Featured Forsaken in Matthew 27:46

I'm sorry you find it frustrating. If I were dishonest I would simply say that I agree your passage provides an answer that satisfies my question. And if that is what it takes to keep the peace here, then I am willing to do exactly that (not pretend that it clears things up, but ignore that it doesn't).

Insofar as Joel Beeke's explanation, I also thought we were in agreement. But based on your disagreement earlier (perhaps on a thread now closed?) I am not sure we completely agree.

I believe that the Father offered His Son as an atoning offering, laying our sins on His Beloved Son. But I believe this was an active sacrifice (the Father sacrificing his Son and the Son laying down his life) through the Spirit. So I do not believe that the Spirit departed from Christ on the cross, nor do I believe that the Father "turned his back" and withdrew his actual presence (although he withdrew his loving presence, in terms of deliverance, for a time). So what Christ experienced on the cross was not what we would have experienced as a second death (unholiness, faithlessness, hopelessness, ect.) so it was not "our punishment" but "for our punishment" as it exceeded what we would have experienced (because Jesus is God). More than that, the Father was also sacrificing of himself (his beloved Son). If the Father looked on his Son as if he were a sinner, then this sacrifice is mitigated. While I thought we both agreed, it seems we agree at least in part.

Insofar as Jesus experiencing somethings in his humanity and other things in his divinity, I do think that this makes a mess of things - either by unclear language (how "nature" is defined) or as it forms types of "dispensations" within Christ himself. I have never read a passage that used such language and, as I suggested, it really does not make very much sense to me. In other words, I don't see it stated that Jesus experienced birth as man but not as God. I see Scripture to indicate that Jesus was God/man throughout. But the miracles also as man (they did not testify to the power of Jesus, but that he was sent of the Father).

And, again, I apologize for being a source of frustration, and for being "slippery" (although I do suggest that what is slippery may be some of the theories presented here).

 

No, I am not. God simply did not leave Jesus on the cross and there are no passages of Scripture that states otherwise. The reason is that God is holy...and faithful. Unless you are willing to say God was faithless this one time, then you really do not have a legitimate argument.

Or he did nothing of his own initiative but did the will of the Father.

 

I do not have a problem at all with PST. If you think otherwise, I highly suggest that you address me instead of talking about me (gossip). We are not talking PST here. We are talking about God departing from Jesus, withdrawing the Spirit, turning his back, ect. John Piper, J.I. Packer, and Joel Beeke are all Reformed pastors (well, Piper is retired) who accept PST but deny your interpretation of "forsake" here. So please be more careful with forming accusations about what is not stated (here, PST), and with gossip (don't talk about members, talk to them).

Jehovah Witnesses also believe that Jesus and God were separate on the cross. Would it be fair to say that you have taken too much theology from the Jehovah Witnesses? If not, then stop the stupidity of placing my theology under N.T. Wright. I have never studied under the man, nor studied his works on this topic. There are others on the BB (as evidenced by previous discussions) that also reject the idea that God departed from Jesus on the cross (in addition to people like Piper, Packer, and Beeke). If so, then I would encourage you to put aside your copy of Watchtower and pick up the Bible.

 

I agree that Jesus suffered the consequences of sin, although he is without sin. And I agree that Jesus is God.

I disagree with your last statement because I think Scripture presents a different picture. I believe that the Father looked upon Jesus as he bore our sins on the cross, dying in our stead, in full and perfect obedience to His will as He lay our iniquities on Him, and viewed Jesus as His Beloved Son, bearing the iniquities of man and suffering the consequences of sin in our place.

 

I agree with most (if not all) of what you say here.

Jesus is God's Son in whom he is well pleased. The cross is culmination of Jesus' obedience to the Father (the Resurrection being God's deliverance and vindication). I cannot but think of the Father as looking on his Son bearing our sins on the cross as His beloved Son in whom he is pleased. Maybe this is why I objected so strongly (and maybe my objection was not warranted to the degree it was given). God did not look on Jesus as a sinner, but in stead looked on him as his beloved Son. But in terms of suffering, I agree that Jesus suffered the consequences of sin.

As an illustration, Abraham loved Isaac. His willingness to sacrifice his son did not diminish this love for Isaac (although it affirmed his love for God). Think of the sacrifice of Abraham, the suffering that he went through just considering the pain he was expecting to inflict on Isaac. There was no hate here. And I don't think that the hate with which God views sin was there when he looked upon his Son suffering in obedience to Father's will and command.

 

Unless you are claiming that God is unfaithful, that the passage itself is not of one relying on the faithfulness of God not to abandon the righteous (as evidenced by those fathers who trusted God and were delivered) then you have no argument. If you are not claiming God is unfaithful, then your argument is not applicable.

