What do you think?
Rate this book
Intimately Forsaken: A Trinitarian Christology of the Cross
The book offers a new Trinitarian and Christological reading of Christ’s cry of dereliction that is grounded in historic orthodoxy. Arguing for an interpretation of the cry in relation to the communication of idioms in Christology and the modal distinction between person and nature in Trinitarian theology, the book draws from a broad range of Patristic, Scholastic and Reformed sources. This work is a must for scholars of Christian theology.
226 pages, Hardcover
Published November 28, 2024
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 29, 2026
Excellent work of scholarship. Brand powerfully argues that God the Son incarnate was forsaken by the Father on the cross to substitutionally atone for the sins of the elect. Moving from textual data to theological doctrine, Brand carefully shows how Jesus’s cry of dereliction on the cross “My God My God why have you forsaken me” means what it says, that Jesus was forsaken. The question is in what way was Jesus forsaken. Upholding classical theism (immutability, simplicity, relations of origin etc.), Brand shows how God the Son Incarnate is forsaken by the Father according to his human nature. Since persons relate and experience according to natures, Brand shows how the one person of Christ experiences the Father’s wrath according to his human nature. Thus, while it is the Godman who suffers, he suffers according to his human nature. To make sense of this theologically, he sets forth a robust Reformed (contra Lutheran) understanding of the communication of idioms. By doing so, he clarifies that while divine and human attributes are predicated of the one person of Christ, these predications are to be understood according to their respective nature. This stands in contrast to the Lutheran view which cross-predicates attributes between natures. The Lutheran view enables predicating suffering to the divine nature and omnipresence to the human nature. Brand argues against cross-predication, and instead rightly argues for a Reformed understanding of the communicatio as articulated by Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, John of Damascus, and Thomas Aquinas.
While the book is quite dense, I think the argument is worth thinking over, especially as it relates to our understanding of what Christ accomplishes at the cross. Jesus truly absorbs the Father’s wrath on the cross in our place. And yet he does so without any sort of break in the Trinity or attributing suffering to the divine nature. As God, the Son has the power to defeat sin, suffering, and death; as man, he has the ability to do so for us.
An abbreviated argument for this can be found in a recent TGC article — https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/ar...
He was also on a recent London Lyceum podcast — https://open.spotify.com/episode/65cK...
While the book is quite dense, I think the argument is worth thinking over, especially as it relates to our understanding of what Christ accomplishes at the cross. Jesus truly absorbs the Father’s wrath on the cross in our place. And yet he does so without any sort of break in the Trinity or attributing suffering to the divine nature. As God, the Son has the power to defeat sin, suffering, and death; as man, he has the ability to do so for us.
An abbreviated argument for this can be found in a recent TGC article — https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/ar...
He was also on a recent London Lyceum podcast — https://open.spotify.com/episode/65cK...
October 2, 2026
First of all, I'm going to clarify that I came at this book very much from a layperson's perspective. I became interested in the topic of Christ's cry of dereliction due to a discussion with a homegroup leader. He claimed that Jesus was fully forsaken on the cross and that, for this time, the Trinity was really broken. I had the view that this couldn't be correct because I didn't think the Trinity could be broken, although this led to my argument being only that it must have been pointing to Psalm 22 only. This also didn't feel quite right to either of us.
I was pointed to the thesis of Dr Brand on the same subject by my mother and subsequently decided to try and read Intimately Forsaken to get a satisfying answer to this seemingly important question.
I'd never really read a technical theological book before; the experience was a bit like eating a high quality chocolate mousse: Due to the book's richness, I had to concentrate to understand the meaning of almost every word. However, the intense experience of reading it (especially as one that is not normally used to reading such works) meant that, once I had finished it, I could sit back and let the overall feeling of the immense knowledge I had just consumed settle in my mind. It also very quickly led to me desiring more!
The overall argument that Dr Brand makes is communicated at the beginning in a way that sets the tone for the book as a whole, but also means that you don't have to wait until the end to get the big reveal. It makes the argument that the person of Jesus truly was and experienced forsakeness, but only in and according to his human nature; thus the "forsakeness" didn't "seep" into the divine nature. This answered my question, but I naturally wanted to know why.
The image of Westminster Abbey that Dr Brand uses to construct his argument is beautiful and makes it easier to follow the book's train of thought. It takes the argument through exegesis of the Scriptures, through the historical development of understanding of the cry and the two natures of Christ in one person (which I now know is called the "communication of idioms"), through the impassibility of God, through the nature of the Trinity. Each of these were communicated as anagolous to structures that make up Westminster Abbey.
At times, I found it a bit tricky to understand why certain sections were relevant to the overall argument. However, where this was the case, Dr Brand assured that it would all come together in the final drawing together of these sections into the overall argument.
It absolutely did indeed come together in the overall argument. It meant that, having now finished the book, I don't just have a better understanding of Christ's fourth cry on the cross, but I also have a completely new outlook on the nature and persons of God as a whole, the person and natures of Christ, how God the Son relates to God the Father, how this ties into the Word of God, and an amazing clarity of the importance of always starting answering tricky theological questions by thinking about God's nature, as opposed to starting with the pastoral application and seeing the question through the human lens of suffering. As shown by Hegel, Moltmann, and even Luther, this can very quickly spiral into letting ideas about passibility seep into the nature of the impassible and Triune God.
I will be reading this again and could not recommend more highly, even if, like myself, you find yourself completely unprepared for the depth into which Intimately Forsaken goes.
I was pointed to the thesis of Dr Brand on the same subject by my mother and subsequently decided to try and read Intimately Forsaken to get a satisfying answer to this seemingly important question.
