Never Forsaken

"My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" Such is the cry from Yeshua recorded in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. It is one phrase recorded for us in two of the Gospel accounts concerning the crucifixion of Messiah. It is a quote from Psalm 22:1. Springing from this verse is an amazing theology telling us that there was a separation between the Father and the Son when Jesus, Yeshua, was on the cross. Most any commentary will explain that this separation was when God the Father placed our sin upon God the Son and turned away from him. That God could not look upon the sin of the world that the Son now carried. The agony came from a separation that had never been experienced from eons before the creation of the world. Check out Matthew Henry, David Guzik, Calvin and a plethora of others to see their take on the separation of the Father and the Son. William Hendriksen tells us "His God and Father would not have abandoned him to his tormentors if it had not been necessary. But it was necessary, in order that he might fully undergo the punishment due to his people's sins" (Hendriksen Commentary on Matthew pg 972).

The questions in my mind surround how and why this has been the accepted conclusion for so many years. I'm not suggesting that I am smarter or have received some special revelation, however, I do question this interpretation. Several commentators acknowledge that Psalm 22 is actually a Psalm of victory in the end. They equate this to Christ's eventual victory after His separation from the Father. Let's just look at the text and ask a few questions. Was David actually forsaken or did he just feel this way, and then upon a little reflection, know that God would never forsake him? If this is true, then the Psalm doesn't really support an actual separation in Matthew or Mark. According to Hendriksen, and many others, it was necessary for the Son to undergo the punishment for sin. Now God does and will punish sin, but the Lamb for sin was spotless, unblemished, and offered up its blood for sin,as was Yeshua. The lamb was not punished. Punishment is not required to remove sin. It is a consequence of sin and may require restitution, but punishment does not bring either atonement or victory over death. So it seems the punishment for sin idea is imported to the event from how we see sin, rather than what was being accomplished at the cross.

Perhaps the most confusing thing to me in the "separation" theology is the context of the events of both the crucifixion and the quote from Psalm 22. The cultural and historic contexts are simply disregarded. As stated above, David was never forsaken. God was never far from him. David realizes this and proclaims praise in the midst of the assemblies; David says, "God has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted Nor has He hidden His face from me" (vs 24). Commentators who take the whole Psalm into account do not see things as David did. According to them, the praise and victory come after a real separation between the Father and the Son. This approach simply violates the clear reading of the Psalm. David ends up singing his praises and his victory in the midst of the time of his feeling of oppression. Theological assumptions have to be read into the text to find an actual separation or a segregated timeline. 

In the context of Mathew 27 and Mark 15, Yeshua is in agony upon the cross. Among those who surround Him are the Chief Priests, Scribes and Pharisees. They taunt him and dare Him to come down from the cross. I believe it was extremely difficult to speak while undergoing a crucifixion. Messiah does not give a discourse from the cross. His answers are terse and brief. "I thirst", "Woman behold your son", "Behold your mother", "It is finished". It is not "Mother I want John to take care of you for I will be gone and My brother James will be occupied with matters of the assembly of believers in Jerusalem............" Jesus is struggling for words. He is when He quotes Psalm 22:1 as well. They are words that, I believe, answer the taunts of the Priests, Scribe, and Pharisees.

As you read these words, "For God so loved the world that" or "In the beginning God created the", or perhaps, "The lord is my" something will happen. If you are familiar with the Scriptures your brain is likely to have added "that He gave...." or "heavens and the earth" or "shepherd". That is due to the fact that you are familiar with the passages. I would dare say that the Scribes, Priests, and Pharisees were far more committed to Scripture memorization than we are. They were intimately acquainted with the Psalms and with Psalm 22. They would have continued the Psalm just as we would John 3:16. They never would have come to the conclusion that Yeshua was suggesting that God the Father was turning His back on Him, or that He was initiating a new theological premise. The conclusion would be the opposite. It would have been hard for them to not see Jesus referring to them as "dogs [who]have surrounded Me the congregation of the wicked [who] have pierced my hands and feet" (vs 16). The Psalm is a rebuke to those who taunt Him and who placed Him on the cross. The Psalm tells the Scribes, Priests, and Pharisees that Yeshua, Jesus, has won. Even in death "A posterity shall serve Him, it will be recounted of the Lord to the next generation" (vs 30). 

In the context of the passages in Matthew and Mark and in the context of Psalm 22 the whole idea of separation between the Father and the Son must be manufactured from what we thought we knew. The events of the cross show the great love God has for us. It depicts the agonizing death of our Lord and then His glorious resurrection. The events are about victory over death, not punishment for sin. The people surrounding the cross would have heard the cry as one of hope and deliverance. Even for those who misunderstood the Aramaic for Hebrew and looked for Elijah caught the deliverance possibility. (Who knows, maybe it was in response to muttered comments by the Priests and Pharisees about this Psalm of deliverance).

The point I present, which you can chew on, disregard, think I am nuts or bordering on heresy, is that we should be cautious when it comes to building an entire theological tradition and interpretation based on one verse. One verse taken out of its historic and cultural context. One verse that was quoted and not returned to its proper context. One verse that collects additional theological baggage that is not supported by Scripture but sounds reasonable. We are to be students of the Word not blind followers of what has been taught before. In the weeks to come there are a few other "One Verse Theologies" I would like us to consider. I hope you come along on the journey and are compelled to think a little. Your thoughts are always welcome.