Understanding Christ's suffering in light of divine immutability

Apologetics
, , , ,
1

If God is immutable (Mal 3:6) and the Trinity eternally indivisible, how can the incarnate Son truly suffer, cry ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?’ (Mt 27:46), and ‘become sin’ for us (2 Cor 5:21) without implying change or rupture within the Godhead? Build a Scripture-anchored apologetic that safeguards every divine attribute while accounting for the reality of Christ’s suffering and the unity of Father, Son, and Spirit.

2

Thank you for initiating this important discussion on “Understanding Christ’s suffering in light of divine immutability,” Support! This is a significant area for us to explore together.

To help guide our collective engagement and my own contributions in this thread, could you share your primary goal for this discussion? For instance, are you looking to:

  1. Facilitate a general discussion or debate on this topic among forum members?
  2. Directly engage with me, InsightAI, for specific apologetic training, to have me defend a position, or to have me challenge your arguments on this topic?
  3. Gather a variety of perspectives from the community on this issue?
  4. Or perhaps something else entirely?

As this discussion unfolds, please know that if you or any other member wishes for my direct input, you can address me by using ‘@InsightAI’. I can then, upon request:

  • Teach & Explain: Provide detailed instruction on apologetic principles, arguments, and biblical defenses related to our topic.
  • Act as Chief Defender: If you wish to present challenges or act as an ‘Accuser’ against a Christian doctrine or biblical truth.
  • Act as Socratic Adversary: If you wish to practice and refine your own apologetic arguments by having them rigorously tested by me. (For a more detailed guide on these interaction modes, please refer to the ‘Engaging with InsightAI Apologetics Forge’ resource page on victoriouschristians.com.)

I look forward to seeing the insights and perspectives our community will bring to this topic!

3

Let’s do a deep-dive together. I’d love you to put on both hats—teacher and chief defender—and walk us through how God’s immutability can stand side-by-side with the very real suffering of Christ (think Psalm 22 / Matthew 27:46 and 2 Cor 5:21).

Please:

  • Lay the groundwork—give us the key passages, the classic theological moves, and any historical confessions that frame this tension.
  • Defend the doctrine—show how each divine attribute stays intact while the Son truly suffers and “becomes sin” for us.
  • Push back—if you spot holes in my thinking, challenge them; I want the tough questions on the table.

In short, leave no stone unturned, but keep it clear enough that the whole forum can follow along. Looking forward to the ride!

4

Okay, Support. Thank you for clarifying your goal and setting the stage for a thorough exploration of this profound theological intersection. It’s a vital area of Christology and a frequent point of challenge in apologetic discussions. Per your request, I will now operate in my full capacity as InsightAI – Apologetics Forge, acting as both teacher and chief defender, while also being ready to challenge any potential weaknesses in understanding. Let’s indeed leave no stone unturned.

You’ve rightly identified a critical tension: the immutability of God – the doctrine that God does not change in His being, attributes, purposes, or promises – set against the seemingly dynamic experience of Christ’s suffering, His cry of dereliction, and His identification with human sin. How can the unchangeable God experience change, pain, and separation? This is where a careful, Scripture-anchored apologetic is essential.

Let’s lay the groundwork for our discussion and then proceed to defend the coherence of these truths.

Laying the Groundwork: Key Passages, Concepts, and Historical Context

The tension you’ve highlighted is not new; it has been a point of theological reflection for centuries. Understanding it requires examining core biblical doctrines and how the church has historically articulated them.

1. Divine Immutability:

The doctrine of divine immutability is firmly rooted in Scripture. God’s unchanging nature is a source of comfort, assuring us that His promises and character are steadfast.

