Was the Trinity Broken?

[Brakelite]

I think we need to find some common denominator as to what we actually mean by the word trinity, that is, what our understanding of the Godhead is. I would suggest that there are quite a number of versions of what we believe the Godhead is, and what we believe the trinity doctrine actually encompasses.
Each one of us is answering the OPs question from a different perspective, therefore the conclusions must also be different.
The OP did touch on one aspect of the doctrine that is essential in order to be essentially trinitarian... That all 3 members of the trinity are united in substance and it is believed, cannot be divided. That's the doctrine... But I suggest that the death of the Son and the very real separation between Father and Son at Calvary contradicts the doctrine, meaning the unity aspect of the trinity needs rethinking. This of course touches several other aspects of the Godhead... The divinity of Jesus, the Sonship of Jesus, and the humanity of Jesus. All subjects I am informed that cannot be discussed.

 

[e v e]

I think we need to find some common denominator as to what we actually mean by the word trinity, that is, what our understanding of the Godhead is. I would suggest that there are quite a number of versions of what we believe the Godhead is, and what we believe the trinity doctrine actually encompasses.
Each one of us is answering the OPs question from a different perspective, therefore the conclusions must also be different.
The OP did touch on one aspect of the doctrine that is essential in order to be essentially trinitarian... That all 3 members of the trinity are united in substance and it is believed, cannot be divided. That's the doctrine... But I suggest that the death of the Son and the very real separation between Father and Son at Calvary contradicts the doctrine, meaning the unity aspect of the trinity needs rethinking. This of course touches several other aspects of the Godhead... The divinity of Jesus, the Sonship of Jesus, and the humanity of Jesus. All subjects I am informed that cannot be discussed.

only the flesh died.

 

[Dizerner]

That's the doctrine... But I suggest that the death of the Son and the very real separation between Father and Son at Calvary contradicts the doctrine, meaning the unity aspect of the trinity needs rethinking.

People misunderstand what the word "separation" is intending to mean here.

They think in limited physical terms of our created life, as if my cousin moved overseas and we became "separated," or I "separated" the peel from the banana.

There is relational separation of people living in the same house. You could have a roommate you live with, and say "I just feel like we've become separated." You do not mean that the physical space between you and the person has become greater—you still live in the same place.

See, this is not some kind of physical separation we are talking about. God is ontologically everywhere; by definition nothing can be "separated" from him in any ultimate sense. Hell is not "separation" from God, for then God could not inflict his wrath, he wouldn't be there.

So we are taking about a separation of fellowship, not ontology or location; we are talking about being separated from a positive relationship, from experiencing the subjectively experienced positive things from God, the experience of his goodness.

So we can clearly see it was a broken fellowship and not a broken ontology on the Cross, and "turning away God's face" or "not looking at sin," has never meant an ontological separation, as even Satan is said be tormented in the very presence of the Lamb and his angels.

No rewrite necessary for God's classical attributes here.

 

[Johann]

How unfortunate...but this is what I'm talking about. This Psalm is about one in despair which Jesus was and this demonstrates his humanity. Sproul seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth concerning Psalm 22...is Jesus quoting Scripture or not? Of course He was, and yes it was Psalm 22 which is not by someone completely forsaken by God:

"'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'" This is a quote from Ps. 22:1. Since the Jewish scrolls had no chapter and verse divisions (all of which were added to Bible texts in the middle ages), it seems that by quoting the first verse, Jesus wanted to highlight the entire Psalm.

There is a difference of scholarly opinion on how this phrase should be translated

1. The Septuagint has "O God, My God, attend to me" (which happens in the Psalms)

2. The Peshitta (translated by George M. Lamsa) has

a. Ps. 22:1, "My God, my God, why hast thou let me live?"

b. Mark 15:34, "My God, my God, for this I was spared!"

3. The Jewish Publication Society of America has, Ps. 22:1 as "My God, my God, why have You abandoned me?"

4. Codex Bezae (fifth century) has "My God, my God, why have you reviled me?" For a full discussion of the Gnostic problems connected to this verse see Bart D. Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Affect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, pp. 143-145.

Jesus was experiencing the last full measure of human sin

There are repeated vocative type statements.

