Did God Turn Away from Jesus when Jesus was on the Cross?

[Ted_in_Charlott]

I ask this in all humbleness and please forgive me if it is clear but I am still fuzzy on the Psalm 22 link. I had heard growing up that David was prophesying the last words of Jesus. If that indeed is the case and Jesus is just is just quoting scripture, then would not that be a circular reference? (Jesus quoting David quoting Jesus?)

If David was just writing his own trials in Psalm 22 and God used it later, doesn’t that possibly mean that it wasn’t prophetic?

Simply put: why couldn’t the Father turn His back on Jesus? Is there another instance in scripture where Jesus says he doesn’t know when the world would end?

Help me in my confusion…

 

[BRB]

Simply put: why couldn’t the Father turn His back on Jesus? Is there another instance in scripture where Jesus says he doesn’t know when the world would end?

…

I wouldn’t say it was turning of his back on Jesus. The Father surely saw/agonized over every moment of the passion.

Since the Trinity can be understood especially from the standpoint of Family, … no ‘loving’ father ever turns back on a suffering son.

The Father and Son communicated via H.S. while Christ was on earth. A physical separation existed for those 33-35 years. During the passion, the H.S. seems to be suspended. Christ was aware that He alone must endure the sins of the world. Thus, after the prayer in garden … He may not of prayed to the Father …not wishing to test the Father to save Him from the Death. Accepting His Sacrifice in total obedience to the Father, w/o complaint … even unto death. At the end, He yielded up His spirit to the Father.

The Bible teaches that God has emotions. We must believe God was crying too, … yet overjoyed that Jesus had been victorious in bearing the ‘sins that separate man from God’ until death.

 

[TJKelley]

Jesus was cursed by being on the cross and for a moment He held our sin. God could not look upon that sin. So, for a moment, God could not look upon His Son. Jesus’ blood was shed, sin was forgiven, and at His death He was no longer cursed.

 

[NotWorthy]

Vinegar [acetic acid] is a fermentation byproduct of any grain/fruit as you say above. It is not what we want to happen in the winemaking process. Spoiled wine will have some vinegar in it and tastes awful.

So, I guess we might say Christ’s crucifiers wouldn’t even offer Him a decent drink. They offered Him the spoiled, acid residual.

Very fitting of mankind. We usually give Christ [and our fellowman] our leftovers … in time, talents, goods, etc.

I always considered the vinegar which completed the Passover Meal to represent the end of the Old Covenant. It seems the Old Covenant had spoiled just as wine does in becoming vinegar.

Of course, that was just my thinking (the Gospel of Notworthy, as you will…)

 

[NotWorthy]

Specifically dealling with the last words from the cross. If John and the Blessed Mother were the only ones at the cross, how could the other gospel writers give specific quotes?

Even though I have heard my whole life those were the only two there, I still think Peter was hiding there somewhere, I think he is the one that gave Mark the last words.

As for Saint Luke, I think he might have been there. He being the historian probably would not have missed it.

Saint Matthew is the only one I am not sure, but since he is the saint of my profession, I would tend to think he was probably there also. Being a tax collector takes a specific mindset that wants to “see and record”.

I know some people will say it was the Holy Spirit that inspired them to write the words, but just because they are not specifically recorded as having been there doesn’t mean they weren’t there, and that adds even more credibility as being eye witnesses.

Just my 3 cents worth.

Here’s some change for your 3 cents…

You think any of the Gospel writers were there during Luke’s infancy narratives? More than likely, I think the Apostles heard these stories from the eyewitnesses. If Peter were there, I think Mark would have written it, for example.

 

[NotWorthy]

I ask this in all humbleness and please forgive me if it is clear but I am still fuzzy on the Psalm 22 link. I had heard growing up that David was prophesying the last words of Jesus. If that indeed is the case and Jesus is just is just quoting scripture, then would not that be a circular reference? (Jesus quoting David quoting Jesus?)

No, David was not prophesying the last words of Christ, at least not purposely. David’s was a Psalm that the Jews would meditate on when in dire trouble. Incidentally, Psalm 31 is similar as well.

If David was just writing his own trials in Psalm 22 and God used it later, doesn’t that possibly mean that it wasn’t prophetic?

Well of course. Just as he was prophetic when he said, “The Lord said to My Lord…”

Simply put: why couldn’t the Father turn His back on Jesus? Is there another instance in scripture where Jesus says he doesn’t know when the world would end?

Help me in my confusion…

God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One God. They manifest themselves for us feeble humans in three Persons, but in truth, neither Person is doing the Work of God without the other two. For instance, when the Holy Spirit manifest Himself at Pentecost, God the Father and the Son were doing the work with Him, but only the Holy Spirit was manifested (recognizable).

