Forsaken

Steve Owen · Dec 30, 2019

John Caldwell said:
Yes. The word means "forsake". I never disagreed with that. Your definition "withhold ones help" is fitting. So is "abandon" ("to withdraw protection, support or help").

But you are adding to the definition and Scripture by trying to sneak in the idea of "separation". Scripture speaks of Christ being forsaken to suffer and die (and defines His cry as a cry for deliverance) in the exact same passage).

This will depend what definition of 'separate' you are trying to ascribe to me (and Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones etc., etc.). Let's look at a couple of the other uses of ἐγκαταλείπω
2 Timothy 4:10. 'For Demas has forsaken me.......' What has Demas done? He has abandoned Paul, separated himself from him and gone off to enjoy the fleshpots of Rome.
Hebrews 13:5. '......."I will never leave you nor forsake you.'" Here God promised never to separate Himself from His people, because Christ has borne that separation on our behalf..
Acts 2:27. 'For You will not leave my soul in Hades.....' David is rightly convinced that God will not abandon him in Hades, which would mean eternal separation from God.
So 'separate' is well within the semantic range of ἐγκαταλείπω.
But if you think I mean that God somehow detatched the Lord Jesus from the Trinity for a while, you are entirely wrong. I have never suggested that. What I have said several times is that on the cross, the Lord Jesus, in addition to the terrible pain which He was suffering (which neither Father nor Spirit felt), for the first time ever, as Man He could feel no communion with the Father. He felt Himself utterly alone. Why? Because He was bearing our sin, the penalty for which is the 'Second Death' - not extinction of being but everlasting separation from God.

But you ignore the meaning of the Greek word, the meaning of the English word, the definition provided by Scripture that n the Matthew passage, and the context of Scripture to claim God separated from Christ.

I do, of course, none of those things, and for you to state them does not make it so.

This is in opposition to orthodox Christian faith which states that the Father and Son are inseparable. By insisting God separated from Jesus your theory denies 1. the Nicene Creed's use of "eternally begotten", and 2. the Chalcedonian Creed's statement that the Father and Son cannot separate (they are inseparable).

This is only so if you adopt a definition of 'separate' which has more to do with Siamese twins that the Father's forsaking of Christ upon the cross.

You do not have to agree with historic Christian faith or these Creed's (in part or in full) and you obviously do not. But this means your view is well outside traditional Christian faith on this topic.

It is not. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a medical doctor before becoming a preacher. It was his medical opinion that our Lord literally died of a broken heart:

'His heart was literally ruptured by the againy of the wrath of God upon Him, and by the separation from the face of His Father...That, my friend, is the love of God to you, a sinner... And He did it in order that we should not receive that punishment and go to hell...that is the wonder and the marvel and the glory of the cross.' [D.M. Lloyd-Jones, The Cross, God's Way of Salvation]
And again:
'If you do not believe in the doctrine of the wrath of God....what possible meaning is there in that cry of dereliction? What likewise is the meaning of the agony in the garden? Why did He sweat great drops of blood....Why? Because He knew that He was going to feel the wrath of God against the sin He was to bear, and be separated from His Father...........Our sins have been laid upon Him, and the wrath of God upon those sins has come upon Him...the punishment that should have come upon you and me on account of our sinfulness and our sins came to Him.' [D.M. Loyd-Jones. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3:20-4:25]

And a word from J.C. Ryle, the first Bishop of Liverpool: 'When you come to your deathbed, you will want something more than an example....Take heed that you are found resting all your weight on Christ's substitution for you on the cross, and His atoning blood, or it will be better if you had never been born.' [J.C. Ryle, 'One Blood' a sermon printed in The Upper Room: Being a few Truths for the Times]

And now, I will explain, in a further post or two, the Doctrine of the Trinity with respect to that Atonement.

John Caldwell · Dec 30, 2019

Steve Owen said:
This will depend what definition of 'separate' you are trying to ascribe to me (and Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones etc., etc.). Let's look at a couple of the other uses of ἐγκαταλείπω
2 Timothy 4:10. 'For Demas has forsaken me.......' What has Demas done? He has abandoned Paul, separated himself from him and gone off to enjoy the fleshpots of Rome.
Hebrews 13:5. '......."I will never leave you nor forsake you.'" Here God promised never to separate Himself from His people, because Christ has borne that separation on our behalf..
Acts 2:27. 'For You will not leave my soul in Hades.....' David is rightly convinced that God will not abandon him in Hades, which would mean eternal separation from God.
So 'separate' is well within the semantic range of ἐγκαταλείπω.
But if you think I mean that God somehow detatched the Lord Jesus from the Trinity for a while, you are entirely wrong. I have never suggested that. What I have said several times is that on the cross, the Lord Jesus, in addition to the terrible pain which He was suffering (which neither Father nor Spirit felt), for the first time ever, as Man He could feel no communion with the Father. He felt Himself utterly alone. Why? Because He was bearing our sin, the penalty for which is the 'Second Death' - not extinction of being but everlasting separation from God.