1. My God, my God, Ps. 22:1 (the doubling is for intensity)

2. O my God, Ps. 22:2 (Eloh, BDB 43)

3. O Lord, 22:19a (YHWH, BDB 217)

4. O You my help, 22:19b

The psalmist is calling on God in direct address with intensity and passion. They know each other!

Just a note about Jesus quoting the first part of this psalm from the cross, by that He meant (or an inspired gospel writer) for future readers to read the whole psalm. Quoting the first line was a way to denote a context on a Scripture scroll.

NASB, NKJV,
NRSV, NJB"forsaken"
TEV, JPSOA"abandoned"

This verb (BDB 736 I, KB 806, Qal perfect) means to leave or reject by abandoning. The perfect denotes the idea of a settled rejection. In several places the OT uses the term of YHWH rejecting His covenant people and promises (cf. Ps. 119:8; Isa. 54:7; Jer. 7:12; Ezek. 8:12), but thank God for Gen. 28:15 and the second line of Isa. 54:7.

Notice the very personal aspect of this rejection or abandonment (i.e., "me," cf. Matt. 27:46). The psalmist felt alone and betrayed by YHWH. He did not understand why. It was not because of any perceived sin (i.e., omission or commission).

The second line has no verbal. NKJV, NRSV, REB, JPSOA all add "Why are you. . .," making it a question. The psalmist is "groaning" (BDB 980, cf. Job 3:24; Ps. 32:3). The Hebrew word can refer to the roar of a lion (cf. Job 4:10), but here to a human groan of psychological and physical pain and confusion, which fits this context best. The psalmist could not understand why the covenant God had rejected a faithful covenant person (cf. Ps. 22:2).

This terrible sense of alienation, loneliness, and spiritual confession is the result of the Fall (cf. Genesis 3). Mankind, made in YHWH's image and likeness (cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 3:8), has been damaged. The estrangement is terrible. In this case the sense of YHWH's silence is accentuated because the psalmist knew Him. The psalmist could not understand the silence from God and the vicious attack of others! But there was a purpose (i.e., the gospel, cf. Mark 10:45; 2 Cor. 5:21)!

22:2 The psalmist's persistent prayer goes unheard by God or at least He does not apparently respond (cf. Ps. 42:3; 88:1-2).

The second line of Ps. 22:2 is difficult to translate. Literally "there is no silence for me." This could mean

1. he prays all night (NKJV, REB)

2. God remains silent

3. he finds no rest (LXX, TEV, JPSOA)

If this reflects Jesus' future experience, then the last night in the Garden of Gethsemane before His arrest fits best (cf. Matt. 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42).

22:3-5 The psalmist describes God as

1. holy (cf. Ps. 99:9)

2. enthroned upon the praises of Israel (i.e., YHWH dwells between the wings of the Cherubim above the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies)

3. trusted in by the Patriarchs

a. they prayed, He delivered

b. they trusted and were not disappointed (i.e., there is historical precedent to trust in YHWH)


What was the "abandonment" of which Jesus spoke? I know that our faith teaches Jesus was never abandoned by the Father during His Passion - as Persons of the Trinity, it would be a metaphysical impossibility. I have read where some mystics and theologians posit a "virtual" abandonment, where Jesus, in His humanity, subjectively felt abandoned by the Father. But this doesn't feel right to me either. Even when our Lord quoted the first words of Psalm 22 - "My God, my God ..." - He immediately followed them with words of the utmost tenderness, "Father, into Your Hands I commit My Spirit." Any light you could shed on this would be most appreciated.
A reader of this column named Shane sent to me a question that I have taken far too long to answer. Maybe I was just a bit overawed by the depth of the mystery here. He writes:



I had a question regarding one of Jesus' words to St. Faustina in entry 1320 of her Diary: "At three o'clock, implore My mercy, especially for sinners; and, if only for a brief moment, immerse yourself in My Passion, particularly in My abandonment at the moment of agony."

