cup” (Mat 26:39, 42), which contained the sufferings and death He was presently about to enter. There were other evidences manifesting the humanity of Christ, such as His weeping at the death of Lazarus, and just noting, was not for him, because He knew He was about to raise him. His sadness was over the Jews that were with them (Jhn 11:19, 31, 33, 37, 38), who He knew would not believe, even after seeing the miracle (Jhn 11:46 – but “many believed” – v 45).
Much has been said about the theory of God’s abandonment of His Son while on the Cross, but I think it lacks Scriptural support for the concept. The purpose of this article is to support the truth that God never abandons His own—especially His “own” Son, who knew prior to the sacrifice of His covenant with the Father, that He would resurrect Him after suffering and dying for the sins of those becoming reborn (Heb 13:20, 21).
The abandonment theory is based on the concept that God could not look on His Son with all the sin in the world on Him. Scripture demonstrates that God’s “face” is against sinners, but this is not so that He would not see their sin, but so they cannot see or sense Him; which in my opinion is to denote distaste and disapproval for the purpose that they might of seek His face.
Some of the basis for this is the misunderstanding of passages like, “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity (Hab 1:13). Here, the terms “behold” and “look” are hyperbolic expressions (which are often used in Scripture) that God does not regard or accept their persons. Another prime passage is, “the face of the Lord is against them that do evil” (Psa 34:16; 1Pe 3:12). It’s not as though God cannot endure seeing all the evil, as if He would be somehow alarmed concerning it (not necessarily in order - Pro 5:21; 15:3; Job 34:21, 22; Jer 16:17; Isa 59:2; Deu 31:18; 32:20; Eze 39:23, and a multitude of other like passages).
The Father Himself could have become incarnate to be the sacrifice, but in His desire to relate His love to us in the highest manner, He sent the far greater sacrifice of His Son!
NC
