Tertullian on the Godhead at the Cross

As promised in the last post I did on Psalm 31, I now want to revisit the issue of the unity of the Godhead at the crucifixion of Jesus. Last week, I wrote a brief post with some quotes from Saints Athanasius and Chrysostom that counter any suggestion of a "split Trinity" or "split Godhead" and in fact they conclude in agreement with the Roman centurion at the cross that even in Christ's deepest moment of despair and seeming (or felt) forsaken-ness that the Father and the Son were actually very, very close to one another. Isaac Hopper and Matt O'Reilly then posted much more elaborate posts than mine delving into the biblical, theological, and pastoral implications of the statement(s) from Marva Dawn, who had suggested that the Trinity was split at the cross. I highly recommend you check those posts out. You can read Isaac's here and Matt's two posts here and here.

My aim in this post is not to rehash the debate about Dr. Dawn's statement specifically, but to bring a related issue to light that might bear on the debate that has taken (is taking?) place regarding the relationship between the Persons of the Godhead at Jesus' crucifixion. When I posted on Psalm 31 and came across a statement that was also quoted by Jesus and was the last one he cried before breathing his last, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit," I started digging into some other early Church Fathers' writings to see if they had some wisdom on this connection with Psalm 31 and Jesus' death. I turned to Tertullian and found some helpful insights not only into this statement, but also of the relationship of the Godhead at the moment of Jesus' death.

Tertullian: But this was the voice of flesh and soul, that is to say, of man - not of the Word and Spirit, that to prove the impassibility of God, who "forsook" His Son, so far as He handed over His human substance to the suffering of death. This verity the apostle also perceived, when he writes to this affect: "If the Father spared not His own Son." This did Isaiah before him likewise perceive, when he declared: "And the Lord hath delivered Him up for our offences." In this manner He "forsook" Him, in not sparing Him; "forsook" Him, in delivering Him up. In all other respects the Father did not forsake the Son, for it was into His Father's hands that the Son commended his Spirit. Indeed, after so commending it, He instantly died.

To let you know briefly about Tertullian: he was a Church Father in the West who wrote in Latin. Likely his most known quote is "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens? The Church with the academy?" He was a lawyer by trade and so was very technical and investigative into theological matters. What makes Tertullian especially important is that he was the first to employ the language of the Trinity (Trinitas in Latin) as well as the formulation of tres Personae, una Substantia (translated to English: 3 Persons, 1 Substance). He employed this language prior to the Council of Nicea (AD 325), whose conclusion, championed by Athanasius, was the Greek equivalent of Tertullian's description. So it is certain that Tertullian is an important figure of the first of the two primary theological controversies (Trinitarian & Christological) of the first few centuries of the Church. But from the statement above (taken from his treatise Against Praxeas) we can even begin to see glimpses of how the Christological controversy would be centered upon, which would come to a head at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451).

I realize I'm glossing over quite a bit here, but since it's a blog...The conclusion at Chalcedon is that Jesus Christ is 1 person, 2 Essences, and further that he is fully divine and fully human. However, to understand how the two essences relate within him is beyond our capacity but we should avoid any belief that leads us into separating the essences so much that he essentially becomes two people or anything that leads us into blending the two essences such that they lose their distinction. You can read the Chalcedonian definition here. In (very short), Jesus is God-Human. The place where these two controversies (Christological and Trinitarian, which we should note have significant implications upon each other) comes with perhaps the most difficult questions is with the death of Jesus.

St. Augustine suggested that when Jesus cried aloud, "Why have you forsaken me?" it was his humanity that was crying. Tertullian seems to have suggested the same above, or at least it is along the same lines when he says He handed over His human substance to the suffering of death.

So, here I'm asking for your help...perhaps I'm missing a key element of these controversies and their implications at Jesus' death. I wince a little bit when people say, "God died." That statement is problematic because 'God' implies Father, Son, and Spirit. Only Jesus died, so to say 'God died' can easily imply what the early church denounced as patripassianism (or belief in the passion/death of the Father). But if one affirms that Jesus died without his divinity being sacrificed is that not dividing the essences, something that goes against the Chalcedonian definition? If that isn't a necessary conclusion, then that Jesus' divinity was not sacrificed seems to be the case, at least in terms of how Tertullian and St. Augustine see it. If so, then we have further reason to conclude that the unity of the Godhead was preserved in and through the cross/Jesus' death.

Please know that I'm not trying to speak with authority or convince you that you need to believe this or else you're a heretic. Perhaps I'm the heretic here, but if so, I ask you to be gentle in your correcting me, and be patient if I still have questions. At the very least I ask for your hand as we worship this God who has so demonstrated his love that his Son has tasted death for every one of us.