On the idea that Christ on the cross was forsaken of God, but not of the Father.

Dear Brother;

It is said that a judge passing sentence on a boy- his own son, gave him the severest sentence that was possible under the law-a heavy fine. Having passed the sentence, he left the bench and paid the fine. On the bench he could not act as father, though the boy was as much his son then as when he was not on the bench.

During the forsaking on the cross, when bearing the awful wrath of God, God was not acting as the Father. Though He was the Father of the Son at that crucial moment, He was dealing with sin according to the claims of His nature, and so forsook His Son, acting in a capacity which demanded treating as sin the One who took the place of sin, though it was His own Son. While withdrawing from Him as having taken the place of sin, the Father found delight in Him, though for the moment that delight could not be expressed to Him. Hence the Son could not say,'' Father," during the forsaking, but He could say, " My God."The interruption of the communion did not destroy the relationship. What must it have been to the Son during that awful time to be denied the privilege of saying, Father! To say the Father did not forsake His Son is really to deny the true character of the atoning work-though, of course, this is not intended.

To separate the personality of the Father from the personality of God is very serious error. While we need to be preserved from a caviling spirit that leads us to make people offenders for a word, it is also important to guard the truth of the blessed work of the Cross from what destroys its real nature and character. The Lord keep us in the truth.

Yours in Him,

C. Crain