My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Matthew 27:46
Matthew 27:46 is crucial for Divine Abuse’s theology because its proponents interpret it as if God the Father effectively “kicked Jesus out” of the Trinity.
According to the “Penal Substitution” logic, it is believed that God, who allegedly detests sin and sinners alike, cannot coexist with sinners or even behold them. As a result, He must distance Himself from humanity, which is deemed unworthy of His love and deserving solely of His wrath. In essence, separation from God is necessary to prevent His wrath from destroying us. According to David Platt:
To be a Christian is to realize that in your sin, you were separated from God’s presence, and you deserved nothing but God’s wrath.
David Platt
By now, it should be obvious that I strongly disagree with David Platt’s Calvinistic interpretation of what it means to be a Christian and his portrayal of the gospel. Regardless, for Penal Substitution, this moment is seen as the climax of the gospel message where God’s wrath is poured out on Jesus as if God could no longer bear to look at His Son due to the weight of (human) sin he bore. For advocates of this theology, this verse represents the Father’s supposed excommunication of the Son. According to reformed Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem:
Jesus was finally cut off from the sweet fellowship with his heavenly father…who is of purer eyes than to behold evil.
Wayne Grudem
The Father is of purer eyes than to behold…Jesus? Indeed, within Calvinist doctrine, it is held that because Jesus took upon our sins, the Father could not bear to look upon Him, detested him, and had no choice but to expel him from the Trinity.
In other words, Divine Abuse believes that the relationship within the Godhead between the Father and the Son was broken, as Jesus:
Had to undergo the horrible experience of separation between him and his father. An experience that is the lot of every sinner.
Ken “Noam” Hendren
In the same way, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, James Merritt, explains:
Because of our sin, Jesus experienced total separation, complete isolation, and resolute condemnation from God.
James Merritt
In summary, Divine Abuse’s twisted logic goes something like this:
- Sin fills God with anger, hate, and wrath toward humanity.
- As a penalty, God must separate Himself from mankind to avoid destroying it.
- The Son substituted humanity’s penalty by taking that separation upon himself, absorbing the Father’s hate, anger, and wrath in our place.
- In doing so, God saved us—from Himself.
Regrettably, these concepts are being aggressively disseminated through books, pulpits, videos, and online platforms, instilling fear and confusion among millions globally, all purportedly in the name of “Christianity.”
How Divine Abuse Abuses the Godhead
Not all Christian denominations and groups subscribe to the same understanding of the Trinity as many Protestants do. In my observation, the more conservative individuals tend to elevate the doctrine of the Trinity, deeming it essential to the extent of asserting that salvation is contingent upon adherence to this belief. Ironically, these same individuals are associated with a doctrine that is highly antagonistic to the Trinity, in which one part despises and punishes another, effectively expelling it from the Trinity and temporarily reducing it to a “Binity” of two-in-one.
For instance, according to reformed-Baptist pastor and member of “The Gospel Coalition,” Thabiti Anyabwile:
Spiritual wrath from the Father occurs deep down in the very godhead itself…. Something was torn in the very fabric of the relationship between Father and Son.… The ancient, eternal fellowship between Father and Son was broken as divine wrath rained down like a million Soddoms and Gomorrahs. In the terror and agony of it all, Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Thabiti Anyabwile
Divine Abuse theology portrays—and promotes—a God who is angry not only with the world but also with Himself—expelling, punishing, torturing, excommunicating, and hating Himself. Its proponents, whether Baptists, Calvinists, Evangelicals, or other fundamentalists, claim this as the true gospel, insisting that individuals rejecting it will end up eternally tormented in hellfire.
Tritheism
Divine Abuse suggests that the Father could betray the Son, despise him, inflict suffering upon him, and sever him from the Godhead. This portrays the Trinity as if it were a trio of separate gods who generally coexist harmoniously but are autonomous and could betray one another if desired. However, this notion is actually an ancient heresy known as tritheism, dating back to the 7th century.
