Jesus forsaken?
 

Mark 15:34 (KJV)
34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

I would be interested in opinions as to what extent Jesus was forsaken by God at His crucifixion.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

He, (his humanity) felt forsaken, he wasn't forsaken.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Though confess that there are depths here I have yet to plunge, my own take begins with the Psalm that He is obviously quoting - Psalm 22.

The first 2 verses appear to be cries of despair, however they are followed by an affirmation of faith. So before I can even get into the humanity vis-à-vis Deity issue in Mark 15:34, I am confronted immediately with a very real human cry of suffering. Implied with that cry and in the quoted Psalm I find a renewal of faith.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Please elaborate...

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Jesus was not forsaken by God although he felt alone, He wasn't.

Heb 9:14 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?

Psalm 22 is an incredible psalm. It puts us into the mind of Christ as he hung on the cross! It's written in the present tense and allows us to feel what Christ felt as he hung on the cross. Verse 1 is an example of poetic parallelism. The two questions are worded differently but ask the same thing. Where is God when we are in the pit of suffering?

Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

There are times when we feel like God is not around. We are going through difficult times and we don't feel his presence. Our prayers aren't being answered like we would like them to and we are allowed to go through things we don't want to go through. But we know God is always with us as He was with Jesus.


Though Jesus faith seems to falter in his darkest hour, He rallies back in verses 22-24. God didn't hide his face from Christ but HE HEARD!

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

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

This was more than the cry of a righteous Sufferer affirming His faith that God would cause Him to triumph (contrast Ps. 22:1 with Ps. 22:28). Nor did Jesus merely feel abandoned. Instead, Jesus’ cry combined (a) abandonment by God the Father in a judicial not relational sense, and (b) a genuine affirmation of Jesus’ relationship to God. Bearing the curse of sin and God’s judgment on sin (cf. Deut. 21:22-23; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13) He experienced the unfathomable horror of separation from God, who cannot look on sin (cf. Hab. 1:13). This answers Jesus’ question, “Why?” Dying for sinners (Mark 10:45; Rom. 5:8; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18), He experienced separation from God.
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (2:189). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

What do you say to this?

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Christ's cry was a human cry of not knowing. God requires us, even Christ as Son, to not know everything and go on by faith.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Jesus separated from God? That's a tricky one!!

If Jesus suffered separation from God for bearing our sins, what happens to us when we sin once we've become His children? Does God automatically disown us until we repent? And isn't it God's goodness and the conviction of the Spirit, IOW, God is dealing with us to bring us back to Himself when we sin. If God left Jesus, (separated Himself from Him because Jesus became sin for us), what hope do I have when I sin?

Besides that's why I posted the verse from Hebrews. It was THROUGH the eternal Spirit that Christ offered himself on the cross.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

There are some PAW folks who believe unless God literally and actually separated from the Son of God, then Jesus would not have physically died.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

What do people think happens when we die?
God is still with us.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

My first response would be - "yeah, a bunch of dispy apologists!"

But seriously, as I said earlier - though it seems you posted before I had completed an update - where we begin with this is with the passage that Jesus was referring to. The fact that he was quoting scripture is a powerful indication of the thoughts and feelings he wished to express.

And, the Walvoord and Zuck (I have several of their books) quote does expound upon the idea of Christ being separated as a sin offering.

But the fact that He cried is interesting. That experience of being "forsaken" was traumatizing for Him. It seems to have been felt as one more lash across His back, so to speak. I think it reveals the depths of the emotional suffering He endured. Consider Hebrews 12:3, and the "contradiction of sinners."

Jesus was righteous and went about doing good - yet He was accused of doing evil, Matthew 9:34, Matthew 12:24, and many others. This is just one glaring "contradiction."

He did good but was accused of evil. Then He was charged with blasphemy and tried. God manifest in the flesh was charged with blasphemy - a crime against God. Another "contradiction."

And then when this holy, sinless and righteous man was crucified, He became sin for us, the real sinners in the drama. 2 Corinthians 5:21.

We can objectively tie these things (and many other points) up in nice theological packages and rejoice with thankfulness; but He had to endure it one excruciating step of injustice at a time. I think the cry of Mark 15:34 gives us a window on a very broad panorama.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

He wasn't forsaken. God does not forsake the righteous. He was empathizing with David whom Jesus was quoting. He FELT forsaken just as David felt forsaken

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Yet, wouldn't you say that there was an element of "forsakenness" when He "became sin for us..."? I think that's at least part of what Theophil is getting at.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Call me a heretic but I think that means "he became a sin offering for us"

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

There is a difference in feeling forsaken, and being forsaken.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

I'm not really sure of exactly what was taking place when Jesus cried out. I am wanting to hear different viewpoints and opinions. I threw out the quote from Walvoord to suggest the differing ideas on this subject. Thank you for your responses thus far and please continue.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

That's my understanding. Jesus suffered the feeling of being totally abandoned by God as He hung on that cross. Hebrews 9:14 says that "Christ...through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God..." I do not believe as some Oneness folks that God withdrew from Jesus on the cross and He suffered alone as a man.

I remember hearing one Oneness preacher on the radio talking about how God entered Jesus after His water baptism and then left Him before His death on the cross and then re-entered Him when He rose from the dead.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

and as the oil and meal were offered together (not separated at some time in the process) deity and humanity were offered together.

The penalty for sin is separation from God. When Jesus became sin He felt that penalty of separation from God.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Are you thinking of the meal offering as in Leviticus 2? The meal offering for sin (Leviticus 5) seems to have stipulated that no oil was to be mixed.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

How do you "become sin"? Sin is an abstract. You either commit sin or you do not.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

In English comes across clumsily. We also "become righteousness" according to 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

How was he forsaken and to what extent: Totally forsaken to the fullest extent.

Simply put: He died.

Every human is possessed of spirit, soul and body.

His Father was his Spirit, aka the Holy Ghost, aka, The Spirit of Christ.

The body without the spirit is dead.

The eternal Spirit (God), his own Spirit departed.

When a man's spirit departs, he dies.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Don't you believe that as a human Jesus had a body, a soul, and a spirit?
I've heard some say that instead of a human spirit, Jesus had the Holy Spirit.
Would this make Jesus less than human?

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

So do you believe Jesus was not omniscient?

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

"JESUS" refers to the single person of God. SON is a manifestation of that person aside from the other manifestations of Father and Holy Ghost of the same Person.

So, JESUS is omniscient.

However, the SONSHIP involved lack of omniscience, as per His humanity but not the deity

Mark 13:32 KJV But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Would you agree this verse indicates my claim? How do you explain this verse in lieu of your question?

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

If I remember properly, DK Bernard stated the spirit of Jesus was not like our human spirits. He was spirit, soul and body, but his spirit was not human as our's is.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

But Jesus was God manifest in flesh moreso than manifested in us.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Excellent point Sam. Jesus would have to have had a human body, a human soul, and a human spirit, in distinction from yet in conjunction with the indwelling divinity, if he were to have been a 100% viable human being. If he had a human body, but his spirit was only divine, his soul would have been a hybrid human/divine soul, which would neither be God nor man. I believe Jesus' humanity was much like yours or mine, body, soul, and spirit, yet with God indwelling Him just like any Spirit filled man. The only difference is that in Jesus, the indwelling was without measure, but other men have only the earnest of their inheritance.

Human beings do not die if the Spirit of God departs from them. It's only when the human spirit is departed that a man dies. Jesus did not have to have the indwelling Divinity in order to have lived and been alive. It's quite possible that at any moment on the cross (or at any point in his life for that matter), the man Jesus was left alive, alone, seperate from the Divinity that indwelled him throughout His human life. Thus the cry "my God my God, why hast thou forsaken me"...

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Could it not be that at any point in any human life, that God could choose to manifest himself in us in much the same way he manifested Himself in the man Jesus? God could use us to perform the kinds of miracles that were performed by Jesus... Peter, being a man, walked on water... in Acts, the those who fell under the apostle's shadows were healed... etc. God can still manifest himself in flesh in the Church, in any way and to any degree He so pleases...

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

I think this is where Bro. Bernard may have missed it... :thumbsup

But actually, on second thought, you'll have to find the reference, because from what I remember reading from Bro. Bernard, he professes several times that the man Jesus had a human spirit... ;)

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Here is what Bro. Bernard states about Jesus' human nature...

Jesus Had a Complete, But Sinless, Human Nature

The truth lies somewhere in between these historical views expressed by various theologians. That Jesus had a complete human nature and the complete divine nature at the same time is the teaching of Scripture, but we cannot separate these two natures in His earthly life.

It is apparent that Jesus was human in will, mind, spirit, soul, and body, but it is equally apparent that He had the fullness of the Godhead resident in His flesh. From our finite view, humanity and deity were inseparably joined in His one Spirit.

The divine Spirit could be separated from the human body by death, but His humanity was more than a human body—the shell of a human—with God
inside. He was human in body, soul, and spirit with the fullness of the Spirit of God dwelling in that body, soul, and spirit.

Jesus differed from an ordinary human (who can be filled with the Spirit of God) in that He had all of God’s nature within Him. He possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God. Furthermore, in contrast to a born-again, Spirit-filled human, the Spirit of God was inextricably and inseparably joined with the humanity of Jesus. Without the Spirit of God there would have been only a lifeless human that would not have been Jesus Christ.

Only in these terms can we describe and distinguish the two natures in Jesus; we know that He could act and speak from either role, but we also know that the two natures were not actually separated in Him. With our finite minds, we can make only a distinction and not a separation in the two natures that blended perfectly in Him.

D.K. Bernard, Oneness of God, p. 92

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Thanks, bro. I was incorrect as to what I remembered he said. You got it!

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Yes. But I was referring to the fact that Jesus was God incarnate. That is, there was no man named Jesus who did not have God manifest in Him previous to the manifestation of God. We are born into this world naturally and without God's Spirit in us. Jesus was not. Furthermore, Jesus existed as God from eternity past before He manifested in flesh, and that man was the one and the same person as God. We are not the person of God. We are separate persons who have God's person in us. This was not the case with Jesus. In that sense, He was God manifested in Him moreso than in us, although we can do the works He did by God's manifestation, and He even said GREATER WORKS shall we do!

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

As John 1:18 states "the only begotten son".... or as another suggested "the uniquely begotten".... there is no other like Jesus. And Jesus is YHWH our savior... From that perspective, I couldn't agree more!

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Made to be sin.

Sin here is not a verb but the substantive. "To Be" is not in the greek.

RWP says
God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin

NET Bible commentary...of all the commentaries in the NET this one looks the longest lol
For he hath made him to be sin for us - The Greek here is, ‘for him who knew no sin, he hath made sin, or a sin-offering for us.’ The design of this very important verse is, to urge the strongest possible reason for being reconciled to God. This is implied in the word (γὰρ gar) "for." Paul might have urged other arguments, and presented other strong considerations. But he chooses to present this fact, that Christ has been made sin for us, as embodying and concentrating all.

It is the most affecting of all arguments; it is the one that is likely to prove most effectual. It is not indeed improper to urge on people every other consideration to induce them to be reconciled to God. It is not improper to appeal to them by the conviction of duty; to appeal to their reason and conscience; to remind them of the claims, the power, the goodness, and the fear of the Creator; to remind them of the awful consequences of a continued hostility to God; to persuade them by the hope of heaven, and by the fear of hell 2Co_5:1 l to become his friends: but, after all, the strongest argument, and that which is most adapted to melt the soul, is the fact that the Son of God has become incarnate for our sins, and has suffered and died in our stead.

When all other appeals fail this is effectual; and this is in fact the strong argument by which the mass of those who become Christians are induced to abandon their opposition and to become reconciled to God.
To be sin - The words ‘to be’ are not in the original. Literally, it is, ‘he has made him sin, or a sin-offering’ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν hamartian epoiēsen . But what is meant by this? What is the exact idea which the apostle intended to convey? I answer, it cannot be:
(1) That he was literally sin in the abstract, or sin as such. No one can pretend this. The expression must be, therefore, in some sense, figurative. Nor,
(2) Can it mean that he was a sinner, for it is said in immediate connection that he "knew no sin," and it is everywhere said that he was holy, harmless, undefiled. Nor,
(3) Can it mean that he was, in any proper sense of the word, guilty, for no one is truly guilty who is not personally a transgressor of the Law; and if he was, in any proper sense, guilty, then he deserved to die, and his death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty being; and if he was properly guilty it would make no difference in this respect whether it was by his own fault or by imputation: a guilty being deserves to be punished; and where there is desert of punishment there can be no merit in sufferings.
But all such views as go to make the Holy Redeemer a sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings which he endured, border on blasphemy, and are abhorrent to the whole strain of the Scriptures. In no form, in no sense possible, is it to be maintained that the Lord Jesus was sinful or guilty. It is a corner stone of the whole system of religion, that in all conceivable senses of the expression he was holy, and pure, and the object of the divine approbation. And every view which fairly leads to the statement that he was in any sense guilty, or which implies that he deserved to die, is "prima facie" a false view, and should be at once abandoned. But,

(4) If the declaration that he was made "sin" (ἁμαρτίαν hamartian) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering - an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and this is the interpretation which is now generally adopted by expositors; or it must be taken as an abstract for the concrete, and mean that God treated him as if he were a sinner. The former interpretation, that it means that God made him a sin-offering, is adopted by Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, Rosenmuller, and others; the latter, that it means that God treated him as a sinner, is adopted by Vorstius, Schoettgen, Robinson (Lexicon), Dr. Bull, and others. There are many passages in the Old Testament where the word "sin" (ἁμαρτία hamartia) is used in the sense of sin-offering, or a sacrifice for sin. Thus, Hos_4:8, "They eat up the sin of my people;" that is, the sin-offerings; see Eze_43:22, Eze_43:25; Eze_44:29; Eze_45:22-23, Eze_45:25.

See Whitby’s note on this verse. But whichever meaning is adopted, whether it means that he was a sacrifice for sin, or that God treated him as if he were a sinner, that is, subjected him to sufferings which, if he had been personally a sinner, would have been a proper expression of his hatred of transgression, ands proper punishment for sin, in either case it means that he made an atonement; that he died for sin; that his death was not merely that of a martyr; but that it was designed by substituted sufferings to make reconciliation between man and God.

Locke renders this: probably expressing the true sense, "For God hath made him subject to suffering and death, the punishment and consequence of sin, as if he had been a sinner, though he were guilty of no sin." To me, it seems probable that the sense is, that God treated him as if he had been a sinner; that he subjected him to such pains and woes as would have been a proper punishment if he had been guilty; that while he was, in fact, in all senses perfectly innocent, and while God knew this, yet that in consequence of the voluntary assumption of the place of man which the Lord Jesus took, it pleased the Father to lay on him the deep sorrows which would be the proper expression of his sense of the evil of sin; that he endured so much suffering, as would answer the same great ends in maintaining the truth, and honor, and justice of God, as if the guilty had themselves endured the penalty of the Law. This, I suppose, is what is usually meant when it is said "our sins were imputed to him;" and though this language is not used in the Bible, and though it is liable to great misapprehension and perversion, yet if this is its meaning, there can be no objection to it.

(Certainly Christ’s being made sin, is not to be explained of his being made sin in the abstract, nor of his having actually become a sinner; yet it does imply, that sin was charged on Christ, or that it was imputed to him, and that he became answerable for it. Nor can this idea be excluded, even if we admit that "sin-offering" is the proper rendering of ἁμαρτία hamartia in the passage. "That Christ," says an old divine commenting on this place, "was made sin for us, because he was a sacrifice for sin, we confess; but therefore was he a sacrifice for sin because our sins were imputed to him, and punished in him." The doctrine of imputation of sin to Christ is here, by plain enough inference at least.

