Forsaken in Matthew 27:46

[Yeshua1]

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.

I NEVER stated that Jesus ceased to be God, that the Spirit departed from Him, but the scriptures do show to us that he experienced ALL things as the sin bearer on the Cross that sinners will in Hell, but He did it for those 3 hours, and then it was accomplished!

The father had to turn His back for that time, as God cannot be tolerating sin in His presense!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Jesus did not go to the literal Hell, but in His humanity did feel as if he had while on the Cross!

 

[Yeshua1]

I fully agree with the Beeke quote. I have never suggested either that the Holy Spirit was removed from Christ, or that the Trinity was in some way broken.
What I am saying is that on the cross, during those three hours of darkness, the Father 'abandoned' (Beeke's word) the Son. We need to qualify that, because God is Omni-present, but Christ was made sin (not a sin offering)- He was made the very epitome of sin and the Father turned His face away. The Lord Jesus experienced, during that time, separation from God; the temporary suspension of that intimate relationship that exists among the Trinity. He experienced, vicariously, the very pains of hell- darkness, pain and anguish, and separation from God. After the Ninth Hour, when the Sun re-appeared, the time of abandonment was over, and Jesus could cry, "It is finished!" and commit His Spirit to the Father.

I believe that it is very significant that our Lord refused the sour wine on the first occasion it was offered (Mark 15:23). It was an analgesic of sorts, and He had to drink the cup of God's wrath undiluted (Psalm 75:8). But after the Ninth Hour, He cries out, "I thirst!" partly to fulfill the Scripture, and partly so that His cry of victory may be heard.

Where Macleod says, 'This forsakenness cannot mean, for example, that the eternal communion between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was broken,' I would need to know exactly what he means by that. Certainly the Father never ceases to love the Son, but as Beeke (not to mention Psalm 22) points out, He did forsake/abandon Him for a time. The wrath that the Son endured was judicial wrath, but wrath nonetheless.

I also agree fully with Piper:

Jon seems to be stating that in as he understands this, that being forsaken by God would mean that the Spirit departed from Him, and that he died in a different sense that we would see it?
Forsaken by God only for those 3 hours, never ceased being god, Spirit never departed Him, but did suffer in His humanity a sa sinner will under wrath of God!

 

[JonC]

Jesus did not go to the literal Hell, but in His humanity did feel as if he had while on the Cross!

I agree that Jesus was not punished with the punishment that we would have endured. In fact, that Jesus is God makes the Cross an even greater consequence than all of humanity consigned to an even greater torment than Hell (if that were possible).

And again, I do not see how we can remain biblical and say "in his humanity Jesus felt this....but not in his divinity".

 

[JonC]

Jon seems to be stating that in as he understands this, that being forsaken by God would mean that the Spirit departed from Him, and that he died in a different sense that we would see it?
Forsaken by God only for those 3 hours, never ceased being god, Spirit never departed Him, but did suffer in His humanity a sa sinner will under wrath of God!

My statement (which has been rejected so many times) is that on the Cross God was not separated from Jesus in that Jesus remained God and the unity of the Trinity was never broken. I have agreed that forsaken means an "abandonment" in the sense that deliverance was not immediately realized (Jesus was left to suffer the consequence of sin).

If my argument is wrong, which is what several claim here, then what needs to occur is not "double-speak" (i.e., God departed from Jesus but Jesus was still God; Jesus suffered our punishment, but it was not the punishment we would have suffered; God's Spirit was removed, but Jesus remained united to the Holy Spirit; the Father removed His presence, but Father and Son are One; ect.) but point to point evidence.

 

[JonC]

I NEVER stated that Jesus ceased to be God, that the Spirit departed from Him, but the scriptures do show to us that he experienced ALL things as the sin bearer on the Cross that sinners will in Hell, but He did it for those 3 hours, and then it was accomplished!

The father had to turn His back for that time, as God cannot be tolerating sin in His presense!

I never said that you did. Again (just like last time we had this "talk") I quoted Joel Beeke. I know that you believe God departed from Jesus but Jesus remained God. I was just offering the fuller quote.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree that Jesus was not punished with the punishment that we would have endured. In fact, that Jesus is God makes the Cross an even greater consequence than all of humanity consigned to an even greater torment than Hell (if that were possible).

And again, I do not see how we can remain biblical and say "in his humanity Jesus felt this....but not in his divinity".

That is because the scriptures show to us examples of Him operating in His Deity, and othertimes in His humanity!

 

[Yeshua1]

My statement (which has been rejected so many times) is that on the Cross God was not separated from Jesus in that Jesus remained God and the unity of the Trinity was never broken. I have agreed that forsaken means an "abandonment" in the sense that deliverance was not immediately realized (Jesus was left to suffer the consequence of sin).