I do, of course, none of those things, and for you to state them does not make it so.

This is only so if you adopt a definition of 'separate' which has more to do with Siamese twins that the Father's forsaking of Christ upon the cross.

It is not. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a medical doctor before becoming a preacher. It was his medical opinion that our Lord literally died of a broken heart:

'His heart was literally ruptured by the againy of the wrath of God upon Him, and by the separation from the face of His Father...That, my friend, is the love of God to you, a sinner... And He did it in order that we should not receive that punishment and go to hell...that is the wonder and the marvel and the glory of the cross.' [D.M. Lloyd-Jones, The Cross, God's Way of Salvation]
And again:
'If you do not believe in the doctrine of the wrath of God....what possible meaning is there in that cry of dereliction? What likewise is the meaning of the agony in the garden? Why did He sweat great drops of blood....Why? Because He knew that He was going to feel the wrath of God against the sin He was to bear, and be separated from His Father...........Our sins have been laid upon Him, and the wrath of God upon those sins has come upon Him...the punishment that should have come upon you and me on account of our sinfulness and our sins came to Him.' [D.M. Loyd-Jones. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3:20-4:25]

And a word from J.C. Ryle, the first Bishop of Liverpool: 'When you come to your deathbed, you will want something more than an example....Take heed that you are found resting all your weight on Christ's substitution for you on the cross, and His atoning blood, or it will be better if you had never been born.' [J.C. Ryle, 'One Blood' a sermon printed in The Upper Room: Being a few Truths for the Times]

And now, I will explain, in a further post or two, the Doctrine of the Trinity with respect to that Atonement.

separate
[ verb sep-uh-reyt; adjective, noun sep-er-it ]
verb (used with object), sep·a·rat·ed, sep·a·rat·ing.
to keep apart or divide, as by an intervening barrier or space

Steve Owen · Dec 30, 2019

The Lord Jesus tells us that He and His Father mutually indwell each other (John 14:11; c.f. also John 10:38; 14:10, 20). The technical term for this is perichoresis. This implies both union and distinction between Father and Son. One of the many problems with polytheism is the idea that different deities may make different demands of people and compete with one another as we see in the poems of Homer and Hesiod. Within the Trinity this is avoided, not because the Persons fortuitously happen to agree on most things, but because they must agree, for they are one God. The idea therefore that on the cross the Father inflicts a punishment upon the Son that He is unwilling to bear, or that the Son draws from the Father a forgiveness that He is unwilling to bestow is a non-starter.

But there is also a distinction between the Persons. Without it, it would be ridiculous to talk of a distinct Father, Son and Spirit at all, and it would be impossible for them to relate to each other as separate Persons as the Scripture teaches they do. But if Son, Father and Spirit are all fully Divine and equal in their possession of all the Divine attributes (e.g. holiness, wisdom, truth etc.), what distinguishes them? The answer is their asymmetric in their relationship with each other. The Father is in a relationship of Fatherhood to the Son and the Son is in a relationship of Sonship to the Father. The Son is everything the Father is, save that He is not the Father, the Spirit is not the Son and so forth.

It must surely be agreed that God’s actions reflect His nature. He does what is holy because He is holy; what is good because He is good. Therefore God’s nature will be reflected in the actions of each Person of the Trinity and both unity and distinction between the Persons will be reflected in what God does.

So the actions of the Persons reflect their unity. In John 14:10-11, the Lord Jesus teaches that His works are at the same time His Father’s works and this is grounded in the Perichoretic Union. In John 5:19, He testifies that ‘Whatever He [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner.’ The fundamental unity in their actions mirrors the fundamental union of their Persons.

On the other hand, the actions of the Persons reflect their distinctions. The Bible teaches that the Father sent the Son, and that the Son willingly obeyed the Father (John 10:15-18; Philippians 2:5-9). Father and Son send the Spirit, but the Spirit does not send the Father. The work of the Trinity in salvation is outlined in Ephesians 1:3-14. The Three work in perfect harmony to accomplish their single goal, but their roles are quite different.

