My God why have you forsaken me.

JimiTime

That line is a line that has troubled me for a long time. Was Jesus really having a moment of petulance? Whichever way I reasoned, i.e. it was a show of how his human body was being tortured etc. It never really settled in me.

Are any of you aware of what this was about? Just in case some of you were like me, and didn't know what this was about, I just found out this morning. He was referencing a prophetic song from Psalm 22. A song which prophesised that very moment. I was delighted at this discovery (which was actually made by my sister), and not only do we have an explaination for his words, but yet another prophesy as to his death.

Seaneh

I would have though it also had some sort of relevence to the idea that for us to be saved Christ had to become sin itself and in making such a decleration he was doing just that.

JimiTime

Seaneh wrote: »

I would have though it also had some sort of relevence to the idea that for us to be saved Christ had to become sin itself and in making such a decleration he was doing just that.

I disagree. I think the Psalm reference is what was intended. I don't see your point about 'becoming sin' myself. It was actually a song of praise. It shows that even in this horrid hour, he maintained his Holy credentials and gave us all more reassurance of who he was.

Fanny Cradock

I'm probably stating the obvious here, but I always considered Jesus' cry to the moment when Jesus and God were entirely separate. The doors shut, so to speak. And this makes sense if you consider that Jesus, figuratively speaking, took all the sins of the world on his shoulders, and in doing so suffered separation from God - a fate we are potentially subject to. Jesus may well have been referencing the Psalm, but I'm not sure there is a great significance to it.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

IJesus may well have been referencing the Psalm, but I'm not sure there is a great significance to it.

I think its precisely the signifigance. Like when he said I AM when the guards came to take him. A man so respected by the Jews, King David, uttered the Psalm. Jews would have recognised the events unfolding. The Faith that Christ had at this horrid moment. The mocking of 'Where is your God now' etc. He referenced the Psalm, to show that also Posterity will be good to him etc. Personally, I was nothing short of Joyous reading the Psalm.

Psalm 22
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel. [a]

4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.

5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.

7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

8 "He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.

10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.

13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.

20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.

21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save [d] me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.

23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!

24 For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you [e] will I fulfill my vows.

26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!

27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,

28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.

29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.

30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.

31 They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it.

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Personally, I was nothing short of Joyous reading the Psalm.

I know what you mean Jimi!

Apparently the Jews at the time only had to say the first line of a psalm and everyone would know which psalm the speaker was referring to.

So if they bothered to continue the psalm, they would have recognized the significance! I love Jesus' sublety.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

I know what you mean Jimi!

Apparently the Jews at the time only had to say the first line of a psalm and everyone would know which psalm the speaker was referring to.

So if they bothered to continue the psalm, they would have recognized the significance! I love Jesus' sublety.

God bless,
Noel.

So you knew about this reference too? Why did no-one tell me:) In all fairness though, if I had always known, I wouldn't have had that wonderful feeling I had this morning as I read it:) Seriously, I'm not a man who gets easily emotional, but I was literally hopping mad this morning:) A bit OTT you might think, but I was seriouly overcome. I feel great!

God be praised.
J.

PDN

I was preaching about this on Sunday.

Actually our text was Psalm 137 (By the rivers of Babylon etc.). We started off by letting a few people sing the old Boney M version. Then we tried to imagine what would happen if they had gone on to sing the rest of the Psalm - the bit about smashing infants' heads off the rocks. Probably wouldn't have made it to number one after all in that case!

The Book of Psalms is a songbook that is full of unanswered questions:
Why do the wicked prosper?
Why do injustice and cruelty go unpunished?
Why am I suffering so much?
Why doesn't God seem to answer my prayers?

If all we had was the Old Testament then we would keep on asking those same questions again and again in bewilderment (as many Jews did after the Holocaust). However, we believe that Jesus answered those questions in His death upon the Cross. For that reason Jesus Himself, and the Gospel writers, make many allusions to the Psalms - particularly in reference to the details of the Cross.

wolfsbane

Seaneh said:

I would have though it also had some sort of relevence to the idea that for us to be saved Christ had to become sin itself and in making such a decleration he was doing just that.

Yes. The difficulty is that both His (actual) innocence and His (imputed) sinfulness exist at this moment. The apostle puts it this way:
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.