If my argument is wrong, which is what several claim here, then what needs to occur is not "double-speak" (i.e., God departed from Jesus but Jesus was still God; Jesus suffered our punishment, but it was not the punishment we would have suffered; God's Spirit was removed, but Jesus remained united to the Holy Spirit; the Father removed His presence, but Father and Son are One; ect.) but point to point evidence.

Jesus never separated from the father in sense broke Relationship, as always was/is God, but His humanity suffered break in His perfect fellowship with Father!

 

[Yeshua1]

I never said that you did. Again (just like last time we had this "talk") I quoted Joel Beeke. I know that you believe God departed from Jesus but Jesus remained God. I was just offering the fuller quote.

Thanks for clarification...
I am getting His Puritan Theology, so maybe will explore his views more in detail now!

 

[JonC]

That is because the scriptures show to us examples of Him operating in His Deity, and othertimes in His humanity!

What examples do you have of Jesus operating in his deity (and not his humanity)?

Thanks for clarification...
I am getting His Puritan Theology, so maybe will explore his views more in detail now!

IMHO, Beeke is an excellent writer and commentator. I also like D.A. Carson (and he and Beeke have a few works together).

Jesus never separated from the father in sense broke Relationship, as always was/is God, but His humanity suffered break in His perfect fellowship with Father!

It may be that we just disagree on terms. I find "his humanity suffered break in his perfect fellowship" to be problematic. First, saying that "God separated from Jesus" does not mean a more narrow statement of a break in fellowship (we are present among people daily without fellowship). And second, saying that fellowship was "broken" is perhaps not as narrow as fellowship changed.

The Father was there, present on the Cross, actively offering His Son. The relationship itself did not change, but its content did change. Not only is the Father offering affirmation (God is immutable) but along with this affirmation comes wrath. This change can be represented in the illustration of Abraham and Isaac. The relationship remained, Abraham remained, but at the moment Isaac lay on the alter something was different. The fellowship is still perfect. But within it the Father is laying the iniquity of mankind on his Son as the atonement.

 

[Yeshua1]

What examples do you have of Jesus operating in his deity (and not his humanity)?

IMHO, Beeke is an excellent writer and commentator. I also like D.A. Carson (and he and Beeke have a few works together).


It may be that we just disagree on terms. I find "his humanity suffered break in his perfect fellowship" to be problematic. First, saying that "God separated from Jesus" does not mean a more narrow statement of a break in fellowship (we are present among people daily without fellowship). And second, saying that fellowship was "broken" is perhaps not as narrow as fellowship changed.

The Father was there, present on the Cross, actively offering His Son. The relationship itself did not change, but its content did change. Not only is the Father offering affirmation (God is immutable) but along with this affirmation comes wrath. This change can be represented in the illustration of Abraham and Isaac. The relationship remained, Abraham remained, but at the moment Isaac lay on the alter something was different. The fellowship is still perfect. But within it the Father is laying the iniquity of mankind on his Son as the atonement.

Jesus knew the thoughts of all men, Jesus walked on water, commanded the storm, but also was weak, tired, and hurt!

 

[Yeshua1]

What examples do you have of Jesus operating in his deity (and not his humanity)?

IMHO, Beeke is an excellent writer and commentator. I also like D.A. Carson (and he and Beeke have a few works together).


It may be that we just disagree on terms. I find "his humanity suffered break in his perfect fellowship" to be problematic. First, saying that "God separated from Jesus" does not mean a more narrow statement of a break in fellowship (we are present among people daily without fellowship). And second, saying that fellowship was "broken" is perhaps not as narrow as fellowship changed.

The Father was there, present on the Cross, actively offering His Son. The relationship itself did not change, but its content did change. Not only is the Father offering affirmation (God is immutable) but along with this affirmation comes wrath. This change can be represented in the illustration of Abraham and Isaac. The relationship remained, Abraham remained, but at the moment Isaac lay on the alter something was different. The fellowship is still perfect. But within it the Father is laying the iniquity of mankind on his Son as the atonement.

Since you like Dr Carson, and he is a good calvinist author, have you oicked up the Zondervan Niv Study bible, as he was general editor for it?

 

[JonC]

Since you like Dr Carson, and he is a good calvinist author, have you oicked up the Zondervan Niv Study bible, as he was general editor for it?

Generally I like study bibles because they give me places to put sticky notes. But yes, I do have the Niv Study Bible. I just purchased his commentary on Matthew as well.

