Forsaken

[John Caldwell]

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.

In Psalm 22 the psalmist (foreshadowing Christ) cries out asking why God has forsaken him. As the psalm goes on the reader is struck not only by the faith of the psalmist in God but also by the fact that God had never abandoned the author but was there and heard his cry.

Likewise, I believe that Christ was forsaken to suffer and die. He was not delivered from death but through death. And therein lies our hope.

But given the context of Steve's reply (a context that Christ was forsaken instead of us, and in the context of this being an additional element of Christ's suffering and death rather than the actual state) I realize that there are other interpretations.

What does it mean to you that Christ was forsaken?

 

[Episkopos]

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.

In Psalm 22 the psalmist (foreshadowing Christ) cries out asking why God has forsaken him. As the psalm goes on the reader is struck not only by the faith of the psalmist in God but also by the fact that God had never abandoned the author but was there and heard his cry.

Likewise, I believe that Christ was forsaken to suffer and die. He was not delivered from death but through death. And therein lies our hope.

But given the context of Steve's reply (a context that Christ was forsaken instead of us, and in the context of this being an additional element of Christ's suffering and death rather than the actual state) I realize that there are other interpretations.

What does it mean to you that Christ was forsaken?

Actually Jesus doesn't say "forsaken"...but 'entangled"...as in... My God My God why have you entangled Me?

The word "sabach" in Hebrew means entangled (past tense). This is a reference to Gen.22 and the ram caught in the thicket or "sevach" (hence the crown of thorns) . In Psalm 22 the word is "azav" which means forsaken. Jesus could have said that word but He did not.

 

[Enoch111]

I still find the "instead of" wrong, but I am curious as to what it means that Christ became forsaken.

That's because you do not (and probably cannot) comprehend the finished work of Christ.

As the psalm goes on the reader is struck not only by the faith of the psalmist in God but also by the fact that God had never abandoned the author but was there and heard his cry.

David was expressing the agony of Christ in Psalm 22. This has nothing to do with the psalmist (the author) but the prophetic words of God the Holy Spirit 1,000 years before the crucifixion. If you are unable to see this, then you will not understand why or how Christ was forsaken by the Father.

But given the context of Steve's reply (a context that Christ was forsaken instead of us, and in the context of this being an additional element of Christ's suffering and death rather than the actual state) I realize that there are other interpretations.

What do you mean by the bolded portion? Had the Lord Jesus Christ not paid for our sins on Calvary, you and I (and all humanity) would be separated from (forsaken by) God for eternity in Hell. And that will be the fate of those who are not found written in the Lamb's book of Life.

All Christians have two options (1) Believe God and believe the Bible or (2) refuse to believe God and allow human reasoning to replace faith. If anyone does not believe that Christ was indeed forsaken -- abandoned by the Father -- for three dark hours while He suffered on the cross, then he or she does not really believe God or Christ or the Bible.

 

[John Caldwell]

That's because you do not (and probably cannot) comprehend the finished work of Christ.

David was expressing the agony of Christ in Psalm 22. This has nothing to do with the psalmist (the author) but the prophetic words of God the Holy Spirit 1,000 years before the crucifixion. If you are unable to see this, then you will not understand why or how Christ was forsaken by the Father.

What do you mean by the bolded portion? Had the Lord Jesus Christ not paid for our sins on Calvary, you and I (and all humanity) would be separated from (forsaken by) God for eternity in Hell. And that will be the fate of those who are not found written in the Lamb's book of Life.

All Christians have two options (1) Believe God and believe the Bible or (2) refuse to believe God and allow human reasoning to replace faith. If anyone does not believe that Christ was indeed forsaken -- abandoned by the Father -- for three dark hours while He suffered on the cross, then he or she does not really believe God or Christ or the Bible.

@Enoch111,

I do not mean any offense but a bit of constructive criticism. You disqualified your opinion by the logical fallacies you chose to introduce your comments and later your question.

It is easy to fall into fallacy, particularly ad hominem and appeals to authority, as arguments get in depth (and once they occur the argument is lost to the offender).