According to Professor of Systematic Theology Thomas H. McCall:
The “broken Trinity” and “God against God” views run aground on the doctrines of divine impassibility and simplicity as well as the doctrine of the Trinity. According to Christian orthodoxy, it is not even a possibility that the Trinity was broken. If we know anything about the Trinity, we know that God is one God in three persons, and we know that God’s life is necessarily the life of holy love shared in the eternal communion of the Father, Son, and Spirit. To say that the Trinity is broken—even “temporarily”—is to imply that God does not exist.
Thomas H. McCall
Likewise, theologian Joshua M. McNall explains:
To pit the Father against the Son runs afoul not only of the God’s loving character but also of the doctrine of the Trinity…. The Father is not punishing the Son. Rather, the Father, Son, and Spirit are working in perfect harmony to bring forth salvation.
Joshua M. McNall
Likewise, John Stott, a world-famous theologian, stated:
We must not, then, speak of God punishing Jesus or of Jesus persuading God, for to do so is to set them over against each other.
John Stott
According to Trinitrian theology, the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each wholly and together possess the divine essence. They cannot hate, punish, or harm one another. According to the Scriptures, the source of life is God (John 5:26). God, by definition, cannot die—not even for a single second. Therefore, any break, split, or separation between the Father and the Son would imply that the Son died not only physically as Jesus on the cross but also spiritually as the Son. Thus, claiming that one of the persons within the Triune God ceased or died, even momentarily, must be considered a first-degree heresy by those adhering to Trinitarianism.
In contrast to fundamentalists, I don’t believe God casts someone into hell for having heretical theology. If He did, though, I have a feeling the Calvinists would be the first to go.
Allow me to present a short story to illustrate the absurdity of Divine Abuse theology.
The Téleios family
The Téleios family was known for being perfectly and eternally united. Their household was flawless in every possible way. Because of this, the Téleios family, admired for their unparalleled love and unity, was chosen to lead their town. Their leadership was meant to serve as a model, inspiring other families to live harmoniously. The Téleios household—father, mother, and son—lived together in perfect and everlasting harmony, setting the standard for everyone around them. Many believed that the very unity of the Téleios family was the pillar holding the entire town together, especially in difficult times. In fact, the identity and well-being of the neighborhood’s people were closely tied to the Téleios family’s harmony.
However, one cold winter day, the Téleios’ next-door neighbors, the Israelite family, were causing trouble. They created such chaos that Father Téleios became upset. As their misbehavior continued, his frustration grew into a rage so intense that he felt he needed to release his pent-up anger against the Israelite family. But since Father Téleios also loved them, he decided to take his anger out differently instead: He tied his son to a tree outside, nailed him, pulled out his belt, and severely beat him until his wrath was finally satisfied.
Hearing of this shocking event, you, a neighbor down the block, rushed over to find out what had happened. To your disbelief, not only was the son brutally beaten by his father but he had also been cast out of the house, left to spend three severely cold nights in the streets, bruised and injured. To your confusion, Father Téleios explained that this was the only way he could spare the Israelite family from his wrath. You left the house confused and unsettled.
The next day, you saw a group of people approaching the Téleios home, singing praises: “How great is Father Téleios’ love for us, for he tortured, abused, and cast out his son to spare us! For when Téleios the son was beaten, the father’s wrath was satisfied!”
Utterly shocked by the spectacle, you picked up the phone, called for a U-Haul, and fled the neighborhood to the city of Secularium.
Will you, as an ex-member of the neighborhood, still consider the Téleios family to be a family perfectly and eternally united in love? Of course not. You would be online filling out a form and submitting it to Child Protective Services. What kind of logic is it that a father would torture his good and innocent son and then kick him out of the house because others down the block were acting up? And if this truly happened in the cosmic realm, what kind of an example does that set for us? Should we also abuse our innocent children when their siblings act up and cause trouble?
Modern-day Heresy
The doctrines of Divine Abuse, such as Penal Substitution, merit reevaluation. It is inconceivable for God to harbor hatred or hold anger towards Himself. If the Trinity is a reality, then the excommunication of one Person within the Godhead from the others would be as impossible as severing your head from your body without consequence. According to theology professor Glenn Kreider:
God could hardly forsake himself without going against his own word and destroying the harmony and unity in the Godhead. The doctrine of the trinity is the most compelling reason to reject the popular teaching that on the cross, the Father rejected his Son.
