Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Matthew

[Oxygen]

Why would an omnipotent omniscient god need to ask himself this question?

[jimwalton]

We are left to interpret it, since the Bible doesn't explain why he said it. There are credible explanations:

1. He says it to illustrate the depth of his suffering. The Bible says he was dying for the sins of the world: Isa. 53.4-5, 12; 1 Pet. 2.24; 2 Cor. 5.21.
2. He was ontologically divided from God the Father. While the Father and the Son are of one essence, they are two different persons, and God's "separation" from him shows the judgment of sin.
3. By quoting the first line of Ps. 22 it signifies that God is abandoning him (subjecting him) into the hands of his enemies: death and hell. Legally and theologically speaking he has removed the covenantal blessings from Jesus and is casting him away as an object of his wrath (2 Cor. 5.21; Gal. 3.13).
4. It points us to the explanation of his cry and his death, God is holy (Ps. 22.3), and to a prophecy of his death (Ps. 22.6, 7, 8, 12-17).

Peter Grieg, in a book called "God on Mute", says, "What an alarming question for God to ask God. And there is no immediate answer. No word from heaven. No miracle. No sign except the darkness itself in the middle of the afternoon. In this moment, Jesus legitimized for all time the need we have for explanation. He also demonstrated that the explanation may not come when we think we need it most. Although we will never suffer in the way Jesus did on that day, there are seasons in our lives when pain, disappointment, confusion, or a sense of spiritual abandonment cause us to ask God 'Why?'."

[Progedy]

Isn't questioning god a sin? Isn't demanding anything of him (explanation, relief, his presence) a sin? Doesn't that imply that Jesus died imperfect?

[jimwalton]

None of the above. I'll just give you a few of many texts to answer your question.

Questioning God isn't a sin. Gen. 15.8ff.; Ex. 3.11; 4.1; 5.22-23; 32.11-14.

Demanding anything of him is not a sin. Gen. 15.2-3ff.; Gen. 17.17; Gen. 18.22-33; Ex. 4.13; Ex. 5.22-23; Ex. 32.12-13, 33.

Doesn't it imply that Jesus died imperfect? No. Since questioning God isn't a sin, and demanding things of him aren't sin, it was not a sin that Jesus said what he did.

[Gavin]

I'm trying to reflect on that moment when Jesus cry’s 'My God My God, why have you forsaken me.’

A common line we hear from this story is, "God has turned his back on Christ as he carries the sin of the world. You know, God is Holy, and cannot be around sin." I don’t have a problem with the death of Jesus being an act of atonement for sins. I can see the parallel with the Lamb in the the exodus story and the sacrificial system of the Israelite community.

I am not convinced that God had forsaken his Son. At the end of Psalm 22:24 God listens to the cry. How can God Forsake his Son, this is the Triune God? God did not forsake Abraham and his son. God forsaking his Son is also not consistent with Jesus' story of the the lost son, or his understanding of his relationship with his father in John chapter 14. Or the way that Jesus empowers Peter after Peter betrayed Jesus. Jesus was faithful to the Father. As I think of the book of Hebrews, what King turns his back on his Son as he is obedient, then seats him at his right side?

Maybe I am reading to much through my culture as I think of a Father and Son Relationship.

Can you please direct me towards some helpful writing about what happened when Jesus cried out to God? I think this is a proclamation not a cry of despair. What is the relevance of Psalm 22?

[jimwalton]

Jesus’ cry from the cross is not explained for us in Matthew or Mark. It is merely expressed, and we are left to interpret it. That’s why we get so many different perspectives on it.

1. It illustrates the depth of his suffering of soul. It’s a cry of desolation. It reveals the true humanity of Jesus in his agony. The Bible says he was dying for the sins of the world. Isa. 53.4-5, 12; 1 Pet. 2.24; 2 Cor. 5.21.
2. He was ontologically divided from the Father. While the Father and the Son are of one essence, they are two different persons, and God’s “separation” from him shows the true judgment of sin. Such separation was theologically necessary.
3. By quoting the first line of Ps. 22, it signifies that God is subjecting him into the hands of his enemies: death and hell. Legally and theologically speaking he has removed the covenantal blessings from jesus and is casting him away as an object of his wrath (2 Cor. 5.21; Gal. 3.13).
4. It points us to an explanation of his cry and his death, the holiness of God (Ps. 22.3), and to a prophecy of his death (Ps. 22.6, 7, 8, 12-17)

Peter Grieg, in a book called “God on Mute,” says, “What an alarming question for God to ask God. And there is no immediate answer. No word from heaven. No miracle. No sign except the darkness itself in the middle of the afternoon. In this moment, Jesus legitimized for all time the need we have for explanation. He also demonstrated that the explanation may not come when we think we need it most. Although we will never suffer in the way Jesus did on that day, there are seasons in our lives when pain, disappointment, confusion, or a sense of spiritual abandonment cause us to ask God ‘Why’?"

Like other texts and theological realities, we need to look at this cry through more than one lens. Let me raise 2 of these pertaining to his crucifixion.

The first is that we are seeing Eternal Life, Jesus, dying. Jesus didn’t just HAVE life, he WAS life (Jn. 1.1-5; 14.6). How is it possible that life died? Well, it did and it didn’t. Jesus most certainly died a real death, but theologians argue about the type of death he died. Irrefutably it was a physical death, but some say he also died spiritually, was separated from the Father, and descended into hell. And in a sense he did, but understanding that sense is deep truth. He did die, but souls don’t die, and so he didn’t die, but if he was separated from God he died in that sense. It’s two different lenses to bring us to deeper understanding. Let me go on.

Skeptics often ask me how the death of one man can logically atone for the sins of the world. I respond that it’s not a matter of logic but of legality. One person can pay a monetary debt for another, and we all understand that. But one person can’t really serve prison time for another, because then the real perpetrator gets off scot free, and we assess that’s not really justice and it’s not really fair. Maybe logically it’s not fair, but legally it works. God says in the Bible, especially in the sacrificial system, that He will indeed accept a substitute for the penalty of sin, just as if it’s a debt to be paid. The legal requirements of justice were met. That’s just a brief explanation, but I figure you get it. We look at penal substitutionary atonement through the lens of what God is requiring legally, and that brings it into focus than just looking through it logically. We need that other lens.

Now let's turn to the “forsaken” line. In one sense God can never forsake Jesus, as you say. God is omnipresent (Ps. 139.8), and Jesus absolutely cannot be separated from him. God doesn’t forsake anyone. In one sense God was closer to him then more than ever (2 Cor. 5.19). I get that, but it’s only half the story. The other half is our theological and logical understanding that Christ was bearing the sins of the world, and in that sense God “turned away” from him, to express the full impact of the world’s sin, as will also be the reality in the final judgment where all who die in their transgressions will be separated from God for eternity. We can be deep enough in our thinking to understand that we need to look at this expression through two different lenses.

Gaebelein says, "If we ask in what ontological sense the Father and the Son are here divided, the answer must be that we do not know because we are not told. If we ask for what purpose they are divided, the ultimate answer must be tied in with Gethsemane, the Last Supper, passion passages (Mt. 1.21; 20.28; see also 26.26-29, 39-44), and the theological interpretation articulated by Paul (e.g., Rom. 3.21-26). In this cry the horror of the world’s sin and the cost of our salvation are revealed.

In one lens you are right: God did not and cannot forsake His Son. God is faithful and ever present. But through another lens, He was expressing his righteous wrath against sin, and forsaking is an appropriate understanding of that.

Jesus’ relationship with his Father was multi-faceted, just as our human relationships are. It was not unidimensional. True love is not merely the expression of joy, but sometimes also of discipline, even punishment, and of both acceptance of the good and rejection of the harmful and sinful. True relationships of love play themselves out on more than one plane. In one sense I am the father of my son; in another sense I am his friend (my son is grown). The two are not mutually exclusive. When he was little I was also his playmate. When he was a teen I was also his counselor. I am an advisor, but I am also now vulnerable in front of him (authentic) in ways that I never was when he was growing up.

God the Father could and would never abandon Jesus. Jesus was his beloved Son, in whom He was well pleased. But in quite another distinct sense, when Jesus bore the sins of the world, the wrath of God abided on him. We don’t have to throw one point away to entertain the other. We can look at the event through more than one lens without contradicting ourselves.