Patience please. I'm tired; must go to bed now but this is a challenging subject.
What I believe about the Atonement
- Thread starter John Caldwell
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Patience please. I'm tired; must go to bed now but this is a challenging subject.
Re:
<<what the word means in context of the Cross>>
Very good!
To answer with Scripture here are the incidences of contextual relevance in the immediately foregoing chapters describing HOW Jesus would be forsaken by all men. And in which anecdotes the word used for 'forsake', clearly and from the root, is totally different in form, and in contextual relevance is virtually of opposite meaning than the specific two cases of 'enkatellipes' - about which I shall say more afterwards...
34 καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐδὲν τούτων συνῆκαν, καὶ ἦν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο
And they understood none of these things: and this saying
κεκρυμμένον ἀπ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκον τὰ λεγόμενα.
was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
Remember how everyone had his own explanation for what Jesus meant...
Mark 15:34,35 [Eks12:3:5 Mk7:32-35]
καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ
At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί; ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani? which is, being interpreted,
Ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
35 καί τινες τῶν παρεστηκότων ἀκούσαντες
And some of them that stood by, when they heard,
ἔλεγον Ἴδε Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ.
said, Behold, he calleth Elias.
Matthew 27:46,47
περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥραν ἀνεβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων
about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Ἡλεὶ Ἡλεὶ λεμὰ σαβαχθανεί; τοῦτ’ ἔστιν
Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say,
Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἵνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες;
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Then why did the Gospel writers use 'enkatelipes' derived from 'leipoh' which means, to "leave"?
First, 'enkatelipes' in context is used literally distinct from 'leipoh' used literally distinct in immediate proximity. So why did the writers not stick to 'leipoh', but had to be specific and use 'enkatelipes'?
Two, Take it from the Hebrew to begin with, not from the interpretation of Roman soldiers or subjects of king James of England 1600 years later. THEN look again to see what the Gospel writers meant with their choice of a Greek word.
Why doubt that it - 'lama sabachtani', "interpreted", meant the SEPARATION OF THE LAMB OF GOD FOR TO BE KILLED?! How? Why, "neither knew they (at the cross) the things which were spoken." The Gospel writers gave THEIR 'interpretation' of the Hebrew/Aramaic with the Greek word 'enkatelipes', and 1600 years later, the KJV translators gave THEIR 'interpretation', with the word 'forsake'!
Immediately a certain phenomenon about the Hebrew root-word 'shaba(ch)' strikes the attention, the fact it occurs at least 40 times and every time with the literal intrinsic meaning of "take(n) in.." whatever; never meaning the contrary, to 'forsake', 'leave...' out or whatever.
Third, The meaning, "leave" is generally and specifically the meaning of 'leipoh' (per se)-- not of 'enkataleipoh'. Shown #260. Matthew and Mark therefore must have known some specific Christian thing 'enkatelipes' was associated with. We must find out about that, later on. I dealt with it on several occasions before and may select some examples, but that must be for later on, not now.
Last edited:
The whole of your post (and the previous one) is a nonsensical attempt to avoid what the text so clearly says, but in Mark 15:34, the Lord Jesus is speaking Aramaic, not Hebrew. This very point came up on this board just a short while ago.
Also, enkataleipo is a stronger form of leipo, which does indeed mean, to leave. Enkataleipo means to 'forsake,' or 'abandon.' Which is what happened to the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross between the third and ninth hours.
As in Psalms 22:1-2:
"My God, My God, why have You forsaken [Hebrew azab. Strongs 5800] Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning?
O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; And in the night season and am not silent.'
That these words are a prophecy of the sufferings of our Lord is shown by verses 16 & 18, where He has His hands and feet pierced and His clothing divided, and lots cast for them.
One thing is important to be said. It comes from John Stott's book, 'The Cross of Christ': we must never suppose that the Father laid upon the Son a punishment that He was unwilling to bear. Nor should we ever suppose that on the cross the Son extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to grant. If that is the only thing anyone takes away from this thread, it will have been well worth the time spent reading it.
