I was musing on this a couple of days ago and wondering: when the Darkness comes upon the earth for three hours, is that not one of the signals of God's presence? Psalm 18, Exodus 19, and plenty others, I'm sure, indicate that the intimate presence of God is often within the midst of that thick darkness...
Is that referring to God? John says that "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all."
Look at verse 4 and 5, talking about the works of the enemy. Those are the works of darkness, and they continue up until verse 12, with the exception of verse 6 which lists the man's cry to the Lord for rescue. Only after that, in verse 13, does God actually appear, to rescue the person first speaking in verses 1-3,
Verse 11 in particular shows that this section is not talking about God, who does NOT hide in darkness. Who does? The enemy, of course, who was trying to take out the author (representing all of us, I guess).
"The Lord ALSO thundered from the heavens..." Verse 13 shows God's first appearance to rescue the author/us. "He sent out His arrows...and flashed forth lightnings and put them to rout." Verse 14 shows light dispelling the darkness evident earlier in verse 11.
We have to be careful in the Old Testament; we can only correctly interpret it according to the New. Doesn't the devil also masquerade as an angel of light? Didn't the devil flash down from heaven to earth so furiously when the 70 were doing ministry like Jesus, that it appeared like lightning?
Yes, agreed about 4 and 5, however, v7 appears to be a reaction to the work of the enemy. Also v 12 is continuation of 7-11, or so it appears. You are correct in saying there is no darkness IN him, but Ex. 19:16 says the Lord came down on Sinai enveloped in smoke.
I understand what you are saying, but the Lord is a warrior, (among all else that he is.) He is not meek and gentle where the enemy is concerned.
"Turned his face" is not the most accurate statement. But when Jesus cried out Psalm 22:1, something within the Trinity had changed, in a way that we cannot understand. Jesus was now a sin-bearer, the sin-bearer (2 Cor. 5:21). He certainly felt 'forsaken', and it was not the physical torture that led him to cry out. He was burdened in a way that we cannot understand. Of course, he saw the fruit of his suffering and was satisfied. When he cried out "It is finished!", he announced the burden was gone (the penalty was paid - the people of God were now free). Then he died. What happened in those 3 hours, in the eternal unity of the Trinity? We cannot know.
I have read (and heard, from some) that certain people consider the 'Cry of Dereliction' to be an admission of failure, or a surrender, by Jesus. I don't know where that comes from - the moment of decision for Christ was the night before, in the Garden. Jesus submitted fully to the Father. The plan would be lived out. There was no "shift" in the world or in the heavens that night, nor the next morning. But when Christ had been beaten and condemned by the authorities and was hoisted up on the cross (hung on a tree), something changed. That is why he quoted Psalm 22:1. That is why it grew dark. The sin was his to bear, now. That is exactly what 2 Cor. 5:21 means. "He made him who knew no sin to be sin [a sin offering] so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." As Isaiah said (in 53:6), 'the Lord laid on him the sins of us all.' In 53:11 it says - "my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins." Is it your view that in this moment in time & space (as Jesus was fully human), that nothing moved in eternity?
Love this. I really like the irony you have highlighted. Great post! I often ponder the idea that the apparent silence of God in Mark is because God is the suffering (and therefore silent) servant.
But .... there was probably something before that. You can take various Gospel extracts (from several) and piece them together to assemble a very logical sequence.
I already disliked 'In Christ Alone' because of its line 'the wrath of God was satisfied.' Now that I'm a Christus Victor Christian and no longer a penal substitutionary atonement Christian, I viscerally react to that statement. Now I have another reason to put that song on my dislike list and never hear it again.
Thanks for this!! I already understood the Psalm 22 part but I appreciated your break down. However, what I didn't understand is that Mark was doing irony! How delightful is that! Now I have to reread Mark and right away.
i went and read all of psalm 22 and came back to read this. chills imagining a scene where Jesus on the cross begins by calling out βmy God my God why have you forsaken meβ the crowd, caught off guard begins reciting the psalm quietly? confused? earnestly? and as it goes on their eyes begin to well up with tears, the begin tearing at their clothes, wondering what has been done. and as they come to the final line, they look to the man before them as he finishes the psalm with them βit is finished!β
For generations, many of us have been taught that the cross was about satisfying an angry God. But what if that framework misses the very heart of the gospel?
