| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3687 Registered: 10-2004  |
I came across this excellent article which explains in more detail what Jesus meant in Matthew 27:46 and why some popular understandings are heretical and are not possible. It is a bit lengthy but well worth reading through: http://www.tonyabetz.org/MSM/Product/matt27461.htm (page 1) http://www.tonyabetz.org/MSM/Product/matt27462.htm (page 2) http://www.tonyabetz.org/MSM/Product/matt27463.htm (page 3) Jeremy | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7260 Registered: 9-2006  |
I didn't have time to do more than a quick scan, but I do have a problem with some of the things he said. As I followed his logic, the one thing that immediately came to mind is that the sacrifice had to be total and the atonement had to be total. I remember some of these questions in theology. I never came to a full conclusion of the matter then and I still haven't now. But this I do know (or think I know) the atonement had to be total. Now I don't know how God did this, all I know is that he did, and that's good enough for me. As for the charges of heresy the man kept making, I do not think it's heresy to be confused on this issue. Ok Jeremy, I have been the opponent, now you argue for his position.  River | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1152 Registered: 7-2004  |
Jeremy, I read the first article through three times, and I notice some serious errors. 1) it uses Nestorianism as the straw man to group all opposition to their teaching. This is unrealistic. 2) it goes to great length to dismiss that Jesus became sin, but ignores that all who hang on a tree are cursed by the law. 3) it shows a very poor understanding of Jesus telling Mary to stop clinging to him, and bases substantial theological conclusions based on a poor interpretation and translation. 4) it bases considerable parts of the theological argument on Jewish traditions that may or may not have been operating at the time of Christ. 5) it uses the details of parables to try and manufacture doctrinal teaching points well outside the point of the parable. 6) it seems to downplay, or even outright ignore, that reconciliation between God and sinner was necessary and took place at the cross. 7) it limits the cross to fulfilling symbols and prophecy so that Jesus could serve as our High Priest, I didn't see any mention of a substitutionary death or a credited righteousness resulting from His death. 8) it specifically mentions Christ's sacrifice as giving us the power to live without sin. Certainly it makes good points about how we fit together the passages, the 100%human/100% divine nature of Christ and the Trinity. But the path that the author is taking in order to reconcile these isn't providing much better answers. On the whole, the theology of the first article was sufficiently sloppy that I wasn't left ith any desire to read more. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1153 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, Another point that this author argued was that Christ could not have descended into Hell. Here is a really good study (even if it does come from a Pope) defending the idea from the Apostle's Creed that Jesus descended into Hell. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP890111.HTM (Message edited by Ric_b on June 26, 2011) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3688 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hi River, I have already argued for his position previously, on my website (here) and on the forum (here and here). I agree with you that some people are confused on this issue, and don't realize the implications of heresy that are involved. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3689 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, There's only one article--I was just linking to the three pages individually. Based on your comments, it sounds like you read the whole thing.
To say that Jesus was separated from the Father requires either Trinitarian heresy (multiple gods/polytheism) or Christological heresy (separating the divine and human natures/Nestorianism). I agree with the author on this one--although not everyone who teaches it understands the heretical implications of their teaching.
How is the author ignoring that? All I got out of it was that she was trying to say that Jesus did not literally become sin, as the Word of Faith teachers claim.
That is one thing in the article with which I disagree. I wasn't endorsing all of the author's theology (which seems to lean Messianic to some degree, perhaps?), just the main point of the article (regarding the meaning of Matthew 27:46).
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, other than the thing about quoting the first line of a psalm (and that is an explanation I've heard many Christians use, when discussing this passage).
Again, I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically.
I did not come away with that impression.
Again, that's not what I came away with, but like I said, I'm not endorsing the woman's theology outside of her main point (the meaning of Matthew 27:46).
I think that may be reading an assumption into what she meant by this: "He conquered sin and death - the power of sin in our lives today and the penalty of eternal separation from God upon death." This statement could be bad or good, depending on her intent.