Glenn Kreider
Should the bond among the Trinity’s members be severed, it would constitute a profound and radical doctrine alien to the Biblical narrative. Consequently, one might anticipate this concept to be disclosed within the scriptures, particularly the epistles. However, this is not the case; not once. Divine Abuse theology is based merely on a few ambiguous verses, all taken out from their context. Theologian Thomas McCall concludes:
There is no biblical evidence that the Father-Son communion was somehow ruptured on that day. Nowhere is it written that the Father was angry with the Son. Nowhere can we read that God “curses him to the pit of hell.” Nowhere is it written that Jesus absorbs the wrath of God by taking the exact punishment that we deserve. In no passage is there any indication that God’s wrath is “infinitely intense” as it is poured out on Jesus.
Thomas McCall
Similarly, the renowned theologian Thomas F. Torrance, best known for his contributions to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, stated:
The Father and the Son are one in the Holy Trinity. Hence nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from his love, any more than anything can separate the Father and the Son from one another.
Thomas F. Torrance
Matthew 27:46
So why did Jesus call, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” and in what way was he forsaken?
The first hint comes immediately after, as Matthew mentions one more prayer that occurred probably within minutes. In verse 50, we read: “When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.” It is in Luke’s parallel gospel that we find the content of that additional prayer:
Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”
Luke 23:46
“Into your hands” does not evoke a sense of separation. Rather, it conjures the embrace of a tender, gentle, loving parent or a hen sheltering her chick beneath her wings. Luke depicts the poignant scene of an individual drawing their final breath while cradled in the arms of a beloved, contrasting sharply with the image of an angry, vengeful God unleashing fury on Jesus and expelling him from the divine fellowship.
For illustration’s sake, consider a father with two sons, the younger of whom is afflicted with a fatal disease. Tests indicate that he could only survive by receiving his older brother’s blood, a process that would result in the older brother’s death. The older brother willingly volunteers to give all his blood to save his sibling, thus sacrificing his own life. As the older brother lies in his final moments, his father stays by his side, holding him, listening to his cries, weeping alongside him, and partaking in his agony. For the younger son to live, the father must not interfere. He has to “forsake” his eldest, allowing the medical staff to extract his blood until he passes away while holding him in his arms. In this admittedly unscientific analogy, our “big brother,” Jesus, sacrificed himself so that his blood might give us life.
The theological implications of interpreting Matthew 27:46 through the Calvinistic lens of ‘Divine Abuse’ are profoundly disturbing. Moreover, to impose a doctrine about the dynamics within the Godhead based on this single verse is to overlook the central message of Matthew entirely. According to theologian Fred Sanders:
In context, these particular words of Jesus on the cross don’t put the Father-Son relation in focus. Other prayers from the cross do: “Father, forgive them” and “Father, receive my spirit,” for instance. But for some reason, it is the words “why have you forsaken me” that have caught the modern imagination as having something special to say about the Father-Son relation. You can hear this presupposition in the way people paraphrase the cry of dereliction: On the cross, they say, the Father turned his back on the Son; the Son cried out to the Father; the fellowship between the Father and the Son was somehow eclipsed…. But by surfacing the Father-Son relation here, we accidentally conjure the error that has been aptly labelled the “broken Trinity” view. And that–the notion that God came apart into constituent person-pieces, broke up, got by for a while on two-thirds of deity, mystically divorced, untrinitied for one long, lost weekend–really only needs to be stated clearly in order for most Christian people to recognize it as nonsense and reject it as false.”
Fred Sanders
Still, Divine Abuse advocates claim that Matthew 27:46 suggests a grand cosmic rift between the Father and the Son. But is that the real scoop? Time to dive in and discover the truth… The remainder of this chapter will examine Matthew 27:46, not in isolation but through the lens of inner-textuality.
What is Inner-textuality?
In the 2022 Lanier Theological Library panel discussion on the topic of atonement, which occasionally escalated into a debate, theologian Jeannine Brown spent a few minutes challenging the concept of Divine Abuse or “Penal Substitution,” a doctrine suggesting a cosmic rift within the Trinity between the Father and the Son. In a retort, theologian Roger E. Olson cited the brief scripture, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Following this, and as if Brown was unfamiliar with the verse, Olson fell silent, displaying a confident smile as if he had decisively clinched the debate with that single verse.