In this conversation, C Baxter Kruger and Jason Clarke explore a radically different visionβone where the cross is not about divine punishment, but about the divine descent of the Father, Son, and Spirit into the abyss of our deepest darkness and delusion.
This episode highlights the indivisible oneness of the Trinity, the cry of Psalm 22, and the unwavering trust of Jesus in His Father.
This isnβt just a new perspective.Itβs a complete rethinking of God, the cross, and the eternal dreamβthat you would be fully alive, participating in the very life of the Father, Son, and Spirit.
There's only one part of you comment that I would question: " the indivisible oneness of the Trinity, the cry of Psalm 22, and the unwavering trust of Jesus in His Father."
Jesus, in human form, is the only member of the Godhead who has died. The Father and the Spirit, both being spirit and not flesh, cannot experience death.
However, because Jesus only died in His physical form and not in His spirit, in that sense there is no division or separation at any time between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
On your note 7 with regards to your thoughts on Jn.19:30 βIt is finished!β and Psa. 22:31 βhe has done it,β it is interesting that Dr. George Lamsa's English Peshitta translation reads like this...
Lamsa online: Mark 15:34 - And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and said, Eli, Eli, Lmana, shabachthani! which means, My God, my God, for this I was kept!
Lamsa's hard copy: Mark 15:34 - And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, Lemana, shabakthani! which means, My God, my God, for this I was spared!
Lamsa online: Matthew 27:46 - And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said, Eli, Eli, lmana shabachthani! which means, My God, my God, for this I was kept!
Lamsa's hard copy: Matthew 27:46 - And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said, Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani! My God, my God, for this I was spared!
(with footnote on 'spared' = 'this was my destiny')
The Peshitta is definitely secondary in that reading, so while itβs interesting to see how some early readers interpreted the passage, it isnβt really relevant to the original reading of the passage.
The Hebrew for this verse in Psalm 22 is "Eli, Eli, lema azabtani."
The scrolls used in the religious services were in Hebrew, and if Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 He most likely would have said the above. Note that 'lema' is an interrogative = why, while 'azabtani' = you have forsaken me, and is stated there as the question, "Why have You forsaken me?"
However, if He used the Aramaic expression "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani" there is a minor conundrum. "Lama' makes the phrase a statement rather than a question, definitely in Hebrew, and potentially in Aramaic as well.
"Sabachtani" can mean 'spared' or "sacrificed: in Aramaic, depending on the dialect. Many years ago I saw a Good News Bible in English that was published in the Middle East, where Aramaic is still spoken. They clearly had altered the "translated" part of the verse so that it agreed with what their readers knew of the local language. It read, "For this purpose was I sacrificed," and as a footnote they gave the alternative meaning, "For this purpose was I spared."
Take your pick, but know that:
1. God has no problem "looking on sin" according to Genesis 3;
2. Sin does NOT separate us from God, otherwise there would have been no personal dialogue with Adam and Eve, or Cain, or Moses, or Elijah, and so on. (God does not change, according to both Old and New Testaments)
3. God, that is Father, Son and Holy Spirit have never forsaken and will never forsake anyone.
I have something to share to add to your comment about Lamsaβs translation; Iβll have to dig on my computer to find where Iβve saved it. Itβs an old yellowed newspaper cutting that i found in a second hard book. As far as I can recall the newspaper article was about Jesus saying βMy God, my God, is this what I have been saved for?β
I remain unconvinced. When the psalm says that God answered His prayer to "save my life" (vv. 19-21), it doesn't mean that the answer came while He was yet hanging upon the cross. God answered His prayer - not by delivering Him from the cross and death; not by preventing His enemies from putting Him to death altogether. He did in fact die; God permitted Him to die at the hands of the "dogs, lions, and wild oxen"; and then the answer came subsequent to His death in the form of resurrection. Likewise when the psalm goes on to say that God did not forsake Him (vv. 22-24), it's not in the context of what happened while He was hanging upon the cross, but in the context of what happened after the resurrection that came subsequent to His death: He is portrayed subsequent to His death as celebrating and praising God with His brethren in the assembly. This is post-resurrection: He was not praising God in the midst of the assembly while He was yet hanging upon the cross! Thus, it is "after" He died that God answered the prayer not to forsake Him, and ultimately God did not forsake Him because He did not abandon Him to the realm of the dead (cp. Psa. 16:10 - "You will not forsake my soul to Sheol.") Thus, the prayers for both deliverance from death and not to be forsaken were not answered while He was hanging upon the cross - as if God prevented these things from happening at all; rather, the answer came subsequent to His death and having been forsaken temporarily while upon the cross.
