This time of year, many progress-liberal minded Christians criticize the idea that God “turned away from” or “abandoned” Jesus on the cross.
And most conservative minded Christians take the idea for granted, because God can’t look at sin.
Did God abandon Jesus on the cross?
Did the Father forsake the Son in death?
Did God turn his face away from Jesus—and our sin?
These are the question that cause intense debate as we approach Good Friday.
To find a better answer we need to break from two typical options and look to a neurobiological view of relational rupture-and-repair, all focused on the “face of God”.
Two Typical Answers
One typical answer sees Jesus’ cry from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”, as proof that God abandons Jesus on the cross because of our sin (see Matt. 27:46, quoting Ps. 22:1).
Because, as Habakkuk 1:13 say, God’s “eyes are too pure to behold evil” and that God “cannot look on wrongdoing.”
The other typical answer is that God’s love is greater than all our sin, that God (the Father) cannot turn from God (the Son), and this is all a distortion of Psalm 22 anyway.
So let’s take a moment and dig into these two views to see what all the fuss is about.
And then I’m going to offer a neurobiological understanding of relational rupture-and-repair to helps us understand how the Bible talks about the face of God in regard to sin and salvation.
Reasons to Deny God Turns His Face Away
First, the claim that Jesus wants us to think he was abandoned by calling out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” misunderstand Psalm 22.
Jesus quotes verse 1 on the cross. But as good readers of the Bible, and especially good hearers of the Bible in an oral culture in which Jesus lived and died, we would be prompted to think of the rest of Psalm 22 when Jesus starts at verse 1.
And in verse 24 the psalmist clearly declares that God “did not hide his face from me, but heard me when I cried to him.”
Second, God hears the cry of the psalmist, and all who call on God, because God promises to bless his people by turning and shining his face on them (Num. 6:24-26; Ps. 67:1).
Third, according to Psalm 80, it is the very face of God that is salvation (verse 3, 7, 19). So the ultimate act of salvation in Jesus’ death cannot be one in which God’s face is turned away.
Fourth, God won’t hide his face because God is Love and God won’t do this to his Son, or to us (John 3:16; 1 John 4:19).
And last, the entire mission of Jesus is to “seek and save the lost “ (Luke 19:10). This must have included looking at and being around sinners. The whole idea that God would turn his face from sin invalidates the entire idea of the incarnation.
So God couldn’t have turned his face away from Jesus and abandoned him on the cross. God won’t do that!!!
But if we read more of the Bible we find that God does seem to turn his face away from sin.
Texts that Affirm that God Turns His Face from Sin
First, speaking of Israel’s future betrayal and rebellion, God says he will “forsake them and hide my face from them,” because they have turned their faces to other gods (Deut. 31:17-18).
Second, along with corporate sin, the psalmist at least feels that God has turned his face away from him, allowing his enemies to take advantage of him (Ps. 13:1; 27:9; 39:13).
Third, Isaiah claims that Israel’s sins have created a barrier that has hidden God’s face from them (Is. 59:2, although perhaps this isn’t God turning his face away as much as it is Israel covering or blocking out God’s face).
And last, is the verse already mentioned from Habakkuk 1:13, that God’s “eyes are too pure to behold evil” and that God “cannot look on wrongdoing.”
Seems pretty clear that God turns his face away from sin. And when God does this the people will suffer and die. And this is what happened to Jesus on the cross.
So how do we make sense of these two realities?
Let’s turn to relational neuroscience and attachment theory and look at what Allan Schore (and others) call relational rupture-and-repair (see note below).
This might feel like a long detour, but hang in there.
This is pretty eye-opening.
Relational Rupture and Repair: Infant Stress and Toddler Shame
Infant Stress: Rest-Rupture-Repair-Reunion
Obviously I can’t get into all aspects of the neurobiological development of infants as they interact with caregivers and build bonds of attachment.
But regarding the face, infants will early and often seek out the face of their caregivers, using their own face to synchronize with the face of those they love and who love them.
Joyous Rest:
The normal state of securely attached infants is to rest in the joyous gaze of their caregiver, as the caregiver appropriately up-regulates and down-regulates interactions to match the intensity of the infant.
These interactions shape and stretch the nervous system of the infant through positive emotional interactions. These are primarily mediated through the face, but also through touch, and tone of voice.
Stress Ruptures:
But then one of two things happens.
Either the child develops an internal or external stress unrelated to the infant-caregiver relationship. The infant is tired, hungry, poopy, cold, or startled.
Or, the caregiver is misattunement to the child’s level of interaction and either overwhelms the infant’s nervous system with too much relational stimulation, or underwhelms the infant’s nervous system with too little relational connection.
Either way, the infant now transitions from rest to rupture.
“Something is not OK in the world”, is all the infant knows.
And this transition from rest to rupture causes the infant’s nervous system to ramp way up (sympathetic response) or ramp way down (parasympathetic response).
Relational Repair:
The attuned caregiver will perceive the rupture and work to read the situation and respond in a timely manner to bring relief.
All this communication happens non-verbally through facial expressions, body movements, and crying.
I’m calling this “relational repair” because the infant doesn’t know what is going on. All they know is who can help them, and how they can get the face of the caregiver to show up and do something about it. So the infant feels it relationally as something between them and the caregiver.