Some people have a problem with the Father forsaking the Son, because they feel it is inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Trinity.
In the early Church, the reality that there is one God in three Persons (not ‘members’) was safeguarded by speaking of a single divine ‘substance’ shared by Father, Son and Spirit. This substance is simply what God is, the thing that makes Father, Son and Spirit divine without implying three deities.
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 Greek 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.
In the early Church, the reality that there is one God in three Persons (not ‘members’) was safeguarded by speaking of a single divine ‘substance’ shared by Father, Son and Spirit. This substance is simply what God is, the thing that makes Father, Son and Spirit divine without implying three deities.
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 Greek 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.
Some, like me, have no problem on those grounds except that it causes a disharmony in redemption absent Scripture itself.
Christ was forsaken to suffer and die under the powers of darkness and evil. God did not deliver Him from that fate. But God delivered Him through the wages of sin so that us, in Him, will share in that deliverance. That is the gospel message. The Kingdom is here.
No you nonsensically and with no Scripture at all VAINLY attempt to DENY what the Text says but TRANSLATION so clearly corrupted. Hang on, I have not finished yet, and after I have finished will summarise and then we'll come back to your <clearly> o so <clearly> unfounded, unjustified, false, accusation, clearly. I am a rough man, in my more natural language, you have been caught pants down.
Yes, <<enkataleipo is a stronger form of leipo,>> But not because <<enkataleipo indeed means, to leave>> or because <<Enkataleipo means to 'forsake,' or 'abandon'>>. You can say it a thousand times, it will not prove your mere assumption, <<Which is what happened to the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross between the third and ninth hours.>>
By the way there is a difference between "hast forsaken" KJV for the Aorist which also is insufficient. Jesus meant Past Perfect the Best English for Aorist that is better translated 'HAD (forsaken)'-- IN THE PAST, not only in the Present nor in the Future <<on the cross between the third and ninth hours>> Jesus was to face.
Yes, <<these words are a prophecy of the sufferings of our Lord>>, why limit the Lord's Suffering to the daytime? What about Jesus' Sufferings THAT SPECIFIC DAY IN ITS NIGHT BEFORE BECAUSE THAT AS MUCH AS WHAT OUR LORD WAS FACING THAT DAY IN ITS DAYTIME, WAS WHAT HE CRIED OUT FOR ON THE CROSS: "IS THIS THING WHAT THOU HAST SANCTIFIED-SEPARATED-HALLOWED, ME, FOR?" SINCE ETERNITY!
λείπω
Luke 18:22
Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me.
Ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει· πάντα ὅσα ἔχεις πώλησον καὶ διάδος πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι.
Titus 1:5
the things that are wanting set in order
τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ
Titus 3:13
on their journey nothing be wanting unto them
σπουδαίως πρόπεμψον ἵνα μηδὲν αὐτοῖς λείπῃ
James 1:4
But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι καὶ ὁλόκληροι, ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι.
James 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God
Εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν λείπεται σοφίας, αἰτείτω παρὰ Θεοῦ
James 2:15
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν καὶ λειπόμενοι τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς
καταλείπω
(literal/physical)
Distancing out/from place in/to place
Matthew 4:13
leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum
καταλιπὼν τὴν Ναζαρὰ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ
Mark 8:13 Matthew 16:4
And he left them and departed to the other side.
καὶ ἀφεὶς / καταλιπὼν αὐτοὺς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸ πέραν.
Matthew 21:17
He left them and went out of the city into Bethany and lodged there.
καταλιπὼν αὐτοὺς ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως εἰς Βηθανίαν, καὶ ηὐλίσθη ἐκεῖ.
Acts 18:19
And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
κατήντησαν δὲ εἰς Ἔφεσον, κἀκείνους κατέλιπεν αὐτοῦ, αὐτὸς δὲ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν διελέξατο τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις.