I'm sorry, Doc, with all due respect this seems like philosophical speculation to me. The Psalm clearly says God did not hide His face from the afflicted one. I'm not a Hebrew/Greek scholar so I don't know for sure but the idea that God "has not hidden His face" would seem to apply to the entire ordeal, not just post-death/resurrection. But maybe there is something that I just don't see going on here.
I understand what the psalm clearly says, but any statement in Scripture - no matter how clearly worded - must always be interpreted in light of context. We can make the Bible say anything we want if we ignore context. So please tell me: what is the context of vv. 22-24? Is the context that of the cross, or is the context post-resurrection?
Also, I would simply ask: when He prays "Save my life," (v. 19), and then we are told, "You answered me" (v. 21), what does it mean when it says that God answered the prayer to save His life? Precisely how and when did God answer that prayer to save His life?
These are two questions I'm seriously asking you to answer: what is the context of vv. 22-24, and how and when did God answer the prayer to save His life?
You know Jesus was not resurrected on the cross, correct? So the answer did not come immediately, but 3 days later. It seems to me that amounts to a small moment of being forsaken. "In a small moment I have forsaken you, And in great mercies I will bring you back." Isaiah 54:7
Like Jason said: When? Immediately, on the cross. How? Through the resurrection. I think Psalm 22 makes that distinction for us. God hears Jesus' cry and does not hide His face during the suffering (v24). Then God delivers through vindication, via resurrection.
Doc, I think your view collapses those two things into one moment and requires temporary abandonment. But the Psalm explicitly says the opposite - that the afflicted one suffers fully, to the point of death (v15), and yet is not forsaken in that suffering.
I appreciate your insightful remarks. Here, you have moved the discussion beyond the explicit data and exegesis of the text of Psalm 22 to broader theological data. It seems to me that there are two key theological issues that enter the discussion:
(1) There is the issue of what penalty Christ had to take upon Himself to pay for our sin. The wages of sin is death: not just physical death, but spiritual death. Adam died the day he ate the fruit, and that death was spiritual in nature. Spiritual death involves alienation from God (Isa. 59:2). How then can we say that Christ paid in full for our sin on the cross if He suffered only physical death, but not alienation from God? If the price I am to pay for my sin involves both physical death and alienation from God, and yet Christ took the penalty for my sin upon Himself, then correspondingly He must have suffered both physical death and alienation from the Father. I donβt see how a solely physical death is sufficient to pay the price. Thus, I would argue that Christ did not merely βfeelβ forsaken by God anymore than a sinner merely βfeelsβ alienated from God. If the sinner is in fact alienated from God (regardless of what he feels), then Jesus in fact took that alienation upon Himself. In other words, the sinnerβs penalty for sin is not a subjective experience; it is an objective reality. I would think, therefore, that Christ could not merely subjectively experience the feeling of abandonment; rather, for the justice of God to be satisfied at the cross, there had to be the objective reality of alienation.
(2) There is the issue that you raised regarding the trinity. The weakness I see in this argument is that it presupposes an understanding of the trinity. To be honest, I donβt think that any of us really understands it. We know and affirm the facts and the data: three persons in one God. Iβm not sure that we can really grasp and process those facts. To argue that the Fatherβs abandonment of the Son would violate the unity of the Godhead appears to claim more than we can really know. Cults argue against the trinity precisely because they believe that it is impossible for God to speak with God, and yet there be only one God. Yet, in the Bible God speaks to God all the time, in both the OT and NT. If we focus too much on the separateness of the persons, we avoid the error of modalism, but delve into other heresy. If we focus too much on the oneness of God, we can become modalists. In this case, I think the argument leans too heavily upon the unity of God; if God can talk to God, then perhaps God can be alienated from God. Of course, the alienation of which we speak is relational: not ontological. It seems to me that if God can choose to talk to God, then itβs equally possible that God can choose βnotβ to talk to God: thatβs a relational concept.
