The "FEELING forgotten" is the feeling of broken fellowship or the lack of presence. That "FEELING" was due to sin and being left in agony was due to sin.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Forsaken in Matthew 27:46
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
The "FEELING forgotten" is the feeling of broken fellowship or the lack of presence. That "FEELING" was due to sin and being left in agony was due to sin.
It is the feeling of God withdrawing his "loving presence", but not his presence itself. In other words, Jesus is feeling the Father presenting him as an atoning sacrifice. He is in a forsaken condition, suffering for our sins and suffering the consequence of sin in the flesh. He is dying a physical death (just as the thieves would die on the cross). And all of this is the will of the Father. The fellowship is not broken (it could never be broken without the bonds of the Trinity failing) but it is without deliverance. The Son remains beloved of the Father and in obedience to the Father's will. The Father remains faithful to the Son. And redemption is accomplished through the Holy Spirit.
Even on the cross Jesus trusted in the faithfulness of the Father by the power of the Spirit.
Then prove it via Scripture and not theories.
What passage of Scripture presents Jesus as experiencing something with his divine nature (but not his human nature)? What passage states Jesus experienced something with his human nature (but not his divine nature)?
Jesus actually tasted Hell upon that cross during His 3 hours, as God the Father did literally turn His back upon His own Son during that time, and that separation was what Jesus feared/dreaded the most!
Really? We looked at verses that said Jesus was forsaken in terms of forthcoming deliverance, at passages which state the cross was through the Holy Spirit, that the Father was present in the offering, and that God can never depart from Jesus.
Which verses state that God literally turned his back on Jesus? This is important because so much of God's Word insists this to be impossible. We need to look at them side by side.
Also, which "Hell" are you speaking of? If Hades (the grave, as men die and go to Sheol) then yes, of course. Jesus literally died. If Hell in terms of the second death which is a state of unholiness, of evil, of darkness, apart from the Light as Sheol and death are cast into Hell....Then no
That is impossible not only because it would deny Jesus' divinity but also because the Judgment is Christ centered. Not only that, but such a faithless and hopeless state is sin and Jesus would have not been "spotless". So please give the verses here as well.
He who knew no sin become our sin bearer, and tasted death for all of us, so Jesus suffered and felt on the Cross same way a sinner will away from presense of God!
He always remained as being very God, being God the Son, but in his Humanity experienced and tasted what those whose sins He bore would have faced!
Again, I am not asking for your ideas about what Jesus felt on the cross.
I know that Jesus bore our sins (1 Pet 2:24), that He tasted death for everyone (Heb 2:9), and that he suffered on the cross (1 Pet 2:21).
I am asking for a passage that states God turned his back on Jesus and withdrew His Spirit.
I did not ever say that Jesus had the Spriit leave Him, he NEVER ceased being God, but in His humanity, experienced what a sinner does separated from God for those 3 hours!
I don't exactly understand what you mean by Jesus suffering "in His humanity". Can you please expound a bit on that statement?
In Mark 4:38, we find the Lord Jesus asleep on a pillow. Why? Because He was tired. He was a Man and men get tired. He was Man as if He were not God. But a few minutes later He rises up and rebukes the storm, 'and there was a great calm.' Who can do that but God? He is God as though He were not Man.
But.........
'The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary' (Isaiah 40:28). So the Lord Jesus experienced something with His human nature (tiredness) that He did not experience with His divine nature.
I agree that several passages demonstrate Jesus is man (not just sleep, but hunger, growth, ect.). And there are also several passages that demonstrate Jesus is God. But also, Jesus said that he did not act of his will but the will of the Father and by the Spirit (these Two testify). The disciples could do these things, if they had faith and it was God's will, as Peter walked on water.
What is missing in Scripture is the idea that Jesus compartmentalized experiences by using his "divine nature" or his "human nature". Not only did Jesus (God/Man) experience his body die (physical death) but also Jesus (God/Man) is now glorified at the right hand of the Father. Scripture does not divide Jesus' life into two categories of experiences. This is a misunderstanding of "nature".
Mar 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken G1459 me?
Act 2:27
Because thou wilt G1459 not leave G1459 my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
Pick which ever you prefer. Yet for three days and three nights the Son of God was in the state of whichever you picked.
After saying that unto his God he said, Father into your hands I commit my spirit and Jesus at that moment died and three days and three nights later God the Father by his Spirit raised Jesus from the dead.
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken G1459 me?
Act 2:27
Because thou wilt G1459 not leave G1459 my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
- abandon, desert
- leave in straits, leave helpless
- totally abandoned, utterly forsaken
- leave in straits, leave helpless
- to leave behind among, to leave surviving
Pick which ever you prefer. Yet for three days and three nights the Son of God was in the state of whichever you picked.
After saying that unto his God he said, Father into your hands I commit my spirit and Jesus at that moment died and three days and three nights later God the Father by his Spirit raised Jesus from the dead.
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
While men can hold either of those definitions, it is important to understand that “leaving in a helpless state” (or as the passage Jesus quotes says, holding back deliverance) is the only definition used in Scripture when dealing with God and His people forsaken by Him. Scripture always has God present (even in death, God is there) and faithful.