Therefore, God cannot turn His Back on Himself.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

Ok, so to get this straight, Jesus was quoting David, who didn’t know he was prophesying, and God really didn’t turn his back on him also? So Jesus was in dire straights, and was just reciting a Hail Mary type prayer…maybe I am just confused, but is that the point here, just to teach us to pray? It had nothing to do with Jesus having the sin of the world and God could not look at Him?

Ok so: God in the person of Jesus had two natures: fully human and fully Divine. Did both natures take on the sins of the world? If they just went on the human nature how could it be paid for with just a human nature? I know all things are possible with God and nothing is impossible, but for the sacrifice to be complete, doesn’t God have to die? And if God raised himself up, how is it He was really dead if God is One? I don’t mean to ask this other than to understand and I ask in all humbleness…

And to the St Luke’s account response: Mary probably was the eye witness in St. Luke’s gospel chapter 1-2. This is also partially supported by St. John not writing about it in his Gospel. He would have had no need to record his “Mother’s” account if it already had been accounted for.

 

[BRB]

It had nothing to do with Jesus having the sin of the world and God could not look at Him?

.

My understanding is that God could not look at us, because our sins — separate us from God.

God does see us, but only thru Christ’s perfect sacrifice for us. I would say this is why the Bible says no man can see God face to face and live. But, man could in historical times see Jesus face to face and live … given His humanity via Mary’s genetics.

A loving God surely witnessed the Cross in its entirely. Christ ‘bore’ our sins … and thus had to die to redeem mankind.

Christ remained sinless himself. He was the ‘Perfect’ Sacrifice. He only accepted the penalty of death for us … He was not guilty.

Even today as Christians … we pray to the Father thru the Son. Christ is our King, Salvation, and High Priest.

 

[NotWorthy]

Some Catholics, as well as Protestants, believe this to have been a passover meal, served on the Passover Day? If so, fermented wine would not of been served,… by tradition of Jews.

Only unfermented fruit of vine … or the ‘juice of grapes’ was the standard.

I’m still curious, where did you get this information, for I’ve always heard that Jews are staunch in their defense of wine always being served at any Passover (or Seder) meal.

 

[NotWorthy]

BRB, sometimes it seems I may gloss over others quotes,(actually I probably do), but that is only so I can dwell on them at a more quiet time. Such is the case with this post of yours. So I wanted to add my thoughts.

Unfermented wine … new wine. Christ is the New wine … would you not agree ?

I would not agree that “new wine” equals “unfermented wine”. As a matter of fact, I’d deny it. The Scriptures clearly show that new wine is still alcoholic. From Acts, Chapter 2:

But others said, scoffing, "They have had too much new wine." Then Peter stood up … and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews … These people are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning.

Hence, Yes, Christ is the New Wine and it comes from the Wine that is His Blood.

Thusly, the first Eucharist (if held on the Passover Day … as you believe) … may well of been new, unfermented wine (the juice of grapes)

but I have no clue where 'the juice of grapes" equals unfermented wine. The juice of grapes would spoil so fast in ancient Israel, that it would become deadly if it was not converted to wine rather quickly.

Also, as you probably know … many Baptists and other Protestants don’t drink alcohol. Kind of take the Nazarite vow … so to speak, based on Christ saying He would not drink of the vine until He comes again.

The Nazirite vow also included a razor not touching one’s head. How far do our Brother Baptists go in their “kind of take a Nazirite vow”?

 

[onaquest]

To say that God would turn away from Christ during his suffering is to say that God turns away from us in ours. I believe that in those times of suffering God is loving me very much because I resemble his son on the cross. The exquisite pain that comes from suffering I have always felt was the love of God that was too overpowering for me to feel. Christ died for all suffering whether you were the murdered or the murderer. He died for the effects of original sin, that would include all suffering without differentiation of worthiness. God never turned his back on suffering that is why he sent his Son. The Incarnation is the answer to God’s response to suffering, he would never leave us alone. Christ’s cry of " My God My God Oh why have you abandoned me" is a legitimate cry when you have been left alone to accomplish the work you came to do. When you embrace your cross. For Christ is to show us the way to God. He shows me how I can be dependent on God when I don’t feel him they way I think I should.