" Into Your hand I commit my spirit, || You have redeemed me, YHWH God of truth."Psa 31:5 "And Jesus having again cried with a great voice, yielded the spirit...". So it must be that at death Jesus was separated from the spirit of life. But God redeems Him from the dead by sending the Spirit to raise Him back to life. Rom 8:11 "The Spirit of God, who raised Jesus from the dead..."
I don't see anything in the comments that addresses the one big problem I see with God turning His face away from Jesus, and that is this: If God turns His face away from the Son due to the sin Jesus bore, wouldn't this mean that the Father is "separated" from the Son, therefore crating a "fracture" of the Trinity? And if the Trinity is fractured, then wouldn't this mean that God ceases to be God, if even for a moment?
I think itβs usually said that the suffering/separation happens βin the human natureβ whereas βin the Divine natureβ there is no separation. Of course, that raises other questions, but the hypostatic union of truly human - truly divine is difficult for us to conceptualise.
Yes, that's often said. But Christ's human and divine natures were not thus separable, and there's still no defensible argument from scripture for there being any such separation in the first place.
The problem is that Scripture doesnβt explain exactly how βthe Word became fleshβ so any explanation, including asserting that there is no division, is an attempt at understanding what the incarnation means.
By saying that Christ is βvere deus, vere homoβ one has to try to explain how he can be truly human and truly divine.
The credal formation and saying things like βChrist suffers in the human natureβ does not necessarily mean that youβre saying that there are completely separate natures.
Itβs simply an attempt to explain something thatβs very difficult to explain.
The fact that we have everything from Nestoriusβ to Apollinariasβ views goes to show that itβs difficult.
Keep up the excellent work! This is exactly what the western Church needs today - learning how to properly understand and interpret Scripture through the proper lens and framework.
Iβm fine with the traditional translations of Mark 15:34 and Matt 27:46.
Iβm not the one who equated victory and the cross. It was Jesus who did that, and both Mark and John emphasize this point. E.g., βIf I be lifted upβ and Markβs identification of the passion and cross as the moment of Jesusβ enthronement and exaltation. Thatβs very clearly the moment of victory in the Gospel of Mark; in keeping with Markβs upside-down irony throughout, the cross the moment the Kingdom has come in power. Thatβs also why Mark doesnβt really need to dwell on the resurrection. The victory had already been won; Christ had already been exalted. John understands this, which is why Jesus finally drinks something on the cross in John despite saying he wouldnβt taste the fruit of the vine until the kingdom.
Hmm...if you're fine w/the traditional translations ("why have you forsaken me"), then why did you say they are incorrect, or misinterpreted?
Also, I want you to know that I do not subscribe to the THEOLOGY that's been peddled about all of this, so that's not at issue w/me. What is at issue is getting the true sense of what the Gospels (and Jesus) were communicating, and I don't think you did. For example you say:
"Jesus is consistently speaking on a heavenly, eternal level. A few examples:
Jesus: βBeware the leaven of the Pharisees.β Disciples: βAnd they began to discuss with one another that they had no bread.β (Mark 8:15β16)"
Clearly that's not spoken "on a heavenly level". Instead, Jesus was warning his disciples to be cautious when dealing with the bureaucrats of 2nd Temple Israel b/c they were INTERPRETING THE LAW with their own perverted agendas woven into it, and if the disciples said something that was considered illegal, they would get into BIG TROUBLE "with the law". It was a warning to them to 'vet' the Pharisees' legal reasoning and halakha but not get into it with them. Once again, this is a GOVERNMENTAL/LEGAL matter, not RELIGIOUS/THEOLOGICAL. There's plenty of evidence in the gospels proving what I just said. Just search on "test" to see some of them.
