Forsaken in Matthew 27:46

[percho]

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

 

[JonC]

Think that sticking point seems to be this covenant keeping faith thing, as that seems to be NT Wright to me, and not penal substitution as the Reformers held with! Think main difference is I see it as penal as main atonement model, and you the Christ as Victor as wright holds with!

And I am curious, what is this thing with you and N.T. Wright. I could understand if you were criticizing my references of the Early Church (I've done this a lot in the past, but have not really read much along that line this year). But N.T. Wright???

I have been Baptist all of my life (I have been Southern Baptist all of my life). Never have I set foot in an Anglican church. I do not understand your focus on the man, or what it is you think I share with the guy. If he affirms Christus Victor then good for him. So did the Anabaptists and the Early Church Fathers. If he denies Penal Substitution then that's on him as well. I am not responsible for what he teaches.

 

[JonC]

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

Sheol is where people went when they died ("the grave"). The New Testament uses the Greek word "Hades".

The extent to which the Cross was for physical death and spiritual death is a debated topic. Scripture focuses often on the physical resurrection, deliverance from physical death, etc. But it also speaks of Judgment and a "second death" when Hades and death are cast into the lake of fire.

Because of the work of the Cross, we know that all will be resurrected - some to life and others to death.

We are told that even in Sheol God will be there. God will not abandon His Holy One or leave him in the grave. When Jesus died physically, he did not die spiritually. When we die physically, we don't die spiritually (we don't cease to exist). Martyrs are at the throne asking 'how long". So yes, I believe that when Jesus died he remained in submission and praise to the Father. He had the power to raise Himself (He is God) but He was raised by the power of the Spirit - just as we will be raised.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In application, perhaps this should be as much a comfort to us as it was to the early church. God will never leave us.

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

Even in our trials, even when we cannot hear His voice, we can trust in Him to deliver us because the Father answered His Son's cry for help and three days later he rose from the tomb. Therein is our hope.

Amen!

 

[JonC]

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

Amen!

I agree. And, as they tended to emphasize, because death will be swallowed up in victory as the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

Did you know that one of the strongest advocates for the Penal Substitution Theory was John Wesley? Would it be fair to accuse you of Wesleyan Arminianism because John Wesley also held to Penal Substitution?

I am curious, why do you see me as holding to the Christus Victor Theory?

I've affirmed that Jesus died in our place, as our representative, and took the wrath due man. I've also said that I believe God offered Jesus as a guilt / transgression offering. This has disobeying God's law in view. Where we differed was that I said I also believe Jesus fulfilled the role of sin offering, that he died to atone for the sinfulness of mankind (our sinful natures).

Where we disagree is not in what I affirm but in what you deny. I do believe in penal substitution, but I also believe that Christ died as a sin offering in order to defeat the curse, to gain victory over sin and death. And I believe that the Father glorified the Son because did not see equality with God a thing to be grasped but humbled himself, submitted himself, even to death.

I do not believe that one truth takes priority over another. When we start reading Scripture through one theory at the expense of another then we start reading into Scripture what we expect or want to find.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

And I am curious, what is this thing with you and N.T. Wright. I could understand if you were criticizing my references of the Early Church (I've done this a lot in the past, but have not really read much along that line this year). But N.T. Wright???

I have been Baptist all of my life (I have been Southern Baptist all of my life). Never have I set foot in an Anglican church. I do not understand your focus on the man, or what it is you think I share with the guy. If he affirms Christus Victor then good for him. So did the Anabaptists and the Early Church Fathers. If he denies Penal Substitution then that's on him as well. I am not responsible for what he teaches.

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!

 

[percho]

And I believe that the Father glorified the Son

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?

 

[JonC]

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!

You are wrong on two accounts. First, insofar as denying Penal Substitution, Wright claims to hold the view, but also favors Christus Victor. Your suggestion that Wright is the main theologian who supports the Christus Victor theory is ludicrous. Not only is it the primary view of Anabaptist Theology, but it has been the dominant view for centuries.

Second, I don't deny Penal Substitution. I deny your view because you deny that the Christ's work was in submission to the Father. I do not believe your opinion here is original to Scripture, much less Reformed Theology.

I truly believe that Jesus fulfilled the Law by submitting to the will of the Father. You deny that view and claim Jesus' submission ended at the Incarnation. Stop this "NT Wright" nonsense and defend your statements.

