Jesus cries out on the cross; Psalm 22, Matthew 27, Mark 15
Merry Vole
Shipmate
in Kerygmania
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" -according to Psalm 22 (NIV). Jesus cried these words, in Aramaic, on the cross but what did he mean? What was going through his mind? Just pain and agony -or the weight of the sin of mankind? Or did he think he would be saved from death? I'm interested what Shipmates think.
Comments
For me, it works best if you factor in Luke's account of the crucifixion. In the garden, Jesus prays to God that he not have to submit to crucifixion--a very human (fully human) plea. But this is then followed up by an act of faith and trust in God: "not my will but your's be done." The same happens on the cross. In pain and despair, Jesus cries out "why have you forsaken me?" but Luke tells us Jesus also then did an act of faith and trust in God: "into your hands I commit my spirit." (which is also taken from a Psalm). Jesus' fully human nature despairs and wants to avoid pain, but it is that same fully human nature that trusts entirely in God and so overcomes that fear and despair. It is a wonderful example for us all to aspire to.
Me, I don't see any contradiction between knowing yourself NOT abandoned (that is, the reality of the situation) and feeling DEEPLY abandoned. I expect he did. Knowledge doesn't cancel out feelings. If it did, it would be much easier to live as a Christian sometimes.
I suggest you read the full Psalm. While it seems David (who is the writer of the Psalm) is in despair and under attack in the first part of the Psalm, he suddenly changes from a cry of despair to a shout of victory. Matthew and Mark are using the Psalm to testify that at the moment of Jesus' death, the victory is won.
BTW, Jesus was taught the Scriptures by his mother. Joseph, no doubt, taught him how to be a carpenter (he makes a number of illusions to carpentry), He may have had some rabbinical training. When he was 12 or so, John testifies that the religious leaders of the Temple were amazed at what he knew. He was, no doubt, a genius. But I hesitate to say Jesus was an educated man. He picked up a lot of his learning through observation, but I don't know of any formal education he may have had beyond what I listed.
Jesus was asked to read the scroll in the synagogue in Nazareth. I suspect that there were many other literate men also.
I think there's possibly something slightly deeper than that going on that involves both his divine and human nature.
All through the NT Jesus references God as 'Father', it's almost as on the cross, carry the sin of humanity he no longer has access to God via his normal familial connection but can only apprehend him as the hidden God dwelling in unapproachable light
Yeah, or some kind of Patripassionism, either of which is very problematic, but I don't think either is necessarily implied. I think we need to give Jesus' choice of words and the writers choice to express them their appropriate weight, especially given their occasion. On what basis does a sin-full human being apprehend God, given that Jesus' human and divine nature don't suddenly separate either.
Back on Ye Olde Shippe (IIRC), someone posted the thought that Jesus' physical ordeal on the cross didn't actually amount to much, compared with the agonising illnesses and years-long lingering deaths that many people endure.
In a way, the length of his suffering doesn't matter - it's the fact that he went through death, as we all will do some day, that's important.
Indeed.
But I think it's all part of the same thing. To be in solidarity means to be in solidarity not just with human beings but with sinful human beings. The Atonement is the completion of the Incarnation.
But as for reading, it's not impossible. Jewish women of the time ran businesses etc. and literacy/numeracy is quite useful for that sort of thing. And her cousin Elizabeth was likely able to read, or how else did Zechariah manage to communicate to her about the message he had received from Gabriel in the temple?
All we can do is guess, really. But if I had to put money down, I would think she had at least the basics of literacy and numeracy. And a very, very well-developed oral memory and great rhetorical skills.
Sinful human beings is redundant phraseology for a start, and sin is an obsolete concept anyway. Irrelevant. Meaningless. The at-one-ment is the Incarnation. If it happened. We don't need forgiving. We need to know God is. And we can't. There is nothing in the story that demonstrates unnatural intelligence. Certainly not unequivocal emotional intelligence.
Re the 'bit in bold' above; at church this morning the vicar was referencing Julian of Norwich, it being Mothering Sunday. I know next to nothing of her writings so I flicked through a book of them and picked up that although she had an acute sense of being sinful she thought we didn't really need to ask God for forgiveness because we are already forgiven through the work of Christ. Also, she says there is no place for any notion of the 'Wrath of God'.
Jesus is fully human and fully God at the same time. When he died, God died.
How can nounal God, the ground of eternal being, die?
It is a mystery.
From Catholic.com
I think the issue here for me is that saying simply “God died,” without any nuance or contextualizing, in a discussion such as this one risks conflation with Nietzsche's Gott ist tot/“God is dead” and/or with Death of God theology, in a way that increases the risk of misunderstanding. “God died” has the potential to be heard in a way that may not be intended.
No, it's as syntactic but as non-semantic as the omnipotence paradox of the stone.