And the bit about Jesus being taken into custody and his followers not understanding or not wanting to accept his warning was not a 'heavenly" message. It was a statement of reality. He KNEW that the public officials wanted to arrest him. But he got the heads-up from YHWH when it was gonna happen. Unfortunately the brainwashed 'Jews' (his disciples) were thinking KINGDOM, Jesus is gonna LIBERATE US. The point isn't 'heavenly' vs. 'earthly'. Instead, the point is YHWH's AGENDA vs. PATRIOTISM + PERSONAL SELFISHNESS. IOW, Jesus' followers were not in the same headspace as he was. He was working towards YHWH's REDEMPTION, whereas they were thinking in terms of saving Israel from Rome and the evil rulers in their own government, and then RULING OVER THEM ALL under Jesus' authority. It's obvious what was going on there. It was POLITICAL, not RELIGIOUS.
Anyway, all of this, including Psalm 22, had to do with POLITICS not RELIGION. You appear to not be looking at the bigger picture in your interpretations. And you appear to be only looking at your literary 'methods' almost exclusively, albeit in terms of RELIGION/THEOLOGY instead of REALITY. As long as you do that, you will continue to misinterpret the Bible to suit your own agenda and not the NT authors'.
Incidentally, the rest of the NT plainly tells us WHEN Jesus got "exalted". It was when he became "seated at the right hand of God". "The right hand" is a well known phrase indicating a position of law enforcement power. Getting strung up by the government is far from 'being exalted'. It's actually the opposite. The NT tells us that Jesus got exalted AFTER his resurrection, and AFTER his 40 day appearance just AFTER he "ascended into heaven". At least that's what I read in the NT. Correct me if you think I'm wrong.
So I do not see Mark as telling us that Jesus's death was his victory. And I seriously doubt that David would agree that DYING = VICTORY. Instead, the opposite is true. Finding oneself ALIVE after being pursued in battle by an enemy = victory. Isn't that what the resurrection proved? Wasn't Jesus' resurrection YHWH's way of VINDICATING Jesus? That's what I read in Paul's statement at the end of 1 Corinthians 15. Do you agree?
I hope Jason will reply because you have made some good points. I for one, agree with you that the resurrection is the actual victory but the cross is the merit for Jesus deserving the place at the right hand of God. So is Jesus is already crowned King on the cross even if not yet ascended in power, as time is not a constraint with God. This is ironic and I think that's what Jason is trying to say is the recurring theme of Mark.
Thanks for your comments, Sorin. I'm glad to see you agree with me. I'm merely reciting what I find in the NT, not offering a CONTRIVED OPINION.
I do not see Mark as considering Jesus to have become king "on the cross". Not only is that absurd, but it contradicts the rest of the NT. Moreover, IF Mark (presumably the Apostle Peter's ideas that Mark recorded) saw any kind of 'victory' in Jesus' death, it would be a different kind of victory. Instead of a KINGSHIP (under the New Covenant = "inheritance"), it would more likely refer to A COMPLETION OF DUTY, as is required under the MOSAIC covenant (Commandments 1 + 2 = allegiance + obedience to YHWH).
So, from a GOVERNMENT/LEGAL perspective, Jesus fulfilled his covenant obligations, that is, under the MOSAIC covenant, not the NEW covenant. It's the NEW covenant that 'granted the kingship' to Jesus, not under the OLD covenant. And for his REWARD, he "received a kingdom" from YHWH as a GIFT under the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant promise, known as the New Covenant.
All of this is found in the NT (and OT). I'm not making any of this up in my own mind. I'm just looking at the bare textual and historical facts in terms of the legalities and realities of the covenants.
guess: mark = marcus antonius aka marc antony, who apparently condemned the senate after they killed julius gaius caesar on the senate floor. that would make jesusβ stripes be a reference to the stab wounds that caesar recieved.
moses = minos of crete merged with the muses of the mountain, of which there are nine rather than ten
caanan = greece, who were the aggressors against egypt, not enslaved by egypt. greece tried to impose monotheism using ra. after they left during the minoan period, egypt was free to return to polytheistic akhenaten worship.