Jesus was forsaken by His Father in this act of judicial punishment. When He was imputed with our sins He received the punishment we would otherwise have received - separation from God and hell-fire on His soul.

Yet, at the same time, it was also true that He remained perfectly holy. His holy sacrifice was accepted by God and He rose again and ascended to the Father's right hand as proof of that.

Eightball

PDN wrote: »

I was preaching about this on Sunday.

Why do the wicked prosper?
Why do injustice and cruelty go unpunished?
Why am I suffering so much?
Why doesn't God seem to answer my prayers?

Everyone will at some time in their lives ask these questions. For a non-believer it's proof that God does not exist. For a believer it's even harder coz' if He's there, then why? The answer is faith.:) Non-believers can choose to believe or not. Believers are called upon to know Him as their own personal friend and place their trust in His knowing what's best for them and when. If believers treat God as a far away diety and unapproachable, how can we claim to be His children. We should know Him as well as we know our family and good friends and not keep Him far away and guess at why He does things that way. Sorry if I've stepped on anyone's toes.:o

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

That line is a line that has troubled me for a long time. Was Jesus really having a moment of petulance? Whichever way I reasoned, i.e. it was a show of how his human body was being tortured etc. It never really settled in me.

Are any of you aware of what this was about? Just in case some of you were like me, and didn't know what this was about, I just found out this morning. He was referencing a prophetic song from Psalm 22. A song which prophesised that very moment. I was delighted at this discovery (which was actually made by my sister), and not only do we have an explaination for his words, but yet another prophesy as to his death.

I don't think I understand how exactly Psalm 22 answered the question.

This is the paradox of Mathew 27:46 as I understand it: if we believe that Jesus has Divine nature and we associate this Divine nature with God the Son and if we also believe that God the Son is of one being with God the Father then how (and why) God could forsake Jesus? Does Psalm 22 give us an answer?

Or you are suggesting that by saying "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" Jesus did not really mean it but wanted to fulfill the OT prophesy?

JimiTime

Slav wrote: »

I don't think I understand how exactly Psalm 22 answered the question.

This is the paradox of Mathew 27:46 as I understand it: if we believe that Jesus has Divine nature and we associate this Divine nature with God the Son and if we also believe that God the Son is of one being with God the Father then how (and why) God could forsake Jesus? Does Psalm 22 give us an answer?

Or you are suggesting that by saying "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" Jesus did not really mean it but wanted to fulfill the OT prophesy?

Well firstly, that Psalm is a prophetic witness to the events that people were seeing at that moment. If you read the Psalm, David, though in tribulation, is displaying his faith in God over what he has done and will do. The Psalm talks about the mocking etc. Contrast it to the mocking Jesus was recieving about 'If you are really the son of God come down' etc. So rather than it being a moment of petulance, it brings their and our attention to Davids prophetic Psalm. Once again cementing the fact that he was the prophesised messiah.

As for trinity apologetics, its not my thing, and certainly is not written in stone IMO.

BrianCalgary

Interesting enligtenment gents. I'm excited also JT.

I had always thought as wolfsbane that it was th epoint in time in which Jesus bore all the sins of humanity and was seperated from the Father.

However to have Him quote the Psalm to show that this was the fulfillment of prophecy was pretty fantastic.

Possibly both.

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

So rather than it being a moment of petulance, it brings their and our attention to Davids prophetic Psalm. Once again cementing the fact that he was the prophesised messiah.

So to summarise you think that by saying "why have you forsaken me" He only wanted to bring our attention to the Psalm and its prophesy? He did not really mean it, he was just quoting OT, correct?

JimiTime

Slav wrote: »

So to summarise you think that by saying "why have you forsaken me" He only wanted to bring our attention to the Psalm and its prophesy? He did not really mean it, he was just quoting OT, correct?

It certainly seems so to me. Though I think he was forsaken at that point. I think the purpose of the line though was to draw attention to Davids prophecy. Its like he gives the beginning of the Psalm, alot of which were songs. People would have been familiar with the line, and if they knew their stuff would realise what had taken place. They'd also see that his faith was strong still, showing that he would be glorified according to the prophetic Psalm.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Interesting enligtenment gents. I'm excited also JT.

I had always thought as wolfsbane that it was th epoint in time in which Jesus bore all the sins of humanity and was seperated from the Father.