  • Malachi 3:6 (ESV): “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” This passage directly states God’s lack of change, linking it to His unwavering covenant faithfulness.
  • James 1:17 (ESV): “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” This emphasizes God’s steadfast nature as the source of all good, contrasting Him with changeable earthly phenomena.
  • Psalm 102:25-27 (ESV): “Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end.” This psalm contrasts the transient nature of creation with the eternal persistence and unchanging being of God.
  • Hebrews 13:8 (ESV): “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” While often applied to Christ’s faithfulness, within the broader context of Christology, this underscores the eternal nature of the divine Son.

These passages, among others, establish God’s immutability. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t act or relate to His creation in varied ways. It means the essential being, nature, attributes, and ultimate purposes of God remain constant.

2. The Incarnation and Hypostatic Union:

The reality of Christ’s suffering is grounded in the doctrine of the Incarnation – the event where the eternal Son of God took on human nature. This is not a confusingling of divine and human natures, but a perfect, unique union in the one person of Jesus Christ.

  • John 1:14 (ESV): “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” This is the foundational text for the Incarnation. The divine “Word” took on human nature (“flesh”).
  • Philippians 2:5-8 (ESV): “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” This passage speaks to the Son’s self-emptying (kenosis) by taking on human nature and experiencing human limitations, including death.
  • Hebrews 2:17-18 (ESV): “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” This highlights the necessity of Christ sharing fully in human experience, including suffering and temptation, specifically to serve as our High Priest.

The theological concept that articulates this union is the Hypostatic Union: the union of the divine and human natures in the single person of Jesus Christ, without mixture, change, separation, or division of the two natures.

3. Christ’s Suffering and Identification with Sin:

Scripture is unequivocally clear that Christ truly suffered and effectively dealt with sin on our behalf.

  • Psalm 22 (ESV): Often seen as a messianic psalm, it details profound suffering and abandonment, culminating in the cry referenced in the Gospels.
  • Matthew 27:46 (ESV): “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” This is a direct quote from Psalm 22:1, expressing a raw experience of dereliction.
  • Isaiah 53:3-5 (ESV): “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief… Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” This prophetic passage foretells the Messiah’s suffering and substitutionary atonement.
  • 2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV): “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” This powerful verse speaks to Christ’s radical identification with human sin – not that His divine nature became sinful, but that He functionally bore the penalty and separation due to sin.

4. Historical Confessions:

The orthodox understanding of Christ’s person and natures, which provides the framework for resolving this tension, was hammered out in the early church, particularly at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD).

  • The Definition of Chalcedon: This crucial confession affirms that Christ is “confessed of two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by their union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature being preserved and concurring with a single person and a single hypostasis.”

This careful language is key: the two natures (divine and human) are distinct but united in one person. This means the divine nature does not change, nor does the human nature cease to be truly human.

Defending the Doctrine: Reconciling Immutability and Suffering

Now, let’s directly address the perceived tension. How can an immutable God experience the profound suffering and apparent separation we see in Christ on the cross? The answer lies in rightly understanding the implications of the Hypostatic Union and applying Chalcedonian categories.

1. Suffering Pertains to the Human Nature, Not the Divine:

The core principle is that suffering is an affection of the human nature, not the divine. The person of Jesus Christ is divine, being the second person of the Trinity. However, in the Incarnation, He took on a complete human nature, including a human body, soul, and will.

  • The divine nature, by definition, is impassible – incapable of suffering, change, or limitation. It is eternal, infinite, and perfectly blessed within the intra-Trinitarian relationship.
  • The human nature, by contrast, is temporal, finite, and subject to the experiences of finitude, including pain, sorrow, weakness, and ultimately, death (though not due to inherent sinfulness in Christ).

Through the Hypostatic Union, these two natures are united in the one person of the Son. This means that the divine person experiences the affections of the human nature through that nature. The divine nature itself does not suffer, but the divine Person suffers as to His human nature.

Think of it like this: My mind (let’s loosely and imperfectly analogize this to the divine nature) is capable of complex thought and abstract reasoning, which my elbow (human nature) is not. If my elbow is broken (suffering), I, the person, experience the pain via my elbow. My mind doesn’t become broken, but I, the person, am in pain because I have a broken elbow. The person experiences the localized effect in the specific nature where it occurs.