I think your perspective is absolutely correct that Jesus on the cross is only the suffering servant fulfilling the covenant Israel committed to. The resurrection and ascension into the cloud is the actual enthronement, not the cross. But I think there is something to the irony that the way the story is told as if the characters of the trial and crucifixion are mocking a king's inauguration, complete with royal robe, crown of thorns, elevated platform of the cross "And the charge inscribed against Him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS." This is in jest but it is actually dress-rehearsing the actual picture of the cloud rider given the throne.
Thanks for your comments. Could be true, not sure, b/c I haven't looked into it, and my memory isn't what it used to be. My method of looking at the 'dress rehearsal' and 'mocking' would be to see if I can find OT texts that validate the the event. If so, then I would take those texts in their OT native contexts and see how they compare with the NT text. Then if there are correlations, I would 'do the math' by importing into the NT text the context of each of the quotes to see what point the NT writer possibly wanted to make. Jason tried to do that with Psalm 22. He did OK up to a point, but then he went off the rails. So that's how I would deal with it, but don't have time just now to do it. Maybe you can do that research and report back?
Jesus said in John that his time was coming when he would be glorified, that is in his being lifted up on the cross. If the cross is not a victory then it must be a defeat, the antithesis of our understanding of what was achieved by Christ in his death. Our faith is built on the prophets and apostles, and Christ being the cornerstone. Paul clearly articulates the victory achieved by a Jesus on the cross. βHe blotted out the handwriting that was against us, opposing us with its legal demands. He took it right out of the way, by nailing it to the cross. He stripped the rulers and authorities of their armor, and displayed them contemptuously to public view, celebrating his triumph over them in him.β
ββColossiansβ¬ β2β¬:β14β¬-β15β¬ βNTFEβ¬β¬ The resurrection/ascension vindicated that victorious death.
Yes, you could say it like that in religious terminology. But I prefer to stick to the history and context. If you want to see the historical financial background to the Colossians text that you quoted, you can read my blog on it here:
Paul makes his point in a way that upper society business persons could easily understand. I doubt 1 in a million 'Christians' today have any clue what Paul was talking about. Therefore, they will not be able to 'appreciate' his point, which leads to generalizing what he meant, as you did in your comment. No offense intended.
Do you have an opinion on whether, when someone quotes/reads scripture in the Gospels, we're supposed to understand only the quoted section or a whole passage? One example would the Psalm you discuss here, and another might be when Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah in Luke 4:18-19. In Luke, it specifically says He closed the scroll, but do you think we are to understand verses 18-19 as a stand-in for a longer portion of Isaiah?
Another thought on the "sacrifice" - in Revelation 5:9-10, the 4 living creatures and the 24 elders sing this new song: "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God, from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." Aren't sacrifices forsaken? Obviously Jesus did not stay forsaken - but that verse means something more than just that he felt alone.
I was musing on this a couple of days ago and wondering: when the Darkness comes upon the earth for three hours, is that not one of the signals of God's presence? Psalm 18, Exodus 19, and plenty others, I'm sure, indicate that the intimate presence of God is often within the midst of that thick darkness...
Ps 18 :11 (love this) βHe made darkness his hiding place, and dark storm clouds his canopy around him.β (CSB)
Is that referring to God? John says that "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all."
Look at verse 4 and 5, talking about the works of the enemy. Those are the works of darkness, and they continue up until verse 12, with the exception of verse 6 which lists the man's cry to the Lord for rescue. Only after that, in verse 13, does God actually appear, to rescue the person first speaking in verses 1-3,
Verse 11 in particular shows that this section is not talking about God, who does NOT hide in darkness. Who does? The enemy, of course, who was trying to take out the author (representing all of us, I guess).
"The Lord ALSO thundered from the heavens..." Verse 13 shows God's first appearance to rescue the author/us. "He sent out His arrows...and flashed forth lightnings and put them to rout." Verse 14 shows light dispelling the darkness evident earlier in verse 11.
We have to be careful in the Old Testament; we can only correctly interpret it according to the New. Doesn't the devil also masquerade as an angel of light? Didn't the devil flash down from heaven to earth so furiously when the 70 were doing ministry like Jesus, that it appeared like lightning?