One reason is say this is important is precisely because of the passage you quote. On the cross Jesus committed his Spirit into the hands of the Father. On the cross Jesus remained in reliance on the Holy Spirit. On the cross Jesus died as the beloved of the Father. Scripture is clear that the work of the cross was accomplished through the Holy Spirit. So I do object to those here who have a low view of Scripture. But that is not my primary objection.
My primary objection to those here who reduce the atonement down to a legal transaction (only) and against Scripture claim that the Father turned his back on the Son, God abandoned Jesus on the cross, is that they downgrade the atonement itself. God gave his beloved Son. They, ultimately, deny this giving when it comes to the cross. The Father did not look upon the Son as if he were sinful man but as his beloved Son who in faithful obedience lay down his life and bore the sins of man. It was the will of God to “crush” him, not to despise him. When interpreting Isaiah 53 these few view it as evidence that the Father despised (hated) the Son, was somehow cosmically ignorant that on the cross hung his Holy One and poured out his wrath, his anger, against Jesus. Scripture does not present the Father in such terms. Abraham was not angry with Isaac. God was not angry with Jesus. The Father offered His Son as an atoning sacrifice. The Father sacrificed. God sacrificed.
The imagery of the Father standing before the sacrificial alter, watching His Son lay down in submissive obedience to, and with faith in the Father for ultimate deliverance, and laying upon Him the sins of man, raising the knife up and sacrificing His own Beloved that men may live is completely engrained in Scripture but foreign to the theory that several here hold. They miss half of the atonement completely. It is a downgrade that should not stand in our churches because it cannot stand against Scripture (as demonstrated on this thread with the passages offered in support of their theory…i.e., none…and the passages that deny their theory). They've grabbed onto one truth of the atonement (Christ's subsitutionary death) and held it as if it were the atonement in toto. And ultimately they've built a theory that is held up in opposition to Scripture because for them their theory "works".
I have quoted it at minimum three different times! Don't you read the posts? Jesus grew in wisdom and in knowledge - divinity does not experience that as it is immutably omniscient.
Wrong! You are attempting to define the answer to the question by using another question or statement that describes the circumstances which are a result of being made sin when the text provides the answer "But thou art holy."
He committment his spirit into the hands of the Father ONLY after he said "it is finished" and not before. Before, he was regarded POSITIONALLY and LEGALLY as "sin" in the eyes of His Father - "made to be sin" POSITIONALLY. Not PERSONALLY as he was no sinner by PERSONAL choice or action.
Another absurdity and misrepresentation. There is no atonement apart from the legal satisfaction - period! Apart from the legal satisfaction it does not exist except in a distorted mind!
He gave him as a SIN OFFERING for the purpose to satisfy his wrath against our sins - meaning the Son suffered THE WRATH of God, was the object of God's Wrath on the cross - LEGALLY and POSITIONALLY considered. Personally considered, he was the sinless beloved Son of God who fulfilled his obligation in the eternal covenant. However, on the cross until he said "it is finished" God looked upon him as the object of the wrath and condemnation due to us by law.
It is not either or but BOTH! He did in fact look upon him as "made sin" LEGALLY and POSITIONALLY in our stead and He did INFLICT him and BRUISE him as a "sin offering." The wrath of the law was "satisified".
Your problem is that you are not distinguishing between his PERSON and his POSITION on the cross. He did in fact despise him in the legal position of being "made to be sin" and poured forth his wrath (hatred) upon him unless you think the "condemnation" and "wrath" of the Law is love???
Again, you fail to distinguish between His PERSON and his POSITION. He was not a sinner in regard to his PERSON and God did not despise or hate him with regard to his PERSON. However, in regard to his POSITION as a "sin offering" and when he was POSITIONALLY "made to be sin for us" he was despised and rejected by God as God does not love sin and that is what he positionally was made "to be" on the cross until he utttered "it is finished."
Your view attempts to redefine Biblical words, empty them of their truth to promote a false atonement theory that carried to its logical completion is a complete and utter denial of penal substitutionary atonement.
Last edited:
No, it is not! In his humanity he did know the time and hour of his own coming but in his divinity he is omniscient. In his humanity he GREW IN WISDOM and IN KNOWELDGE but in his divinity he is omniscient. In his humanity he grew tired, needed sleep but in his divinity as he stood before Nicodemus he claimed to be present in heaven and OMNIPOTENT.
In His humanity he suffered the full consequences of death - darkness, separation from God, the most extreme anguish that any human can experience and his deity gave it infinite and eternal value.
What you asked was this:
Now I have shown you something (tiredness), but you now ignore this and try to change the subject.
I just don't understand why you keep agreeing with me when I post and then disagreeing when I stop.
I don't have time at present to pursue this argument as I would like, but you need to stop being so slippery; it's very frustrating!
Jesus took the full blunt of the wrath of God directed towards sinners, and as our sin bearer, he experienced the same exact thing all sinners lost will, complete separation from the father... That os what he feared, to have to be separated for those 3 hours, as him and the father NEVER had thathappen before or since!
Because he was sinless man, able to bear the wrath of God and be really forsaken when satisfining wrath of God, but his death infinite value as it was also God who died on that Cross!
Jon seems to want to not accept PST, but knows that is still the way the Bible presents death of Christ!
Seems that Jon has taken too much of the theology of NT Wright in regards to this issue!
- Status