The entire Psalm speaks of God's faithfulness. Like I said before, you have an issue of picking out verses and ignoring the context to suit your theories. Are you saying that only Psalm 22:1a refers to Christ on the cross....and the rest is just filler????

Pause a moment, read about Hebrew poetry, and read about Psalms. Understand that there is a consistency to Scripture. Take a class if necessary. But learn to read:

Do you truly not see the parallels here?:

My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.
O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer; And by night, but I have no rest.
Yet You are holy, O You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel.
In You our fathers trusted; They trusted and You delivered them.
To You they cried out and were delivered; In You they trusted and were not disappointed.

Can you truly not understand that these define each other?:
My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning. O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer; And by night, but I have no rest.


Can you truly not understand that the one suffering here is relying on God's faithfulness to His Word and nature?:

In You our fathers trusted; They trusted and You delivered them.
To You they cried out and were delivered; In You they trusted and were not disappointed. ...Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother's womb.
Be not far from me, for trouble is near; For there is none to help. ...But You, O LORD, be not far off; O You my help, hasten to my assistance.
Deliver my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog. ... I will tell of Your name to my brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.
You who fear the LORD, praise Him; All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him, And stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Israel. For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard....
For the kingdom is the LORD'S And He rules over the nations. ...
They will come and will declare His righteousness To a people who will be born, that He has performed it.

If you still reject that God is faithful to His covenant, to His Word, and to His revealed nature (and I do understand if this is the case as it is the only way for your theory to work), then we will just have to agree to disagree and I can only urge you to find a mentor to teach you a more biblical doctrine of the Cross.

 

No. If that were true then redemption was never accomplished (Paul is clear that the atonement was accomplished by Christ through the Spirit...that is God's Spirit/ the Holy Spirit). There was an abandonment, but not the type of separation that you want to attribute to the Cross, which Scripture is very clear did not happen (I suspect this is why you can't find support in the normal commentators....it is truly a common but top rated heresy).

 

Sure, brother, no problem. The two articles that you and I seemed to agree on (that you now seem to reject at least in part) regarding this topic were one by Joel Beeke and one by Donald Macleod (which I had referenced as Piper by mistake - and noted the error - as it is an article on desiringGod.org). I can assure you that it is not I who have changed my stance. I still affirm both articles as articulating better than I could have.

Joel Beeke - “Jesus’ cry does not in any way diminish His deity…Jesus’ cry does not divide His human nature from His divine person or destroy the Trinity. Nor does it detach Him from the Holy Spirit. The Son lacks the comforts of the Spirit, but He does not lose the holiness of the Spirit….Jesus is experiencing the agony of unanswered supplication (Ps. 22:1-2). Unanswered, Jesus feels forgotten of God. He is also expressing the agony of unbearable stress. It is the kind of ‘roaring’ mentioned in Psalm 22: the roar of a desperate agony without rebellion. It is the hellish cry uttered when the undiluted wrath of God overwhelms the soul. It is heart-piercing, heaven-piercing, and hell-piercing. Further, Jesus is expressing the agony of unmitigated sin. All the sins of the elect, and the hell that they deserve for eternity, are laid upon Him. And Jesus is expressing the agony of unassisted solitariness. In His hour of greatest need comes a pain unlike anything the Son has ever experienced: His Father’s abandonment…Christ was made sin for us, dear believers. Among all the mysteries of salvation, this little word ‘for’ exceeds all. This small word illuminates our darkness and unites Jesus Christ with sinners. Christ was acting on behalf of His people as their representative and for their benefit. With Jesus as our substitute, God’s wrath is satisfied and God can justify those who believe in Jesus. Christ’s penal suffering, therefore, is vicarious – He suffered on our behalf.” ( http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/christ-forsaken/)


Macleod (desiringGod article) – “There are certainly some very clear negatives. This forsakenness cannot mean, for example, that the eternal communion between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was broken…Neither could it mean that the Father ceased to love the Son, especially not here, and not now, when the Son was offered the greatest tribute of filial piety that the Father had ever received. Nor again could it mean that the Holy Spirit had ceased to minister to the Son…he would be there to the last as the eternal Spirit through whom the Son offered himself to God (Hebrews 9:14).”(http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-have-you-forsaken-me)


I presented these two articles as articulating my view on a previous thread. You said that they also expressed your view. Yet you have called me “slippery” for insisting that “forsaken” does not mean the Spirit departed from Jesus but instead refers to delayed or unanswered deliverance.

