Jesus' cry from the cross

[Obsidian]

To ask, "Why have you forsaken me" implies that you have forsaken me. To knowingly and falsely declare that you have forsaken me, when you have not, would be a lie. Not overly complicated.

Whenever the Bible disagrees with a person's theological construct, only one of those can be right. I wonder which one it is.

[OingoBoingo]

Must it necessarily be one or the other. Can it not be, in some sense, both?

Agreed. There's an interesting narrative being told by the Gospel writers here, taking into consideration both Isaiah and the Psalms.

Isaiah 53:4-5
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.

Isaiah 59:1-2
Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save,
or his ear dull, that it cannot hear;
but your iniquities have made a separation
between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from you
so that he does not hear.

Psalm 22:1-5
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.

Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises of Israel.
In you our fathers trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
To you they cried and were rescued;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

Matthew 27:46-50
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.

Luke 23:44-46
It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun's light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

1 Peter 2:24
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

It looks like the early Christian movement takes into consideration Isaiah's view of the suffering servant as one who takes on the iniquities of the world, and that the Father separates himself from sin. Yet, the Son is not left with these inequities, rather he is delivered, and glorified. Its an intriguing understanding of the view of the second person of the trinity who, in his incarnation, suffers in all ways as man suffers, yet is redeemed and glorified in the end. If Jesus simply died a physical death for the sins of the world, would that be enough? Separation from the Father, even for a short time, seems like the true sacrifice on the cross. Jesus suffered both physical and spiritual death, and so only he can claim to know what suffering is, and to have been tempted in all ways, yet to still do the will the father.

[robrecht]

No. I think this is one place where many have it wrong, and are being too literal. Its referencing Psalm 22. The psalms are taught to be cried out in times of need pain or prayer for the Jews. It would not have been uncommon to hear a psalm in time of great pain. But that it was this specific psalm is significant.

Who, me?

[The Remonstrant]

To ask, "Why have you forsaken me" implies that you have forsaken me. To knowingly and falsely declare that you have forsaken me, when you have not, would be a lie. Not overly complicated.

Whenever the Bible disagrees with a person's theological construct, only one of those can be right. I wonder which one it is.

Observe the 24th verse of Psalm 22 (ESV): "For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him."

It is one thing to feel utterly abandoned by God and quite another to claim it as an indubitable theological truth. Jesus would not by "lying" by vocalizing his distress on the cross. Surely you familiar with the Psalms and the Prophets. The language of forsakenness and abandonment is given voice to throughout numerous passages of the Hebrew Scriptures by suffering servants of Yahweh God. Are we to suppose Job, Habakkuk and Jeremiah were all liars in expressing their angst? It would be a mistake to read all their statements as infallible propositional truths in the first place.

[Darth Xena]

To ask, "Why have you forsaken me" implies that you have forsaken me. To knowingly and falsely declare that you have forsaken me, when you have not, would be a lie. Not overly complicated.

Whenever the Bible disagrees with a person's theological construct, only one of those can be right. I wonder which one it is.

I sure hope you are not that literal in your relationships. Hint: When a woman says, "You don't love me anymore" she is using a rhetorical emotional device. She isn't literally saying she literally believes you don't literally love her any more. Sheesh.

[The Remonstrant]

I sure hope you are not that literal in your relationships. Hint: When a woman says, "You don't love me anymore" she is using a rhetorical emotional device. She isn't literally saying she literally believes you don't literally love her any more. Sheesh.

[Obsidian]

Psalm 22:24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

This verse does not negate the prior abandonment. It just means that God eventually hears the cry, and eventually intervenes. Further, I will point out that verse 24 appears to be part of a quotation.

22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
23 ["]Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.
24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.["]

[The Remonstrant]

Psalm 22:24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

This verse does not negate the prior abandonment. It just means that God eventually hears the cry, and eventually intervenes. Further, I will point out that verse 24 appears to be part of a quotation.

22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
23 ["]Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.
24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.["]

I still do not see how you are able to cling onto a single verse (namely Jesus' utterance of Psalm 22:1) in order to substantiate your claim that the Father literally abandoned the Son on the cross. (You also have conveniently ignored the rest of my points in my prior post specifically addressed to you.)

[foudroyant]

I sure hope you are not that literal in your relationships. Hint: When a woman says, "You don't love me anymore" she is using a rhetorical emotional device. She isn't literally saying she literally believes you don't literally love her any more. Sheesh.

Yeah but DD that's a woman...you can't always go by what they say anyway because it most often means the opposite!



Saw this from W.E. Vine:

Note: A recent translator renders this verb in Matthew 27:50 "uttered a scream," an utterly deplorable mistranslation and a misrepresentation of the nature of the Lord's "cry."

http://www.studylight.org/dic/ved/view.cgi?n=624

Anyone know who Vine is referring to?

[IamLives]

I sure hope you are not that literal in your relationships. Hint: When a woman says, "You don't love me anymore" she is using a rhetorical emotional device. She isn't literally saying she literally believes you don't literally love her any more. Sheesh.

But if i was to read a story, and read that the woman told the man, "you don't love me anymore," i would have to assume that she meant what she stated, because it's a statement. That statement literally means that her perspective literally sees the man as having no love toward her. I can't just assume that she's being emotional, I have to find out whether or not she is. That's why we have to search the text to understand the meaning of Jesus statement, so we have the correct context. No assumptions, No pre-suppositions, etc. Only text, we must let the text define the text, so what do we do? Keep looking until we find the evidence, or enough evidence, that defines the statement.

[Obsidian]

Yes, when a woman says that she is lying to manipulate the man's emotions. Unless she truly believes it -- in which case she is either delusional, or correct.

[The Remonstrant]

DDW was confronting Obsidian's approach to Jesus' "cry of dereliction". It was, therefore, relevant.

I really hope we are not about to go off on some extended gender relations rant derail of this thread now.

[Darth Xena]

But if i was to read a story, and read that the woman told the man, "you don't love me anymore," i would have to assume that she meant what she stated, because it's a statement. That statement literally means that her perspective literally sees the man as having no love toward her. I can't just assume that she's being emotional, I have to find out whether or not she is. That's why we have to search the text to understand the meaning of Jesus statement, so we have the correct context. No assumptions, No pre-suppositions, etc. Only text, we must let the text define the text, so what do we do? Keep looking until we find the evidence, or enough evidence, that defines the statement.

And you would be wrong. Just as if you grabbed a kennel rather than an umbrella when I said it was raining cats and dogs. But despite all that, the context tells us… He is quoting Psalm 22 which says precisely the opposite. And no one said she was "being emotional" - using an emotional rhetorical device is not the same. When someone "breaks your heart", I doubt you go to see a heart surgeon.

[Darth Xena]

Yes, when a woman says that she is lying to manipulate the man's emotions. Unless she truly believes it -- in which case she is either delusional, or correct.

Good luck with that. You will be a social retard if you live liked that.

[Darth Xena]

DDW was confronting Obsidian's approach to Jesus' "cry of dereliction". It was, therefore, relevant.

I really hope we are not about to go off on some extended gender relations rant derail of this thread now.

Piggo, as thread starter, please put an end to the misogynistic insertion.