In order to represent this unity and distinction between the Persons, Augustine taught that the Father’s actions are not without the Son and the Son’s actions not without the Father. That seems to work rather well. Augustine affirmed that while the Persons of the Trinity do not perform the same action in the same way, nevertheless they do not act independently of one another– their respective contributions to any given activity are inseparable.

So it is not meaningless to say that God the Son propitiated God the Father. The same Person is not the subject and object of the verb. Nor does the fact that the Father exacts a punishment borne by the Son mean that they are divided or act independently. Their relationship is asymmetric, but they are mutually and inseparably engaged upon two aspects of the same action with one purpose– the salvation of guilty sinners while satisfying the justice of the Triune God.

I now want to look at the Lord Jesus being ‘forsaken’ on the cross. First of all I want to repeat what I said above. We must never imagine that God the father imposed upon the Son any burden that He was unwilling to bear. On the contrary, He declares, “I delight to do Your will, O My God….” (Psalm 40:8; Hebrews 10:7; c.f. John 4:34; 6:38). Nor should we imagine that on the cross, the Son extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to give (John 3:16; Romans 5:8). On the contrary, on the cross, ‘Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed’ (Psalm 85:10).
[Continued]

Steve Owen · Dec 30, 2019

[Continuation]
We should now consider the various references to the Lord Jesus drinking a cup. In Mark 10:38, He asks James and John, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” Then in Gethsamene, ‘deeply distressed and troubled’ Mark 14:33), He cries out to the Father, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will but as You will” (Matthew 26:39, 42 etc.), and then in John 18:11, “Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?” It is clear that this cup is something horrific which the Father requires Him to drink. He knows all about it, has willingly (see above) agreed to drink it, but as the cup approaches, He is filled with dread and horror at the anticipation of it. On an night when it was cold enough for a fire to be kindled in the courtyard of the high priest’s house (Luke 22:55), the Lord Jesus sweats copiously (Luke 22:44)– the psychosomatic response of a human to impending trauma.

So what is this cup which the Lord Jesus must drink? The O.T. tells us; it is a cup of judgement and wrath against the wicked. ‘For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is fully mixed, and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain down and drink’ (Psalm 75:8). ‘For thus says the LORD GOD of Israel to me, “Take this wine cup from My hand and cause all the nations, to whom I send you to drink it. And they will drink and stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them……..”‘ (Jeremiah 25:15-32).

As one reads on, it becomes clear that this judgement is for the whole world to drink. See also Isaiah 51:17; Ezekiel 23:32-34; Habakkuk 2:16). So why should the Lord Jesus drink this cup? Mark 10:45 tells us, He came, ‘To give His life as a ransom for many;’ to drink the cup destined for sinners in their place. “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed {lit. ‘handed over.’ Gk. paradidomai) to the chief priests and to the scribes; and the will condemn Him to death and deliver [Gk. paradidomai] Him to the Gentiles [lit. ‘nations.’ Gk. ethnoi], and they will mock Him and scourge Him, and spit on Him, and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.’

Now compare with Psalm 106:40-41. ‘Therefore the wrath of the LORD was kindled against His people, so that He abhorred His own inheritance. And He gave them [LXX paradidomai] into the hand of the Gentiles [or ‘nations’] and those who hated them ruled over them.’ So for our Lord Jesus to be handed over to the nations is tantamount to being delivered over to God’s wrath. Christ gave His life as a ransom for many, being handed over to God’s wrath in the place of many. The ransom is, of course, not money, but a life being given up in death, and pain being suffered in the place of others who would otherwise suffer the pains of hell.

[For much of these posts so far I have drawn on Pierced for our Transgressions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach (IVP, 2007. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6)]

So now we can look at our Lord’s cry of dereliction. ‘Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the sixth hour. And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” Which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”‘ (Mark 15:33-34).

We will first look at the supernatural darkness that came over the land. There are several places in the O.T. where darkness denotes God’s wrath and judgement, especially connected to the ‘day of the Lord,’ e.g. Joel 2:31; Amos 5:18-20; Zephaniah 1:14-15 and particularly Isaiah 13:9-11 (quoted in Mark 13:24-25). so the darkness indicates the righteous anger of God, but against whom? The Lord Jesus Himself tells us that it is against Himself. ‘Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered'”‘ (Mark 14:27). The quotation is from Zechariah 13:7 which makes it perfectly clear that God Himself is the One who will strike the Shepherd. The Lord Jesus was made sin, and God’s righteous anger against sin was poured out upon Him instead of us, with His full knowledge and consent.