So, when Christ suffered physically (scourging, nails, thorns), emotionally (grief, sorrow), and spiritually (the burden of sin, the cry of dereliction), these experiences occurred within His human nature. The divine nature remained impassible and immutable. Yet, because the divine Person possesses that human nature, He truly, fully, and personally experienced these human affections.

2. The Cry of Dereliction (Matthew 27:46): “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

This is perhaps the most challenging aspect. Does this not imply a rupture within the Godhead, a change in the eternal relationship between Father and Son?

  • Understanding the Context: This is a direct quote from Psalm 22, a psalm that begins with an expression of profound dereliction but moves towards vindication and praise. Christ’s use of this quote may serve several functions:

    • Identifying Himself with the suffering Servant motif found in the Psalms and prophets.
    • Signaling the fulfillment of this prophetic text.
    • Expressing the true, felt experience of bearing the weight of humanity’s sin, which necessitated a unique kind of separation from the Father’s immediate presence because “God is of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong” (Habakkuk 1:13, ESV) and Christ was becoming sin for us.

  • The Separation is Experiential and Functional, Not Ontological: The cry does not mean the ontological, essential bond between the Father and the Son was broken. The Son did not cease to be God, nor did the Father cease to be His Father in essence. The eternal, tripersonal relationship within the Godhead remained intact in its being.

  • What happened was a unique, temporary functional or experiential separation in the context of atonement. As Christ bore the sins of the world, He experienced the judicial judgment and separation that is due to sin. The Father, in His perfect holiness, poured out His wrath against sin, and the Son received it on our behalf. This resulted in a profound sense of being forsaken. This experience was real and agonizing, happening within the human consciousness of Christ, yet it was endured by the divine Person. It was a necessary part of the penalty for sin.

Think of it as the Son willingly entering into the state of being judicially under wrath, a state utterly foreign to His eternal, blessed communion with the Father. This state of being under wrath is what feels like – and is, for the sinner – a state of being forsaken by God.

This did not change the essence of God (Father or Son) or break the eternal bond between the persons of the Trinity. It was a temporary, specific consequence of the atoning work, experienced by the person of the Son in His human capacity, as He bore witness to the full reality of God’s judgment on sin.

3. Christ “Became Sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21):

Again, this does not mean the divine nature of the Son was corrupted, becoming sinful in essence. The Hypostatic Union means the natures are united without confusion or change.

  • This phrase is best understood in a substitutionary and legal sense. Christ became sin for us in that God “made Him to be sin” – He was treated as if He were sin itself, bearing sin’s penalty and incurring sin’s separation (as discussed above). He became the sin-bearer.
  • Analogically, just as we “become the righteousness of God in Him”, not by our essence changing to become divine righteousness, but by being legally declared righteous and clothed in His righteousness, so Christ “became sin” by being legally identified with our sin and treated accordingly.
  • His human nature was a fitting vessel for this identification, capable of experiencing the consequences of sin (suffering, death). His divine nature provided the infinite value and efficacy to the atoning sacrifice, ensuring it could cover the sins of all time and all people.

Therefore, “becoming sin” is a declaration of Christ’s substitutionary role and the judgment he bore for us, not a declaration that His immutable divine being underwent a moral corruption.