But you disqualified yourself and your opinion right out of the gate.

You may want to strengthen your argument and develop your position to a fuller extent. The only reason people resort to ad hominem is when they cannot adequately argue their beliefs.

Take some time to develop an argument and stance that stands on its own merit. Then perhaps your posts will be worth considering.

 

[John Caldwell]

Actually Jesus doesn't say "forsaken"...but 'entangled"...as in... My God My God why have you entangled Me?

The word "sabach" in Hebrew means entangled (past tense). This is a reference to Gen.22 and the ram caught in the thicket or "sevach" (hence the crown of thorns) . In Psalm 22 the word is "azav" which means forsaken. Jesus could have said that word but He did not.

I never noticed this before, but you are right.

Given Psalm 22 as a whole I think it is apparent this is the context of "forsake" in the first verse as well (it is deliverance through suffering rather than from it).

But Christ never cried He was forsaken. Interesting.

It is also interesting that this is a cry of distress (not necessarily a declaration of a state or a question). That is how those at the Cross took it (as a cry for deliverance).

The point of the gospel is Christ. We have in Christ the assurance God will never abandon us but will deliver us because God never abandoned Christ but delivered Him. And we share in His death and resurrection.

 

[Philip James]

It is also interesting that this is a cry of distress (not necessarily a declaration of a state or a question). That is how those at the Cross took it (as a cry for deliverance).

Hello John,
That led me to this gem:

“The Lord is loving unto man, and swift to pardon, but slow to punish. Let no man therefore despair of his own salvation.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Despair is the enemy. Our Father will never forsake us, the ressurection is proof of His fidelity.

Peace be with you!

 

[CharismaticLady]

Actually Jesus doesn't say "forsaken"...but 'entangled"...as in... My God My God why have you entangled Me?

The word "sabach" in Hebrew means entangled (past tense). This is a reference to Gen.22 and the ram caught in the thicket or "sevach" (hence the crown of thorns) . In Psalm 22 the word is "azav" which means forsaken. Jesus could have said that word but He did not.

That is a very good explanation, E. Thanks. I'll write that explanation in my Bible.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I have wondered about that too. Based on my own experience and how I sometimes feel like God ignores me, doesn't answer me, has become silent, I figured it to be something like that. When I add in how impatient I can become while experiencing intense pain, I sort of came to feel my way around the verse rather than to scholarship my way around the verse. So...it became comfort to me that Jesus understands and has felt these things that I feel - impatience in physical pain, Gods seeming to go quiet and leave me alone in it all.

Job helps to grasp it too. How He became miserable enough in his pain to want God to stop it all and let him catch his breath. Its almost as if Job also cried out, why, God, why have You entangled me in all of this? It feels like you've become my enemy...

 

[Willie T]

I truly do weary of continually posting, time and time again, to take a look at THIS version before getting too fouled up in the mire of the language the KJV uses:

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 22 - The Passion Translation

(I'm not saying this has to be right, but at least it tells us the words of the Bible in sensible terms...… not deliberately trying to get us to hopefully correctly decipher a language no longer used.)

 

[Steve Owen]

Actually Jesus doesn't say "forsaken"...but 'entangled"...as in... My God My God why have you entangled Me?

The word "sabach" in Hebrew means entangled (past tense). This is a reference to Gen.22 and the ram caught in the thicket or "sevach" (hence the crown of thorns) . In Psalm 22 the word is "azav" which means forsaken. Jesus could have said that word but He did not.

Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit has miss-translated our Lord's words in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34?
'And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" That is, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"' I don't know Hebrew, but I know enough Greek to know that the word translated 'forsaken' is enkataleipo, and it means 'forsaken,' as in 2 Corinthians 4:9; 2 Timothy 4:10, 16; Hebrews 10:25; 13:5.
Also, 'thicket' is a noun; 'forsake' is a verb.
I suggest two possible solutions to this conundrum:
1. Our Lord was speaking Aramaic rather than Hebrew.
2. The language had changed in the 1,000 years since David wrote Psalm 22 so that asav may have meant 'forsake' in 30 AD.