What was the "abandonment" of which Jesus spoke? I know that our faith teaches Jesus was never abandoned by the Father during His Passion - as Persons of the Trinity, it would be a metaphysical impossibility. I have read where some mystics and theologians posit a "virtual" abandonment, where Jesus, in His humanity, subjectively felt abandoned by the Father. But this doesn't feel right to me either. Even when our Lord quoted the first words of Psalm 22 - "My God, my God ..." - He immediately followed them with words of the utmost tenderness, "Father, into Your Hands I commit My Spirit." Any light you could shed on this would be most appreciated.
https://www.thedivinemercy.org/arti... by the depth of the mystery here. He writes:

 

[civic]

I think we need to find some common denominator as to what we actually mean by the word trinity, that is, what our understanding of the Godhead is. I would suggest that there are quite a number of versions of what we believe the Godhead is, and what we believe the trinity doctrine actually encompasses.
Each one of us is answering the OPs question from a different perspective, therefore the conclusions must also be different.
The OP did touch on one aspect of the doctrine that is essential in order to be essentially trinitarian... That all 3 members of the trinity are united in substance and it is believed, cannot be divided. That's the doctrine... But I suggest that the death of the Son and the very real separation between Father and Son at Calvary contradicts the doctrine, meaning the unity aspect of the trinity needs rethinking. This of course touches several other aspects of the Godhead... The divinity of Jesus, the Sonship of Jesus, and the humanity of Jesus. All subjects I am informed that cannot be discussed.

First off I would say they are not "members" of the Trinity, they are persons of the Tri-Unity of the Godhead. Members sound like its a club that others can join. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The Father, Son and Holy Spririt are the One God. By One we mean One in nature, essence, substance or being. There is One Divine nature/being that is 3 in Persons- the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I have a thread I have linked on the Trinity.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-trinity-made-easy.87/

God is a Trinity of persons, a Tri-Unity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are the one God. Each Person has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are qualities or characteristics of personhood. The Trinity is in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance, essence, nature or being. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.

Jesus, the Son, is one Divine Person with two natures: Divine and Human. This is called the Hypostatic Union. The Holy Spirit is also Divine in nature and is self aware, the third person of the Trinity.

The word "person" is used to describe the three of the Godhead because the word "person" is appropriate. A person is self aware, can speak, love, hate, say "you," "yours," "me," "mine," etc. Each of the three Persons in the Trinity demonstrate these qualities.

What is so hard to understand about God being Triune? The Father is not the the Son. The Son is not the the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. God is a Tri-Unity of 3 Persons who are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three gods nor is the Trinity three beings. We call them "Persons" because each one of Them have a will, speak, teach, love, receive praise, prayer, share the same Glory, etc. These are all characteristics of person-hood. They are of one substance, nature, essence or Being. You cannot have the Father without the Son, the Son without the Father, The Son without the Holy Spirit or you would not have the God according to Scripture, you would have a false god or what is known as an idol.

Lets discuss

hope this helps,

 

[civic]

How unfortunate...but this is what I'm talking about. This Psalm is about one in despair which Jesus was and this demonstrates his humanity. Sproul seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth concerning Psalm 22...is Jesus quoting Scripture or not? Of course He was, and yes it was Psalm 22 which is not by someone completely forsaken by God:

Psalm 22:1-31 (NKJV)
1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, And from the words of My groaning?
2 O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; And in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But You are holy, Enthroned in the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in You; They trusted, and You delivered them.
5 They cried to You, and were delivered; They trusted in You, and were not ashamed.
6 But I am a worm, and no man; A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
7 All those who see Me ridicule Me; They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 "He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him; Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!"
9 But You are He who took Me out of the womb; You made Me trust while on My mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon You from birth. From My mother's womb You have been My God.
11 Be not far from Me, For trouble is near; For there is none to help.
12 Many bulls have surrounded Me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
13 They gape at Me with their mouths, Like a raging and roaring lion.
14 I am poured out like water, And all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It has melted within Me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death.
16 For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet;
17 I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me.
18 They divide My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots.
19 But You, O LORD, do not be far from Me; O My Strength, hasten to help Me!
20 Deliver Me from the sword, My precious life from the power of the dog.
21 Save Me from the lion's mouth And from the horns of the wild oxen! You have answered Me.
22 I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise Him! All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him, And fear Him, all you offspring of Israel!
24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from Him; But when He cried to Him, He heard.
25 My praise shall be of You in the great assembly; I will pay My vows before those who fear Him.
26 The poor shall eat and be satisfied; Those who seek Him will praise the LORD. Let your heart live forever!
27 All the ends of the world Shall remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations Shall worship before You.
28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S, And He rules over the nations.
29 All the prosperous of the earth Shall eat and worship; All those who go down to the dust Shall bow before Him, Even he who cannot keep himself alive.
30 A posterity shall serve Him. It will be recounted of the Lord to the next generation,
31 They will come and declare His righteousness to a people who will be born, That He has done this.