Jesus knew the thoughts of all men, Jesus walked on water, commanded the storm, but also was weak, tired, and hurt!

Peter walked on water, healed the sick, the lame man, commanded Tabitha to rise from the dead. Did these things testify to the divinity of Peter?

No, of course not. In the same way, Jesus did nothing of his own initiative but he did the will of the Father. He did not see equality with the Father a thing to be grasped but came as man. And as man he remained in faithful submission to the Father (not just at the Incarnation but to death...even death on a cross).

 

[Yeshua1]

Generally I like study bibles because they give me places to put sticky notes. But yes, I do have the Niv Study Bible. I just purchased his commentary on Matthew as well.

Peter walked on water, healed the sick, the lame man, commanded Tabitha to rise from the dead. Did these things testify to the divinity of Peter?

No, of course not. In the same way, Jesus did nothing of his own initiative but he did the will of the Father. He did not see equality with the Father a thing to be grasped but came as man. And as man he remained in faithful submission to the Father (not just at the Incarnation but to death...even death on a cross).

He was both God and man, and he knew all thoughts, could heal, do miracles, because he was/is God also!

 

[JonC]

He was both God and man, and he knew all thoughts, could heal, do miracles, because he was/is God also!

Yes. He could. Yet instead he submitted himself in obedience, even to death. He did not do those things of his own accord, but rather through faithful obedience. Those things testified to what? His divinity? Not exactly (at least not per Scripture). In the Bible these things testify that Jesus is sent by the Father.

Peter healed, did miracles, raised a dead girl, cast out demons, walked on water, made a lame man walk....not because he was God but because of his faith and obedience to God. These miracles testified not of Peter but of God, of Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. He could. Yet instead he submitted himself in obedience, even to death. He did not do those things of his own accord, but rather through faithful obedience. Those things testified to what? His divinity? Not exactly (at least not per Scripture). In the Bible these things testify that Jesus is sent by the Father.

Peter healed, did miracles, raised a dead girl, cast out demons, walked on water, made a lame man walk....not because he was God but because of his faith and obedience to God. These miracles testified not of Peter but of God, of Christ.

Jesus was still able to function though as fully God when he choose to?

 

[JonC]

Jesus was still able to function though as fully God when he choose to?

You mean he would have been able to take back that "equality" that was set aside prior to the Cross, had He chosen to. Scripture tells us he didn't.

 

[percho]

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa 53:6

But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. Isa 59:2

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matt 27:45
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Luke 23:46

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt 12:40

On the morrow after the weekly Sabbath following the Passover on the 14 day of the first month.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17

Did the Son commune with the Father during those three days and three nights?

Why three days of Christ being dead? And be raised after three days or the third day, why three?
BTW I am asking not having a sure answer other than maybe prophesy yet I don't think just prophesy is the correct answer. I think it has something to do with being made pure/clean.

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. Lev 23:10,11

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

My problem is that when I think we are in agreement, you say something (as in the Calvinism/Arminianism thread) which makes me realise that we are not. You have objected furiously in the past to any suggestion that Christ was 'abandoned.' We argued uphill and down dale over that last year. Then you have posted quotes in which both Beeke and Piper say he was abandoned. "Great!" I think; "we've got agreement," but now you seem to be presenting that abandonment as nothing greater than a communication failure.

Christ was made sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). [The suggestion that He was made a sin offering fails, if no other way, to John 3:14. The brazen serpent is a figure of sin, not a sin offering] God's wrath against sin was poured out full-strength against sin upon Christ. That included separation from the Father. Exactly how that worked I don't know; I only know that it was so. The Trinity was not broken up (silly suggestion), nor was the Spirit withdrawn from Him (I have never suggested such a thing), but He experienced absolutely the abandonment of the Father, as both Piper and Beeke agree.

God the Father departed absolutely. "O My God, I cry in the daytime but You do not hear; and in the night season and am not silent." That completely close relationship that had existed between Father and Son from eternity past was severed. The Christ felt Himself to be utterly abandoned, and He hung desolate upon the cross in the darkness, in terrible agony, with the Jews mocking Him and taunting Him. This was Him experiencing hell on our account, and if He did not do so on your behalf and on mine, we must experience it for ourselves.

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.

I have re-stated my understanding above. You can agree or disagree from there.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

It was not the separation of the 'second death' because it was not permanent, but the pain and the desertion felt by the Christ was the same. It was, for those three or four hours, a complete separation, 'for one part of the punishment is loss of the divine presence.' There was no point, in those hours, when the Father whispered to Him, "Don't worry! I'm still here." That is not to say that the Father ceased to love the Son- not at all!-, but judicially, He was condemned to all the penalties of hell.