Acts 21:3
we left Cyprus on the left hand, and sailed into Syria,
Κύπρον καὶ καταλιπόντες αὐτὴν εὐώνυμον ἐπλέομεν εἰς Συρίαν
Acts 24:27
Felix left / kept Paul bound
Φῆλιξ κατέλιπε τὸν Παῦλον δεδεμένον
Acts 25:14
a certain man left in bonds by Felix:
τίς ἐστιν καταλελειμμένος ὑπὸ Φήλικος δέσμιος
1 Thessalonians 3:1
we thought it good to be left at Athens alone
ηὐδοκήσαμεν καταλειφθῆναι ἐν Ἀθήναις μόνοι
Titus 1:5
For this cause left I thee in Crete,
Τούτου χάριν ἀπέλιπόν [κατέλιπον variant] σε ἐν Κρήτῃ
καταλείπω
(literal/physical)
Distancing out/from situation/condition in/to situation/condition
Mark 10:7 Mt19:5 [Ephesians 5:31]
man shall leave father and mother and cleave to his wife
καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ κολληθήσεται τῇ γυναικὶ
Mark 12:19 (Lk20:31)
If a man's brother leave his wife and leave no children (they left no children, and died)
ἐάν τινος ἀδελφὸς ἀποθάνῃ καὶ καταλίπῃ γυναῖκα καὶ μὴ ἀφῇ τέκνον (οὐ κατέλιπον τέκνα καὶ ἀπέθανον)
Mark 14:52
he left the linen cloth, and fled naked.
ὁ δὲ καταλιπὼν τὴν σινδόνα γυμνὸς ἔφυγεν.
Luke 10:40
my sister hath left me to serve alone
ἀδελφή μου μόνην με κατέλειπεν διακονεῖν
Luke 15:4
leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost,
καταλείπει τὰ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ πορεύεται ἐπὶ τὸ ἀπολωλὸς
Luke 5:28
Levi left all, rose up, and followed him.
Λευεὶν καταλιπὼν πάντα ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ.
John 8:9
Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst
κατελείφθη μόνος ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐν μέσῳ ἑστῶσα
Acts 6:2
It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
Οὐκ ἀρεστόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς καταλείψαντας τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ διακονεῖν τραπέζαις
καταλείπω
Distancing spiritually/by faith
Romans 11:4
I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ
Ephesians 5:31 [Mark 10:7 Mt19:5]
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.
Hebrews 4:1
Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it
φοβηθῶμεν οὖν μή ποτε καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγελίας εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ δοκῇ τις ἐξ ὑμῶν ὑστερηκέναι.
Hebrews 11:27
By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing Him who is invisible
Πίστει κατέλιπεν Αἴγυπτον, μὴ φοβηθεὶς τὸν θυμὸν τοῦ βασιλέως· τὸν γὰρ ἀόρατον ὡς ὁρῶν ἐκαρτέρησεν
Aphi-ehmi
Mark 10:27
every one that hath forsaken houses or brethren or sisters or father,
καὶ πᾶς ὅστις ἀφῆκεν οἰκίας ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ ἀδελφὰς ἢ πατέρα
Mark 10:28
Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
Ἤρξατο ὁ Πέτρος αὐτῷ Ἰδοὺ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν πάντα καὶ ἠκολουθήκαμέν σοι.
Matthew 19:27,28
answered Peter him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee
ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἰδοὺ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν πάντα καὶ ἠκολουθήσαμέν σοι
Matthew 26:56
But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαὶ τῶν προφητῶν. Τότε οἱ μαθηταὶ πάντες ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον.
Mark 14:50
And they all forsook him, and fled.
καὶ ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον πάντες.
TBC DV ASAP with en-kataleipoh
Last edited:
Re: <<in Mark 15:34, the Lord Jesus is speaking Aramaic, not Hebrew>>
<Jesus spoke Aramaic>
I don’t think so, because you are telling me different.
1) He is quoting from the Hebrew Psalm 22. Didn’t you bring this Psalm up? Was there an Aramaic version then, 2000 ago?
