Easter Heresy

In my last post, I briefly touched on the doctrine of the trinity and the unity of the God-head.

This reminded me of the last Easter sermon I heard.

So, it was Sunday morning and I'm in the congregation listening to the resurrection day presentations, when a heretical proclamation is spoken on the microphone.

Do you know what it was?

Well, in a nutshell, it was - 'when Jesus was on the cross, the Father turned His back on Him. For the first and only time, the Son was separated from the Father. All so that Christ could pay for our sins.'



This isn't the first time I've heard this mind you, but the more I here it, the more annoyed I get.

Let me rephrase that. The more I hear it preached, or declared as truth, the more annoyed I get.

You see, it's one thing to quietly believe it, but it's a different thing to preach it to a congregation (causing the majority of the people to believe it because they don't read their bibles).

Seeing as how I've only been adopted for about 11 years, I thought I'd ask my wife if she has heard any different in her experience, as she has been in the church since she was a child.

Sadly, the answer was no.

As far back as she could remember, which is pretty far back, she has always been taught that the Father and the Son were separated during the payment of sin on the cross.

This belief is so popular and widespread that it was even taught in at least two songs from one of my favourite Christian rappers.

"A purple robe, yo, they slapped on him//
Psalm 22 the Father turned His holy back on Him"
The Ambassador - Selah (Christology in Laymen's Terms)

"Cuz He agreed to bleed and look bad//
became sin for men and wore a cross like a book bag//
'Look Dad', the Father couldn't, He wouldn't//
He's too holy so He shouldn't, bring the hook in"
The Ambassador - Super Stars (House of Representatives)

He is looked up to by many, including myself, as a biblically sound Christian teacher/preacher.

So what exactly is the problem?

The doctrine that Jesus was separated from the Father while He was on the cross and that the Father turned His back on Jesus is heresy. And although the Father turning away from (but not separating) from Jesus isn't necessarily heresy, it isn't biblically correct.

Why is it heresy?

Well, for one, it makes God out to be... not God.

Let me explain.

The bible describes God as a trinity.

If Jesus was separated from the Father, even for a millisecond, the trinity would no longer exist.

In that same vein, Jesus could no longer be God, as He would be a separate entity. This brings the divinity of Christ into question.

The bible would become contradictory because Jesus is shown many times to be one with the Father, not a separate entity.

And lastly salvation couldn't be obtained through Jesus because the bible says that God is the only saviour. And if Jesus was separated... see what I mean?

Where did this false doctrine come from?

Although I don't know (or care), where the original idea comes from, I know it persists because of two reasons.

1. Often times Christians, by default, adopt the doctrines that are preached/told/taught to them in a congregational setting without reading their bible to check if what is being said is true.

This can be due to laziness, indifference, or placing the speaker in a spiritually unhealthy place in their hearts and minds (aka idol).

You will find that many Christians are on AA (automatic amen) setting most of the time.

Because of this, a lot of Christians soak up bad theology, false doctrine, and heresy like Patrick's friend.

And instead of examining everything in the light of scripture, they are blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine because the person in front/with the mic/on the platform says.

2. The second reason is that people read into the bible what isn't there.

Instead of accepting what the plain reading of the verses say... in context, they strain and manipulate to make it say what it doesn't, regardless if it contradicts other parts of the bible.

You will find this in things like: the gap theory, Abel's tithe, tithing, etc.

The exegesis of the text gives the correct results, but eisegesis leads to error.

What verses are used?

There are really 2 points in the bible that is used to push this heresy.

The main one is when Christ is on the cross and He says 'my God, my God, why have you forsaken me' (Mar. 15:34, Matt. 27:46).

What is taught is that Jesus says this because the weight of sin is so heavy that Jesus has been separated from the Father.

Another variation is that Jesus "feels" like He is separated, because the Father has turned His back to Him.

In both renditions the thought process is that since sin separates us from God, and Jesus becomes sin for us, He is separated from the Father - and Jesus crying out on the cross is the proof.

There is a variation of this thought which includes the other point in scripture.

It basically says that God is too Holy to look at evil (Hab. 1:13)

This verse is used in addition to the sin separation thought, to say that since Christ took upon himself all of our sins, that the Father turned away (separated), because He is too Holy to look at sin.