Beeke – “Jesus’ cry does not…detach Him from the Holy Spirit”; “Jesus is experiencing the agony of unanswered supplication. Unanswered, Jesus feels forgotten of God.”. Macleod – “nor again could it mean that the Holy Spirit had ceased to minister to the Son”.

Again, my position remains that God withdrew his "loving presence", that Jesus was forsaken, and in this sense abandoned. But not abandoned by God withdrawing His Spirit (he was offering Jesus as an atonement, but this is still through the Spirit...i.e., I believe that Hebrews 9:14 is accurate in terms of the Atonement). So we are not speaking of a separation of God from Jesus but rather unanswered supplication.

 

John Piper, being John Piper, is more difficult. As I said earlier, my initial quote was from an article on desiringGod and not Piper.

But I agree with John Piper that the text of Psalm 22 itself provides the definition: “Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest.” “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

Piper explains “this was a real forsakenness…He is bearing our sin. He bore our judgment. The judgment was to have God the Father pour out his wrath on us, and instead, he pours it out on him – and that necessarily involves a kind of abandonment. This is what wrath means. He gave him up to suffer the weight of all the sins of all of his people and the judgment for those sins….He had embedded in his soul both the horrors of the moment of abandonment and he had embedded in his soul for the joy that was set before him: I have got a promise…So he said these words, one, because there was a real forsakenness for our sake. Two, he was expressing desolation, not asking for an answer. And three, he was amazingly fulfilling Scripture in the horror of it all and witnessing to the perfection of the plan of salvation.”
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-have-you-forsaken-me

John Piper defines the “separation” not on terms of God and Jesus, but on the grounds of Jesus and the glory that he had with the Father: “It’s determined by the difference between the glory that he had with the Father in heaven and the ignominy that he suffered, naked and hanging like a piece of meat as the Son of God on the cross. It’s that distance that is the magnitude that provides the scope needed in his suffering to cover an eternity in hell and to cover the sins of millions of people.”
http://www.desiringgod.org/intervie...esus-only-have-to-suffer-momentary-separation

 

Here are a few more to consider (that we have not spoken of before).

D.A. Carson views this “forsakenness” not as a separation between Jesus and the Spirit, or the Father, but as a feeling of forsakenness which he describes as the Father’s “judicial frown” and that we hover at “the edge of mystery of the Trinity”. (DA Carson, Scandalous, 33-34). But Carson may not offer enough to be a support on either side here. But at least he keeps the Father, Son, and Spirit intact on the cross.

Long before Carson, Athanasius identified this forsakenness with our human afflictions - the Father present as Christ was interceding for us – receiving our afflictions and interceding that they may be annulled. (Anthanasius, Against the Arians). Ambrose hits the nail squarely when he notes that “He speaks, bearing with him my terrors, for when we are in the midst of dangers we think ourselves abandoned by God” (Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Faith).

Consider Peter Lombard’s defense against those who advocated a divided Trinity: “So let us profess that God abandoned that man to death in some way, because for a time he exposed him to the power of his persecutors; God did not defend him by displaying his power so that he would not die. The Godhead severed itself because it took away its protection, but did not dissolve the union.” (Lombard, The Sentences: On the Incarnation of the Word, 89).

 

My argument throughout had been that God never abandoned Jesus in the sense that His Spirit was withdrawn. My argument throughout had been that instead of experiencing the loss of the Spirit Jesus was experiencing unanswered supplication as Gods deliverance was yet realized. You can not disagree with me at every turn here yet agree when other people say the same thing.

Edited - I stand corrected - You obviously can disagree when I say it and yet agree when others say the same as this is what you have done across several threads. But that does not make sense to me. It would seem that if Beeke is correct that God forsaking Jesus was an abandonment in one sense, but not in the sense He withdrew His Spirit that I would also be correct in saying God did not depart from Jesus in the sense He withdrew His Spirit.

 

Consider also how John Gill pre-qualifies his statements about this abandonment (http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-27-46.html):

When he is said to be "forsaken" of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fullness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him: nor was he separated from the love of God; he had the same interest in his Father's heart and favour, both as his Son, and as mediator, as ever: nor was the principle and habit of joy and comfort lost in his soul, as man, but he was now without a sense of the gracious presence of God, and was filled, as the surety of his people, with a sense of divine wrath, which their iniquities he now bore, deserved, and which was necessary for him to endure, in order to make full satisfaction for them; for one part of the punishment of sin is loss of the divine presence.

Whatever this abandonment could mean, it was not the separation of the "second death", of "Hell (when Sheol and death are cast into the lake of fire)" for Jesus remained holy, God, united with Father and Spirit in the Holy Trinity. What was withdrawn is not what will be withdrawn when men are cast away (a complete separation from God) but present deliverance.