When the wrath of God was poured out for our sins, was the Son of God separated from the Trinity? - Michael Reeves - Ask Ligonier

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------

This contradictory and superficial answer is largely useless. Mr. Reeves appears confused. And, he doesn't bother with the Bible.

-----------------
When the wrath of God was poured out for our sins, was the Son of God separated from the Trinity?

Absolutely not. We do not see a breakdown of the relationship between the Father and the Son in the sense that the Trinity is somehow breaking apart. That is not what is going on. 

The language of separation that is used, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me,” describes being under the wrath of God and being separated from the presence of His graciousness. (No, it does not. Oddly, Mr. Reeves refuses, then takes right back, the idea that Jesus was separated from the Father. But more importantly, Jesus was never separated from the Father. He was never under the wrath of God. And, there is no Scripture that discusses "the presence of His graciousness.")

Ultimately, there is nowhere to escape from the presence of God for anyone who is under His wrath. (Was Jesus trying to escape from God's wrath? Whaaat?)

Something quite unique happens at the cross—the eternally beloved One has the wrath of God poured out on Him. (He repeats his assertion but still doesn't document it...)

He’s never known that before, but He remains the eternal Son. He’s not suddenly split apart from His Father. (Waaait. The author tries to have it both ways. Was Jesus forsaken or not? Is there some difference between being "split apart" and being "separated from the presence of His graciousness?"

Where do we find any of this in the Bible?

Or, perhaps, Mr. Reeves is mistaken. If the wrath of God was not poured out on Jesus, but rather Jesus was the carrier of the burden of our sin to the cross, then Jesus was not in anguish from being separated from the Father. He was never separated in any sense at all.

Instead, Jesus quoted the first line of Psalm 22 for another reason: It is a messianic psalm, where several of its prophecies were being fulfilled at that very moment. Jesus was pointing to the psalm for the fulfillment of the prophecies.

The psalmist himself contradicts Mr. Reeves in vs. 24: For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help. What this means is Mr. Reeves has taken a misunderstanding about the words Jesus spoke and created a whole doctrine out of it.

See our thorough discussion of this here.)

It is an utterly unique moment in their relationship, but He still remains the eternal Son.



This is a transcript of Michael Reeves’ answer given during our 2016 National Conference, and has been lightly edited for readability. To ask Ligonier a biblical or theological question, just visit Ask.Ligonier.org or message us on Facebook or Twitter.