 

[Darrell C]

This topic came up on another thread and I cautiously decided to bring it here. Maybe this time discussion will prove better than before.

My understanding is that on the cross Jesus’ cry "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?"was a fulfillment of Psalm 22. I believe that here “forsaken” means that the Father has left Jesus in his sufferings (deliverance was not present, although not far off). The Father has offered the Son as a guilt offering. And Jesus, bearing our sins, is experiencing death as man. He is “forsaken”, crying out to the Father for deliverance (in obedience and faith, trusting that God will be faithful to deliver because God is faithful to his word and his promises will not fail.

“Forsake” here does not mean that Jesus is no longer God (Jn 1:1; 10;30-33; Col. 2:9), nor does it mean that the Father is not looking on the Son with love (Mat. 3:17; Jn. 3:35). It does not meant that Jesus was separated from God’s Spirit (Heb. 9:14; Acts 10:38; Jn. 3:34) and It does not mean that God abandoned (withdrew himself/ his presence from) Christ (Psalm 9:10;16:10; 94:14;1 Chr. 28:20; Job 8:20; Acts 2:27;13:35).

Regarding Jesus, Habakkuk 1:13 states that his “eyes are too pure to approve evil” and he “cannot look on wickedness with favor”. This “forsakenness” cannot mean that Jesus was approving evil, but instead is forsaken on the grounds that he is suffering for our sin. Jesus is dying as a man under the curse of the Law, for “cursed is anyone who is hanged from a tree” (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).

On the cross Jesus was offering himself to God through the Spirit (Heb. 9:14). Scripture presents the Cross as a Triune event - the offering and sending of the Father, the obedience in faith and willingness of the Son, and the power of the Spirit. God’s Spirit was still with Jesus and still empowering Jesus. He was not there of his own will, but the will of the Father through the Spirit. This is vital, because had Jesus been abandoned by the Spirit not only would Scripture have been nullified and God demonstrated unfaithful, but the work of the Cross would no longer be one of submission. Jesus was clear. It was not his will as a man, but the Father’s. Not his work as a man, but the Spirit. And this forms a pattern for those who are “in Christ”, that take up their crosses and die daily to the flesh to live with and in Him.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

What is it you disagree with, Martin?


God bless.

 

[JonC]

There is a problem of reading theology into the text. Throughout the Old Testament we see the word “forsaken” used, but rarely (if ever) in referring to God to mean a complete departure of God's presence from his Holy One, or His people (as this would make God unfaithful).

Sometimes people forget that Psalm 22, while pointing to the cross, was also a psalm of David (the Jewish interpretation applies this to the exile where the Jews are forsaken of God). In the sense that God will forsake Israel, this does not mean God will completely abandon His people (for then God would be made a liar).

Isaiah 53:3 tells us that Jesus “was despised and forsaken of men”, But this does not mean that men withdrew their physical presence. In fact, Scripture tells us that men crucified Jesus. They were there the whole time, forsaking Christ by nailing him on a tree, mocking him, dividing his garments, and watching him die.

Isaiah 49:14-18 "But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me, And the Lord has forgotten me." "Can a woman forget her nursing child and have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you. Behold, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands; Your walls are continually before Me. Your builders hurry; Your destroyers and devastators will depart from you. Lift up your eyes and look around; All of them gather together, they come to you. As I live," declares the LORD, "You will surely put on all of them as jewels and bind them on as a bride.”

And of course, Psalm 22 "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning."

Do you see the problem? Psalm 22 defines this forsaking not as a withdraw of God's presence but of God's deliverance.

The problem is that some want to read theology into a passage rather than derive theology from Scripture. What you end up with is a very simplistic and concise doctrine which is, unfortunately, far from biblical.

The Hebrew word, to the Hebrew people, did not mean that God completely withdrew his presence. It did not mean that God was completely withdrawn from Israel in the exile (if you will remember, three lads went into a furnace, and one into a lions den). God was not withdrawn from David when he was at his lowest point (which is where God shown the strongest). And he was not withdrawn from Christ on the Cross. So my suggestion is that it is not right to read English into the Hebrew to make it say what is not said at all. Let Psalm 22 define "forsaken", and you will get a withdrawal of deliverance.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Isaiah 53:3 tells us that Jesus “was despised and forsaken of men”, But this does not mean that men withdrew their physical presence.