This idea that the Trinity experienced some sort of rupture is simply contrary to Historic Doctrines concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation. The idea that Jesus was a "curse" in the eyes of God rather than a perfect, holy sacrifice is mind boggling.

TheLayman

My position especially reading the end where the Psalmist declares in 24:
24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from him;
But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.
The following scriptures affirm that Jesus' relationship with the Father on the cross was still there and not broken.

Psalm 22:24 For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

Luke 23:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

John 16:32 "A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me."

Hebrews 5:7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

Jesus' promise to the thief on the cross that today you will be with Me in Paradise reaffirms Jesus went to be with the Father and not suffer in hell as some teach.

conclusion: When Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 He was actually declaring He was the Messiah. Every Jew know that Messianic Psalm and it was an declaration that He was Gods Messiah. This view fits perfectly with the Tri-Unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The other views divide and cause discord, division and disharmony within the Trinity.

hope this helps !!

 

[TheLayman]

My position especially reading the end where the Psalmist declares in 24:
24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from him;
But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.
The following scriptures affirm that Jesus' relationship with the Father on the cross was still there and not broken.

Psalm 22:24 For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

Luke 23:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

John 16:32 "A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me."

Hebrews 5:7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

Jesus' promise to the thief on the cross that today you will be with Me in Paradise reaffirms Jesus went to be with the Father and not suffer in hell as some teach.

conclusion: When Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 He was actually declaring He was the Messiah. Every Jew know that Messianic Psalm and it was an declaration that He was Gods Messiah. This view fits perfectly with the Tri-Unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The other views divide and cause discord, division and disharmony within the Trinity.

hope this helps !!

Great post civic. So many want to read the first verse of 22 in a wooden literal fashion (a Psalm mind you) and remove it from its context and message. I always tell people to read the entire Psalm, especially 22:24 as you pointed out.

Psalm 22:24 For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

TheLayman

 

[civic]

Great post civic. So many want to read the first verse of 22 in a wooden literal fashion (a Psalm mind you) and remove it from its context and message. I always tell people to read the entire Psalm, especially 22:24 as you pointed out.

Psalm 22:24 For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

TheLayman

Thanks brother

 

[Dizerner]

It must be pointed out that David was not the literal Messiah.

His words were not being used in a 1 to 1 correlation of meaning, his life was not equal to Jesus' life.

Which means there is prophetic symbolism being used here.

 

[TheLayman]

Jesus was experiencing the last full measure of human sin

Hello Johann,

I just wanted to make a quick comment on this line from your post. I don't believe Jesus experienced "human sin," what makes you believe He did?

TheLayman

 

[Johann]

Hello Johann,

I just wanted to make a quick comment on this line from your post. I don't believe Jesus experienced "human sin," what makes you believe He did?

TheLayman

Jesus was the asham offering-and chattat-I did not say Messiah became inherently a
sin-or a sinner-He was the sin-bearer in our stead.

2Co 5:21 The one who in his person had no da'as of chattat (sin) [Ac 3:14; Yn 8:46; MJ 4:15; 7:26; 1K 2:22; 1Y 3:5], this one Hashem made a chattat sin offering [Ga 3:13; YESHAYAH 53:10; VAYIKRA 4:24 TARGUM HASHIVIM] on our behalf that we might become the Tzidkat Hashem [DANIEL 9:24] in Moshiach. [1C 1:30; Pp 3:9] [T.N. In this next chapter Rav Sha’ul warns against associations or worldly influences or fascinations that will contaminate the believer, who should not think he can have both the world’s evil pleasures and the House of G-d’s holy chelek.]