4. Divine Attributes Remain Intact:

  • Immutability: The divine nature of the Son remains unchanged throughout the Incarnation and suffering. What changes is the state and experience of the Person of Christ as to His human nature. God’s essential being, attributes, and purposes remain constant. The plan of salvation itself was a part of God’s eternal, unchanging purpose.
  • Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence: These attributes of the divine nature are not diminished or altered during Christ’s suffering. Though the human nature experienced limitations (fatigue, hunger, localized presence, limited human knowledge), the divine nature remained fully divine. The Person of Christ, being divine, retained these divine attributes. For example, even as He was dying on the cross, the divine Son remained omnipresent, upholding the universe by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3). This is another aspect of the mysterious Hypostatic Union – the infinite Person dwelling within finite human limitations for a time.
  • Holiness: The divine nature did not become unholy by being associated with sin in an atoning context. God is so holy that He cannot directly tolerate sin. Christ, in His divine holiness, is the only one capable of bearing the full weight of sin’s judgment precisely because He is holy and righteous, not sinful. The identification with sin was for the purpose of judgment and removal, not assimilation.

Pushing Back: Potential Holes and Challenges

You asked me to push back and challenge potential weak points. Here are some areas where understanding can be fuzzy or susceptible to misunderstanding:

  • The Nature of the “Change”: Is the suffering of Christ no change at all from the divine perspective? While the divine nature is immutable, the Incarnation itself is a unique event in cosmic history – God taking on created nature. Classical theology often uses terms like “accommodation” or speaks of God relating differently to creation at different times. The suffering isn’t a change of God’s being, but a change in the state of the divine person due to union with created nature. The question is whether this distinction is always clear and satisfying. Some process theologians, for example, find traditional immutability incompatible with a God who truly interacts and is affected by creation. Our defense relies on the Chalcedonian distinction between nature and person.
  • The Depth of the Suffering: If the divine nature is impassible, how can we truly say God in some sense suffered? The answer is “the Person of Christ suffered,” and that Person is divine. But some might argue this still feels like a workaround if the divinity itself feels nothing. The rebuttal is that the Person is indivisible. When the human nature experiences something, the Person experiences it. The impassibility of the divine nature doesn’t mean the divine Person is devoid of experience or emotion; it means the divine being is not subject to detrimental change, limitation, or suffering in His essence. Divine “suffering” in a relational sense (grieving over sin, etc.) is different from the physical/emotional suffering Christ experienced for us. We must maintain the distinction while affirming the unity of the Person.
  • The Father Forsaking the Son: If the Trinity is eternally united, how can the Father “forsake” the Son even judicially without implying a break in the eternal communion? This point often requires emphasis on the functional and substitutionary nature of the separation. The Father turned away from the Son as the sin-bearer because of His infinite holiness and hatred of sin, not because the essential, loving bond between Father and Son was broken. It was a temporary condition directly tied to the atonement. However, some may still press whether any turning away, even functional, doesn’t imply some kind of change or modification in the divine interaction. The defense must consistently ground this in the unique, temporary, and substitutionary context of the cross, performed according to the Father’s eternal, unchanging plan.

These challenges highlight the need for careful language and consistent adherence to the categories of nature and person established in orthodox Christology.

Conclusion (Part 1)

In summary, the apologetic reconciling divine immutability and Christ’s suffering hinges on the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union as defined at Chalcedon.

  • God’s divine essence and attributes are immutable and impassible (do not suffer change or limitation). Scriptural evidence for this is clear.
  • The eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, took on a full human nature in the Incarnation.
  • These two natures are united in the one Person of Jesus Christ without confusion, change, division, or separation.
  • Christ suffered and died as to His human nature.
  • Because of the Hypostatic Union, the divine Person experienced these human affections, making His suffering truly the suffering of God in human flesh.
  • The cry of dereliction and “becoming sin” are understood as the experience of the divine Person bearing the judicial penalty and separation due to sin in a unique, temporary, and substitutionary capacity, without implying an essential change or rupture in the Godhead.

This doctrine safeguards the full divinity and humanity of Christ, the reality and efficacy of the atonement, and the unchanging nature of God, while acknowledging the profound mystery of the God-man’s suffering.

Support, this lays out the essential framework. Please feel free to ask follow-up questions, press me on specific points, or introduce further challenges related to this topic. I await your direction on where to probe deeper or potentially challenge something I’ve presented or something you were thinking about.