Actually, she was only arguing that He did not descend into the torment section of Hell (Hades) and suffer punishment there. She (and myself) agree that He descended into Hell (the Paradise section) at death. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 26, 2011) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3690 Registered: 10-2004 |
Correction: Myself and River were saying "he" and "his" above, but the author is actually a woman (as confirmed elsewhere on that site). Jeremy | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1157 Registered: 7-2004 |
This is a classic case, IMO, of insisting on logic over the Word of God. I am all in favor of trying to resolve all apparent discrepancies and inconsistencies, but not taking it so far that you start with the assumption that the plain words of Scripture can not be true because they aren't logical. For instance Mark 13:32 would also seem to create for us the same dilemmas as the passage in question. It is certainly reasonable to examine the different possible meanings of the Greek words used in the passage, as this author did. But that examination must be done in full light of the other passages that would have bearing on the issue. Being cursed, and becoming the curse for us not just receiving the curse is plainly a passage with heavy parallels to the one in question. Can God curse Himself, can God become a curse; do you see how this would raise all the same Christological and Trinitarian questions as becoming sin? You are quick to dismiss the theological errors about what transpired on the cross relative to our salvation, but these are critical issues because the events of the cross and inexorably intertwined with the theology of the cross. My rationale regarding sloppy theology is simple. If it is clear that a person is sloppy in the exegesis and makes multiples assumptive leaps in developing their theology from a passage that I have studied with some detail, I am immediately skeptical about how solid their theology and exegesis of other passages will be. The author did not demonstrate handling the Word carefully and accurately in relatively simple areas, why should I believe that she is doing a better job in a more complex area? Perhaps I misunderstood what the author was arguing about Jesus being in Hell. I will re-read that once again. Admittedly, her argument there seems to jump around a great deal and I was struggling to follow what she was trying to say. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 824 Registered: 8-2008 |
I am a bit in River's camp on this. The more I study the "how" of the atonement, the more I realize that my finite mind cannot begin to grasp it. But after recently reading the 22nd Psalm, I had to ask, is it possible the Lord's cry is a claim to His status as the suffering Messiah of prophecy? | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1956 Registered: 6-2006  |
Brent, "But after recently reading the 22nd Psalm, I had to ask, is it possible the Lord's cry is a claim to His status as the suffering Messiah of prophecy?" That's what I've understood about why Jesus said that. After doing a study of John through BSF, I found that much (if not all) of Jesus' actions were a fulfillment of prophesy, and could be matched up with scripture throughout the old testament. I really believe it's that simple. Leigh Anne | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3692 Registered: 10-2004 |
Bskillet, Yes, I believe that is the main point. And that is how the Church has historically understood it. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3693 Registered: 10-2004 |
In fact, even the immediate context in Matthew 27 suggests that, since the words in verse 43 are also a quotation of Psalm 22 (verses 7-8, which are being fulfilled by the Jews speaking these words to mock Jesus). Therefore, verse 46 is an answer to verse 43. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3694 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick,
Are you saying that the words of Scripture are illogical? The "plain words of Scripture" do not say that Jesus was separated from the Father. No matter how we interpret the word "forsaken," it cannot contradict the rest of the psalm, which clearly says that God did not even hide His face from Him (Psalm 22:24). I actually think the Catholic theologian that I quoted in one of the posts I linked to above, explained it best:
(The above quote was posted on the Catholic Answers forum, on the following thread which has other insightful comments on it as well: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=215756) I also highly recommend the following article by the late Christian apologist Bob Passantino (who with his wife Gretchen worked closely with Dr. Walter Martin): http://answers.org/theology/forsaken.html If "the plain words of Scripture" teach that Jesus was separated from the Father, why did the Church never teach this, until this heresy started creeping into parts of the Church within the last couple of centuries? (A compilation of commentary by early church fathers on this saying of Jesus can be found here and here.) Likewise, no one taught that Jesus literally "became sin" until the heretical Word of Faith movement in the 20th century. Are we literally "the righteousness of God"? Of course not. This verse is talking about imputation--the whole basis of the Protestant Reformation. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 27, 2011) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7262 Registered: 9-2006 |
My take on it has always been, was the atonement a full atonement or a partial atonement? In thinking about this I can't get away from that question. All Jesus actions were a fulfillment of prophecy, we can be sure he was and is the Messiah. Of course we know that the atonement was perfect and full. Us folks have no problem with that here. The fact is that Jesus said these words, now ask yourself, what would have happened to us if we had no Messiah, no atonement? We can't live a perfect life without sin. Would we have been forsaken and separated from God throughout all eternity? So when you say, "Oh Jesus couldn't have meant that", Jesus was on the cross dying for our sins, so seems to me he could have meant every word just like it reads. What Jesus went through is mind boggling, its so far out that I can't wrap my mind around it. Just what good is our logic up against the wisdom and Holy grace of God? I've been to a little theological semetary,but I can't wrap my mind around that. River | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 953 Registered: 7-2008  |
How can God forsake God?? ...Just a bit curious here. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 539 Registered: 3-2009 |
Jeremy, in case you're interested, Rick and I had a great, fascinating discourse on the idea of whether the Bible can defy the laws of logic on this thread: http://www.formeradventist.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-auth.cgi?lm=1308850418&file=/4529/11450.html It was very deep, and my head is still spinning. But it's all good | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1158 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, I think you need to look at the teachings of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin before you conclude that this is a recent invention. Not saying that those three are correct or authoritative, simply that your history may not be fully accurate here. I'm referring specifically to whether Jesus was actually forsaken. I haven't studied the became sin in enough detail to comment. Although the two seem to have some link. What I am saying about Scripture and logic is that God is bigger than our logic. If we limit God to what fits our logic, we have to start ignoring parts of Scripture. If God is no greater than our mental capacity, He is not very infinite. I simply can not accept the fact that Jesus spoke an untruth from the cross in an effort to make a point about how He fulfilled prophecy. | ||
| Christo Registered user Username: Christo Post Number: 269 Registered: 2-2008 |
The Aramaic translation done by George M. Lamsa renders Matthew 27:47 My God, my God, for this I was spared! (1) (1) This was my destiny .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. In his preface he states that, "In the first century, Jesus and his earliest followers certainly spoke Aramaic for the most part, although they also knew hebrew." He also states that many words in Aramaic when hand written resemble other words that have different meanings. An lets not forget the western colloquium "Its all Greek to me" for those who want to address the gospels written in Greek. Greek is a complicated language. How about an example from modern England...... Bloody this!, Or Bloody that!, in situations where there is no blood at all. I've read verses in King James that were outright disturbing, or confusing, and read other translations of the same verse that are quite comforting. This would apply to Mathew 27:47 KJ connotes confusion and uncertainty. Lamsa states VICTORY! I'm not stating that my scholarship is somehow the best, as I have even posted some things in the past that have had flaws. My main point is that human scholarship is open to flaws in general, and that the letter really does kill but the Spirit gives life. When I hear Jesus declaring his destiny in this verse, he is really declaring our destiny also, through his blood. Victory!! As the old saying goes, "I can live with that!" Thank you Lord! Chris | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1159 Registered: 7-2004 |
Animal, How can God (Jesus) not know something that God (Father) knows? The Bible has mysteries that defy our petty brains. I'd even contend that the Trinity isn't "logical", we can only arrive at the Trinity if we accept that what Scripture says is true. And if we accept Scripture as true, then the Trinity is the God described in Scripture. Every explanation of how the Trinity works eventually breaks down and can be classified as one of the heresies of God's nature. Like the egg analogy, if you have seen the yolk you haven't seen the white. Or the three states of matter analogy, this leads directly to modalism. So why believe in the Trinity, ultimately because we submit to what the Word says and not to the outcomes of logic. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1160 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, Have you read what Luther, Calvin and more recently Sproul have to say on the subject? Sproul may be, at least in my opinion, the best current author on the subject of the Gospel. Luther and Calvin, despite their differences, re-established the message of the Gospel (grace alone, faith alone, vicarious substiutionary death on the cross, suffering what we deserved, so that we might be freely given what only He deserves. This teaching that you are promoting appears to undermine key elements of the Gospel. I understand that WOF teaching has many serious errors, and perhaps they have emphasized this in heretical ways. But it misrepresents the history of Christian thought on the subject to keep insisting that this is an invention of the WOF and didn't exist before then. |