 

[Brakelite]

This 'trinity broken' conversation will never be resolved this side of heaven, for several reasons. There are too many who have a distorted view of death, and as a result, do not actually believe that Jesus died, not do they believe people die. According to most, everyone lives forever, just at a different address. The wages of sin isn't death, it's eternal suffering. It's separation. Jesus was separated, therefore He 'died'.
Not much of a sacrifice though is it. The Son is purportedly still and always will be a part of the trinity, and because the trinity is God, no part of it can really separate, and most certainly can never die. The human part can die, or at least the body, but that's it. Easy peasy right? Life in heaven goes on as it has always been. No sacrifice. No death. Mmm. No atonement either of that's the case.
Sorry, but reconfiguring the meaning of death..."ye shall not surely die" on the sole authority of the father of lies... Means reconfiguring the entire gospel and the personality and make up of God Himself.
Jesus died. Every part of Him. The incarnation itself was an eternal risk. Not just in the beginning of man, but I'm the fact that Christ could save chosen to sin, and if He did, would have lost His eternal existence, and so would we.

The Spirit is not a separate individual being inside the body. If He did not die you are not saved. Oh boy. I can see this conversation going in all directions now. But in order to sustain the popular arguments about death and hell and the Atonement and the wages of sim etc etc, you have to change the natural meaning of words and deny completely the meaning of many more.

 

[Brakelite]

People misunderstand what the word "separation" is intending to mean here.

They think in limited physical terms of our created life, as if my cousin moved overseas and we became "separated," or I "separated" the peel from the banana.

There is relational separation of people living in the same house. You could have a roommate you live with, and say "I just feel like we've become separated." You do not mean that the physical space between you and the person has become greater—you still live in the same place.

See, this is not some kind of physical separation we are talking about. God is ontologically everywhere; by definition nothing can be "separated" from him in any ultimate sense. Hell is not "separation" from God, for then God could not inflict his wrath, he wouldn't be there.

So we are taking about a separation of fellowship, not ontology or location; we are talking about being separated from a positive relationship, from experiencing the subjectively experienced positive things from God, the experience of his goodness.

So we can clearly see it was a broken fellowship and not a broken ontology on the Cross, and "turning away God's face" or "not looking at sin," has never meant an ontological separation, as even Satan is said be tormented in the very presence of the Lamb and his angels.

No rewrite necessary for God's classical attributes here.

You are focusing on separation whereas we should be focusing on the meaning of death. When Jesus "gave up the ghost"...a horrible translation... Surrendered His Spirit, which is essentially His life, He died. He didn't separate at death if what people think the Spirit to be an animated being independent of the body is true.
Did the Spirit return to the Father as per scripture?
Did the Spirit go to hell as per scripture ? Is the Father in hell?
The above contradiction lies not in scripture, but in people's understanding of what the spirit is... What hell is... What death is. And if God is the only source of life... Which He is... And one is separated from Him in death... Which you are... Then from whence comes the life necessary to feel the pain of torment? I know where the life comes from in order to know the joys of heaven, but where does the life comes from to be miserable and grumpy in a place of torment? Is it also a gift? I don't see that in scripture.

 

[Dizerner]

And one is separated from Him in death...

Nothing can be separated from God in a literal sense, God is in all realities for all times.

That was my whole point.

 

[Brakelite]

Nothing can be separated from God in a literal sense, God is in all realities for all times.

That was my whole point.

Pantheism?

 

[civic]

Pantheism?

maybe who knows lol

You are right though the definition/meaning of the Trinity is Tri-Unity. Separation and being forsaken is no longer Unity but brokeness, disunity, disfunction, unloving etc...... Some of these people even treach the Father killed His Beloeved Son, Its blasphemy. Its what many who teach the heretical doctrine of PSA ( Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement ) espouse.

I use to believe this heresy myself for over 4 decades as a former Calvinist. The doctrine was developed during the Reformation period.

 

[Dizerner]

Pantheism?

Non sequitur?

That is not the correct definition. I never said God IS creation.

 

[Dizerner]

maybe who knows lol

Yeah, who even knows, it's not like words have real definitions or anything.

Who knows!

 

[civic]

Yeah, who even knows, it's not like words have real definitions or anything.

Who knows!

another out of context quote.

You are right though the definition/meaning of the Trinity is Tri-Unity. Separation and being forsaken is no longer Unity but brokeness, disunity, disfunction, unloving etc...... Some of these people even treach the Father killed His Beloeved Son, Its blasphemy. Its what many who teach the heretical doctrine of PSA ( Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement ) espouse.

 

[Dizerner]

another out of context quote.

Nothing about that was out of context.

You put that response to accusing me of Pantheism.

Nothing I said indicated that.