And when the face of the caregiver shows up the infant knows the rupture of the stress will be repaired and normal nervous system levels will return.
Joyous Reunion:
Once the repair is accomplished, the infant returns to a restful state. This is the joyous reunion of internal, external, and relational connection.
These movements from rest to rupture to repair and reunion are the neurobiological basis for secure attachment, which is the foundation of optimal childhood development.
But as the infant grows things get more complicated.
Toddler Shame: Rest-Rupture-Repair-Reunion
The infant begins to move around, and eventually walk. The infant becomes a toddler and we enter the “terrible twos”.
And with toddlers we move from just stress ruptures to shame ruptures.
Again, I’m simplifying. But these shame ruptures will help us understand what mean for God to turn his face away from our sin, and from Jesus on the cross.
Joyous Rest:
Toddlers aren’t known to be particularly restful. But this “rest” refers to their inner state of rest (created by secure attachment), allowing them to confidently explore the world using their new mobility.
Toddlers begin to play alone or with other children. But they regular “check in” with their caregiver, seeking to see them (and be seen by them) for just moment, to catch an eye, or see the face of their caregiver in order to know that “things are still OK.”
Relational Rupture: The Face of Shame
But sometimes things are not OK.
The toddler wandered too far.
Or took a toy from someone.
Or hit or bit another child.
Or any number of transgressions.
The toddler has bumped up against a new reality—the reality that other people exist in the world too, and those people need to be respected.
This reality is usually learned though different rules.
But knowing and following these rules are very confusing for the toddler.
So the toddler regularly looks at the caregiver for guidance
And the caregiver gives lighting fast responses through the face.
A parent’s face can instantly signal approval when things are OK, and disapproval when the toddler is getting into trouble.
The face of disapproval, of disgust, the face “turned away”, create a feeling of shame in the toddler.
This feeling of shame is the extremely rapid down-regulation of the nervous system cause by the disapproving face of the caregiver.
The toddler feels the misattunement between what they were doing (and usually the high nervous system activation) and what their caregiver hoped they would be doing. The toddler feels the relational rupture.
At its most basic level, the face of the caregiver flashed disgust and disappoint in order to express relational values and identity:
- “This is not what we do.”
- “This is not how we behave.”
- “This is not what we value.”
This is the neurobiological basis of moral formation and an understanding of right and wrong.
Relational Repair:
But the attuned caregiver will not let the toddler sit in this shame, because then this would harden into toxic shame.
Short-term relational shame aims at relational growth. Long-term toxic shame prevents all relational growth.
So the caregiver engages in relational repair—a process of both reaffirming the relationship while also clarifying and enforcing the rules (and helping the toddler repair relationships with others if needed).
In this way the relationship is repaired and the shame removed.
Joyous Reunion:
From this repair the relationship returns to joy and the toddler begins to play again, exploring as before, confident both in their ability to explore the world and remain in relationship with others.
God Turns His Face Away:
So, using these neurobiological realties of rupture and repair, we can see exactly
- why it is so important that God “shine his face upon his people” (Num. 6:24-26)
- and what it would mean for God to “hide his face” from sin.
First, for God to “hide his face” or “turn his face” from sin is a communication of values, or right and wrong.
This image of God hiding his face is a non-verbal communication that “My people should not act this way. My family does not value such things. My children should not live this way.”
It is not that God is angry because some of God’s immutable and perfect laws have been broken. That is a very non-relational way of understanding it.
Rather, the character of God’s family has been destroyed, the valued of respect (even love) for all people has been discarded, the holiness of each human being has been desecrated.
And the turning away of God’s face communicates to humanity that “No. This is not OK.”
Second, this short-term expression of rupture by God is always, ALWAYS, in service of long-term relational repair. All because God is love, and God’s loving kindness endures forever.
Third, when we think about Jesus taking all our sin on himself on the cross we must affirm the short-term rupture of divine disapproval of our sin so that we can also affirm the long-term repair and reunion accomplished through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Fourth, for the catastrophic depths of despair experience through the Father turning away is countered when the Father’s face turns again toward us in blessing, which in the resurrection of Jesus the rupture of sin is repaired.
For in Christ we are reconciled to God, we no longer need to fear condemnation (the turned face of the Father). Instead we rejoice that we are adopted as children of the Father, filled by the Spirit, knowing that nothing can separate us from the love of God.
The Beaming Face of God given in Christ
So, did God turn away from Jesus on the Cross?
Yes.
But only momentarily, so that we would all know both the sinfulness of sin, and know the love of God.
For in Christ God cause light to shine in the darkness of our sin so that we might look on the glorious face of God in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 4:5-7).
And this is why it is said of Jesus, “who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb. 12: 2).
For Jesus came down, from the eternal joy of heaven, into all the ruptures of sin, bringing repair to us all, so that all could enter again into the joyous reunion of heaven (Luke 15).
___
Sources: I’m pulling mainly from Allan N. Schore’s Affect Regulation and the Origins of the Self: The Neurobiology of Emotional Development, chapters on “The Psychobiology of Affective Reunions”, “The Emotionally Expressive Face”, “The Onset of Socialization Procedures and the Emergence of Shame”, “The Dyadic Origins of Internal Shame Regulation”, and “Affect Regulation and Early Moral Development”.