Dr. Micah Goodman, a renowned Israeli-Jewish author and scholar, is the offspring of a Christian mother and a Jewish father. In one of his lectures, Goodman explained how he noticed Christians often quote a verse to conclude debates, whereas Jews quote to set discussions in motion. It appears Goodman has discerned that many Christians approach scriptures as a textbook or manual, while Jews view the Bible as a narrative where no verse stands on its own.
In my interactions with Christians, I, too, have often observed them trying to prevail in debates by citing a verse. This contrasts with the Jewish approach of ‘Inner-Textuality’ in interpreting verses. Inner-textuality is more than just examining the immediate context. It is understanding a text’s meaning through another related text, either through deliberate compositional strategies such as quotation, allusion, etc., or by interconnections between similar or related works.
This approach in biblical hermeneutics focuses on how various parts of the Bible refer to, interpret, or build upon other passages within the Bible itself. It explores how texts within the Bible interact with each other, either by quoting, alluding to, or expanding on previous scriptural references. Inner-textuality seeks to understand the deeper connections within the biblical canon, revealing layers of meaning as later texts build on earlier ones.
For instance, many prophetic books, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, refer back to the Exodus story, using it as a symbol of God’s deliverance and a promise of future redemption (e.g., Isaiah 43:16-19). Another example is Psalm 110:1, which is frequently quoted in the New Testament, such as in Matthew 22:44 and Hebrews 1:13, to emphasize Jesus’ messianic authority and role at God’s right hand.
With that in mind, let’s consider the often-ignored connection between Jesus’ prayer in Matthew 27:46 and Psalm 22.
***
Psalm 22
Many Christians may not be aware that Jesus’ utterance in Matthew 27:46 is a verbatim word-by-word quotation of King David’s words in Psalm 22. This is not a mere coincidence; the link to Psalm 22 is vital for comprehending the significance of Jesus’ words.
In today’s world, where English translations of the Bible are segmented into chapters and verses, one can simply refer to “Psalm 22” to guide someone to that passage. However, the early Hebrew manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible lacked such divisions. In those times, there were no numbered chapters and verses as we know them. Thus, if Jesus wished to direct his listeners to what we recognize as Psalm 22, he would have done so by reciting the opening lines of that Psalm, as was customary among the Jews:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Matthew 27:46
↓ ↓ ↓
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Psalm 22:1
To comprehend what Jesus meant by being “forsaken,” it is necessary to examine Psalm 22. Psalm 22 is considered a messianic prophecy that prefigures the Messiah’s sufferings. Notably, the Psalm elucidates how Jesus was forsaken and identifies those responsible for the Messiah’s rejection, suffering, and torment. The initial verses of Psalm 22 depict a righteous individual scorned, mocked, and derided by adversaries while God seemingly withholds aid. However, starting with verse 22, there is a dramatic shift as the previously afflicted individual is resurrected by God and granted dominion over the earth.
Psalm 22 opens with a portrayal of despair, as the righteous one is not saved by the only one capable of rescuing him from malefactors. However, it concludes with a victorious note, celebrating a God who ultimately delivers and, through resurrection, undoes the prior acts. Numerous books and papers have been written to affirm the application of Psalm 22 in Matthew 27, but here is one example:
They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.
Psalm 22:18
They divided his garments among them by casting lots.
Matthew 27:35
And another:
All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads.
Psalm 22:7
And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads.
Matthew 27:39
And another:
He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!
Psalm 22:8
He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, “I am the Son of God.”
Matthew 27:43
Thus, by citing the opening of Psalm 22, Jesus was highlighting the full scope of the Psalm, which starts with anguish inflicted by evil men and concludes with redemption by a benevolent God through resurrection. Theologian Craig Keener explains:
Here Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1, which may have been part of the Scripture recitation at this time of day. His opponents do not pause to consider that the psalm ends with the sufferer’s vindication and triumph (Ps. 22:25–31).
Psalm 22, verse 1, is also where we find the answer to the question we are so eager to figure out—in what way was Jesus forsaken?
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish?