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.'

And of course, Psalm 22 "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning."

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

 

[JonC]

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.'

Exactly!!!! Jesus cry on the cross points to Psalm 22. "Forsaken" means "far from deliverance" and not "God's Spirit departed" just as "You do not hear" means "far from deliverance" rather than "God does not hear the cry".


Some (not saying you) assume the validity of a system and in turn grant that validity as a means of interpreting Scripture. Some believe Jesus experienced the exact punishment the lost will suffer at Judgment.

Some of them believe Christ must have suffered the exact punishment that the lost will suffer at Judgment (i.e., after a physical death, being resurrected to eternal judgment rather than eternal life, being cast into the “outer darkness”; the “Lake of Fire”; a final and complete separation from God, God’s nature, and God’s Spirit as a final spiritual and second death). Others believe that the same thing must happen in a different context (Jesus must experience the second death, a spiritual death; become hated by God; abandoned by God's Spirit; void of faith, hope and trust in God for deliverance). Either way demands that Jesus be completely separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

This corruption of doctrine dictates a view of "forsaken" that probably would not otherwise have been considered. Like I said, NOT ONCE is "forsaken" taken to mean such a withdrawal when in context of God forsaking his people. So it probably is not making an exception on the cross.

But you are exactly right with your post here. God forsook Jesus. The Father offered His Son as an atonement. He delivered his Son to the Jews and to the cross. And he was subjected to unimaginable suffering (not because of the mode of death....people have died in far worse ways....but because he is God and he did so bearing our iniquities). God withdrew his loving presence, but not his presence. And Christ remained faithful, trusting in the faithfulness of God to deliver him as God delivered the fathers who trusted in Him. And through, not apart from but THROUGH the Holy Spirit Jesus accomplished our redemption on the cross.

 

[HankD]

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

 

[The Biblicist]

My understanding is that on the cross Jesus’ cry "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?"was a fulfillment of Psalm 22. I believe that here “forsaken” means that the Father has left Jesus in his sufferings (deliverance was not present, although not far off). The Father has offered the Son as a guilt offering. And Jesus, bearing our sins, is experiencing death as man. He is “forsaken”, crying out to the Father for deliverance (in obedience and faith, trusting that God will be faithful to deliver because God is faithful to his word and his promises will not fail.

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.

“Forsake” here does not mean that Jesus is no longer God (Jn 1:1; 10;30-33; Col. 2:9), nor does it mean that the Father is not looking on the Son with love (Mat. 3:17; Jn. 3:35). It does not meant that Jesus was separated from God’s Spirit (Heb. 9:14; Acts 10:38; Jn. 3:34) and It does not mean that God abandoned (withdrew himself/ his presence from) Christ (Psalm 9:10;16:10; 94:14;1 Chr. 28:20; Job 8:20; Acts 2:27;13:35).

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.

Regarding Jesus, Habakkuk 1:13 states that his “eyes are too pure to approve evil” and he “cannot look on wickedness with favor”. This “forsakenness” cannot mean that Jesus was approving evil, but instead is forsaken on the grounds that he is suffering for our sin. Jesus is dying as a man under the curse of the Law, for “cursed is anyone who is hanged from a tree” (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).

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.

On the cross Jesus was offering himself to God through the Spirit (Heb. 9:14).

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?

Scripture presents the Cross as a Triune event - the offering and sending of the Father, the obedience in faith and willingness of the Son, and the power of the Spirit. God’s Spirit was still with Jesus and still empowering Jesus. He was not there of his own will, but the will of the Father through the Spirit. This is vital, because had Jesus been abandoned by the Spirit not only would Scripture have been nullified and God demonstrated unfaithful, but the work of the Cross would no longer be one of submission. Jesus was clear. It was not his will as a man, but the Father’s. Not his work as a man, but the Spirit. And this forms a pattern for those who are “in Christ”, that take up their crosses and die daily to the flesh to live with and in Him.

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.

 

[JonC]

sin requires a penalty.

Yes, the wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is life in Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, the wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is life in Christ.

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.

 

[JonC]

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 was agreeing with you that sin carried a penalty. I do not see Romans 6:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:21 as opposing passages of scripture.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

 

[The Biblicist]

I was agreeing with you that sin carried a penalty. I do not see Romans 6:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:21 as opposing passages of scripture.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

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.