| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3889 Registered: 10-2004  |
I came across this insightful article from Christianity Today. I may not agree with all of the author's underlying theology, but this is a very good article explaining Jesus's cry on the Cross and Psalm 22: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/aprilweb-only/my-god-forsaken-me.html | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1209 Registered: 7-2004  |
Yes, that is definitely a very good article - thanks for posting that! | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7866 Registered: 9-2006  |
I really fear for souls who bring accusation that God is a tyrant, cruel and an abuser. I fear that the permanent separation has begun already. I think the ones who will cry out the same words that Jesus did will be the ones who are cast out into outer darkness, only there will never be a resurrection for them, but regret, or as the bible puts it, a gnashing of teeth. Whatever happened when he took our sins on himself at the cross, it assures us that we will not have to suffer that same fate by putting our trust in him. River | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1733 Registered: 7-2004  |
Jeremy, I've come across that explanation before and it would provide some answers that make the relationship of the Trinity easier to explain. But I still have a few reservations about this viewpoint. Perhaps you have come across some additional details that would help to clarify.
Here is where I would like to see some strong evidence about this practice in general and specifically by Jesus and the Apostles.
In both of these cases it is the first Hebrew "word" of the book, not the phrase (it requires a phrase to translate to English) or first line. I would like to see an example where a Jewish source referenced a book or Psalm by the full first line, as this author claims in his article.
This is actually very different than quoting the first line to refer to a book. In all of these cases Jesus quoted the specific statement that He wanted to reference. This example actually contradicts the author's claim rather than supports it.
Ask yourself when he is claiming that Jesus has done this before, did Jesus really only reference one line of the passage in the example provided from Luke 4 and expect that His listeners fill in the blank for the rest. Or did Jesus read the entire passage that applied to Him. The examples this author has provided do not support the conclusions that he is making. There are mysteries in the functioning of the Trinity that we can not adequately explain, like the idea that the Son might feel separated from the Father by taking on the curse and the sin of mankind. For example, was the Triune God made lower than the angels? If not, how can only 1 person of the Trinity be lower than the angels and yet still have One God? How can only 1 person of the Trinity become a curse (Gal 3:13); and how does having only 1 of the 3 persons of the Trinity cursed affect the entire Trinity? These are, to my mind, mysteries that are not logically solved. 2 Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God Does sin cause separation? It usually does. Is there good reason to conclude otherwise here? If Christ's death was a substitutionary death, if He took the punishment that we deserve in order that we might gain the reward that He deserves, does that substitution require not only pain and death, but separation from the Father? I'm not sure, but I would hate to throw out, or water down, the sustitionary atonement in order to answer a mystery about the Trinity. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7867 Registered: 9-2006 |
Me too Rick, the atonement is of the gravest and greatest concern in my mind as I'm sure it is with all of us. River | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1735 Registered: 7-2004 |
Allow me to clarify. I am not insistting that the position taken in this article is wrong. It poses some interesting possibilities. Before I can accept the idea there are several questions that I would need to see resolved more fully than the article attempts. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1889 Registered: 3-2009 |
If sin causes separation, and Jesus was made sin for us, then Jesus was separated from God. But how could Jesus be separated from God if He is God (indivisible Trinity?) | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 3001 Registered: 8-2004  |
Great is the mystery . . . | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1739 Registered: 7-2004 |
Sin does cause separation- Isa 59:1-2 Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but /b{your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God} That concept is also found in Rom 5:8,10 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, Jesus was made sin for us 2 Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God Jesus was cursed, even became a curse, for us Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— How could Jesus alone be incarnate and still be the Triune God? How could Jesus be made a little lower than the angels without the entire Trinity becoming lower than the angels? I don't know that answers to any of these mysteries, I simply have to accept that they are true because I trust His Word. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1683 Registered: 7-2003  |
I have always suspected that Jesus could feel separation from the Father in the same way he could grow tired and hungry or be limited in regard to space and time. That is, there are certain things that apply to his human nature, but not to his divine nature. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 13571 Registered: 12-2003  |
Chris, that is how I have understood it also. He bore our sin in His flesh; He became a curse (Gal. 3:13) and became our sin (2 Cor. 5:21). This "becoming" was in His flesh, and I have thought that as a man, He experienced separation from His Father as He became what God hated: sin. Becoming sin is something more than just bearing it, or bearing its consequences. He BECAME sin and a curse. He hung on the cross as a man who was without sin yet who became our sin. As a man He experienced the Father's separation from all that He became in the flesh. At the same time, Jesus was the eternal God the Son. God bore in Himself the curse He demanded for sin, and the Trinity was never broken. This "becoming" sin was something Jesus did in the flesh but which the Trinity did for our sakes. A mystery, to be sure! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3894 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, Hec, and Colleen, I disagree that Jesus Christ literally "became sin." I don't believe that is a proper reading of Scripture, and in fact, such an interpretation can lead to very dangerous heresy (such as Word of Faith teaching). Hank Hanegraaff does an excellent job of addressing this in his book Christianity In Crisis: The 21st Century. See chapter 13, "Re-Creation On The Cross" starting on page 171 (and especially page 174 regarding 2 Corinthians 5:21) at the following link: http://books.google.com/books?id=nIZqm-1gQgYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Also, if Jesus' spirit (even if it was just His human spirit) was separated from the Father even for a moment, then that means that He had a dead spirit that was at enmity with God and which had to be born again and brought to life. If Jesus' human nature (but not His divine nature) was separated from the Father, then that means that Jesus' human nature was separated from His divine nature on the Cross. This is what the Gnostics taught. It would mean that only a human suffered for our sins, if He was separated from His divine nature. The thing is, nowhere in Scripture does it state that Jesus was separated from God. Ever. Rick, you always like to remind us not to rely on human logic if we don't have a plain declaration from God's Word. And Scripture never states that Jesus was separated from God. That may seem like a logical assumption when putting two and two together to some people, but it is not actually stated by Scripture. Rick, you wrote:
I wouldn't say it is throwing anything out, just not adding to what Scripture says. If Jesus had to suffer exactly what the unsaved will suffer in the exact same way that they will suffer, then He would have had to burn forever in the Lake of Fire, completely separated from God. Also, if Jesus had to be separated from God, then He also would have had to "know" that there was no hope for the future and and that He could never be "reconciled" back to God--which is what the wicked will experience in Hell. But then we might as well just go back to Ellen and the Desire of Ages with Jesus not being able to see through "the portals of the tomb." Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 10, 2012) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3895 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, I'm not sure where the idea comes from about the Jews quoting the first line to reference the whole passage. But that seems like a bit of a non sequitur. Would anyone argue that Jesus was not quoting Psalm 22:1? Or that the Psalm is not a Messianic prophecy about Jesus? Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 10, 2012) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3896 Registered: 10-2004 |
By the way, while searching Google, I just came across another good article on this, from CARM: http://carm.org/jesus-cross-father Jeremy | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7880 Registered: 9-2006 |
Personally I don't think none of yall know jack squat about what went on at the atonement.  I know I don't, but this, and I quote, "But then we might as well just go back to Ellen and the Desire of Ages with Jesus not being able to see through "the portals of the tomb." No we might as well not either, so whats with that statement Jeremy? And I see no point in warning that what was said was bordering on very dangerous heresy. Aren't we coming on a little strong here old bean? River | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1747 Registered: 7-2004 |
the idea was the entire basis for the argument put forward in the article that you referenced. If the foundation of the argument is so flawed that you find addressing it be a non sequitur then I think you have demonstrated the strength, or lack thereof, in the article's legitimacy. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3897 Registered: 10-2004 |
No, I'm saying that it's a non sequitur unless you are arguing that Jesus was not quoting Psalm 22 and that it is not a Messianic psalm. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 10, 2012) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1748 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, When it comes to following Scripture, I'm a pretty simple guy. If Jesus quoted a verse, I assume He meant exactly what that verse says, not what some nearby verse says that denies the quoted statement. If multiple, respected translations say 2 Cor 5:21 reads that Jesus became sin then a bunch of human arguments that He didn't become sin aren't real persuasive to me. Just because some people use a statement in Scripture as part of the erroneous conclusions does not negate the plain reading of Scripture. I asked specific, non-accusatory questions about the claims made in the article. Instead of answers to those questions I get told I might as well go back to Ellen White. If the position you are promoting has merit, you should be able to address the questions raised with Scriptural responses rather than emotion laden rhetoric. As younare well aware, no one suggested that Jesus wasn't quoting Psalm 22:1. The question is whether Jesus meant us to hear the words of verse 1 that He quoted, or that the words He quoted were not true, but were a reference to some other words. In order to conclude that Jesus did not mean exactly what He said, I am going to need some compelling evidence. I would want to see answers to the questions that you were unwilling to discuss. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1749 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, These are reasonable questions because the assumption of the article is that quoting one line in a book doesn't mean that the speaker was referring to the content of that line, but to other information in the book. That assumption lacks evidence from Scripture, as I pointed out with clear examples. If the assumption that is the foundation of your reasoning proves to be false, the conclusions can not be accepted as true. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3898 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, Which questions did I ignore? Please re-post them. Jeremy |
