Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
You found one commentator that says what Lee said. Got more? I do not presume that any of them are correct all the time. And when it comes to the nature of God, it is all theoretical to us humans. Everyone has a declaration about what things mean.
And in your case, it is to insist that the "hypostatic union" of the Godhead causes the three to be part of and within each other than the undefined thing that unifies them without mixing them up in each other. You have not bothered to provide anything that indicates that Gill thinks that the hypostatic union caused the Father to be on the cross with Christ. Rather, you have read into a term of art not found in the scripture a characteristic of the Godhead that the actual verses do not support. You have presumed that defining hypostatic union provides a better and more clear understanding of the Godhead than the scripture provides. Rather, "hypostatic union" gives an undefined term as the definition of the unity of three that is greater than a round of handshakes. It does not create knowledge about the Godhead that is not provided in scripture. It only gives a name to things that are seen so that rather than trying to define it, we just say this term and understand that we don't really understand.
Not acceptable proof of anything. Lee cannot defend himself with his own writings.
|
The quotation I gave from Gill says:
the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him.
It means that God (the Father, and the Son) was with Christ on the cross. The Father never stopped indwelling Christ on the cross. Now please don't try to argue that the fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Him is not the Father.... I don't think you can take that position while retaining an appearance of sanity.
In case this does not convince you, there are other commentaries, in fact, I invite you to read the whole of Clarke's commentary on Matthew 27:46. Adam Clarke (1762 - 1832) was a British Methodist theologian and Biblical scholar.
http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/27-46.htm
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says:
he well knew why he was come unto that hour; nor could he be forsaken of God, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
I have read a number of commentaries on this verse. Gill and Clarke are the most obvious in relation to this matter. One notable thing I found is that no commentary
denies that God was with Christ on the cross. Many of the commentaries have expressed doubt that the verse means that God the Father literally left Christ.
Pulpit commentary does not seem to take this verse literally, rather, they say Jesus was more or less quoting the Psalms for the benefit of his hearers:
Verse 34. - Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani? St. Mark here uses the Aramaic form St. Matthew refers to the original Hebrew. St. Mark in all probability took his form from St. Peter. It seems from hence that our Lord was in the habit of using the vernacular speech. Why hast thou forsaken me? (εἰς τί με ἐγκατέλιπες
. This might be rendered, Why didst thou forsake me?
It is generally supposed that our blessed Lord, continually praying upon his cross, and offering himself a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, recited the whole of the psalm (22.) of which these are the first words, that he might show himself to be the very Being to whom the words refer; so that the Jewish scribes and people might examine and see the cause why he would not descend from the cross; namely, because this very psalm showed that it was appointed that he should suffer these things.
Matthew Poole's commentary says that it was impossible that God would totally withdraw from Him on the cross, the withdrawal related to "God’s consolatory manifestations":
The forsaking which Christ therefore here complains of, was not the total withdrawing of Divine favour and assistance from him; that was impossible, and incompetent with the first words testifying his relation to God, and assistance in him; but it must be understood with respect to God’s consolatory manifestations, and that is testified by his other words, related by Luke, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. Which words having said, he gave up the ghost, say Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John addeth, that he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost: words added, to confirm what he elsewhere said, that he laid down his life, none took it from him. His crying twice at this instant with a loud voice, argued his spirits not so spent, but he might have lived a few minutes longer, but he freely laid down his life.