However to have Him quote the Psalm to show that this was the fulfillment of prophecy was pretty fantastic.

Possibly both.

It one of those moments that fills the heart:)

Splendour

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Interesting enligtenment gents. I'm excited also JT.

I had always thought as wolfsbane that it was th epoint in time in which Jesus bore all the sins of humanity and was seperated from the Father.

However to have Him quote the Psalm to show that this was the fulfillment of prophecy was pretty fantastic.

Possibly both.

Definitely both, though the more important explanation for Jesus saying this IMO is because of the separation from God Jesus bore when he was hanging on the cross. Relationships are the most important part of life and to be separated from someone you really love is absolute agony. Jesus experienced being separate from God for a brief moment in time but yet it was enough for him to speak out those painful words-on our behalf...

stevencarrwork

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm probably stating the obvious here, but I always considered Jesus' cry to the moment when Jesus and God were entirely separate.

That's right. Jesus was the one God of monotheistic Christianity, which is why Jesus was separate from God.

It all makes sense.

Allegedly , Jesus said 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father', which explains why people who saw him on the cross saw somebody separate from the Father.

stevencarrwork

kelly1 wrote: »

I know what you mean Jimi!

Apparently the Jews at the time only had to say the first line of a psalm and everyone would know which psalm the speaker was referring to.

So Jesus spent the time on the cross quoting song-titles?

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

That's right. Jesus was the one God of monotheistic Christianity, which is why Jesus was separate from God.

It all makes sense.

Allegedly , Jesus said 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father', which explains why people who saw him on the cross saw somebody separate from the Father.

I suggest you try reading up on the doctrine of the Trinity.

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

I suggest you try reading up on the doctrine of the Trinity.

Is that the one which says that all of God was on the cross, because there is only one , indivisible God?


Why did Jesus say 'Me, Me, why have I forsaken myself?', as he obviously knew he was God?

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

Is that the one which says that all of God was on the cross, because there is only one , indivisible God?


Why did Jesus say 'Me, Me, why have I forsaken myself?', as he obviously knew he was God?

Because God the Father did not die on the Cross. That would be a theological error known as Patripassionism.

You appear to be misunderstanding the theological use of the term 'indivisible'. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there are Three Persons within the Godhead and that there is no division or disunity of purpose in their works. In the original Greek this was expressed as "Three Hypostases in one Ousia" - or three 'substances' but one 'essence'.

The same idea also crops up in early discussions of Christ's human and divine natures. The "hypostatic union" means that the two natures were indivisible yet also distinct.

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

Because God the Father did not die on the Cross. That would be a theological error known as Patripassionism.

You appear to be misunderstanding the theological use of the term 'indivisible'. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there are Three Persons within the Godhead and that there is no division or disunity of purpose in their works. In the original Greek this was expressed as "Three Hypostases in one Ousia" - or three 'substances' but one 'essence'.

The same idea also crops up in early discussions of Christ's human and divine natures. The "hypostatic union" means that the two natures were indivisible yet also distinct.

So there is only one essence and none of it died on the cross?

When Jesus was separate from the one God of monotheistic Christianity, he was still the one God of monotheistic Christianity, which abhors and abjures polytheism?

When Jesus allegedly said 'I and the Father are one' and 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father', he meant that he and the Father were could be separated, and whoever saw him on the cross did not see the Father?

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

So there is only one essence and none of it died on the cross?

There is only one essence, one essential divine nature, and Jesus was fully and properly God when He died on the Cross. The divine essence did not 'die' on the Cross, no more than someone's spirit dies. It was Christ's human body that died on the Cross.

When Jesus was separate from the one God of monotheistic Christianity, he was still the one God of monotheistic Christianity, which abhors and abjures polytheism?

For a brief period on the Cross God the Son was separated from God the Father. This was because He was carrying the sin of the world.

I am hesitant to use precise terminology at this point because we as human beings are no more able to fully understand the nature of God than an ant can understand a computer across which it crawls.

However, what happened at the Cross was the pivotal event of all of history. Something took place in the very nature of God which involved a 'tearing apart' within God Himself. This is no way undermines monotheismn or implies polytheism.

When Jesus allegedly said 'I and the Father are one' and 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father', he meant that he and the Father were could be separated, and whoever saw him on the cross did not see the Father?