 

[NotWorthy]

To say that God would turn away from Christ during his suffering is to say that God turns away from us in ours. I believe that in those times of suffering God is loving me very much because I resemble his son on the cross. The exquisite pain that comes from suffering I have always felt was the love of God that was too overpowering for me to feel. Christ died for all suffering whether you were the murdered or the murderer. He died for the effects of original sin, that would include all suffering without differentiation of worthiness. God never turned his back on suffering that is why he sent his Son. The Incarnation is the answer to God’s response to suffering, he would never leave us alone. Christ’s cry of " My God My God Oh why have you abandoned me" is a legitimate cry when you have been left alone to accomplish the work you came to do. When you embrace your cross. For Christ is to show us the way to God. He shows me how I can be dependent on God when I don’t feel him they way I think I should.

[sign]:clapping: Amen!!! :clapping:[/sign]Now, where were you 87 posts ago???

 

[onaquest]

Christ died for all sin and suffering. For all that original sin wrought. His suffering on the cross was for the murdered and the murderer. God who is love would not abandon Christ. Christ would know this. Yet I know from my own suffering that there is an exquisite pain in being held so tightly by God in my sinfulness or suffering. When we suffer we most resemble Christ on the cross and we are loved and not forgotten by God because of this resemblence.

 

[BRB]

I would not agree that “new wine” equals “unfermented wine”. As a matter of fact, I’d deny it. How far do our Brother Baptists go in their “kind of take a Nazirite vow”?

New wine … is juice of grapes, which is just beginning the fermentation process. Only perhaps a 1-2 % ETOH. Fully fermented wine is 5-7 % alcohol.

Thus the saying, “no one puts new wine in old wineskins”. CO2 gases released will split a fully stretched, dryed skin … were the green, fresh skins will stretch and hold.

Christ is the new wine. He enters the new Christian, and matures us with aging … into a fine vintage.

Just the wine part … they hate long hair.

 

[fhansen]

This thread’s too long to check so sorry if this has been said. Christ in His humanness suffered the penalty of sin for all of humanity. The ultimate penalty for sin is separation from God so I would think that He actually was meant to experience that extreme pain and despair by virtue of His human nature.

 

[japhy]

This thread’s too long to check so sorry if this has been said. Christ in His humanness suffered the penalty of sin for all of humanity. The ultimate penalty for sin is separation from God so I would think that He actually was meant to experience that extreme pain and despair by virtue of His human nature.

But he couldn’t have paid the full penalty, or he’d still be separated from God. Penal substitution is not the Catholic understanding of the crucifixion.

 

[BRB]

But he couldn’t have paid the full penalty, or he’d still be separated from God. Penal substitution is not the Catholic understanding of the crucifixion.

So you and the Church says it only 90 % paid ??

All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6

Apart from me, you can do nothing. John 15:5

Never black or white for some … they always desire to add to what Christ did on Cross.

 

[japhy]

So you and the Church says it only 90 % paid ??
All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6
Apart from me, you can do nothing. John 15:5
Never black or white for some … they always desire to add to what Christ did on Cross.

If Jesus paid the full price for our sins, he would be condemned to Hell for eternity. But that’s not what happened. Penal substitution fails here. St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching (and before him, St. Anselm) is not penal substitution, but satisfaction, atonement. Here’s a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:For the theory put forward by Anselm has been modified by the work of later theologians, and confirmed by the testimony of truth. In contrast to some of the other views already noticed, this theory is remarkably clear and symmetrical. And it is certainly more agreeable to reason than the “mouse-trap” metaphor, or the notion of purchase money paid to Satan. Anselm’s answer to the question is simply the need of satisfaction of sin. No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfaction. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected, on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of all rnankind.

 

[NotWorthy]

New wine … is juice of grapes, which is just beginning the fermentation process. Only perhaps a 1-2 % ETOH. Fully fermented wine is 5-7 % alcohol.

Thus the saying, “no one puts new wine in old wineskins”. CO2 gases released will split a fully stretched, dryed skin … were the green, fresh skins will stretch and hold.

Christ is the new wine. He enters the new Christian, and matures us with aging … into a fine vintage.

Just the wine part … they hate long hair.

Sooooooo, how can the Apostles be drunk on new wine at 9:00 am?

You had previously claimed (or so I thought you claimed) that new wine was not alcoholic.

 

[BRB]

Sooooooo, how can the Apostles be drunk on new wine at 9:00 am?

You had previously claimed (or so I thought you claimed) that new wine was not alcoholic.

Its relatively mild stuff c/w the aged wine. Have you ever home brewed beer / wine ?

Takes 7-14 days to get some reasonable ETOH levels. And, thats with great brewer yeast / added sugars / malt, etc.

By the way … the Apostles weren’t drunk on new wine spirits … was the H.S.