We now come to the dereliction of Christ. As I have said elsewhere, I cannot accept that “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me” can possibly be read as “My God, My God, You haven’t forsaken Me.” Nor can I accept that David, who is described as a prophet in Acts 2:30, was actually a false prophet in that he made an error in Psalm 22:1 (c.f. Deuteronomy 18:20-22). Nor is it a case of ‘God forsaking God’ any more than God prays to God (e.g. John 17). The Son prays to the Father, although the Father does not pray to the Son, and on the cross, the Father temporarily forsakes the Son. To be sure, we need to be careful here. We must not suggest that the Father was not present at Calvary for the very good reason that He is Omni-present. ‘”Do I not fill heaven and earth?” Declares the LORD’ (Jeremiah 23:23-24; c.f. Psalm 139:7-12). Rather it means that the Son, who had enjoyed the constant and closest possible relationship with His Father, now lacked completely any sense of His presence until the sun appeared once more and He cried, “It is finished!” The Greek word tetelestai can also mean, ‘It is paid’ (c.f. Matthew 17:14) or ‘it is accomplished (c.f. Luke 9:31). In fact, our Lord’s cry meant all those things. The ransom was paid in full, reconciliation between Man and God was accomplished, and His suffering was about to be ended.

This forsaking of Christ is an integral part of the atonement. Christ ‘is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him.’ His is a complete salvation. I shall not be condemned for my sins because Christ was made sin for me. I shall not suffer the pains of hell because Christ has suffered them on my behalf on the cross. I shall not be shut out from the presence of God (2 Thessalonians 1:9) because Christ was shut out from the felt presence of His Father on my behalf.

John Caldwell · Dec 30, 2019

Also we have to jeep in mind the words "forsake" and "abandon" can mean "to withdraw one's help" but do not mean "to separate". Separation can include "forsake" and "abandon", but it is an addition to the text.

John Caldwell · Dec 30, 2019

Steve Owen said:
We now come to the dereliction of Christ. As I have said elsewhere, I cannot accept that “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me” can possibly be read as “My God, My God, You haven’t forsaken Me.” .

You are back to strawman arguments - arguments that have already been discounted as fallacies. Are you just copying and pasting from some other argument??

I have not rejected "why did you forsake me". I rejected your interpretion "My God, My God, why were you unfaithful and separated from me when you said you never would?"

You are adding to Scripture, plain and simple.

Your task is not to explain your theory but also to explain why traditional, orthodox Christian faith is wrong and why Scripture is insufficient without the addition of your religious philosophy (judicial philosophy) and theories.

bbyrd009 · Dec 30, 2019

Steve Owen said:
This forsaking of Christ is an integral part of the atonement.

as long as you need a Father Who needs sacrifice for atonement, certainly

Steve Owen said:
I shall not be condemned for my sins because Christ was made sin for me.

2 Corinthians 5:10 Lexicon: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
are you sure? Are you willing to bet your life on that?

Steve Owen said:
I shall not suffer the pains of hell because Christ has suffered them on my behalf on the cross.

but you will readily dig a pit for others to fall into, even though Gehenna is in Erets, and not in some mystery place, yeh?

Steve Owen said:
because Christ was shut out from the felt presence of His Father on my behalf.

exactly, ergo "Eloi, Eloi..." becomes the Word directed at your behalf, and not the One suddenly becoming two again for a second, maybe? Of course written so as to be hidden from the wise, but when other Scripture is taken into consideration, how else might that even be understood? See bc Jesus didnt say "Be forgiven, as I am forgiven" right, but Be perfect, as I am perfect.

Yes, as Scripture states directly, you will be condemned for your unrebounded (i guess "unrepented" to most ppl) sins bro, regardless of what you say or think you know, wadr. "All"
unless you have some valid argument against that?

Steve Owen · Dec 30, 2019

John Caldwell said:
separate
[ verb sep-uh-reyt; adjective, noun sep-er-it ]
verb (used with object), sep·a·rat·ed, sep·a·rat·ing.
to keep apart or divide, as by an intervening barrier or space

Sometimes my wife and I go into town together. We then separate from one another while she goes into one shop and I go into another. During that time we have no contact with each other, but we meet again at a pre-arranged time for lunch, coffee or whatever. But the fact that we have separated does not mean that we are not still husband and wife or that we do not still love each other.

Steve Owen · Dec 30, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
are you sure? Are you willing to bet your life on that?

Yes.

John Caldwell · Dec 30, 2019

Steve Owen said:
Sometimes my wife and I go into town together. We then separate from one another while she goes into one shop and I go into another. During that time we have no contact with each other, but we meet again at a pre-arranged time for lunch, coffee or whatever. But the fact that we have separated does not mean that we are not still husband and wife or that we do not still love each other.

