@Joe and @Who-me , i will tell why i raised this question, I based my answer on your previous posts. Here me out brothers, lets engage in a respectful discussion on this matter. Since its a very important matter, I will discuss
@SincereSeeker, pls check this out also
Here me out.
I will tell first the meaning of “ontological” since its going to me used more and more. Ontology refers to the nature or essence of something, especially God’s being.
Let’s dive
There was no separation within the Trinity- whether be ontological or RELATIONAL
TO state that “Jesus was spiritually separated from the Father” or that “the connection between Father and Son was broken” implies either
A division in the divine essence (which is indivisible)
or
A schism in the hypostatic union between the divine and human natures of Christ.
Both position are explicitly condemned by the creeds and councils of the universal church
because
God’s essence is inseparable
as seen in
“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one”- Deuteronomy 6:4
“I and the Father are one”- John 10:30
“God is not man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind.”- Numbers 23:19
To assert separation in the Trinity is to introduce composition and change into God, which violates divine simplicity and immutability, two non-negotiable attributes of God affirmed by Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and the entirety of classical theism. The Divine essence is not composed of parts or subject to temporal conditions like alienation or relational fracture. To assert otherwise is to affirm a mutable God, which is a metaphysical impossibility and the Scripture clearly says, “God cannot be changed”.
2. Habakkuk 1:13: understand
@Joe referenced Habakkuk 1:13 as “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil” as though this proves that the Father cannot “look upon” the Son when He bore sin. This is a category error; Habakkuk is making a poetic lament, not a doctrinal declaration of divine incapacity. The verse is rhetorical, the prophet is confused as to why God appears to tolerate the wicked, despite His holiness. If we were to take Joe’s interpretation literally, then:
God could not see Adam after the Fall, coz Adam sinned
God could not look at Israel in her rebellion coz Israel sinned (Exodus 32)
God could not be present in a sinful world coz we have sinned (Psalm 139:7-12)
And yet, God is both omniscient and omnipresent. He sees all, he knows all, and saves sinners while they are in their sin (Romans 5:8) To claim that the Father “could not look upon the Son during atonement” is to suggest a temporary suspension of divine omniscience or presence.
4. I have explained it before, I’m explaining it now, once again.
**Christ did not “become sin” ontologically
To claim “Jesus..became sin…”
This likely stems from 2 Cor 5:21
“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us…”
But to interpret it literally, that Jesus became sin itself is a misreading. If u read the greek bible, ur confusion will be cleared as the Greek phrase is ἁμαρτία (hamartia), which contextually means sin offering.
Calvin, Chrysostom and Athanasius all agree, this doesn’t mean Christ became sinful or sin personified, but rather bore sin judicially, as a substitutionary offering, remaining perfectly righteous
There is a perfect quote from John Calvin which clears all confusion.
“He was made a sin offering, not made sinful.” – John Calvin
there is a difference between sin offering and sin and if u want to discuss than, the just mention me I will discuss that too, if the difference between sin and sin offering is not clearly evident from just reading levitcus and exodus and the whole of the bible.
To claim otherwise is to violate the integrity of Christ’s person, threatening the sinlessness of the Lamb of God (1 Peter 1:19 and Hebrews 4:15) and thus compromising the sufficiency of the atonement.
Next topic
The Cry “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” is not a statement of ontological separation, and refer to the meaning of ontology I gave before if your not familiar with this word “ontology”
This verse of
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – Matthew 27:46
THis must be interpreted within the context of Psalm 22, which Christ is quoting. The psalm begins with anguish but ends with unshaken trust and vindication as:
“He has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted… He has not hidden His face from him, but has heard.” – Psalm 22:24
Jesus is not declaring ontological abandonment here, He is identifying with human despair under judgement, fulfilling prophecy, and expressing the emotional agony of bearing wrath, not a metaphysical separation from the Godhead
As I said before, God is Trinity, and its eternal, indivisible, and immutable, and it will never change, even for a nanosecond, no matter what answers and opposition are given.
Let’s go to the MOST important point
Jesus never ceased to be in union with the Father, even at the cross, and was never separated, not even for a second
As in
“For in Him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily.”– Colossians 2:9
“The Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” – John 14:10–11
Even on the cross, the fullness of the Godhead was present in Christ. Even in death, the divine union was never suspended. To imply otherwise is (I’m not judging anyone, and don’t get me wrong, I’m sorry but this is what i learnt) similar to the arguments Nestorius made, because he separated the divine and human nature of Christ. Can @Who-me pls clarify this quote? i didn’t understand what it means, I’m just learning. This quote is pretty confusing, pls clarify this my friend.
. But the Council of Chalcedon affirmed that
“The same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably…”
From what i understand from that statement and the quote as a whole of
What i can give as a counter is
Trinity is not ‘a thing’ it is one God, in three co-equal, co-eternal persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit
I’m waiting for your clarification on this quote, because saying
“God and the Spirit do not have physical bodies” is true if I take it in the literal sense, but
It risks making Jesus less divine, as He has a body
It may suggest spiritual is not physical, it’s wrong, because this will imply the Incarnate Logos is excluded from Godhead.
Perichoresis is a theological term. When u read the bible, u get to know, the Father, Son and Spirit are in eternal communion. Not even for a split second can anything disturb this equilibrium, even if it be Jesus taking human flesh, the equilibrium is still maintained, even at the time when Jesus said “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?”
Then
During The Atonment, it didn’t only include the sacrifice of the Son, but rather ALL the three Persons are active in the atonement
The Father sends the Son (John 3:16)
The Son offers Himself willingly (Hebrews 9:14)
The Spirit sustains and empowers Him (Hebrews 9:14)
If there were even a momentary fracture in the Trinity during the cross, then the atonement would be invalid and salvation would collapse, but praise God, the Trinity is Not vulnerable to emotional schism, temporal separation or metaphyscial rupture, as I said before, the Trinity is eternal, indivisible and immutable.
Pls clarify so I may get a better understanding @Joe and @Who-me, but pls read my answers, even if it may be too long, but it takes quite a lot to answer such theological questions.