Psalm 22:1
The same cry for help is repeated again in verse 11:
Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.
Psalm 22:11
There’s no need for further speculation. The answer has been waiting in the second half of the verse Jesus quoted all along, indicating that Messiah’s suffering was caused by humans, not by God. “There is no help” means that God is “far from saving” him. It’s clear that God only “forsook” Messiah in the sense that He became passive, allowing him to endure suffering and death at the hands of evil men. God did not inflict harm on Jesus; He simply did not intervene to save Him.
The Suffering Messiah
Psalm 22:14-17 continues to detail the afflictions of this righteous individual vividly:
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet—I can count all my bones—they stare and gloat over me;
Psalm 22:14-17
One does not require expertise in the biblical commentary to recognize the clear echoes and references to the agonizing details in Psalm 22 that resonate with the events of the crucifixion: the sweating, the dislocation of bones as the body succumbs to exhaustion on the cross, the potential heart rupture; the severe dehydration. Now, who—according to the text—caused this? “Evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet.” Humans were responsible for inflicting harm, abuse, and torture upon Christ, not God. Had God been the cause of Jesus’s anguish, and had Jesus been aware of it, we might expect him to cry out, “My God, My God, why are you inflicting this pain on me? Why are you subjecting me to such suffering?” Yet, Jesus uttered no such words. He was, however, aware that Psalm 22 depicted what he was enduring — a prophecy being fulfilled in his own body — and he desired its recognition by all.
Death is an experience shared by all created beings but not by the Creator, for whom death is alien. Death stands in stark contrast to God’s nature, which is life itself, as God is the origin of all life. Thus, if Christ was God’s incarnated Son, then to undergo physical death, to Him, was as unnatural as a fish attempting to climb a sequoia tree. On the cross, Jesus encountered a sensation he had never before experienced, which could explain his severe anxiety during his last day.
Ordinary people, when they sin, are stricken with guilt and shame. Jesus, having never sinned, nonetheless bore our sins (1 Peter 2:24; 2 Corinthians 5:21). It is conceivable that in doing so, he was burdened with an immense sense of our human guilt and shame. Perhaps he bore witness to every misdeed committed by humanity, feeling, among other strong emotions, all the associated shame and guilt. Despite possibly being confronted with our sins from all times, Jesus’s heart harbored no anger or desire for vengeance; instead, his plea was one of forgiveness: “Father, forgive them.” (Luke 23:34).
Jesus’ crucifixion and Psalm 22 are God-given lessons for humans; real love always forgives, regardless of eligibility. This is our Father in heaven, and this, dear Calvinists, is the message of the Gospel.
Moving on. The link between Christ’s crucifixion and Psalm 22 is as robust as the steel cables of the Brooklyn Bridge. Psalm 22 might be a direct messianic prophecy from David, or if he was speaking hyperbolically about his own tribulations, David’s words transcended his personal suffering and found literal fulfillment in the crucifixion of “the son of David.” In Psalm 22, the anguish is inflicted by malevolent beings, not by God, who remains silent. Yet, in the end, God intervenes, resurrecting him and reversing the acts of the wicked.
Psalm 91:15 promises that God will deliver the just who call upon Him:
He will call on me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him.
Psalm 91:15
But as Jesus faced his gravest moment, divine aid was absent or at least delayed, defining the limits of Christ’s momentary “forsakenness.”
In other words, Christ felt deserted and forsaken, but solely in the sense of divine rescue being temporarily withheld. I believe we all know what happened three days later.
Forsaken By All
Jesus was not only forsaken by God but by everyone. He was deserted by Peter (26:69–75) and his other disciples (26:56), then denounced by the high court of his own people (26:57–68), and mocked by his adversaries—initially the Roman soldiers (27:27–31) followed by the Jewish populace (27:39–40), our leaders (27:41–43), and even the criminal crucified alongside him (27:44). Jesus stands solitary, abandoned by all. To all those around him, it certainly appeared as though his God had forsaken him. At that precise moment, Jesus drew their attention to Psalm 22, which describes the Messiah, son of David, whom the prophetic Psalm portrays as being forsaken, but only momentarily—just long enough for God to demonstrate His true power—the resurrection.
