Forsaken but not forgotten

[yxboom]

I have a question regarding this familiar passage. In a way it is a Greek and Hebrew question as the Greek is a quote from Hebrew.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?

I am curious as the the "forsaken". Exactly what is the full definition and implications of Jesus' words?

[GrayPilgrim]

In Psalm 22:1 the Hebrew word is 'azav which sabachthani is the Aramaic translation. [As a rough gague of the correspondance between Hebrew is to Aramaic, think of Spanish to Italian.]

According to Koehler-Baumgartner (HALOT) 'azab means:

c) in a religious sense to forsake: God forsakes men Gn 28:15 Ps 22:2(1) 119:8 1b), Zion Is 54:7, Ezk 8:12, Jr 12:7; men forsake their idols Ezk 20:8, Yahweh Is 14, Jr 17:13 Dt 28:20; God forsakes men and men forsake God 2Chr 24:20; d) men forsake the Torah Pr 4:2, wisdom 4:6, covenant of Yahweh. Dt 29:24 1K 19:10.14 commandments oof Yahweh 1K 18:18, judgment of his God Is 58:2, precepts Ps 119:87; God does not give up his his words, actions. i.e. he does not abandon them Is 42:16, nor does he abandon Zion Is 49:14; man abandons his former conduct 557.

I hope this is a good start, to answering your question. I'll write more later, these verses should give you an idea of how elseitis used in the OT.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I read an article recently about this passage on JP Holding's site. He states (and correct me if I am wrong JP) that Jesus stated this at the 9th hour, an hour reserved for Jewish afternoon prayers.
Jesus made this statement at that time to indentify himself with Psalm 22 which the Jews considered to be a Messianic prophecy. It was a custom for Jews of that time to reffer to a prayer or a Psalm by simply stating the first line. Therefore any Jew present would know that Jesus was referring to the entire Psalm.

The entire article can be found here (http://www.tektonics.org/crosscry.html) .

Hope that helps.

I would also be interested in any other opinions about this passage.

[yxboom]

Thanks GP that looks like where I am hoping to go.

Faramir I appreciate the opihi but I was going more towards the implications of the word "forsaken". I have gotten and heard debates as to whether God the Father had literally abandoned Christ or just let Him (Jesus) do that which He was to do. I may have been remiss to not have made this clearer in my original post.

[dizzle]

I have heard a great deal on this passage with persons becoming uncomfortable with the implications for the Trinity if Christ was actually forsken in any sense on the Cross. But I have thought it is along the lines of the distinction between loss of union (unacceptable) and loss of communion - which is what I believe was going on in this passage. We already know through the kenosis that Christ voluntarily limited a lot of perogatives of deity and was completely dependant upon the Father, and I see this as a withdrawal of the Father's constant communion with the Son during this period, yet the Union of course remained intact.

[Pilgrim]

I've also heard people express the idea that God being holy can not be in the presnce of sin. At that moment Christ was taking on the sin of the entire world and because of the stain could not be in communion with God becuase of it. Basically what you were getting at DD.

[GrayPilgrim]

I have always seen it that way as well, separation of relationship not ontology.

[George Blaisdell]

Dee Dee writes:

> I have heard a great deal on this passage with persons becoming uncomfortable with the implications for the Trinity if Christ was actually forsken in any sense on the Cross. But I have thought it is along the lines of the distinction between loss of union (unacceptable) and loss of communion - which is what I believe was going on in this passage. We already know through the kenosis that Christ voluntarily limited a lot of perogatives of deity and was completely dependant upon the Father, and I see this as a withdrawal of the Father's constant communion with the Son during this period, yet the Union of course remained intact.

Another sister approach is the two natures of Christ, the human and the divine. His humanity took on the suffering of the world, and its flesh, while his Divinity never llost anything of its vision. But perhaps, in the dying, Christ had His humanity experience the loss of communion at the very end, so that he would assume even this pathos of the human condition... For what is not assumed of our humanity in Christ is not brought unto healing... And while I have not read the Fathers on this passage, it would seem reasonable, in that our own deaths, through this action of the Christ, become tolerable in that we do NOT have to suffer this pathos...

Seems like a good question.

Chrysostom writes: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-94.htm#P8158_2529320

And for this reason, even after this He speaks, that they might learn that He was still alive, and that He Himself did this, and that they might become by this also more gentle, and He saith, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"4 that unto His last breath they might see that He honors His Father, and is no adversary of God. Wherefore also He uttered a certain cry from the prophet,5 even to His last hour bearing witness to the Old Testament, and not simply a cry from the prophet, but also in Hebrew, so as to be plain and intelligible to them, and by all things He shows how He is of one mind with Him that begat Him.

But mark herein also their wantonness, and intemperance, and folly. They thought (it is said) that it was Elias whom He called, and straightway they gave Him vinegar to drink.6 But another came unto Him, and "pierced His side with a spear."7 What could be more lawless, what more brutal, than these men; who carried their madness to so great a length, offering insult at last even to a dead body?

But mark thou, I pray thee, how He made use of their wickednesses for our salvation. For after the blow the fountains of our salvation gushed forth from thence.

"And Jesus, when He had cried with a loud voice, yielded up the Ghost."8 This is what He said, "I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again," and, "I lay it down of myself."9 So for this cause He cried with the voice, that it might be shown that the act is done by power. Mark at any rate saith, that "Pilate marvelled if He were already dead:"10 and that the centurion for this cause above all believed, because He died with power.11

geo