Written by Matthew Y. Emerson and Brandon D. Smith |
Monday, September 16, 2024
Jesus’s lament comes in a covenantal context, a context in which he is the messianic Son chosen by Yahweh to deliver his people Israel by suffering on their behalf. God pours out his wrath on Jesus, yes, but as his anointed Son who suffers in his people’s place. Further, if we consider the other crucifixion scenes where different portions of Psalm 22 are either quoted or alluded to (e.g., Matt. 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19), we see that they record various ways Jesus fulfills this psalm, pointing us back to the point that Jesus likely had the whole psalm in mind.

“The Father Turned His Face Away”?
The crucifixion is a good case study in showing how a careful Trinitarian framework can help work through thorny issues related to the Trinity and salvation. Not only does it bring to the surface the difficult question of what the Father was “doing” (or not doing) while Jesus hung on the cross, but it also raises the question of the Spirit’s seeming absence during the event.
When Jesus quotes Psalm 22 on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34), what does this mean? Thomas McCall helpfully frames the issue surrounding this “cry of dereliction”:
Such a question surely comes from someone who has been unfaithful—and who now blames God for their abandonment. . . . But this question, of course, does not come from someone who has been unfaithful. It does not come from a pious person who simply isn’t theologically astute enough to know better. It comes from the lips of none other than Jesus Christ. It comes from the one who has been utterly faithful. It comes from the one of whom the Father said, “This is my beloved Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). It comes from the one who is the eternal Logos (John 1:1), the second person of the Trinity. So these words ring out like a thunderbolt.1
Did the Father turn his face away? Put another way, was there some sort of break or rupture between the persons of the Trinity on that fateful day on Golgotha? These answers require carefully handling the biblical text and retrieving sound theological method from the early church. Unfortunately, though a beautiful hymn, lyrics from “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us” have perhaps shaped our view of this verse as much as or more than the biblical text and Christian history.
In popular Christianity, lyrics such as those found in this contemporary hymn are often taken to confirm what many already suspect about the cross, that it is a moment of separation between the Father and the Son. The cry of dereliction in such songs is Jesus’s cry of abandonment, meant to communicate an existential angst, a torment of soul rooted in some kind of spiritual distance between the incarnate Son and his heavenly Father due to the latter’s wrath being poured out. To say it a bit differently, many view the cross as a moment in which the Father pours out his personal wrath on the Son, and this is felt by the Son at a spiritual level and communicated via the cry of dereliction. Let’s briefly work through the issues with the ultimate goal of understanding the unity and distinction in the Godhead. Three considerations help us.
First, there is a Trinitarian consideration: anything we say about the cry of dereliction needs to retain the oneness of the Godhead, both with respect to rejecting any ontological or relational division between Father and Son and with respect to affirming inseparable operations. The cross does not produce division between Father and Son, and it is not only the Father who acts in the crucifixion. It is appropriate to talk about the Father pouring out his wrath, but according to the doctrine of appropriations, ascribing an action to one person of the Trinity does not deny that the other persons are acting inseparably. It is not only the Father that pours out wrath; the Son and the Spirit, as the other two persons of the one God, also pour out the one wrath of the one God. It is, after all, God’s wrath against sin spoken of all throughout Scripture.
On the other hand, we also remember that the Father sent the Son; he did not send himself. The Spirit was active in the incarnation at conception but did not himself put on flesh. So we need to dispel any notions of other Trinitarian persons dying on the cross. This helps us avoid the ancient heresy of patripassianism—the teaching that the Father himself became incarnate and suffered on the cross. Moreover, since we know that God is immutable and incapable of change (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8), it would certainly jeopardize fundamental affirmations about the doctrine of God to assert that the cross initiated a complete three-day (or even a one-millisecond) loss of Trinitarian relations.
One Person, Two Natures
Second, there is a Christological consideration: anything we say about the cry of dereliction needs to retain the oneness of the person of Jesus Christ. He is one person with two natures, divine and human, and he goes to the cross as one person. He is not half God and half man, but rather fully God and fully man. 
Read More
Related Posts:

The decline of the church choir has removed one of the most visible models of unity on display in our local churches. Week in and out, vibrant church choirs model unity as the body of Christ in worship leadership. 