Yes, agreed about 4 and 5, however, v7 appears to be a reaction to the work of the enemy. Also v 12 is continuation of 7-11, or so it appears. You are correct in saying there is no darkness IN him, but Ex. 19:16 says the Lord came down on Sinai enveloped in smoke.
I understand what you are saying, but the Lord is a warrior, (among all else that he is.) He is not meek and gentle where the enemy is concerned.
Throughout the Bible, God envelops himself in thick darkness to protect humanity from direct exposure.
The darkness came when Jesus, the Light of the World, was extinguished.
Good point.
"Turned his face" is not the most accurate statement. But when Jesus cried out Psalm 22:1, something within the Trinity had changed, in a way that we cannot understand. Jesus was now a sin-bearer, the sin-bearer (2 Cor. 5:21). He certainly felt 'forsaken', and it was not the physical torture that led him to cry out. He was burdened in a way that we cannot understand. Of course, he saw the fruit of his suffering and was satisfied. When he cried out "It is finished!", he announced the burden was gone (the penalty was paid - the people of God were now free). Then he died. What happened in those 3 hours, in the eternal unity of the Trinity? We cannot know.
Thatβs not what 2 Cor 5:21 means. And no, the relationship within the Trinity did not change in that moment.
I have read (and heard, from some) that certain people consider the 'Cry of Dereliction' to be an admission of failure, or a surrender, by Jesus. I don't know where that comes from - the moment of decision for Christ was the night before, in the Garden. Jesus submitted fully to the Father. The plan would be lived out. There was no "shift" in the world or in the heavens that night, nor the next morning. But when Christ had been beaten and condemned by the authorities and was hoisted up on the cross (hung on a tree), something changed. That is why he quoted Psalm 22:1. That is why it grew dark. The sin was his to bear, now. That is exactly what 2 Cor. 5:21 means. "He made him who knew no sin to be sin [a sin offering] so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." As Isaiah said (in 53:6), 'the Lord laid on him the sins of us all.' In 53:11 it says - "my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins." Is it your view that in this moment in time & space (as Jesus was fully human), that nothing moved in eternity?
Love this. I really like the irony you have highlighted. Great post! I often ponder the idea that the apparent silence of God in Mark is because God is the suffering (and therefore silent) servant.
I have to sigh that the gospel of mark is probably the most underestimated gospelοΌ
And was the first Gospel to be written
But .... there was probably something before that. You can take various Gospel extracts (from several) and piece them together to assemble a very logical sequence.
I already disliked 'In Christ Alone' because of its line 'the wrath of God was satisfied.' Now that I'm a Christus Victor Christian and no longer a penal substitutionary atonement Christian, I viscerally react to that statement. Now I have another reason to put that song on my dislike list and never hear it again.
Thank you. Good thoughts and good scholarship.
Thanks for this!! I already understood the Psalm 22 part but I appreciated your break down. However, what I didn't understand is that Mark was doing irony! How delightful is that! Now I have to reread Mark and right away.
i went and read all of psalm 22 and came back to read this. chills imagining a scene where Jesus on the cross begins by calling out βmy God my God why have you forsaken meβ the crowd, caught off guard begins reciting the psalm quietly? confused? earnestly? and as it goes on their eyes begin to well up with tears, the begin tearing at their clothes, wondering what has been done. and as they come to the final line, they look to the man before them as he finishes the psalm with them βit is finished!β
I like the way you think!
Good post Jason, and I appreciate your courage in publishing it. Your reading is fairly similar to C Baxter Krugerβs: https://youtu.be/7etzeff1aCg?si=CkStBY4J_K3YzkCE
The cross was never about Godβs wrath
For generations, many of us have been taught that the cross was about satisfying an angry God. But what if that framework misses the very heart of the gospel?
In this conversation, C Baxter Kruger and Jason Clarke explore a radically different visionβone where the cross is not about divine punishment, but about the divine descent of the Father, Son, and Spirit into the abyss of our deepest darkness and delusion.
This episode highlights the indivisible oneness of the Trinity, the cry of Psalm 22, and the unwavering trust of Jesus in His Father.