2) Haven’t you posted <<forsaken [Hebrew azab. Strongs 5800]>>? (Bold GE)
3) Did you not write, <<That these words are a prophecy of the sufferings of our Lord is shown by verses 16 & 18, where He has His hands and feet pierced and His clothing divided, and lots cast for them>>— <a prophecy> ages before, in Aramaic?!
I therefore conclude in Mark 15:34, the Lord Jesus is speaking Hebrew.
Why is it important to be sure about this?
So that we may not do the same mistakes everyone made—, the same mistake everyone, from the Roman soldiers to the Jews with their own warped ideas about the prophecies, made. The same mistakes made by everyone who did not know but had everything to say about the meaning of the penultimate words Jesus spoke on his cross.
So what did those wise guys have to say?
Mark 15:34,35
καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ
At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί; ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani? which is, being interpreted,
Ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
καί τινες τῶν παρεστηκότων ἀκούσαντες
And some of them that stood by, when they heard, said,
ἔλεγον Ἴδε Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ.
Behold, he calleth Elias.
Matthew 27:46,47
περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥραν ἀνεβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων
about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Ἡλεὶ Ἡλεὶ λεμὰ σαβαχθανεί; τοῦτ’ ἔστιν
Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say,
Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἵνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες;
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
τινὲς δὲ τῶν ἐκεῖ ἑστηκότων ἀκούσαντες
Some of that stood there, when they heard,
ἔλεγον ὅτι Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ οὗτος.
said, This man calleth for Elias.
John 19:28
Μετὰ τοῦτο εἰδὼς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἤδη πάντα τετέλεσται,
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished,
ἵνα τελειωθῇ ἡ γραφὴ, λέγει Διψῶ.
that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
[Ps51:7 Lv14:52 Hb9]
29 σκεῦος ἔκειτο ὄξους μεστόν· σπόγγον οὖν μεστὸν τοῦ ὄξους
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge
ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες προσήνεγκαν αὐτοῦ τῷ στόματι.
with vinegar and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
Mark 15:36
δραμὼν δέ τις καὶ γεμίσας σπόγγον ὄξους περιθεὶς καλάμῳ
And the one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and on a reed,
ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν, λέγων Ἄφετε
... gave him to drink, saying, Let alone;
ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἡλείας καθελεῖν αὐτόν.
let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
Matthew 27:48,49
καὶ εὐθέως δραμὼν εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ λαβὼν
And straightway one of them ran, and took
σπόγγον πλήσας τε ὄξους καὶ περιθεὶς καλάμῳ
a spunge ... filled with vinegar ...put around a reed
ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν. 49 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ εἶπαν Ἄφες·
and gave him to drink. 49 The rest said, Let be,
Ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἡλείας σώσων αὐτόν.
let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
Who heard?
καί τινες τῶν παρεστηκότων ἀκούσαντες
And some of them that stood by, hearing
τινὲς δὲ τῶν ἐκεῖ ἑστηκότων ἀκούσαντες
Some of that stood there, hearing
Who said?
καί τινες τῶν παρεστηκότων ἀκούσαντες ἔλεγον
And some of them that stood by, hearing, said
τινὲς δὲ τῶν ἐκεῖ ἑστηκότων ἀκούσαντες
Some of that stood there, hearing, said
Some who stood there when they heard Jesus speak, said,
that this man calleth for Elias (ὅτι Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ οὗτος)
“Behold, he calleth Elias” (Ἴδε Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ).
Mark however goes directly on and says in 15:36,
but the one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and on a reed,
δραμὼν δέ τις καὶ γεμίσας σπόγγον ὄξους περιθεὶς καλάμῳ
gave him to drink, saying, Leave him alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν, λέγων Ἄφετε ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἡλείας καθελεῖν αὐτόν.
They ALL, HEARD, something like ‘Elias’.
Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί; ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani? which is, being interpreted,
Ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
And the only word which Jesus spoke which for some bystanders must have sounded like ‘Elias’, was “Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ ”, “being interpreted”— “being interpreted”... by whom else than Mark the writer of the Gospel?