Ah, we're playing these old games again, are we? Where someone takes a saying of Jesus and deliberately interprets it in a way that implies a contradiction, even though other perfectly acceptable interpretations are available?

When Jesus said He and His Father were one, or that seeing him is seeing the Father, He was obviously not saying that they were 100% identical. After all, He spoke about His Father as 'another witness' in John 8, and He prayed to the Father "Not My will but Your will be done". Therefore we can safely conclude that Jesus was saying that we can learn everything we need to know about the Father by looking at Jesus.

So, when Jesus was dying on the Cross then whoever looked at Him could indeed see the Father. They could see that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son, so that everyone who believes on Him can be saved.

stevencarrwork

'For a brief period on the Cross God the Son was separated from God the Father.'

Yes, because there is only one God, so obviously God the Son could be separated from God the Father. This is what is meant by one God. Only a polytheist would claim that one god was separate from another god, and Christians never do that. It all makes perfect sense :-)

As for complaints that people make one bit of the Bible contradict the other, well, you shouldn't have a Bible which contradicts itself.

Or a Jesus who is made to engage in double-talk by the anonymous author who put words in his mouth, at one time claiming he and the Father are one person, when it suits the author to do that, while claiming Jesus and the Father are two people, when it suits the author to do that.


PDN
After all, He spoke about His Father as 'another witness' in John 8, and He prayed to the Father "Not My will but Your will be done".

PDN

The doctrine of the Trinity is that there are Three Persons within the Godhead and that there is no division or disunity of purpose in their works.

CARR
So there is no division or disunity of purpose in their works, but God the Son prayed to God the Father that God the Father's will be done, rather than God the Son's will.

It all makes such perfect sense :-)

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

For a brief period on the Cross God the Son was separated from God the Father. This was because He was carrying the sin of the world.

If I could just interject here please, what's you basis for saying this PDN?

How can the Son be separated from the Father? IMO, no separation is possible. Jesus was quoting the first line of a psalm to give those present a clue that what was happening on the cross was the fulfilment of the OT prophesy.

kelly1

stevencarrwork wrote: »

Or a Jesus who is made to engage in double-talk by the anonymous author who put words in his mouth, at one time claiming he and the Father are one person, when it suits the author to do that, while claiming Jesus and the Father are two people, when it suits the author to do that.

Jesus is one Person with two natures - divine and human.

God is "composed of" 3 Persons. The Son "proceeds" from the Father and the Spirit "proceeds" from both the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is the ultimate "source" of the Holy Trinity but all 3 Persons are equal and have existed eternally.

stevencarrwork wrote: »

PDN
After all, He spoke about His Father as 'another witness' in John 8, and He prayed to the Father "Not My will but Your will be done".

PDN

The doctrine of the Trinity is that there are Three Persons within the Godhead and that there is no division or disunity of purpose in their works.

CARR
So there is no division or disunity of purpose in their works, but God the Son prayed to God the Father that God the Father's will be done, rather than God the Son's will.

It all makes such perfect sense :-)

It makes sense when you realize that Jesus has 2 natures. His human natures was subject to His divine nature.

stevencarrwork

kelly1 wrote: »

It makes sense when you realize that Jesus has 2 natures. His human natures was subject to His divine nature.

So God the Son really did prayer to God the Father for God the Father's will to be done, rather than God the Son's will?

kelly1

stevencarrwork wrote: »

So God the Son really did prayer to God the Father for God the Father's will to be done, rather than God the Son's will?

Both wills are the same, there's only 1 God. The Son is a perfect mirror image of the Father (except that the Father has no human nature).

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

After all, He spoke about His Father as 'another witness' in John 8, and He prayed to the Father "Not My will but Your will be done". Therefore we can safely conclude that Jesus was saying that we can learn everything we need to know about the Father by looking at Jesus.

But I have just been told that the will of God the Father and the will of God the Son are the same.

Didn't God the Son know that the will of God the Father was the same, when God the Son prayed to God the Father 'Not My will but your will be done'?

kelly1

stevencarrwork wrote: »

Didn't God the Son know that the will of God the Father was the same, when God the Son prayed to God the Father 'Not My will but your will be done'?

Steven, Jesus showed here His human fears and weakness but nevertheless He submitted to His Father's will.

