Protestants - Explain "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?"

Vanity | 3/19/2015 | pgyanke

[pgyanke]

There has been an less-than-productive discussion on this thread regarding the last words of Christ on the Cross. It could be because it started with the suggestion--right in the title--that Catholics don't understand Jesus. Not a great way to initiate dialogue and ecumenism.

I would like to take a different approach here. I would like to hear my Protestant brethren explain these words of Christ from the Cross:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

What does it mean? Why did He say it?

[RnMomof7]

Pulpit Commentary Verse 46. - Cried (ἀνεβόησεν, cried out) with a loud voice. The loud cry at this terrible moment showed that there was still an amount of vitality in that mangled form from which extreme anguish of soul and body forced that pleading utterance. Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say (that is), My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken (ἐγκατέλιπες, didst thou forsake) me? This is the only one of our Lord's seven sayings from the cross recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark. The other evangelists do not mention it at all. The language is Aramaic, doubtless that used commonly by our Lord. He quotes the words of the twenty-second psalm as applicable to himself, as offering a foreordained expression of his agony of soul. Into the full meaning of this bitter cry we cannot venture irreverently to intrude. At the same time, thus much may be said. It was not mere bodily anguish that elicited it; it arose from some incalculable affliction of soul. He was bearing the sins of the whole world; the Lord had laid on him the iniquity of us all; there was no one to comfort him in his heaviness; and the light of God's countenance was for the time withdrawn from him. He was "left" that he might bear man's sins in their full and crushing weight, and by bearing save. Yet there is no despair in this lamentable outcry. He who could thus call upon God has God with him, even in his utter loneliness. "Amid the faintness, or the confusion of mind, felt at the approach of death, he experiences his abandonment by God; and yet his soul rests firmly on, and his wilt is fully subject to, God, while he is thus tasting death forevery man through God's grace .... He held firmly to God and retained the Divinity of his life, at the time when in his unity with mankind, and in his human feeling, the feeling of abandonment by God amazed him" (Lange). The verb "forsaken" is not in the perfect tense, as translated in the Authorized Version, but in the aorist; and it implies that during the three hours of darkness Christ had been in silence enduring this utter desolation, which had now come to its climax. The Man Christ Jesus asked why he was thus deserted; his human heart would fain comprehend this phase of the propitiatory sufferings which he was undergoing. No answer came from the darkened heaven; but the cry was heard; the unspeakable sacrifice, a sacrifice necessary according to the Almighty's purpose, was accepted, and with his own blood he obtained eternal redemption for man.

[RnMomof7]

This isn't meant to be a snark but instructive as to why the Church is here and how She has stood the test of time.

Is there a Magisterial, infallible interpretation of that passage somewhere?

That's something I'd be interested in reading . If you name one, don't forget to let me know where the document or statement that contains the interpretation is stated to be infallible.

Otherwise it is simply one mans opinion..his own personal opinion ...of no more "worth" or value than anyoneelses

[RnMomof7]

Ohh you have a creed http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/articles-of-faith

[ConservingFreedom]

Bruce McConkie, (top LSD theologian

Like Timothy Leary? ;-D

[Elsie]

West Point Graduate

[Elsie]

Good catch!

But that’s how it is on the website.

[21twelve]

Thanks for posting the verse. No doubt the Jews would have heard the words that Christ spoke, and in their heads recited the rest of the passage. Full of faith and hope and praise to God.

But I don’t think Jesus was just saying this as a code. Being fully human, He was saying these words as I’m sure He was feeling forsaken, both as a man in pain and as the Son of God about to be seperated from His Father. And He too filled in the rest of the passage in His head, giving Him peace and courage.

[Old Yeller]

How do Catholics interpret those words?

It means Peter was the first pope.

[21twelve]

To summarize Elsie’s posts: on your question:

Correct, yes, and yes.

[Resettozero]

I am here explaining Church teaching on a specific subject.

...From your single and personal understanding of "Church teaching". Other RCs have understandings at variance with yours.

For such a unified religion, RCC members are all over the place with how they understand RCC teachings.

[ansel12]

Is that correct teppe, Mormonism has multiple Gods?

[Salvation]

Ditto!

[Salvation]

Christ was God from the very beginning — (the creation); is God now, and always will be God.

I don’t think he separated himself from his Father.

To me, it has always been part of his suffering.

[Iscool]

I think God the father, son and holy spirit were all one at Christ’s death, and all shared equal consciousness all at once.

And unconsciousness??? Then who raised the Godhead from the dead???

[Iscool]

Consider Matt 12:32 where Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" suggesting that there is forgiveness of sins even after death.

And actual bible student wouldn't consider any such thing...

Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This is not a reference to a person existing alive in one world and then dead in another world...This is speaking of people living in one age comparing them to other people living in another age...It is telling us the rule doesn't change from age to age...

And how do we know that...From studying the scriptures about the different ages...

Consider the words of St Paul in 1 Cor 3:15 where he explains what happens in judgement where each man's work is tried. What happens if his work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire". This loss can't be Hell because St Paul says the man will be saved and it can't be Heaven since there is no suffering (fire) there.

There isn't any physical suffering in 1Cor 3:15 unless you are a Catholic and pervert the scriptures, thus perverting the meaning...

1 Corinthians 3:15Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

And it's your own Catholic bible that you pervert...Do you see the word 'through' in there anywhere??? No??? Then why do you add it???

Men in the passage are saved SO AS 'by' fire (a figure of, a type of)...NOT thru a fire...The fire burns up the bad works so they no longer exist to go on our record...That's how we are saved by fire...

1 Peter 3:19 makes reference to a place in the afterlife that is neither Heaven nor Hell. Is it Purgatory? We don't know, specifically.

Well we bible believers know, specifically...

The bible tells us Lazarus was there...You got any scripture that shows he was being burned??? No??? Imagine that...It is called Abraham's Bosom...Jesus had the KEY and when Jesus was headed up, he unlocked Abraham's Bosom and it has been wide open ever since...No one goes there now...

However, to say that Purgatory is absolutely not Biblical is much too easy. There is room for a teaching authority to explain.

There's not a bit of room for purgatory...The Catholic purgatory is based on perverting scripture, and not believing scripture...

[Iscool]

This is an apt explanation for the disunity of the Protestant world. The Calvinists, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Anabaptists, et al can't all be correct at the same time. They all approach the Bible from a differing faith tradition and interpret the exact same passages in opposing ways. The lack of a teaching authority in the Protestant world doesn't erase the Magisterium... it makes everyone their own Pope! When all are equal in authority, there is no authority. When every answer is true, there is no truth.

And your religion is just one more number in the line...But your religion is even less so...Those Protestant religions base their beliefs solely on scripture...Your Catholic religion doesn't even bother but makes up it's own words and definitions...

And, by the way, you do have the Church's Wisdom available to you for study... She has never hidden it.

Your Church's wisdom is no more than human philosophy and traditions of men that Jesus warned us to stay away from...

Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

So why would someone hunting for Jesus even consider the Catholic religion???

[daniel1212]

Did He see our sin and turn away? Consider that we are sinful people and God sent His only Son to die for our sins when we were at our worst. He does not turn from us, we turn from Him. He doesn't abandon us, He saves us.

Which reduces the Lord's cry to the Father that He was forsaken to be mere rhetoric. But if you ever read Lv. 26 you would see that the scapegoat upon whom the iniquities of Israel were placed was led away into the wilderness by the hand of a strong man (they do not want that stinking goat to return).

This aspect of Is. 53 was fulfilled by the Lord, as well as being the sin offering, and in a real if mysterious sense the Father turned away from the Son, as to the Son was laid "the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6; 1Pt. 2:24)

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Thanks be to God!

As Catholics, we see even more... when you see Christ on the Cross, you are seeing the Priest offering the sacrifice of His Own Body, the sacrificial Lamb, and the Bridegroom of the Church. It is the Marriage Feast of the Lamb where Heaven and Earth are rejoined in the family bond of the New Covenant. What was begun at the Last Supper (and not ended as one cup remained from which He partook on the Cross) was played out in reality in His Own Flesh on the Cross. On the Cross, He is offering Mass. His ejaculation of Psalm 22 could be seen as His Homily. It is finished with the final cup (the hyssop) and His Death.

Whatever else you may see, which i do not think is even all indisputable RC interpretation, you do err based upon Scripture, but at least you did not try to support your imaginative interpretation by it.

It is the Marriage Feast of the Lamb where Heaven and Earth are rejoined in the family bond of the New Covenant.

Wrong, as while "it is finished" speaks of His imminent death completing the atonement, which instituted the New Covenant, though that and the church actually did not begin until He gave up His spirit, the only Marriage Feast of the Lamb is after the Lord's return.

And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. (Revelation 19:9)

On the Cross, He is offering Mass.

Absurd. The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice for sins, but the cup the Lord said to drink - which is no more literally to be consumed than what it contained was blood - represents the Lord's blood which was to be poured out, like as Ps. 22:14 says "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels." (Psalms 22:14)

Likewise we read, “And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.”

Here, David equates the water obtained at the peril of the men's life (blood representing life: Lv. 17:11), with that of their lives themselves. In like use of metaphor, the Lord Jesus in the Lord's supper accounts is holding up bread and wine as a “picture”” of Himself, illustrating that just as such life physical giving substances could be broken and poured out, so would His body be “broken,” and His precious sinless blood be “poured out “ in offering a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45).

Similarly, the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

Which manner of metaphorical language is prevalent in Scripture , and which the apostles would have been well familiar with.

The second reason for this thread is to point out the disunity that the Sola Scriptura perspective brings. Without the Catholic Church as a foil, you flounder for meaning. It's easy to point to the Church and tell Her where you disagree. It isn't so easy to agree with one another in your own exegesis. Read this thread and you will see bafflement, guesses, and conjecture. You won't read teaching from the Protestant perspective that is authoritative and instructive for all.

Which is more fantasy, as i think answers overall show a basic unity, while you have your own fallible interpretation, as you have yet to show that all your teach here has been indisputably defined.

And RCs themselves have a great deal of liberty to interpret (wrest) Scripture to support Rome, as they demonstrate.

[metmom]

Gonna be a long time before you get an answer to that one.

[daniel1212]

"My God My God why have you forsaken me Catholic" and you will get links to Catholic answers. Be aware, though, that some do write from their own perspective and not from the Church. It shouldn't be hard to know which ones are authoritative by their citations. God bless.

Are you serious? You do not even show citations for where all that you said was authoritative. And just what would you say constitutes an "authoritative" versus an "infallible" source versus an "authentic" interpretation"? Are all encyclicals and Bulls infallible and or indisputable? Can the Catechism be in error?

You post like a novice.

[daniel1212]

You crack me up! In post 42 you say The second reason for this thread is to point out the disunity that the Sola Scriptura perspective brings. Then when asked the source of your post you tell us to Google it for ourselves and Be aware, though, that some do write from their own perspective and not from the Church.

And wait till we see what is authoritative that cannot err which supports all that he says.