Now we can trust Mark because God breathed that which Mark wrote down for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We must therefore also believe that the rest of Mark’s “interpretation” of the whole phrase spoken by Jesus on the cross, must be correct. This was Mark’s translation then of what Jesus’ words were, and MEANT—, THIS: “Ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;” THE GREEK! NOT this, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” which is the interpretation that the King James Bible TRANSLATORS gave to MARK’S words, “Ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;” the correct and true translation which Mark gives for JESUS’ own, Hebrew, words, “Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί;”.
So the whole issue of meaning boils down to finding the meaning of Mark’s Greek rendering of Jesus’ Hebrew phrase, with which God willing we may continue later on.
καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ
At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί; ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani? which is, being interpreted,
Ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
καί τινες τῶν παρεστηκότων ἀκούσαντες
And some of them that stood by, when they heard, said,
ἔλεγον Ἴδε Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ.
Behold, he calleth Elias.
Matthew 27:46,47
περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥραν ἀνεβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων
about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Ἡλεὶ Ἡλεὶ λεμὰ σαβαχθανεί; τοῦτ’ ἔστιν
Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say,
Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἵνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες;
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
τινὲς δὲ τῶν ἐκεῖ ἑστηκότων ἀκούσαντες
Some of that stood there, when they heard,
ἔλεγον ὅτι Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ οὗτος.
said, This man calleth for Elias.
John 19:28
Μετὰ τοῦτο εἰδὼς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἤδη πάντα τετέλεσται,
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished,
ἵνα τελειωθῇ ἡ γραφὴ, λέγει Διψῶ.
that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
[Ps51:7 Lv14:52 Hb9]
29 σκεῦος ἔκειτο ὄξους μεστόν· σπόγγον οὖν μεστὸν τοῦ ὄξους
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge
ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες προσήνεγκαν αὐτοῦ τῷ στόματι.
with vinegar and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
Mark 15:36
δραμὼν δέ τις καὶ γεμίσας σπόγγον ὄξους περιθεὶς καλάμῳ
And the one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and on a reed,
ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν, λέγων Ἄφετε
... gave him to drink, saying, Let alone;
ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἡλείας καθελεῖν αὐτόν.
let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
Matthew 27:48,49
καὶ εὐθέως δραμὼν εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ λαβὼν
And straightway one of them ran, and took
σπόγγον πλήσας τε ὄξους καὶ περιθεὶς καλάμῳ
a spunge ... filled with vinegar ...put around a reed
ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν. 49 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ εἶπαν Ἄφες·
and gave him to drink. 49 The rest said, Let be,
Ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἡλείας σώσων αὐτόν.
let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
Who heard?
καί τινες τῶν παρεστηκότων ἀκούσαντες
And some of them that stood by, hearing
τινὲς δὲ τῶν ἐκεῖ ἑστηκότων ἀκούσαντες
Some of that stood there, hearing
Who said?
καί τινες τῶν παρεστηκότων ἀκούσαντες ἔλεγον
And some of them that stood by, hearing, said
τινὲς δὲ τῶν ἐκεῖ ἑστηκότων ἀκούσαντες
Some of that stood there, hearing, said
Some who stood there when they heard Jesus speak, said,
that this man calleth for Elias (ὅτι Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ οὗτος)
“Behold, he calleth Elias” (Ἴδε Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ).
Mark however goes directly on and says in 15:36,
but the one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and on a reed,
δραμὼν δέ τις καὶ γεμίσας σπόγγον ὄξους περιθεὶς καλάμῳ
gave him to drink, saying, Leave him alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν, λέγων Ἄφετε ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἡλείας καθελεῖν αὐτόν.
They ALL, HEARD, something like ‘Elias’.
Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί; ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani? which is, being interpreted,
Ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
And the only word which Jesus spoke which for some bystanders must have sounded like ‘Elias’, was “Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ ”, “being interpreted”— “being interpreted”... by whom else than Mark the writer of the Gospel?
Now we can trust Mark because God breathed that which Mark wrote down for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We must therefore also believe that the rest of Mark’s “interpretation” of the whole phrase spoken by Jesus on the cross, must be correct. This was Mark’s translation then of what Jesus’ words were, and MEANT—, THIS: “Ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;” THE GREEK! NOT this, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” which is the interpretation that the King James Bible TRANSLATORS gave to MARK’S words, “Ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;” the correct and true translation which Mark gives for JESUS’ own, Hebrew, words, “Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί;”.
So the whole issue of meaning boils down to finding the meaning of Mark’s Greek rendering of Jesus’ Hebrew phrase, with which God willing we may continue later on.
Christ was predestinated and predestined and destined to suffer and die under GOD'S Power and Will, FOR US, and TO, ALIVE and PREPARED, and WILLING and DETERMINED, PLEASE God and DELIGHT in our Salvation. God did not deliver Christ from any, <fate>, but, from eternity WILLED everything which Jesus ever did or that came his way. God loaded onto Him our sins and the wages of our sins which is our death, that we, in Him, received full forgiveness, justification and righteousness in Him-- "the Lord Our Righteousness". That is the Gospel Message. "The Kingdom of God is come." "CHRIST IN IT TRIUMPHED."
Last edited:
Actually, the following is true:
Psa 16:10, For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
I am only commenting on the OP.
I am not telling you different. Jews in our Lord's time spoke Aramaic, possibly more than Hebrew. When the Lord Jesus said, "Abba, Father," Abba is the Aramaic word used by small children speaking to their father.
"Eli Eli [or 'Eloi, Eloi']lama sabachthani?" is a Greek transliteration of Aramaic words. If it was Hebrew, then azabthani [from azab, as I told you] would have been used instead of the Aramaic word "Sabachthani." that is what I was trying to tell you in my last post.
The crowd around the cross “heard”, and “some” “said” what they “heard” or thought, that they heard. Everyone had his own “interpretation” or rather opinion because no one knew. No one had grounds for thinking or saying what they thought or said. The Romans knew no Hebrew or Greek really. And the Hebrews actually spoke Aramaic and also did not know Hebrew or, for that matter, Greek, really. Who then could, decades after, have known as well as remembered, first, What Jesus actually said, or, next, What the words actually meant?
“Some” having heard the word “elohi”, said that Jesus was calling for “Elias”. The association purely was by the way the word ‘elohi’ sounded, to “some”! The Romans would not know about the prophet Elias of the Hebrews, nor would the Greeks, therefore some Jews deduced on own authority what they “said” they ‘heard’. It is not to say they knew the Scriptures; they had no ‘Scriptural ground’ for their recognition of the name ‘Elias’. Or maybe and quite possible, there could have stood some zealot Jews with special revelation of the Scriptures. But that’s for the superstitious.
So where does the idea which the KJV translators gave to the phrase come from? From Marks’ true “interpretation” through true Inspiration?
“Some” having heard the word “elohi”, said that Jesus was calling for “Elias”. The association purely was by the way the word ‘elohi’ sounded, to “some”! The Romans would not know about the prophet Elias of the Hebrews, nor would the Greeks, therefore some Jews deduced on own authority what they “said” they ‘heard’. It is not to say they knew the Scriptures; they had no ‘Scriptural ground’ for their recognition of the name ‘Elias’. Or maybe and quite possible, there could have stood some zealot Jews with special revelation of the Scriptures. But that’s for the superstitious.
So where does the idea which the KJV translators gave to the phrase come from? From Marks’ true “interpretation” through true Inspiration?
A more self-contradicting statement is unimaginable.
Besides, what has <Abba> to do with anything in the pertinent phrase?
Nevertheless, IMAGINE your word <azabthani> ... help for you is on its way! Just wait, is what I was trying to tell you in several posts before. I am trying not to be unfair (thumbslickstamp).
Last edited:
Made just like us except without sin. The "flesh" is the same.
Christ came had a body of corruptible flesh (obviously, because "corruption" in terms of our physical bodies are a part of growth and Christ grew from an infant to a man). You are taking "corruption" out of context.
The point is that God would raise Christ rather than let Him decay and remain in the grave.
Similar threads