Another version is simply that the Father had to separate Himself or else He wouldn't/couldn't have been able to pour out His wrath on the Son because He loves Him.

Some people even go so far to say that the reason that Jesus started to sweat blood was because He knew that going to the cross meant the He would be separated from the Father for the first time ever.

The Truth

The truth of the matter is that Jesus was never separated from the Father, nor can He be due to the reasons given above and more.

Neither did the Father turn His back on the Son.

How do I know this?

Because Jesus was quoting a psalm, psalm 22 to be exact, as seen in The Ambassador's lyrics above.

The reason Jesus quoted this specific portion of scripture was not because of any separation or abandonment by the Father.

He said it to declare that prophecy was being fulfilled right in front of those peoples eyes.

Those who knew the scriptures would have immediately remembered the rest of that psalm and saw that it was talking about Jesus.

This is not the first time Jesus did this. When Jesus stood up in the temple and said 'The Lord has anointed me...', that was Him declaring that prophesy was being fulfilled.

It should be our cue to turn to those chapters and read them to see and understand how it was being fulfilled.

If you go to psalm 22, you will see that the Father didn't turn His back on the Son at all. No where in that psalm does it show that the Father turned away or separated Himself.

Consider verses like Psalm 22:24 that says 'For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither has He hid His face from him; but when he cried onto Him, He heard'.

This is the exact opposite of what people says happened.

If the Father did turn away or separate Himself from the Son, this verse wouldn't make sense.

What happens though, is that people read into chapter what's not there.

They already believe the heretical separation doctrine, so when they read this psalm, that's what they see.

Even though it shows otherwise.

What About the Other Verse?

In regards to God being too Holy to look at sin/evil, when you read Habakkuk 1:13 you'll realise that people who quote this are actually cutting the sentence in half.

When you read the entire verse you'll see that God does look at evil/sin.

Hab. 1:13 - Your eyes are too pure to look at evil, and you can't look at wickedness. Why do you look at those who deal treacherously, and don't say anything when the wicked devours someone who is more righteous than they are?

What people do is rip the first sentence out of its context and run with that thought, even though the very next sentence contradicts the first.

The prophet is asking God questions and reasoning within himself.

We know this because he does it throughout the entire chapter.

The truth of the matter, as stated in the rest of the verse, is that God does look upon evil.

The testimony of the rest of the bible confirms this.

- Nothing is hidden from God.
- He sees and knows all things.

When people don't quote an entire verse, but take bits and pieces, we should be very wary.

Because when this is done, we often times walk into error, as proven by the issue at hand.

How do we stop this doctrine?

The problem is that, in my opinion, the majority of the people that believe and teach this heresy, don't realise what they are saying/doing.

They are material heretics as opposed to formal heretics (shout out to Mr. Todd Friel).

I am convinced that if someone took these people through the bible, and showed them how this doctrine is false (in love of course), that they will indeed turn to correct theology.

I'm sure these people would be shocked by the logical end result of this doctrine.

So, if you know someone that believes this, take them to one side and teach them what the scripture actually says.

Don't try and force it down people's throats though.

However, if after you've gone through the scriptures and showed them the extreme dangers of this doctrine, that they still refuse to take heed - then they have accepted heresy and their salvation would now be in question, because they have effectively exchanged the truth of the word of God for a lie.

Their God is not the God described in the bible. So too is their Jesus not the one described in the bible.

It's one thing to be ignorant of the truth for whatever reason, but when the truth is presented and explained, one is no longer in a state of ignorance, and depending on the answer, one will be numbered amongst the followers of truth or those who knowingly reject it.

We should always allow the bible to challenge our beliefs and when we differ, we should change our beliefs.

The bible is the measuring rod that we must use to make sure we're in the faith.

We should be about the business of renewing our minds with the reading, understanding, and application of the word of God - not renewing the word of God with our minds.

I'm pretty confident that the Ambassador was not intentionally trying to teach heresy and probably didn't realise what he was saying. Now that a number of years have passed since he wrote those lyrics, I do hope He has seen the problem and have made the necessary corrections in both his theology in lyrics.

And for those reading this, if you believe this doctrine, I ask that you take a hard look at the scriptures involved.

Ask God to open your eyes, give you understanding and to reveal himself to you.

Maranatha