Featured Forsaken in Matthew 27:46

I just have a couple of questions.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Is that the same death? What does it mean?

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Is that the same death? What does it mean?

How long was Christ dead for our sins?

Heb 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Is that the same death? Not save from dying but from death, to be deliveded from death?

Was Christ delivered from death? Was his soul delivered, redeemed from Sheol, which may be found in the Psalms I think? --- What is Sheol?
Was the Son able to praise God his Father from Sheol?

My God, My God why has Thou forsaken Me
Father unto Your hands I commend My spirit

 

Exactly so. Because our Lord suffered the pains of separation from God on our account, we never will.

Amen!

 

That iHis death was the event to bring in vidctory over sin death and satan was indeed true,but that was the byproduct of Him dieing in the place of sinners such as you and me, and he did experiene seperation from the Father in is humanity in some sense while on that Cross!

And Westley might have held to ot, but only partialy, as part of that woul also include limited atonemet!

 

I know that you are a Baptist, and am just bringing into our discussion Wright, as he is the main one to deny the reformers views on the Cross, and you seemed to be in agreemnet with him on this!

 

What does that mean to you? In what manner was the Son glorified by the Father?
When did that glorification take place?

What was the difference in the Son pre and post glorification?

 

I agree with this in large part, and would just add a thought: knowing that Christ is God, we have a hard time developing a realistic concept of God...forsaking Himself. I think we do well to remember that this is a quote, and I take the view this is more a matter of validation of the Person of Christ rather than a moment where God has unrealistically stopped being God, or, that God could forsake those He loves.

If we read Psalm 22 we have something to consider: God never, at any time...forsook David. And if God did not forsake one who had sinned so grievously, why would He forsake Christ? Neither do I look at it as a matter of Christ being "weak in the flesh."

And only one complaint would I have for the OP: please spell out the entire quotes you give so I can benefit from ref tagger, lol.


God bless.

 

What is it you disagree with, Martin?


God bless.

 

John 6:66. 'From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.'
Luke 22:33. 'But [Peter] said to Him, "Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death."'
Matthew 26:56. 'Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.'

'O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent.'

 

This is why Jesus was punished for our sins and forsaken of the father while on the cross:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

HankD

 

Although you infer the the real truth in a line or two, you are really ignoring the true issue. He left him in suffering because that suffering is the consquence that he had been "made to be sin" and the suffering was the LEGAL consquences of the Law against sin - sin requires a penalty. One cannot be "made to be sin" and not go unpenalized by God. As the Psalmist continues to state "for thou art holy" and God cannot look upon sin. So the REAL issue of "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani" is that Christ on the cross is "MADE TO BE SIN" for us and death is the consquence of sin and death is SEPARATION in its initial essence. Adam suffered death the moment he sinned - spiritual separation from God. I will take that up in the next segment below. However, with regard to this segment the issue, the emphasis of these words is the focus of him being the sin offering, being made sin legally, thus being forsaken by God to suffer the consequences of being made sin.

This segment is utter confusion and does not deal with the real issues. No one claims that Jesus ceased to be God or that God can be spiritually separated from God or that God can die. That is a canard! Jesus was also a full human being who possessed a human body, a human soul and a human spirit and he is being offered as a human sacrifice (Second Adam) and as a man he could suffer death physically, he could suffer separation from God "in spirit" and he could suffer separation from God in "soul" (fellowship). At this moment on the cross, it is the MAN Jesus who is being "made to be sin" as Jesus as GOD cannot be made to be sin, cannot die, cannot be spiritually separated from the Father or the Holy Spirit. So your argument based on deity is again failing to deal with the issue correctly.

No! Not that he was "suffering for our sin" but that "HE WAS MADE TO BE SIN" and there is quite a difference between these two statements. Your statement deals only with the consequences while my statement deals with the CAUSE! Jesus THE MAN endured SPIRITUAL SEPARATION from the Father because he was MADE TO BE SIN and God could not look with favor upon SIN and thus left Christ to suffer as justice requires. So your arguments are simply attempts to avoid the real issue. There is a LEGAL ISSUE in the words "made to be sin." Christ did not become a sinner in that he committed sins but he was LEGALLY regarded as sin by imputation of our sins upon him as a LEGAL substitute. In that LEGAL state God's wrath was vented upon him as God saw him as sin and forsook him to suffering due to being made sin for us.

What you say is true but what you are implying is not true. This text does not deal with him "being made sin for us" but rather it deals with the righteous character of the victim being offered "without spot" that was offered "through the Spirit" on the cross. "Eli, Eli...." does not refer to the righteousness of his life but with the imputation of sin. It is through the Spirit that His sinless character was attained and presented as a worthy sacrifice on the cross, but "Eli, Eli..." does not refer to his righteousness or the holiness of his life, but with the imputation of the very opposite - sin - being made sin and thus in that legal capacity suffering legally and thus righteously under the law's wrath for our sins.

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The essence of your error is that you fail to distinguish between His personal righteousness as an offering versus being made to be sin legally. You fail to distinguish between his humanity and deity as diety cannot suffer death, cannot be separated from itself, cannot be made to be sin as that is impossible. So you base your argument and position on the Deity aspect while ignoring that the real issue has to do with his HUMANITY as the Second Adam who can die, who can suffer disfellowship from God, who can suffer spiritual separation from God and who can be made to be sin.

 

Your comment makes no sense in the light that he was "made to be sin" on the cross. The "gift" of God was not God's response to him being made sin - Death/separation is the response of God to sin not eternal life.

 

I see your position as a piece meal approach to the scriptural doctrine of penal substitution. Piece meal, in that you take one Biblical term/principle at a time, empty it of its Biblical meaning, redefine it so that it denies its intended Biblical meaning and then you bring your redefined terms/principles together and form your doctrine.

Romans 3:19-21 demands that the Law that defines sin (v. 20) and condemns the whole world (v. 19) is the very same law that reveals the moral nature of God's own righteousness (v. 21). Absolute proof of this undeniable fact is that both the law and the moral nature of God can be summed up in the one and same moral term "love."

It is this same law that defines God's justice and defines the condemnation/wrath against sin which must be satisfied either in the person of the sinner or in the substitute for the sinner. That condemnation/wrath is "death" and death as an initial event is spiritual separation from God but eventually separation from God in spirit, soul and body.

On the cross, THE MAN Jesus Christ "was made to be sin" judicially in order that the condemnation/wrath of God's law should be satisfied "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:"

It "satisfied" God's justice by bruising him and putting him to grief with regard to when he "was made sin" for as as a "offering for sin." God's pleasure was satisfied, because his JUSTICE was satisfied.

On the cross there was total separation from God inflicted upon THE MAN Jesus. Both spiritual, soulish and physical when "he was made to be sin" "when thou shalt make HIS SOUL an offering for sin." Thus death was experienced fully by THE MAN Jesus on the cross. His deity could not suffer any form of death. However, it is his deity that made this offering infinite with regard to value. The phrase "eli, eli........" expressed the holiness of God and God's pleasure to inflict the full penalty of sin upon him as a sin offering in order to fully satisfy the full just penalty of the law - death.

There is no contradiction between God being "pleased" with His son as a righteous person and God's pleasure to inflict the penalty of sin upon him as both are equally necessary to be a qualified judicial substitute for righteousness and penal satisfaction.