We kill, and He forgives and brings us back to life. That’s the Gospel.
To be forsaken means to be without anyone on your side, no one to defend, stand by, or fight for you. Have you ever felt forsaken and alone? I know I have, mainly by the church. Though I am far from perfect, it brings me immense comfort to know that my perfect Savior has endured the same. Jesus is a Redeemer with whom I can empathize in my suffering.
Yet, there is something remarkable at play. Reflect on the grace of God: Jesus was abandoned by his closest companions, those whom one would anticipate standing by him through anything, even unto death. Nevertheless, they fled. Despite this, Jesus harbored no resentment towards them. Observe his actions soon after his resurrection:
Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
Matthew 28:9-10
Despite being forsaken by them, the first thing Jesus desires upon resurrection is to reunite with them. It’s noteworthy that he refers to them as “my brothers,” not as “students,” “friends,” or “the idiots who deserted me in my hour of need,” but rather, “brothers.”
In Israel, it is still customary to refer to a close friend affectionately as “brother” or “sister.” This is particularly heartening because, even though we may sometimes abandon God, He never forsakes us or becomes angered by our foolishness. Sure, He lets us suffer for our mistakes but always seeks to bring us back. In one sense or another, we’re all Prodigal Sons.
Moreover, Jesus referring to them as “brothers” is yet another beautiful reference to the Messiah’s “brothers,” as mentioned in the original Hebrew (and some translations of) Psalm 22:
I will tell of your name to my brothers.
Psalm 22:22
Many, whether religious or secular, share the tendency to “cancel” or sever ties with those who have wronged them. However, Jesus exemplified a contrasting approach; even after being betrayed, he sought to keep them near, referring to them as brothers.
Matthew 27:46 According to Hebrews 5
Not rescuing Jesus from the evil inflicted by men is exactly the point the author of Hebrews was emphasizing when referring to Jesus’ cry for help on the cross:
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.
Hebrews 5:7–8
Jesus “offered up prayers to him who was able to save him from death.” If God was the one who could have saved him, then from whom was he to be saved? From God as well? Could the Father have saved Jesus from…the Father himself? This presents an enigma: Are we facing a severe logical contradiction, or is this an instance of a God who suffers from a split personality disorder?
However, the author of Hebrews did not imply any of the above options. Instead, his sole intention was to convey that God did not rescue Jesus from his earthly executioners, even temporarily, as He later did through the resurrection (Hebrews 13:20).
Therefore, in his human form, Jesus was abandoned to death, but only momentarily, as his body too was ultimately liberated from death’s grasp as three days later, as the psalmist had predicted:
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.
Psalm 22:24
God heard Jesus’s cry for help; it was simply a matter of time. There’s also a significant lesson here for us: we don’t always receive what we desire immediately, even when truth and justice support us. It serves as a reminder that, regardless of our earthly sufferings, we will one day be resurrected with a new, flawless body free from illness or pain. This enables us to release thoughts of revenge and relinquish resentments that serve only to poison our hearts and minds.
Conclusion
When Jesus recited Psalm 22 on the cross, it did not indicate the Father’s wrath, hatred, or disappointment. Nor was it to suggest a new theological concept in which the Father expelled the Son from the Trinity. Thomas H. McCall, chair of Theology at Asbury, concludes:
Does the text actually say that the Trinity was broken? The answers to these questions are surprisingly clear: neither the Matthean nor the Markan account says any of these things.
Thomas H. McCall
If the Gospels’ authors did not endorse such a notion, then modern-day preachers and evangelists, be they Baptists, Evangelicals, Calvinists, or any other fundamentalist group, should not either.
It is now possible, and indeed necessary, to assert with certainty that any doctrine that accuses God of excommunicating, abusing, torturing, or despising Jesus is an anti-God heresy that should be unequivocally condemned.
Instead of interpreting Jesus’ prayer in Matthew 27:46 as depicting an abusive, violent Father who tortures, ostracizes, or kills His innocent Son, one could learn that it is through our suffering and endurance in the face of challenges posed by loved ones that we may discover means to offer them redemption.
This article is a copy-paste from my book, ‘The “Gospel” of Divine Abuse,’ available on this Amazon page.
A free sample is available here.