I would want to be dogmatic about either of those two suggestions, but I am dogmatic that enkataleipo means 'forsake,' and unless you intend to charge the Holy Spirit with error, I suggest you and @John Caldwell let the matter drop and that @CharismaticLady finds something better to write in her Bible.

 

[Episkopos]

1. Our Lord was speaking Aramaic rather than Hebrew.

You can actually get a modern Hebrew dictionary where it will tell you that "sabach" (as in sabachthani) means entangled.

2. The language had changed in the 1,000 years since David wrote Psalm 22 so that asav may have meant 'forsake' in 30 AD.

Even to this day the words mean the same thing.

What you are missing in all this is the lack of a rigidity with God. Dogmatic religion is rigid. And Jesus could have just parroted the psalmist. But God always goes a step further...the extra mile if you will. He put 2 verses...two prophecies together by also adding in Gen. 22. As such this displays the genius of God. Jesus IS the sacrifice that the angel referred to by saying "God Himself shall provide the sacrifice."

 

[marks]

Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit has miss-translated our Lord's words in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34?
'And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" That is, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"' I don't know Hebrew, but I know enough Greek to know that the word translated 'forsaken' is enkataleipo, and it means 'forsaken,' as in 2 Corinthians 4:9; 2 Timothy 4:10, 16; Hebrews 10:25; 13:5.
Also, 'thicket' is a noun; 'forsake' is a verb.

Hi Steve, this is such a perfect example of "letting Scripture interpret Scripture"! God Himself tells us what the words mean. Jesus calls out, and His words are recorded. What do they mean?? The very next verse tells us.

Much love!

 

[Steve Owen]

You can actually get a modern Hebrew dictionary where it will tell you that "sabach" (as in sabachthani) means entangled.




Even to this day the words mean the same thing.

I'm not going to argue with a Hebrew expert as you clearly are, but I will note that nowhere in the O.T. is sabach (Strongs 5442) used as a verb.

What you are missing in all this is the lack of a rigidity with God. Dogmatic religion is rigid. And Jesus could have just parroted the psalmist. But God always goes a step further...the extra mile if you will. He put 2 verses...two prophecies together by also adding in Gen. 22. As such this displays the genius of God. Jesus IS the sacrifice that the angel referred to by saying "God Himself shall provide the sacrifice."

I have no problems at all with you finding an allusion to Genesis 22 in the verses. Such things abound in the Scriptures. I do have a very serious problem with any suggestion that our Lord did not cry out, "My God, My God, Why have You forsaken Me" because that is what the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew and Mark to write.

 

[Episkopos]

I'm not going to argue with a Hebrew expert as you clearly are, but I will note that nowhere in the O.T. is sabach (Strongs 5442) used as a verb.

Hebrew has no vowels...so the noun and the verb are the same words...three letters mostly. The difference is context. The verb sabach and the noun sevach are identical. The same three letters. The vowels are added in based on context alone. The pronunciation follows the usage...not the word itself.

So if you look up thicket...in Gen. 22. you will see that this is the noun form of the word entanglement. But the very same letters used as a verb are "sabach".

To add to the mystery AND the veracity of this conclusion we have Jesus wearing a crown of thorns as if He too was caught in an entanglement...hence His statement.

 

[marks]

Hebrew has no vowels...so the noun and the verb are the same words...three letters mostly.

Written Hebrew, that is, right? Of course the ancient spoken Hebrew had vowels, otherwise pronunciation becomes difficult. My understanding is the the the ancient written Hebrew didn't include the spoken vowels, so they were added later.

Again, just my understanding, the original readers, being native speakers of what is now a dead language, understood what the vowels should be, but didn't write them down.

This is not to say that such things cannot be known, just the same, if these things are true, then shouldn't we be giving greater weight to what the the actual Inspired Text comes right out and tells us?

