In Mark 15:34, Jesus says “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” But why would Jesus say such a thing? I thought that Christianity teaches that Jesus was God incarnate on earth, so how could he be forsaken by God? And anyway, wouldn’t he already know why he was suffering on the cross? Wasn’t Jesus aware of his own purpose on Earth?
I’m not trying to start a debate over whether Christianity is “true” or “correct.” I’m just wondering how this line is interpreted by Christians. Perhaps this is a factual question, but I figured any answer I get will be somewhat debatable, so I put it here.
It’s nearly universally agreed that Christ was well aware of his divinity. There’s two main lines of thought on “eloi eloi lama sabacthani”:
He felt forsaken, and said so. It wasn’t a theological treatise, it was an emotional declaration.
During crucifixion, Christ was bearing the penalty of sin on our behalf. The penalty of sin is seperation from God (in fact many define Hell as exactly that) In the crucifixion, God the Father did in fact did abandon God the Son. He, in that sense seperated alienated himself from himself. Metaphorically and perhaps literally, he went through Hell for us.
Sure, he’d had more than an inkling of what he was going to go through, as evidenced through his agony in Gethsemane and his request to God to let the cup pass from him. But when the time came and it was concrete suffering, he cried out at his lowest point, the nadir of despair.
furt has it exactly right. I will only add that contemporary theology interpretis this slightly differently than traditional theologians have. Traditional orthodoxy, influenced by Greek philosophical thinking, held that God as God was impassable, incapable of suffering and of all emotion. Jesus had both a divine and a human nature, the two natures being understood to be
Jesus suffered forsakenness in his human, but not his divine, nature, but because the two natures are unified in one person, it can also be said of the incarnate Son that he suffered on the Cross for us.
Contemporary theologians such as Jurgen Moltmann have (mistakenly, in my opinion) abandoned the doctrine of the impassability of God. They believe that God the Father abandoned the Son and that God the Son suffered this abandonment. The Father suffers the death of the Son and the pain of this sacrifice. The Son gives himself up for us and empties himself of his own divinity (cf. Phillipians 2:7-8, [but see also vv. 9-11]), suffering his own death and the abandonment of the Father. (Moltmann adds the role of the Holy Spirit in forming the bond of unity in their mutual and corresponding will to sacrifice their relationship, and hence their being, out of love for creation.)
This beautifully captures and elaborates on the powerful mytho-poetic elements of scripture expressed in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, . . .” and Romans 8:32, which speaks of “he who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, . . .” but it also anthropomorphises God and ignores more basic philosophical concerns about the nature of God. (But saying this of course begs the question of the proper relationship between theology and philosophy. Contemporary theology takes place in teh shadow of both the Holocaust and of Barth’s refusal to grant any dependance of theology upon philosophy, lest doing so permit Nazism any voice in the church.)
It is also worth noting that Jesus’ cry is also the first verse of Psalm 22, which praises God for the psalmist’s deliverance. This has traditionally been seen as an abbreviation for the entire Psalm, and therefore an expression not (or not only) of Jesus’ despair, but of his confidence in deliverance and salvation. (Both Jesus and Mark would undoubtedly have been aware of this connotation.)
Whether or not you are a believer it is a poingant moment in the story. Here is God made man and he is at his ultimate moment of suffering. At that moment before death after agnozing for hours he asks the one question we all might.
Why am I alone to suffer? Why must it be?
It is this moment when we can identify with him as a man rather than a god. It is tragic and makes the sacrifice that much more powerful. He comes close to giving up but in the end allows himself to finally pass so as to save the rest of mankind.
Imagine if it was written that he died quietly with a smile. If that were the case then his sacrifice has no meaning because it is not a true sacrifice. He must suffer for it to have true power.
I agree wholeheartedly. As with much of Jesus’s word, those who hear only what is on the surface will miss the meaning. Those who dig, however, find the pearl beyond price.
I do not fully understand the whole trinity deal but I believe jesus never proclaimed to be divine in the first place. It’s a historical fact that men have a tendency to deify other men after their deaths. Usually kings and heroes. Maybe that’s what happened with Jesus.
This certainly seems to fit the Occam razor’s principle. Of course, I’m sure other parts of the bible refer to Jesus as divine so why should one lend more credence to this passage than another? As it is often the case when one deals with faith and religion, it eventually comes down to personal beliefs.
Does this last sentence refer to the OP, or the divinity of Jesus?
Because I think there can be little doubt that the answer to the question “Why would Jesus say such a thing?” is, “He was starting to recite the 22nd Psalm.”
If it were recorded that Woodrow Wilson’s last words were, “Our Father, who art in Heaven”, I don’t think anyone would dispute that the answer to the question “Why would he say such a thing?” would be “He was starting to recite the Lord’s Prayer.” We would then look to the Lord’s Prayer to explore the meaning of his last words. I doubt anyone would argue that his words were merely parallel to the Lord’s Prayer, or some such, and that they should stand on their own.
(One might also ask, btw, “Why would the author of Mark portray Jesus as saying this?”, but that’s not in the OP.)
Of course, the OP also asks what Christians believe about Mark 15:43, so I reckon all’s fair here.
Actually, Alan and Sample may well be saying different sides of the same thing:
Jesus was clearly not thrilled about but determined to undergo the Passion, in much the same sense as a man may go into battle expecting to lose his life but certain of the necessity to risk it for a greater good. And, contrary to the facile assurances of some exegetes, He was not certain of His resurrection – He went to His fate in faith that God the Father would somehow bring good out of it.
At the end, He no doubt had a antinomic sense of both despair and faith – and, knowing the Tanakh, He used the psalm that is traditionally the means of seeking assurance when in despair, conquering His feeling of forsakenness through it. No doubt, gasping for air on the Cross, He did not recite the psalm aloud, but simply cried out the first verse as an expression of His sense of being forsaken – and that led Him to the rest of it.
This is where I get confused about the Trinity. (I have a Southern Baptist upbringing.) If the Son of God is God, how can he **not know ** what God knows?
Isn’t there something in the NT where Jesus comments at the crucifixion that he could call on His Father to send down angels to save him if He wanted? (My memory is foggy here.) I had thought Jesus allowed himself to be crucified because that he knew it was his destiny.
Remember that Jesus is, in traditional Christian teaching, *truly God and truly man." Take either element away, and you’ve headed for heresy. Though God the Son, he was also a human being who was “tempted in every way as we are…”
Theologians have coined the term kenosis, “emptying,” to describe how a Person of the Trinity can become a human being with human limitations (of body and of mind). Perhaps the finest explication of this can be found in the exhortation to humility after Jesus’s example in the second chapter of Philippians:
Matthew 26:
52. Then said Jesus unto him (Peter), Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54. But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Jesus did indeed allow His crucifixion as it was His destiny- that doesn’t mean that while actually hanging by spikes through His wrists, that He wasn’t majorly bummed about it!
To trandallt’s Q-“This is where I get confused about the Trinity. (I have a Southern Baptist upbringing.) If the Son of God is God, how can he not know what God knows?”
I think the Sub/Unconscious Mind vs the Conscious Mind model works well here-
JC in His earthly life had access to His Divine Knowledge on a need-to-know basis, and all Divine Knowledge was potentially available in His Sub/UnCons. But He didn’t have immediate 24/7 access to it all.
If He was at a party, unless He was to read someone’s mail to them, He may have benefitted from the use of name tags.
If you dig hard enough, you can find whatever you want to find in the Bible. Verses that were written many years apart by people that never knew each other concerning events that have nothing to do with each other? No problem, if what you want to believe is supported using this highly questionable method of “research”.
Dramatic effect. He knew that when someone went to make a movie about it later, they’d need a good line towards the end.
Or maybe what FriarTed wrote was more accurate - that he was in fact human, after all, and not a direct physical incarnation of god himself in total. He was divine, and in most Christianity part of god, but he was still human.
So, what you’re sayin is that it is pretty much a matter of “Seek, and ye shall find.”
In that case, I suppose the difference between finding bigotry, foolishness, sanctimony and hatred, and finding faith, hope and love is a matter of what you are looking for.
That doesn’t challenge my faith in the Lord.
Tris
“Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage.” ~ Lao-Tzu ~
But, in much the same way, neither does it change the beliefs of others in bigotry, foolishness, sanctimony and hatred. The same book, the same chapters, the same verses, the same words. No one follows the entire book, so the parts that people already believe in are pushed forward, and the "inconvenient’ parts are pushed aside. It is my belief that you didn’t need to find faith, hope, and love. You already have it in abundance, so it was predictable that that is what you would find in the Bible. You didn’t search for what you need-you found what you already had.