Do you forsake your wife? That is the question.

Steve Owen · Dec 30, 2019

John Caldwell said:
You are back to strawman arguments - arguments that have already been discounted as fallacies. Are you just copying and pasting from some other argument??

I most certainly copied and pasted from my blog https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/penal-substitution-and-the-trinity/ I have had no time to compose post of that length and in any case it says what I want to say. Those posts (#123, 124) are not specifically addressed to you; they are there to express clearly my understanding to whomever may read them.
The blog post was made as a result of our discussions on another board almost a year ago, I think, but it was not addressed to you and you were not mentioned. However, I think it is true to say that you have modified your position recently on our Lord being forsaken.

Steve Owen · Dec 30, 2019

John Caldwell said:
Do you forsake your wife? That is the question.

Insofar as she is separated from me during the time apart, yes. She has to have faith that I am not off seeing some other woman and that I will meet her again at the appointed time (I, of course, have to have similar faith in her).
No analogy can be pressed too far, but the separation between Father and Son was mutually agreed and for a short time. The difference of course is that my wife does not suffer hideous agonies on the cross when I am not with her.

John Caldwell · Dec 30, 2019

Steve Owen said:
Insofar as she is separated from me during the time apart, yes. She has to have faith that I am not off seeing some other woman and that I will meet her again at the appointed time (I, of course, have to have similar faith in her).
No analogy can be pressed too far, but the separation between Father and Son was mutually agreed and for a short time. The difference of course is that my wife does not suffer hideous agonies on the cross when I am not with her.

I and my wife are sometimes apart, but she knows I will not forsake her.

I think this explains your confusion. Forsake does not mean to separate.

If you have really forsaken your wife then perhaps reconciliation is in order.

Steve Owen · Dec 30, 2019

@John Caldwell,
As I was walking my dog this afternoon, it occurred to me that we might not be as far apart as perhaps we imagine, at least on the subject of 'forsaken.'
Perhaps, just as my understanding of 'separate' is not what you imagine it to be, your definition of 'withdraw support' might not be what I suppose it to be.
So will you please explain exactly what you understand by the Father 'withdrawing support' from the Son? What exactly did that involve, and how do you think it felt for the Lord Jesus?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

John Caldwell · Dec 30, 2019

Steve Owen said:
@John Caldwell,
As I was walking my dog this afternoon, it occurred to me that we might not be as far apart as perhaps we imagine, at least on the subject of 'forsaken.'
Perhaps, just as my understanding of 'separate' is not what you imagine it to be, your definition of 'withdraw support' might not be what I suppose it to be.
So will you please explain exactly what you understand by the Father 'withdrawing support' from the Son? What exactly did that involve, and how do you think it felt for the Lord Jesus?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Could be. I view it as withdrawing help in terms of refraining from delivering Jesus from his pain, suffering, and death.

We often feel forsaken (experience suffering, sickness, pain, loss, and death). I had a friend whose 8 year old daughter was diagnosed with a terminal illness. They had hope but I think towards the end of their child's life they felt a sense of being forsaken. But God was there and delivered them through (rather than from) the situation.

By "withdrawing help" I mean that the Father did not deliver Christ from that suffering. He was facing death and crying for deliverance (I believe calling upon the righteous of God because of Psalm 22). Christ was delivered through (but not from) death.

bbyrd009 · Dec 30, 2019

Steve Owen said:
Yes.

2 Corinthians 5:10 Lexicon: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

bye Steve

John Caldwell · Dec 30, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
2 Corinthians 5:10 Lexicon: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

bye Steve

Peter says the same thing..... And this also to believers sitting beside us in church.

Steve Owen · Dec 31, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
2 Corinthians 5:10 Lexicon: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

bye Steve

2 Corinthians 5:19. '...That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.'

Bye bye bbyrd.

bbyrd009 · Dec 31, 2019

ok, bye Steve. No offense meant ok, im just done trying to get guys like you to address any points. Yes, Yah has given all judgement to the Son, and all will be judged by the Son, right?

John Caldwell said:
Peter says the same thing..... And this also to believers sitting beside us in church.

well, cant sit in a person imo, but i agree anyway i guess.

Steve Owen · Dec 31, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
ok, bye Steve. No offense meant ok, im just done trying to get guys like you to address any points

well, cant sit in a person imo, but i agree anyway i guess.

May I suggest that you make your points in a new thread and link my name. I will then try to answer them. I think you're off-topic on this thread. But I will say this: if Christ has not saved me then I am not saved. Any works that I do in my own strength are inevitably flawed and unacceptable to a holy God.

Forsaken

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Similar threads