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

Hi Steve, this is such a perfect example of "letting Scripture interpret Scripture"! God Himself tells us what the words mean. Jesus calls out, and His words are recorded. What do they mean?? The very next verse tells us.

Much love!

I agree.

But this still leaves to question what the phrase "My God, My God, why have your forsaken me?" means.

Is it as the audience took it (as defined by the following Scripture) - a call of deliverance rather than a declaration of being abandoned?

Is it a call of anguish as God forsook Christ to suffer and die (abandoned to suffering, not withdrawn presence but withdrawn deliverance) as I favor?

Or is it what Penal Substitution Theory holds, that God separated from Jesus for three hours on the Cross as God will separate from those who are lost and cast into Hell as the "second death"?

What does the verse mean to you, @marks ?

 

[marks]

I agree.

But this still leaves to question what the phrase "My God, My God, why have your forsaken me?" means.

Is it as the audience took it (as defined by the following Scripture) - a call of deliverance rather than a declaration of being abandoned?

Is it a call of anguish as God forsook Christ to suffer and die (abandoned to suffering, not withdrawn presence but withdrawn deliverance) as I favor?

Or is it what Penal Substitution Theory holds, that God separated from Jesus for three hours on the Cross as God will separate from those who are lost and cast into Hell as the "second death"?

What does the verse mean to you, @marks ?

Psalm 22 points us in the direction. I see this being the cry of a man hanging on a cross, who is faced with the brutal reality of His brutal death.

I am a worm and not a man . . . what is the "worm" to the Jewish mind? I remember reading in I think it was the Targum of Jonathan(?) that the worm (Isaiah 66) that dies not is what remains of the man whom God had destroyed.

The bulls of Bashan have surrounded me . . .

Forlorn on the cross, not to be saved . . .

But then,

I will declare Thy Name to my brethren . . . He knows death is not the end.

I don't see this as your proof text either way myself.

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

Psalm 22 points us in the direction. I see this being the cry of a man hanging on a cross, who is faced with the brutal reality of His brutal death.

I am a worm and not a man . . . what is the "worm" to the Jewish mind? I remember reading in I think it was the Targum of Jonathan(?) that the worm (Isaiah 66) that dies not is what remains of the man whom God had destroyed.

The bulls of Bashan have surrounded me . . .

Forlorn on the cross, not to be saved . . .

But then,

I will declare Thy Name to my brethren . . . He knows death is not the end.

I don't see this as your proof text either way myself.

Much love!

I see it the same.

But I see this as God abandoning Christ to the Cross (withholding deliverance from death) rather than abandoning Christ while He was on the Cross (God withdrawing from Christ) as I do not view God as departing from Christ.

Do you believe that "forsaken" means that God withdrew from Christ?

 

[marks]

I see it the same.

But I see this as God abandoning Christ to the Cross (withholding deliverance from death) rather than abandoning Christ while He was on the Cross (God withdrawing from Christ) as I do not view God as departing from Christ.

Do you believe that "forsaken" means that God withdrew from Christ?

You are asking if I think Why have you forsaken me? means that Christ suffered spiritual death on the cross? Is that the idea?

I don't see this as defined one way or the other in this passage. It could mean, why have you left me alone?, or it could mean why have you left me to die?

My impression is, why have you left me to die?, with the intention to direct us to the Psalm.

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

You are asking if I think Why have you forsaken me? means that Christ suffered spiritual death on the cross? Is that the idea?

I don't see this as defined one way or the other in this passage. It could mean, why have you left me alone?, or it could mean why have you left me to die?

My impression is, why have you left me to die?, with the intention to direct us to the Psalm.

Much love!

Yes. That is what I was wondering. I was wondering if you thought that God literally abandoned Christ when He was on the cross.

I agree with your interpretation. It seems (especially if we link this to Psalm 22) that God never abandoned Christ but rather did not deliver him from suffering and death as redemption was to be accomplished through it. Christ was to suffer and die, and God hears Him and delivers Him from its bonds.

I like the ensnared idea as well (it carries the same context).