Jesus has a human body and soul but also a divine nature. His humanity suffered, not His divinity because God can't suffer.

stevencarrwork

kelly1 wrote: »

Steven, Jesus showed here His human fears and weakness but nevertheless He submitted to His Father's will.

Jesus has a human body and soul but also a divine nature. His humanity suffered, not His divinity because God can't suffer.

So the Son of God submitted to his Father's will, and then was separated from God the Father?

Didn't Jesus know he was the one God of monotheistic Christianity?

I imagine Jesus was very familiar with Number 23 where the Lord God allegedly denies he can ever become a human being :-

God is not a man, that he should lie, Nor a son of man, that he should repent: Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?

Jesus called himself the 'son of man', allegedly.

Perhaps Jesus didn't know that God is not a man, or could be a son of man.

kelly1

stevencarrwork wrote: »

So the Son of God submitted to his Father's will, and then was separated from God the Father?

I specifically said there was no separation. God is indivisible.

stevencarrwork wrote: »

Didn't Jesus know he was the one God of monotheistic Christianity?

Yes, of course.

stevencarrwork wrote: »

I imagine Jesus was very familiar with Number 23 where the Lord God allegedly denies he can ever become a human being :-

God is not a man, that he should lie, Nor a son of man, that he should repent: Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?

God didn't "become" human. The Son "assumed" human nature which left His divine nature unaltered.

stevencarrwork wrote: »

Jesus called himself the 'son of man', allegedly.

Perhaps Jesus didn't know that God is not a man, or could be a son of man.

"Son of man" is a reference to the Old Testament's prophesy about the coming Messiah. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm

nobodythere

JimiTime wrote: »

That line is a line that has troubled me for a long time. Was Jesus really having a moment of petulance?

He was under a lot of stress at the time... as you can imagine

TravelJunkie

Originally Posted by PDN
For a brief period on the Cross God the Son was separated from God the Father. This was because He was carrying the sin of the world.

kelly1 wrote: »

If I could just interject here please, what's you basis for saying this PDN?

How can the Son be separated from the Father? IMO, no separation is possible. Jesus was quoting the first line of a psalm to give those present a clue that what was happening on the cross was the fulfilment of the OT prophesy.

Kelly, Jesus said that while he was still alive. God did forsake him due to our sin. He turned away from him so for a moment (or however long) he had no relationship with God (the father) no communion. Much like an unbeliever would. This doesn't mean he wasn't God in the flesh. Once his earthly body died, he was still there - Jesus / Holy Spirit / God.

kelly1

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Kelly, Jesus said that while he was still alive. God did forsake him due to our sin. He turned away from him so for a moment (or however long) he had no relationship with God (the father) no communion.

Does Scripture support this assertion?

What's wrong with the suggestion that Jesus was merely quoting the first line of Psalm 21 to show that Scripture was being fulfilled at that instant?

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

What's wrong with the suggestion that Jesus was merely quoting the first line of Psalm 22 to show that Scripture was being fulfilled at that instant?

There is nothing wrong with this. If we look at Psalm 22, the first half of the Psalm (verses 1 - 21a) speak about what it meant to be forsaken by God. The remainder of the Psalm speaks about God's answer, and the Lord Jesus quotes from this with his dying breath: "It is finished" (Psalm 22:31, "He has done"). As the Lord Jesus quoted this Psalm, I think He meant that He was being forsaken by God.

kelly1 wrote: »

Does Scripture support this assertion??

I think there is strong support in Scripture for this. If we start with the meaning of the offerings (Leviticus 1 - 7) than we can see that there are five separate offerings - each speaking of the death of the Lord Jesus.
Of the sin offering we read that it had to be burned completely on the ash heap (Lev 4:11,12), and even more specific in Lev 16:27,28 we read that the person who burned it was ceremonially unclean. This indicates that the offering for sin became the "carrier of the sin" and therefore unclean. The words "pleasing aroma" are nearly absent from these chapters, they only occur once (out of 8 cases) when a "common person" brings a sin offering.

Likewise, the Lord Jesus became our sin offering, and in the Gospel that represent Him as guilt or sin offering (Matthew and Mark) we find both the three hours of darkness and the quote from Psalm 22. (Mat 27:46; Mar 15:34). cf also Gal 3:13 ESV

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"--