Chorus America, a nationally known advocacy, research and leadership development organization that supports the choral arts, has written much on the benefits of singing. Most recently, an article came out in June 2019 that lauds the benefits of singing for a lifetime. After first reading this article and the major findings of the story, I was encouraged by the increase in choral participation in America.
At the same time I was reading this article, I was discussing with friends across the nation about the continued decline of choirs in churches all over the nation. I don’t want to list the myriad of reasons why choirs are declining in our churches because they are vast and many. However, if the current Chorus America research that suggests that choral singing in America is not declining, maybe our churches shouldn’t assume that no one wants to sing in a choir.While the article mentions the benefits of singing to increase quality of life, physical health, greater activity in churches and community, and stronger relationships, I want to focus on a few items that stick out to me as it pertains to why church choirs should be an integral part of the intergenerational church:Further, with many singers actively singing in a choir, our churches shouldn’t assume that no one wants to listen to a choir either. What I found interesting is that the authors indicated in the last 10 years, attendance has declined in church worship as well as social clubs, while choral participation has done just the opposite.
First, 43 million American adults and 11 million children are singing in choirs today.That’s a total of 54 million Americans. Please remind me why naysayers say no one without white hair wants to hear or participate in a choir? In fact, this research suggests that having choirs will increase participation in any organization, whether community, school or church. The researchers also find an increase in participation in choral singing to 17% from 14% since 2008.
Second, the key to lifelong singing is starting when children are young. The findings show that both schools and faith communities that have graded choir programs produce the greatest number of students who will become lifelong singers. I’m convinced that churches that cease to invest in fully graded choirs from preschool through students will never have a strong adult program.
Third, having a choir might actually increase your attendance in your faith community. In every church I’ve been a part of, the music ministry participants are among the more faithful and more committed to corporate worship. I believe people are more committed when they have a place and reason to serve.
Read More

Regardless of how dark it seems around us, our calling is to live differently. It does not have to be out loud, trying to drown out the cacophony of sound in the political space – but we thank God for those who are there! But if we all pay attention to the ‘millions of small and tedious good deeds’ every day, so that those around us can see charity in action, it will make a difference. That is our job, in which we can celebrate with joy. It is also why God chose a ‘peculiar people’– to show how we are made to live.

We appear to live in times that seem to be harder for those of us who wish to live out our Christian faith in public. Although as I reflect back across my over sixty years, the marginalisation started for me in the late 1960’s. The early sixties were fine because in my local government primary school, it was taken for granted that our moral code was based on Biblical principles. It was like we lived by the ‘second tablet’ of the Ten Commandments (about ethical life together) even if not everyone held to the ‘first tablet’ (about putting the Creator God in His rightful place).
But then came high school. I and a friend were the two shortest in a cohort of over 240 students. But I was the only one who would ask ‘God questions’ (now known to me as ‘deep’ or ‘philosophical enquiry’). That was enough to see me picked on in some way, including being hit (normally by a group – bullies need that reassurance to act).
What followed was university. That was in 1974. My first year was a blur because I had no idea what I was doing (being the first one in my family to have that opportunity). By second year, the questions started coming back to me, and I looked forward to asking them in a place of ‘higher learning’. But if I asked in Psychology or Sociology something like, “So professor X, can you please explain what you think are the ‘parts’ that make us humans who we are?”, the response was always the same: “We are not here to discuss that.” Or if I asked in Industrial Relations (in an honour group no less), “So what do you Marxists or Capitalists think drives people deep down, so that your theories will work?”, I got the same answer.
So by the mid-1970s, if my experience is anything to go by, the academic world in Australia had let go of thinking and discussing deeper philosophical aspects of human life – personal and social.
But in discussing this recently with a friend, who has been involved in higher education for a significant time, I came to understand that this tactic of ‘ignoring the question’ had shifted for many of our young people. These days, asking these kinds of questions is more likely to result in them being harassed, or if asked via social media, cancelled. Their teachers are more likely to face the same consequences.
Read More
Related Posts: