In Search of Truth

<Please see article for background:> http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... saken.html

If I understand the article correctly, you believe that Jesus did not speak to His father from his heart while he was hanging and dying the cross, Jesus was instead occupied with quoting scripture (i.e., Psalm 22).

What is the message expressed in Psalm 22. Isn't the message that God has forsaken Him?

In John Chapter 19 Jesus is clearly speaking to people gathered around the cross about things on His mind. It seems possible that everything Jesus said while he was nailed to the cross He was speaking what was on his mind?

Thank you for your response and your comments on the [ISOT] article concerning Jesus's statement on the cross (Matthew 27:46), "Why has thou forsaken me?", the following observations are tendered for your consideration.

First, I want to express my appreciation for your consideration of the ISOT article on the Matt 27:46 text. I wish to simply answer the questions you raised in the order that you raised them and offer some additional comments.

Question #1:
You asked if the words Jesus spoke in Matthew 27:46 were from His heart to the Father as He was hanging and dying on the cross or was He occupied with quoting scripture (i.e., Psalm 22)?

Reply Question #1:
This is not an ''either - or" scenario. The scriptures of the OT that were Messianic (i.e., and, therefore, would necessarily apply to Him as the Messiah) were to all be fulfilled. These fulfilled prophesies were a way for any hearer who wanted to know could know of a certainty that Jesus was the very Christ. God did not take any of those prophecies about the Christ lightly. They were to all be fulfilled.

Now consider Luke 24 :25-27.
Following the resurrection, Jesus Himself, explained the place of the (O.T.) scriptures as they pertained to events that had just transpired. He ...'said unto them, " O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?" ' And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them all the scriptures concerning himself.

Further, in all the Gospel accounts, Jesus referred numerous times to various O.T. scriptures that must needs be fulfilled. Once he quoted scripture and said " This day is this scripture fulfilled in your hearing" (Lk 4:21). He said, "What saith the scriptures?" Elsewhere, He said "You do err not knowing the scriptures." The point is, Jesus never just quoted scripture without a point and that point was always concerning people and their needs about which / because He cared.

The author of Psalm 22 was David, the great king of ancient Israel. Peter said ( Acts 2: 25-29, 30, 31)) that David was a prophet and spake concerning the Christ. Paul said in I Corr 15:3.. "that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures". This tells me that the death of Christ, the reason for his death, and even the manner of his death (and suffering - even on a cross / tree) was foretold in prophesy and was accomplished in accordance with that prophecy. I believe the carrying out of / fulfilling those prophesies was all done from the heart. They had been revealed from the heart of God - they were equally fulfilled from the heart. This was all about the Heart of God regarding lost mankind whom he loved (John 3:16; I Corr 13:1- 8a; Rm 8: 20). So, would it not seem logical that Christ in quoting Psalm 22 wasn't just quoting scripture but showing that this scripture also (i.e., Pslam 22) was even then being fulfilled as it applied to Him - it was from the heart because it was all about us.

Question #2:
What is the message expressed in Psalm 22. Isn't the message that God has forsaken Him?
Reply Question #2:
The original article here really needs to be reviewed - patiently and carefully.

This was not the message of Psalm 22 and it was not the message of Jesus on the cross. Consider this, what was the message of Psalm 22 when David uttered it? The Psalm sets forth a premise that David only seemed 'forsaken' because to an outside observer it might appear to be the case by virtue of what had happened to him and what was happening to him and the present dire state he was in. But, David (Ps 22: 19-24) declares forcefully God had not "hid His face from him" (vs 24). David said in Psalm 35:10 ...he had .."not seen the righteous forsaken". Every situation David endured in Psalm 22 deals with things not being as they appeared.

Virtually every aspect of Christ's life on earth was like that - i.e., things in reality not being as they appeared. He was in reality a Heavenly King of all means and power, on earth He was poor and rejected as someone who was no one. In reality He returned to a Heavenly home, on earth he had not where to lay His head. It only appeared that Satan won at the cross, in reality Satan lost at the cross. Jesus even taught with the poor widow's mite (Mk 12:42; Lk 21) that though many had given much more than she, she had in reality given more than all others. God doesn't measure anything the way we do - not time, not wealth, power, status, etc. This was at work that day at the cross. Christ only appeared a loser and Satan and the minions who served him that day only appeared to be the winners. Christians often when mistreated / persecuted appear as losers here, but they are in reality only losers for a little while - the faithful are reckoned as 'sons of God' Himself and 'joint heirs with Christ'. That is what David declared in Psalm 22 and what Jesus declared that day on the cross - He appeared forsaken and appeared a loser, in reality Jesus assured the believers at the cross that like David things were not as they appeared, He was a winner - He was in reality Victorious because just as for David God was involved in the final resolution of the matter.

Question #3:
In John Chapter 19 Jesus is clearly speaking to people gathered around the cross about things on His mind. It seems possible that everything Jesus said while he was nailed to the cross He was speaking what was on his mind?
Reply Question #3:
See answer to question #1. Yes, He was saying what was on His mind, because He was saying what was on His heart. What was on His heart was the immediate audience and the audience of all time to come - assurance to believers then and now. He was winning and would be the Victor despite how it appeared and for the same reason David was a Victor and not a loser; God was that day at the cross involved in behalf of the Righteous One who served Him and He never in reality forsakes the righteous.

I thank you so much for writing back.

I believe that you state in your atricle that since Jesus had not sinned there was no reason for God to turn from him. Please note the scripture below.

Paul wrote: 21 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 Cor 5:21)

As this scripture clearly states Jesus was made sin. At the point that Jesus took on the sins of the world (this is to say: when God made Jesus to be sin for us) God had no recourse but to turn from him, thereby justifying the statment as a matter of what was happening right then and there, as Jesus hung on the cross. (see Matthew and Mark below). Review your article carefully and you will find the statement you made about Jesus being sinless.

Matthew wrote: 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mattthew 27:46)

Mark wrote: 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34)

Notice the following scripture stating that God can not even look on iniquity. Therefore when Jesus "became sin" for us Gods relationship with Jesus had to change.

Habakkuk wrote: 13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he? (Habakkuk 1:13)

In Christ

I have not worked through this in a while, and I don't have anything "canned", but here a few points that quickly came to my mind this morning:

1. The language is elliptical, meaning that some additional word or meaning must be supplied. The passage cannot literally mean that Jesus became sin. Jesus could have become sinful, a sinner, or a sin offering, but He could not have become sin. Sin is a deed not a person. Specifically, sin is transgression of the law. If Jesus was truly sin - an evil deed, a transgression of the law - then, who committed Him? II Corinthians 5:20-21 says that God made Christ to be sin, so that would make God the transgressor if He committed sin, or Jesus in this case. The absurdity of this conclusion forces us to look elsewhere, supplying a different word or sentiment to complete the thought.
2. If Jesus became sinful, how did He retain His deity, since deity cannot even look at sin (Habakkuk 1:13). If He gave up His deity, then how could He have provided the vicarious sacrifice for the entire Creation, since He would have been just another mortal in the Creation? Not to mention that this would be a Biblically unprecedented and unsupported possibility.
3. If Jesus was sinful, how could He have died and gone to "paradise", and not torments (Luke 23:43; 16:18-31)?
4. If Jesus became sinful, how was He a sacrifice without spot or blemish (I Peter 1:19; Hebrews 8-10)?

Isaiah 53:10 says that Jesus would be made "an offering for sin" (Isaiah 53:10; Hebrews 10:1-18). Given that Jesus becoming a "sin offering" is a valid and supported possibility for completing the thought of II Corinthians 5:20-21, why would one choose another possibility that is unsupported, and even worse, that is contradictory to the remainder of Scripture?

HTH

I likewise appreciate your reply. I don't know about you, but my responses and their timeliness are often constrained by time that may be available to me after church, family, and job responsibilties - any delay in responding from time to time is not due to any hesitancy or lack of desire to respond. You might say website response for me is an extra-curricular activity!

The In Search of Truth (ISOT) website is devoted to students who are interested in the search for 'Biblical' truth. It pre-supposes earnestness, sincerity, integrity, humility, and submissiveness and a tenderness of heart in regards to Biblical teaching as characteristics of such 'truthseekers'.Here we are not concerned with 'winning' a favorite position taken, we are searching for the truth revealed in the scriptures, sometimes on some very hard subjects. I take your reply in the sense of one who is likewise a seeker of truth on scripture / scriptural topics.

It is my utmost desire that we may all faithfully search for scriptural truth that we might truly please God and find Him. I take to heart, for example:

• Heb 11:6 - " But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.", and
• John 17: 17 "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.".

In response to your last reply:

You cited four verses for our consideration (II Corr 5:21, Matt 27:46 / Mk 15:34 and Hab 1:13).

Comments are as follows:

1. Matt 27:46 / Mk 15:34 say the same thing and each text primarily serves to corroborate the other writer as to what Jesus said on the cross. Since the saying of Jesus on the cross "Why has thou forsaken me?" is the topic under consideration, simply citing these verses would not seem to logically challenge the point of the original ISOT article.
2. Habbakuk 1:13 is an interesting verse to consider here. It deals with those (i.e., the ancient Chaldean peoples / nation) who had actually 'committed sin' against the nations and was appointed to come against Judah in judgement from God for their sins as a people of God. This OT minor prophet deals with the reality of that and ponders the judgement that must surely be due the Chaldeans. This prophesied judgement of God ultimately led to the Babylonian (i.e., Chaldean) captivity of the Israelites in Judah under Nebuchadnezzar beginning about some 25 years later. The verse only shows God doesn't look upon sin with any favor or condonement nor makes any overlooking allowance for it - it doesn't show that Christ took sin upon himself. The verse could sustain your point about II Corr 5:21 only if one can show Christ took actual sin unto / upon Himself; but, that is the point to be proven isn't it?
3. Now regarding II Corr 5:21, one must not read into this (or any) verse what one wishes. In this case, I believe this is what many have done. To correctly understand this verse, it seems to me that one should determine the answers to at least the following questions about this verse:
   • "What" is the meaning of the word 'sin' in this verse? Sin is an 'act' (I JN 3:4 .."for sin is the transgression of the law".). Was Christ made an 'act' of transgressing the law?' If so, then how so? If one means to say that Jesus took on the sins of the world - please note that no such explanation is specifically provided in this verse without defining what 'sin' means here. We must be careful to not define 'sin' in a manner to give us the view we wish when the Bible does not sustain that view without contradicting itself ( see I Corr 14: 33 " For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.")
   • Just "how" was Christ made sin? I find the verse does not tell me anything about that point without presuming detail that the verse alone itself does not provide. Many have presumed a specific meaning for II Corr 5: 13 based on a specific interpretation of Matt 27:46 / Mk 15:34 (which was the issue that was the point of the ISOT article under discussion). Presuming a specific meaning for Matt 27:46 / Mk 15:34 based on a specific meaning for II Corr 5:13 and then presuming a specific meaning for II Corr 5:13 based on a presumed meaning for Matt 27:46 / Mk 15:34 would be recognized as faulty / invalid reasoning because it is 'circular reasoning'. Let's revisit these verses with logical care:
   • Just "when" was Christ made sin? Was it prior to death? or at the instant of death?
     • If it was at the instant of death, recall that Christ was an acceptable 'sin offering' and that required the offering to be 'pure' without blemish (Hebrews 9:14 . "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God...?"). This should surely show us that He had no sin at his death otherwise He could not have made an acceptable offering of Himself.
     • If it was before His death, then what was the sacrifice God would accept in behalf of Christ for the sins Christ bore? And when and where was that sacrifice provided? The Bible refers to none because there was none and there was none because none was needed since Christ was sinless in life and in death.

Now, as to developing an understanding of II Corr 5:13, I would suggest one begin with an exegesis of the word 'sin' in the verse. The NIV, a fairly modern translation, footnotes the word to show us it really means 'sin offering'. This word 'sin' ('hamartia') may be translated as either 'sin' or 'sin offering'. In this case, it is what may be called a 'synecdoche', i.e., a figure of speech in which the word for part of something is used to mean the whole, e.g. "sail" for "boat," or vice versa The context determines the correct translation rendering for us. One can not give the word in this context a meaning not supported contextually by the Bible. In support of this understanding that the verse refers to a 'sin offering' or 'sin sacrifice', consider the following:

• I Corr 15:3 "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures". Since the term scriptures as used in this verse refers to the OT Scriptures, then the question would be where was it foretold / prophesied in OT that Christ would be made sin? Always he was to be made a sacrifice for sin explicitly or by type.
• Hebrews 1:3 ... "purged our sins" ...
• Hebrews 10:10 "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ". Notice this was the acceptable sacrifice, the body of a sinless being in every way.
• Hebrews 12:2-3 ... "Looking unto Jesus ... who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross despising the shame ... consider him that endured such a contradiction of sinners against himself". The shame of the cross was not rejection / being forsaken by God but the contradiction ('antilogia' , or speaking against him) of sinners at the cross that day. What did they say?
  1. They didn't want him declared King (John 19:15, "We have no king but Caesar")
  2. They ridiculed him and reviled him (I Peter 1:21b - 24 "reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered , he threatened not.. who bare our sins in his body on the tree ... by his stripes we are healed." BTW, notice once again that in this verse that this was the acceptable sacrifice, the body of a sinless being in every way. It was the unjust / unjustifiable punishment inflicted on the body of Christ by God's own creation (e.g., his stripes) and submissively accepted by him that made him an acceptable sacrifice for our healing (spiritually from our sins). That's what the verse says. Compare this to Isaiah 53:5 "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities,: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed". Thus we see the OT prophecy of the physical offering of a suffering Savior as the acceptable sacrifice for sinful man -- Christ endured the punishment, physically, due us for our sins. That's what Isaiah prophesied and what Paul declared.

May we all continue to search for truth in Him who died for us.

Please take a close look at Psalm 22. There are a number of verses that are prophetic to the crucifixion: Psalms 22:1; 6; 7; 8; 12; 13; 16; 17 and 18. It has been said that “Prophecy is a carton which events of the future will fill.” Many verses in Psalms 22 are telling what will take place in the future. You believe that the actions of Jesus and others are consciously done to fulfill the scriptures. Although verse 16 foretells that the hands and feet of Jesus will be pierced, the Roman soldiers did not pierce them because they wanted to make sure the scriptures were fulfilled. Also look at verse 18 where David foretells that lots would be cast for the garments of Jesus. The soldiers did not cast lots because they wanted to make sure the scriptures were fulfilled. David was prophesying about what would happen in the future, including the words Jesus would speak “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

You seem to believe that Jesus said these words because it was foretold that he was going to say them. You have put the cart before the horse. Prophecy is bringing to light those events that will happen in the future. Prophecy is like someone traveling to the future, viewing an event, traveling back to their own time and writing about what they saw while they were in the future.

Notice that the soldiers did not do the things which David prophesied that they would do because they read the prophecy and said to themselves; “David said that we would do these things so let’s drive some nails in the hands and feet of Jesus and then cast lots for his garments.” David’s words were inspired by God and God knew what was going to happen.

2 Tim 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You have read some scriptures that talk about things being done so that the sayings of the prophets would be fulfilled. These verses refer to the fact that these events had been prophesied and were now fulfilled. You may want to take a look at some of the following verses all containing the word fulfilled. You will find that the point being made is that when prophecy is revealed, the thing revealed will happen. The prophecy was from God and the scriptures remind us that these things were foretold by men of God and have come true.

Matt 1:22; Matt 2:15; Matt 2:17; Matt 2:23; Matt 4:14; Matt 5:18; Matt 8:17; Matt 12:17; Matt 13:14; Matt 13:35; Matt 21:4; Matt 24:34; Matt 26:54; Matt 26:56; Matt 27:9; Matt 27:35; Mark 1:15; Mark 13:4; Mark 14:49; Mark 15:28; Luke 1:20; Luke 2:43; Luke 4:21; Luke 21:22; Luke 21:24; Luke 21:32; Luke 22:16; Luke 24:44; John 3:29; John 12:38; John 13:18; John 15:25; John 17:12; John 17:13; John 18:9; John 18:32; John 19:24; John 19:28; John 19:36; Acts 1:16; Acts 3:18; Acts 9:23; Acts 12:25; Acts 13:25; Acts 13:27; Acts 13:29; Acts 13:33; Acts 14:26; Rom 8:4; Rom 13:8; 2 Cor 10:6; Gal 5:14; James 2:23; Rev 6:11; Rev 15:8; Rev 17:17; Rev 20:3

I am sure you don’t realize it but the position you take makes Jesus out to be a liar.

You rightly believe that Christ did not sin. That means that he didn’t lie, that means that what he spoke was the truth. Please remember that while on the cross he said: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Jesus spoke the truth, God had forsaken him. Ask yourself “When Jesus spoke these words did he speak the truth?”

It would serve you best if we looked at some other examples of when Jesus quoted scripture and studied their application to each and every situation. You will find that when Jesus quoted scripture it applied to and addressed what was happening at the moment. This would include the words Jesus spoke while on the cross.

Example #1: Matt 22:32

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. (Quoted from Exodus 3:6)

Ex 3:6
6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

To put the scripture in context: It is the time of Passover and Jesus has come to Jerusalem. Jesus knows that the time for his death is quickly approaching. The Sadducees are trying to trick him and ask a question (Matthew 22:28). You can find Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees beginning in verse 29 and ending in verse 32. Notice how the quoted scripture applies to answering the question he has been asked?

Example #2: Matthew 22:44
Quoting from Psalms 110:1

Example #3: Matthew 26:31
Quoting from Zachariah 13:7

Example #4: Matthew 24:29
Quoting from Isaiah 13:10; 34:4

Example #5: Matthew 23:39
Quoting from Psalms 118:26

You are concerned that if Jesus took on the sins of the world that he was no longer spotless

Heb 9:14

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Jesus’ life on earth was without sin. Jesus decided to pay for the sins of mankind. To accomplish this he had to bear their sins. Jesus had to take upon himself the sins of man. The sins of man were put upon him. Jesus had still committed no sins. He was carrying our sins, not his sins. He was still spotless as a sacrificial lamb.

Remember the sheep to be sacrificed were to be without blemish and spotless. Yet when the priests killed these animals and got dirt or blood on them during the sacrificial process the animal was still considered spotless and without blemish. What happened to them in the process of the sacrifice was not a reflection upon the spotlessness of the sacrificial animal. In much the same way, when Christ took on the sins of man he was not considered to be sinful. But taking on the sins of man separated him from God. Because Jesus had been willing to carry the sins of man God’s power unto salvation (the Gospel of Christ) came into effect. Carrying the sins of man had not made Jesus unacceptable as a sacrifice, it made his sacrifice that much more powerful. Think about what Jesus looked like by the time he was nailed to the cross. Physically he was certainly not spotless. He had been beaten until he no longer looked like a human (Isaiah 52:14). Spiritually he had not yet committed any sin and was therefore spotless. He carried the sins of the world. They were not his sins.

2 Cor 5:21

21 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.

Heb 9:28

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Isa 53:12

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Isa 53:6

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Notice the Isaiah 53:12 says that Jesus was numbered with the sinners, he carried our sins, and he was made and intercessor for mankind. He was numbered with the sinners because he carried their sins. He bare the sins of many. He was made to be sin for us. The sins he carried was not because he had sinned himself, but because he was willing to carry these sins to open the door of salvation. This is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe. You want to know when Jesus took on the sins of the world. Before he died; he was aware that God had forsaken him. Remember: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

You suggested that the word “sin” as it appears in 2 Corinthians 5:21 can be translated to mean “sin offering”. Upon closer inspection you will find there is nothing to support your supposition other than a footnote.

Strong’s wrote:NT:266 ‎a(marti/a ‎hamartia (ham-ar-tee'-ah); from NT:264; a sin (properly abstract): KJV - offence, sin (-ful).

The following list of verses contain the same word (translated “sin” in 2 Corinthians 5:21). Out of the 170 plus times this word appears in the New Testament not once is the word translated “sin offering”. Don’t get sucked into changing the meaning of the scriptures to make it fit your position on a topic. Instead; change your position on the topic so that it fits the meaning of the scriptures.

... <snipped for brevity> ...

To will:

The bulk of his citations simply are not relevant. He just looked up the word "sin", and did a copy-n-paste of every verse that mentions the word "sin". What does this prove? He says it was not once translated "sin offering", but neither was it translated "sinner". The verse does not say that Jesus was a "sinner", but yet he is making a leap - an assumption from deed to doer, from sin to sinner. I bet if we peeked through those 127 verses, they are not once translated "sinner" either... Plus, he still has not answered the question of how Jesus could be made a deed, "sin".

No one is denying that Jesus spoke the truth. Yes, Jesus was forsaken on the cross. Yes, sins were laid on Jesus, and He bore them for us. But, in what way? He is unfairly assuming one way and has yet to show justification for it. Did Jesus bear the guilt or the punishment of sins? Did God forsake Jesus physically or spiritually? He keeps assuming with no proof. He is refusing to grapple with his assumptions.

Plus, he too quickly dismisses passages that say something to the effect of Jesus did thus and thus, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled". I would not spend too much time on that point, as it is not a critical point, and it proves nothing on his end. But, he has totally misunderstood the point and is consequently wrong.