I'd never really read a technical theological book before; the experience was a bit like eating a high quality chocolate mousse: Due to the book's richness, I had to concentrate to understand the meaning of almost every word. However, the intense experience of reading it (especially as one that is not normally used to reading such works) meant that, once I had finished it, I could sit back and let the overall feeling of the immense knowledge I had just consumed settle in my mind. It also very quickly led to me desiring more!
The overall argument that Dr Brand makes is communicated at the beginning in a way that sets the tone for the book as a whole, but also means that you don't have to wait until the end to get the big reveal. It makes the argument that the person of Jesus truly was and experienced forsakeness, but only in and according to his human nature; thus the "forsakeness" didn't "seep" into the divine nature. This answered my question, but I naturally wanted to know why.
The image of Westminster Abbey that Dr Brand uses to construct his argument is beautiful and makes it easier to follow the book's train of thought. It takes the argument through exegesis of the Scriptures, through the historical development of understanding of the cry and the two natures of Christ in one person (which I now know is called the "communication of idioms"), through the impassibility of God, through the nature of the Trinity. Each of these were communicated as anagolous to structures that make up Westminster Abbey.
At times, I found it a bit tricky to understand why certain sections were relevant to the overall argument. However, where this was the case, Dr Brand assured that it would all come together in the final drawing together of these sections into the overall argument.
It absolutely did indeed come together in the overall argument. It meant that, having now finished the book, I don't just have a better understanding of Christ's fourth cry on the cross, but I also have a completely new outlook on the nature and persons of God as a whole, the person and natures of Christ, how God the Son relates to God the Father, how this ties into the Word of God, and an amazing clarity of the importance of always starting answering tricky theological questions by thinking about God's nature, as opposed to starting with the pastoral application and seeing the question through the human lens of suffering. As shown by Hegel, Moltmann, and even Luther, this can very quickly spiral into letting ideas about passibility seep into the nature of the impassible and Triune God.
I will be reading this again and could not recommend more highly, even if, like myself, you find yourself completely unprepared for the depth into which Intimately Forsaken goes.
August 14, 2026
Intimately Forsaken seeks to understand the meaning of Jesus’ cry of dereliction in a way that is consistent with orthodox understandings of Christology and Trinitarian theology. The need for such a work is apparent given that some modern theology allows the forsakenness of Christ on the cross to infiltrate into the eternal union between the Father and the Son. How then should we understand verses such as Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34?
Brand invites readers to survey classic medieval architecture through the lens of classical theology. With precision and depth, the author explores four pillars that sustain the theological and spiritual weight of the cry of dereliction. These pillars include the meaning of the term “forsaken” in Mark 15:34, the history of interpretation of the cry, divine impassibility, while also considering trinitarian distinctions. In the section on the final pillar, Social Trinitarianism is deemed to be an insufficient understanding of the Trinity partly because it anachronistically restricts the translation of the Greek word psyche to ‘self’ and then applies it to the Trinity such that God has three centres of consciousness. Furthermore, Social Trinitarianism is out of step with Chalcedon Christology as it asserts the will as a faculty of a person rather than a nature. By interacting with more recent theological trends in this way, Brand uses historical and conciliar theology for the benefits of both thinkers and worshippers today.
The final and largest chapter considers Jesus Christ as the one who is intimately forsaken. Brand’s understanding of the cry, retrieves Cyril of Alexandria’s description of Christ as the ‘impassible sufferer’ and applies this phrase to the cross.
Given the four towers that have been built prior, Christ is said to be truly forsaken by the Father on the cross and yet “the experience of forsakenness was in and according to Christ’s human nature.” (pg 193). Such a conclusion does not dampen the sacrifice of the cross for those wishing to praise the Son for his love. Instead, it upholds forsakenness as genuinely experienced, while maintaining the immutability of the divine nature of Christ. The communication of idioms enables such reasoning to hold.
The person of the Son is forsaken to judgement and sin, without being abandoned in an ultimate sense. Brand’s conclusion feels thoroughly convincing given the supporting towers previously established.
Brand invites readers to survey classic medieval architecture through the lens of classical theology. With precision and depth, the author explores four pillars that sustain the theological and spiritual weight of the cry of dereliction. These pillars include the meaning of the term “forsaken” in Mark 15:34, the history of interpretation of the cry, divine impassibility, while also considering trinitarian distinctions. In the section on the final pillar, Social Trinitarianism is deemed to be an insufficient understanding of the Trinity partly because it anachronistically restricts the translation of the Greek word psyche to ‘self’ and then applies it to the Trinity such that God has three centres of consciousness. Furthermore, Social Trinitarianism is out of step with Chalcedon Christology as it asserts the will as a faculty of a person rather than a nature. By interacting with more recent theological trends in this way, Brand uses historical and conciliar theology for the benefits of both thinkers and worshippers today.
The final and largest chapter considers Jesus Christ as the one who is intimately forsaken. Brand’s understanding of the cry, retrieves Cyril of Alexandria’s description of Christ as the ‘impassible sufferer’ and applies this phrase to the cross.
Given the four towers that have been built prior, Christ is said to be truly forsaken by the Father on the cross and yet “the experience of forsakenness was in and according to Christ’s human nature.” (pg 193). Such a conclusion does not dampen the sacrifice of the cross for those wishing to praise the Son for his love. Instead, it upholds forsakenness as genuinely experienced, while maintaining the immutability of the divine nature of Christ. The communication of idioms enables such reasoning to hold.
The person of the Son is forsaken to judgement and sin, without being abandoned in an ultimate sense. Brand’s conclusion feels thoroughly convincing given the supporting towers previously established.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews