Forsaken

[Steve Owen]

And rightly so.

Anytime (everytime) someone argues "plain meaning of Scripture" you know they are arguing from a baseless position (it is a fallacy).

And anytime someone argues that the plain meaning of Scripture means something else you know he is arguing from a baseless position that tries to make a horse chestnut into a chestnut horse.
You cannot make "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me" mean "My God, My God, You haven't forsaken Me."

 

[Steve Owen]

He was forsaken to suffer and die for us. Not abandoned by God but also not delivered from suffering

Well I suppose we're getting somewhere. We both agree that Christ was forsaken. Now I suppose we have to go and study our dictionaries to see how 'forsake' differs from 'abandon.'
Oxford Concise Dictionary.
Abandon. v.t.Give up to another's control or mercy; yield oneself completely to a passion or impulse; give up (possession, habit, game); forsake (person, post, ship).
Forsake. v.t. Give up, break off from, renounce; withdraw one's help, friendship or companionship from, desert, abandon.

 

[John Caldwell]

And anytime someone argues that the plain meaning of Scripture means something else you know he is arguing from a baseless position that tries to make a horse chestnut into a chestnut horse.
You cannot make "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me" mean "My God, My God, You haven't forsaken Me."

No one is trying to make the question say anything other than what it says.

It is a question in the text. Do you believe Christ was confused and did not understand what was happening?

If we allow Scripture to interpret the question then it was a cry for deliverance.

If we just let it stand then Christ could be wondering why God had forsaken Him through abandonment or to suffer (a refrain from deliverance).

Applying "the plain meaning of Scripture" to one's interpretation of the verse is nothing but a vain attempt to reject other interpretations through intimation. This is a fallacy typically used when the offender cannot grasp other interpretations and/ or cannot defend his or her own argument.

Forsake. v.t. Give up, break off from, renounce; withdraw one's help, friendship or companionship from, desert, abandon.

Yes, I think we are getting somewhere.

I believe that the word is in context of God withdrawing His help in terms of deliverance from suffering and death. God would, of course, prove not only ever present but faithful to deliver Christ (not from but through suffering and death) in terms of the Resurrection three days later.

I do not believe that the passage is actually a question (that Christ was confused as to His purpose).

My argument is not against "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" because Christ was forsaken (as I have repeatedly said) to suffer and die (God withdrew His help or deliverance from suffering and death). My argument is against those who believe that the plain meaning of the passage is that God abandoned and withdrew Himself from Christ (separated from Christ). I am glad that we can at least agree that my interpretation is legitimate.

Given that @Steve Owen offers my interpretation of "forsaken" is legitimate (that God withdrew help in the form of deliverance from physical suffering and death) and this interpretation would also fit within the context of Christ crying out for help, I think that this is perhaps the view we can agree upon. There is no biblical warrant to view God as abandoning or withdrawing/ separating from Christ.

 

[marks]

So then on the cross Jesus took our abuses on Himself and cried out in the LIKENESS of abandonment in order to fulfill all righteousness..IOW He took on OUR reaction ...a reaction that is from a lack of connection to God. Jesus never panicked or felt sorry for Himself. WE do that.

I think this was what @John Caldwell was talking about in saying Jesus' suffering and death was to identify with humanity, and that He cried out from the humanity in Him.

Do you see His distress in the garden praying the same way? Or an actual anguish inside Him?

Much love!

 

[marks]

My argument is not against "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" because Christ was forsaken (as I have repeatedly said) to suffer and die (God withdrew His help or deliverance from suffering and death). My argument is against those who believe that the plain meaning of the passage is that God abandoned and withdrew Himself from Christ (separated from Christ). I am glad that we can at least agree that my interpretation is legitimate.

The more we discuss this, the more I consider it, the more settled I am that this above is correct.

Let me ask you this.

In the garden of Gethsemane, the angels came and strengthened Him in His anguish. The same thing happened when Jesus fasted, and was tempted by the devil.

But before that the temptations, as far as I can tell, Jesus did not have extra help, and endured the fasting and temptations in His humanity. Afterward, the angels helped Him.

What are your thoughts about the cross? May this mean that God had withdrawn, not His presence from Jesus, not that God made Jesus "spiritually dead", may this be the cry of a man who knew that God was leaving Him to hang on that cross as a guilt man would, with no extra help, as He had received in the garden the night before? Do you know what I mean?

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

The more we discuss this, the more I consider it, the more settled I am that this above is correct.

Let me ask you this.

In the garden of Gethsemane, the angels came and strengthened Him in His anguish. The same thing happened when Jesus fasted, and was tempted by the devil.

But before that the temptations, as far as I can tell, Jesus did not have extra help, and endured the fasting and temptations in His humanity. Afterward, the angels helped Him.

What are your thoughts about the cross? May this mean that God had withdrawn, not His presence from Jesus, not that God made Jesus "spiritually dead", may this be the cry of a man who knew that God was leaving Him to hang on that cross as a guilt man would, with no extra help, as He had received in the garden the night before? Do you know what I mean?

Much love!

I believe that Jesus' entire life of obedience to the Father was through the power of the Spirit (that Jesus' obedience was not through His own power but through faith). The reason I look it this way is that we are told that Jesus did nothing of his own accord. I think that this is reflective of what we should do (it is, I admit, close to the "moral influence theory", but I do not think the issue is faith and obedience rather than morality).

I guess I'd say that Jesus did not experience anything (to include the cross) that is uncommon to mankind. But He experienced this in obedience and without sin, which makes all the difference.

Does that make sense?

 

[marks]

I believe that Jesus' entire life of obedience to the Father was through the power of the Spirit (that Jesus' obedience was not through His own power but through faith). The reason I look it this way is that we are told that Jesus did nothing of his own accord. I think that this is reflective of what we should do (it is, I admit, close to the "moral influence theory", but I do not think the issue is faith and obedience rather than morality).

I guess I'd say that Jesus did not experience anything (to include the cross) that is uncommon to mankind. But He experienced this in obedience and without sin, which makes all the difference.

Does that make sense?

I don't know if it does or not, isn't that sad?

I think the same, Jesus lived His life on earth by faith in the Father to perservere in obedience. I see though where He was given additional help at times, I'm just thinking outloud perhaps this was what He was responding to, that there was no extra help as at those other times.

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

I don't know if it does or not, isn't that sad?

I think the same, Jesus lived His life on earth by faith in the Father to perservere in obedience. I see though where He was given additional help at times, I'm just thinking outloud perhaps this was what He was responding to, that there was no extra help as at those other times.

Much love!

I think that there was "extra help" in that I believe Christ remained on the cross in faith by the power of the Spirit. But like us, He was forsaken to suffer and die (physically). Like @Steve Owen pointed out in his definition of "forsake", God withdrew His help in terms of delivering Him from the "wages of sin". Jesus was not spared of sharing in our infirmity under the law of sin and death.

 

[Waiting on him]

I agree - Christ felt like he was left in suffering and was destined to die.

I think we can both agree Christ was not actually asking a question but crying for deliverance (and that God would be faithful to hear and deliver).

I do not see that we disagree here, Steve. My objection is to the heresy that God abandoned Christ (not that Christ felt left to suffer and die but that God withdrew Himself or the Spirit). I agree with what you say here. God never for a moment abandoned Christ when He stayed His hand of deliverance from physical suffering and death.

I don’t see it this way, in the 22 psalm He states that any time in the past your prophets called out you were there to aid them.

Psalm 22:5 KJV
[5] They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

Where are you?
https://tbibl.es/1YEO

 

[Waiting on him]

Hebrew: בּוּשׁ
Transliteration: bûsh
Pronunciation: boosh
Definition: A primitive root; properly to {pale}that {is} by implication to be ashamed; also (by implication) to be {disappointed} or delayed: - ({be} {make} bring {to} {cause} put {to} {with} a-) shame ({-d}) be (put to) confounded ({-fusion}) become {dry} {delay} be long.
KJV Usage: ashamed (72x), confounded (21x), shame (9x), all 2 (inf. for emphasis), confusion (1x), delayed (1x), dry (1x), long (1x), shamed (1x).
Occurs: 109
In verses: 100
This word confounded strongly suggests shame.

 

[Waiting on him]

In my opinion God is demonstrating to all of creation how much emphasis He places on the flesh.

 

[John Caldwell]

I don’t see it this way, in the 22 psalm He states that any time in the past your prophets called out you were there to aid them.

Psalm 22:5 KJV
[5] They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

Where are you?
https://tbibl.es/1YEO

I think we have to remember where those prophets were when God delivered them. This is why I believe it a call of deliverance appealing to the faithfulness of God.

 

[bbyrd009]

On another thread @Steve Owen mentioned that he believed that Christ was forsaken by God, I take it instead of us being forsaken. I still find the "instead of" wrong, but I am curious as to what it means that Christ became forsaken.

Ha well dingdingding a winna for you bro imo, Try this on maybe,
Jesus was "forsaken" bc He was portraying a role that suggests that Yah needed Him to make us acceptable to Him;
what evabody thinks, iow--Yah needed blood.
so it becomes a dialectic way of saying "nope"

who told you that you were naked?
I desire mercy, not sacrifice
got about ten more too
piss off all your friends, and you can become a pariah too!
happy hollies

 

[John Caldwell]

Ha well dingdingding a winna for you bro imo, Try this on maybe,
Jesus was "forsaken" bc He was portraying a role that suggests that Yah needed Him to make us acceptable to Him;
what evabody thinks, iow--Yah needed blood.
so it becomes a dialectic way of saying "nope"

who told you that you were naked?
I desire mercy, not sacrifice
got about ten more too
happy hollies

Thank you, bbyrd, for making my evening a little more surreal.

 

[bbyrd009]

Thank you, bbyrd, for making my evening a little more surreal.

hey, plead the blood, and be Edom, eh
gimme some of that red stuff
aight srsly keep this to yourself ok,
ima prolly take this down in a minute

ha but really, if you say this to another living believer who has not evinced suspicion as you have, you will be immediately rejected ok. Do not try this at home bro. Before you are ready anyway. srsly. Yah help you if it slips out around your boss, or even gets back to her. I cant stress this enough. Life as yuo know it will end
give me some of that red stuff, or i will die

 

[Steve Owen]

My argument is not against "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" because Christ was forsaken (as I have repeatedly said) to suffer and die (God withdrew His help or deliverance from suffering and death). My argument is against those who believe that the plain meaning of the passage is that God abandoned and withdrew Himself from Christ (separated from Christ). I am glad that we can at least agree that my interpretation is legitimate.

Given that @Steve Owen offers my interpretation of "forsaken" is legitimate (that God withdrew help in the form of deliverance from physical suffering and death) and this interpretation would also fit within the context of Christ crying out for help, I think that this is perhaps the view we can agree upon. There is no biblical warrant to view God as abandoning or withdrawing/ separating from Christ.

I do not accept that your interpretation is at all legitimate. Here's my dictionary definition again, with a little emphasis:
Oxford Concise Dictionary.
Abandon. v.t.Give up to another's control or mercy; yield oneself completely to a passion or impulse; give up (possession, habit, game); forsake (person, post, ship).
Forsake. v.t. Give up, break off from, renounce; withdraw one's help, friendship or companionship from, desert, abandon.

I don't know how familiar you are with dictionaries, but when definitions are separated by commas rather than semi-colons, it means that they are synonyms. so to withdraw one's help, friendship or support from someone, to desert someone and to abandon someone are all synonyms and they all mean to forsake.

Let us suppose for a moment that you were someone's second at a boxing match. Halfway through the match you withdrew your support from him, and went and sat in the seats at the back of the hall. At the end of the bout, he might well come up and say to you, "Why did you abandon me halfway through the match?" He might equally use the word "forsake" because in that context, the two words are synonymous.

Now what was the situation with the Lord Jesus during those hours of darkness? In addition to the physical agony that He was suffering, He had the mental and spiritual anguish of having, as a Man, no sense whatever of the presence of His heavenly Father. "Why are you so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning?" And the reason is given in verse 3: "But You are holy."

So holy is God that no human can look at Him and live. So holy is God that when Abraham stood before Him he cried, "I am but dust and ashes!" So holy is He that when Job was in His presence, he said, "Therefore I abhor myself." So holy is He that when Isaiah had a glimpse of His glory, he cried out, "Woe is me! For I am undone....for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" So holy is He that when Daniel saw a manifestation of Him, he declared, "No strength remained in me; for my vigour was turned to frailty," and Habakkuk declared of Him, 'Your eyes are too pure to behold evil; You cannot look upon iniquity.' When Peter first had an inkling of who Jesus Christ really was, he cried out, "Stay away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man."

And because the Lord Jesus was bearing our sins (1 Peter 2:24), the Holy God would not look upon Him, turned His face from Him, forsook Him; for the Lord had made all our iniquities to meet upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), and all our sins being upon Him as our substitute, the wrath of God against all our offenses was spent upon our sin offering.

But just as 'Our fathers trusted in You. they trusted and You delivered them........' (Psalms 22:4-5), so the father heard the cry of the Son. The darkness evaporated, and the Lord Jesus could cry, "It is finished!" It is completed; it is accomplished; it is paid.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

hey, plead the blood, and be Edom, eh
gimme some of that red stuff
aight srsly keep this to yourself ok,
ima prolly take this down in a minute

ha but really, if you say this to another living believer who has not evinced suspicion as you have, you will be immediately rejected ok. Do not try this at home bro. Before you are ready anyway. srsly. Yah help you if it slips out around your boss, or even gets back to her. I cant stress this enough. Life as yuo know it will end
give me some of that red stuff, or i will die

What of His blood is Spirit? ...not the red stuff? “Life is in the blood” Life is in the Spirit. Interested in your perspective there.

 

[John Caldwell]

I do not accept that your interpretation is at all legitimate. Here's my dictionary definition again, with a little emphasis:
Oxford Concise Dictionary.
Abandon. v.t.Give up to another's control or mercy; yield oneself completely to a passion or impulse; give up (possession, habit, game); forsake (person, post, ship).
Forsake. v.t. Give up, break off from, renounce; withdraw one's help, friendship or companionship from, desert, abandon.

I don't know how familiar you are with dictionaries, but when definitions are separated by commas rather than semi-colons, it means that they are synonyms. so to withdraw one's help, friendship or support from someone, to desert someone and to abandon someone are all synonyms and they all mean to forsake.

Let us suppose for a moment that you were someone's second at a boxing match. Halfway through the match you withdrew your support from him, and went and sat in the seats at the back of the hall. At the end of the bout, he might well come up and say to you, "Why did you abandon me halfway through the match?" He might equally use the word "forsake" because in that context, the two words are synonymous.

Now what was the situation with the Lord Jesus during those hours of darkness? In addition to the physical agony that He was suffering, He had the mental and spiritual anguish of having, as a Man, no sense whatever of the presence of His heavenly Father. "Why are you so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning?" And the reason is given in verse 3: "But You are holy."

So holy is God that no human can look at Him and live. So holy is God that when Abraham stood before Him he cried, "I am but dust and ashes!" So holy is He that when Job was in His presence, he said, "Therefore I abhor myself." So holy is He that when Isaiah had a glimpse of His glory, he cried out, "Woe is me! For I am undone....for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" So holy is He that when Daniel saw a manifestation of Him, he declared, "No strength remained in me; for my vigour was turned to frailty," and Habakkuk declared of Him, 'Your eyes are too pure to behold evil; You cannot look upon iniquity.' When Peter first had an inkling of who Jesus Christ really was, he cried out, "Stay away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man."

And because the Lord Jesus was bearing our sins (1 Peter 2:24), the Holy God would not look upon Him, turned His face from Him, forsook Him; for the Lord had made all our iniquities to meet upon Him (Isaiah 53:6), and all our sins being upon Him as our substitute, the wrath of God against all our offenses was spent upon our sin offering.

But just as 'Our fathers trusted in You. they trusted and You delivered them........' (Psalms 22:4-5), so the father heard the cry of the Son. The darkness evaporated, and the Lord Jesus could cry, "It is finished!" It is completed; it is accomplished; it is paid.

Forsake. v.t.... withdraw one's help, ....

I agree with the definition that you provide in post # 62. In that post you define "forsake" as to "withdraw one's help". If you view "abandon" as a synonym for "withdrawing ones help" that is fine.

I view Christ as being forsaken to suffer the cross in that God withdrew His help in delivering His Son from suffering and death. I view alternate definitions as some type of separation as heresy and a departure from the gospel message.

The reason I view "forsaken" to mean "withdraw one's help" is that it is a legitimate definition (as you verify), it does not stand in opposition to verses that state God will never forsake the righteous, it does not create tension between the persons of the Trinity, it maintains the "faithfulness of God" as described in Scripture, and it fits into the context of Psalm 22.

Also, Habakkuk 1:13 affirms that Jesus had "too holy eyes to look upon sin". In the context of the passage, Jesus cannot condone sin, it is apart form His nature.

Given that I am using your definition of "forsake", why do you believe that there was a type of separation between God and Christ?

[Comment removed]

 

[Steve Owen]

I agree with the definition that you provide in post # 62. In that post you define "forsake" as to "withdraw one's help". I view Christ as being forsaken to suffer the cross in that God withdrew His help in delivering His Son from suffering and death. I view alternate definitions as some type of separation as heresy and a departure from the gospel message.

1. Being regarded as a heretic by the likes of you I regard as a badge on honour. I will say though that the word 'heresy' has no place in a discussion forum. It is cheap and easy to accuse someone of heresy, and it is a refuge of scoundrels who cannot argue their case. It is shameful that the mods do not take action on this. If that gets me thrown off the board I don't care.
2. Misquoting my post #62 does you no credit. I quote again: Forsake. v.t. Give up, break off from, renounce; withdraw one's help, friendship or companionship from, desert, abandon. If you withdraw your help from someone, you are abandoning him. End of story.

The reason I view "forsaken" to mean "withdraw one's help" is that it is a legitimate definition (as you verify), it does not stand in opposition to verses that state God will never forsake the righteous, it does not create tension between the persons of the Trinity, it maintains the "faithfulness of God" as described in Scripture, and it fits into the context of Psalm 22.

The 'Cosmic Child Abuse' argument does not work. The Lord Jesus willingly went to the cross, knowing that it pleased the Father to crush Him and put Him to grief. If God had demanded of some other totally innocent person (had there been one) that he be forsaken by God, then you might have a point, but it is God Himself in the Person of Christ who has taken our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full, including the separation from God that is so clearly specified in the Scriptures.

Also, Habakkuk 1:13 affirms that Jesus had "too holy eyes to look upon sin". In the context of the passage, Jesus cannot condone sin, it is apart form His nature.

Indeed not, but in His love and mercy for us He willingly became sin for us and consented that all the sins of believers should be laid upon His sinless shoulders.

Given that I am using your definition of "forsake", why do you believe that there was a type of separation between God and Christ?

You have deliberately failed to understand the definition I have given. To 'forsake' is a synonym of to 'abandon' according to the Oxford Concise Dictionary. As for a separation between God and Christ, God sends the Son; the Son does not send God. The Son prays to the Father; the Father does not pray to the Son. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; neither Father nor Son proceed from the Spirit. I suggest you bone up on your doctrine of the Trinity and get to grips with the 'Threeness' as well as the 'Oneness.'. Here is what I wrote in answer to your arguments on another board: Penal Substitution and the Trinity

Do you understand why traditional Christians (those who affirm "classic" Christianity) would view you as a heretic?

I am happy to stand with C.H. Spurgeon and a galaxy of other fine Christians who have believed what I do. Spurgeon wrote: "I am content to be eaten by dogs for the next fifty years, but a later posterity will vindicate me." And so it has, except for a bunch of diehard liberals intent on denying the sinfulness of sin and the true nature of God.

 

[John Caldwell]

1. Being regarded as a heretic by the likes of you I regard as a badge on honour. I will say though that the word 'heresy' has no place in a discussion forum. It is cheap and easy to accuse someone of heresy, and it is a refuge of scoundrels who cannot argue their case. It is shameful that the mods do not take action on this. If that gets me thrown off the board I don't care.
2. Misquoting my post #62 does you no credit. I quote again: Forsake. v.t. Give up, break off from, renounce; withdraw one's help, friendship or companionship from, desert, abandon. If you withdraw your help from someone, you are abandoning him. End of story.

The 'Cosmic Child Abuse' argument does not work. The Lord Jesus willingly went to the cross, knowing that it pleased the Father to crush Him and put Him to grief. If God had demanded of some other totally innocent person (had there been one) that he be forsaken by God, then you might have a point, but it is God Himself in the Person of Christ who has taken our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full, including the separation from God that is so clearly specified in the Scriptures.

Indeed not, but in His love and mercy for us He willingly became sin for us and consented that all the sins of believers should be laid upon His sinless shoulders.

You have deliberately failed to understand the definition I have given. To 'forsake' is a synonym of to 'abandon' according to the Oxford Concise Dictionary. As for a separation between God and Christ, God sends the Son; the Son does not send God. The Son prays to the Father; the Father does not pray to the Son. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; neither Father nor Son proceed from the Spirit. I suggest you bone up on your doctrine of the Trinity and get to grips with the 'Threeness' as well as the 'Oneness.'. Here is what I wrote in answer to your arguments on another board: Penal Substitution and the Trinity

I am happy to stand with C.H. Spurgeon and a galaxy of other fine Christians who have believed what I do. Spurgeon wrote: "I am content to be eaten by dogs for the next fifty years, but a later posterity will vindicate me." And so it has, except for a bunch of diehard liberals intent on denying the sinfulness of sin and the true nature of God.

You make too many assumptions, Steve.

I never made the" cosmic child abuse" argument. This is a smoke screen. You can put that card back in your deck.

I never called you a heretic. You can rest easy that you do not have that "honor by the likes of me". The idea God separated from Christ is a heresy. But where you stand overall is beyond my judgment.

I will point out it is you and not me who resorted to insult and ad hominem. By any standard of debate your "argument" is nullified. Typically people who stand on weak ground choose to insult persons rather than argue points because they know at some level they have no valid argument.


I have never misquoted you. I actually agree with the definition you provide regarding the range of meaning for "forsaken".

The definition you provide for "forsaken" includes the meaning of "withdrawing one's help". I believe this is adequate in terms of the passage in question and have explained why.

Since you cannot deny the range of the word includes the meaning "withdrawing one's help" as you provided this in your definition, perhaps you can tell us why you believe God separated from Christ for three hours on the cross.