The rendering in our Bibles, however, asserts it in a more direct form. Nor, after all the criticism that has been expended on the text, does there seem any necessity for the abandonment of that rendering, on the part of the advocate of imputation. For first ἁμαρτία hamartia in the Septuagint, and the corresponding אשׁם 'aashaam in the Hebrew, denote both the sin and the sin-offering, the peculiar sacrifice and the crime itself. Second, the antithesis in the passage, so obvious and beautiful, is destroyed by the adoption of "sin-offering." Christ was made sin, we righteousness.
There seems in our author’s comment on this place, and also at Rom. 5, an attempt to revive the oft-refuted objection against imputation, namely, that it involves something like a transference of moral character, an infusion, rather than an imputation of sin or righteousness. Nothing of this kind is at all implied in the doctrine. Its advocates with one voice disclaim it; and the reader will see the objection answered at length in the supplementary notes at Rom. 4 and Rom. 5. What then is the value of such arguments or insinuations as these: "All such views as go to make the Holy Redeemer a sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings he endured, border on blasphemy," etc. Nor is it wiser to affirm that "if Christ was properly guilty, it would make no difference in this respect, whether it was by his own fault or by imputation." What may be meant in this connection by "properly guilty," we know not. But this is certain, that there is an immense difference between Christ’s having the guilt of our iniquities charged on him, and having the guilt of his own so charged.

It is admitted in the commentary, that God "treated Christ as if he had been a sinner," and this is alleged as the probable sense of the passage. But this treatment of Christ on the part of God, must have some ground, and where shall we find it, unless in the imputation of sin to him? If the guilt of our iniquities, or which is the same thing, the Law obligation to punishment, be not charged on Christ, how in justice can he be subjected to the punishment? If he had not voluntarily come under such obligation, what claim did law have on him? That the very words "sin imputed to Christ" are not found in scripture, is not a very formidable objection. The words in this text are stronger and better "He was made sin," and says Isaiah, according to the rendering of Dr. Lowth, "The Lord made to meet upon him the iniquities of us all. It was required of him, and he was made answerable." Isa, Isa_53:6.)

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

My thoughts. As I said I think what was meant was Christ was made to be a sin offering.

My problem with HE was made Sin is, it does not make sense. Sin isn't a thing one can become. We can become sinners. The problem I see theologically is this tends to support the word of faith movement's assertion that Jesus had to spiritually die for us in order for us to be reconciled. That view has led some of them to assert Jesus went to hell and suffered.

If Jesus is God and Jesus literally was spiritually dead then that presents a theological conundrum. How can someone be God, and be separated from God? That is spiritual death, to be literally separated from the Life of God. Yet it is the life of God that makes the Son "God".

Also that division would also mean Christ was not only NOT God in nature but NOT God in person, but a separate Person.

The "sin offering" makes better sense. Also too "God treated him as though he were a sinner", but make more sense but still leads to the spiritual death conundrum.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

As much as Christ was made sin for us, we were made the righteousness of God in Him. And THAT is a wonderful thing.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Unique Begotten is sort of a redundancy. Monogenes is the greek word. Translated as "begotten" in the KJV and as "Unique" or "Only" in more modern translations. Thus it is one or the other, not both

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

What about the spiritual death idea that states Christ suffered separation form God due to sin, and not that Christ went to a hell? Our sins have separated us from God, and that is spiritual death, I believe.

If He took our sins, He had to die, for sin brought death. And His death was vicarious. I think we have to understand the vicarious aspect of His death. His death actually counted as our deaths. He stood in our states, as much as sacrificial animals in olden times stood as the offerer.

Re: Jesus forsaken?
 

Yes exactly but that idea that Christ had to die Spiritually has led the WOF folks to claim that as part of that death we were destined for hell and in order to redeem us from that Christ also had to go to hell.

Which is why I don't believe Jesus had to spiritually die or be literally separated from God