This isnβt just a new perspective.Itβs a complete rethinking of God, the cross, and the eternal dreamβthat you would be fully alive, participating in the very life of the Father, Son, and Spirit.
Hi Barbara
There's only one part of you comment that I would question: " the indivisible oneness of the Trinity, the cry of Psalm 22, and the unwavering trust of Jesus in His Father."
Jesus, in human form, is the only member of the Godhead who has died. The Father and the Spirit, both being spirit and not flesh, cannot experience death.
However, because Jesus only died in His physical form and not in His spirit, in that sense there is no division or separation at any time between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Fair point Trevor.
Hi Jason, good thoughts.
On your note 7 with regards to your thoughts on Jn.19:30 βIt is finished!β and Psa. 22:31 βhe has done it,β it is interesting that Dr. George Lamsa's English Peshitta translation reads like this...
Lamsa online: Mark 15:34 - And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and said, Eli, Eli, Lmana, shabachthani! which means, My God, my God, for this I was kept!
Lamsa's hard copy: Mark 15:34 - And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, Lemana, shabakthani! which means, My God, my God, for this I was spared!
Lamsa online: Matthew 27:46 - And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said, Eli, Eli, lmana shabachthani! which means, My God, my God, for this I was kept!
Lamsa's hard copy: Matthew 27:46 - And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said, Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani! My God, my God, for this I was spared!
(with footnote on 'spared' = 'this was my destiny')
The Peshitta is definitely secondary in that reading, so while itβs interesting to see how some early readers interpreted the passage, it isnβt really relevant to the original reading of the passage.
Correct. :-)
The Hebrew for this verse in Psalm 22 is "Eli, Eli, lema azabtani."
The scrolls used in the religious services were in Hebrew, and if Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 He most likely would have said the above. Note that 'lema' is an interrogative = why, while 'azabtani' = you have forsaken me, and is stated there as the question, "Why have You forsaken me?"
However, if He used the Aramaic expression "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani" there is a minor conundrum. "Lama' makes the phrase a statement rather than a question, definitely in Hebrew, and potentially in Aramaic as well.
"Sabachtani" can mean 'spared' or "sacrificed: in Aramaic, depending on the dialect. Many years ago I saw a Good News Bible in English that was published in the Middle East, where Aramaic is still spoken. They clearly had altered the "translated" part of the verse so that it agreed with what their readers knew of the local language. It read, "For this purpose was I sacrificed," and as a footnote they gave the alternative meaning, "For this purpose was I spared."
Take your pick, but know that:
1. God has no problem "looking on sin" according to Genesis 3;
2. Sin does NOT separate us from God, otherwise there would have been no personal dialogue with Adam and Eve, or Cain, or Moses, or Elijah, and so on. (God does not change, according to both Old and New Testaments)
3. God, that is Father, Son and Holy Spirit have never forsaken and will never forsake anyone.
Thank you Trevor G
I have something to share to add to your comment about Lamsaβs translation; Iβll have to dig on my computer to find where Iβve saved it. Itβs an old yellowed newspaper cutting that i found in a second hard book. As far as I can recall the newspaper article was about Jesus saying βMy God, my God, is this what I have been saved for?β
which strikes a note of astonished joy.
Correct, except it is not a question from Jesus, but a statement. See my response to David Embury above
I have searched everywhere and I canβt find the old newspaper article, but I donβt think it added anything to what others have shared here.
I remain unconvinced. When the psalm says that God answered His prayer to "save my life" (vv. 19-21), it doesn't mean that the answer came while He was yet hanging upon the cross. God answered His prayer - not by delivering Him from the cross and death; not by preventing His enemies from putting Him to death altogether. He did in fact die; God permitted Him to die at the hands of the "dogs, lions, and wild oxen"; and then the answer came subsequent to His death in the form of resurrection. Likewise when the psalm goes on to say that God did not forsake Him (vv. 22-24), it's not in the context of what happened while He was hanging upon the cross, but in the context of what happened after the resurrection that came subsequent to His death: He is portrayed subsequent to His death as celebrating and praising God with His brethren in the assembly. This is post-resurrection: He was not praising God in the midst of the assembly while He was yet hanging upon the cross! Thus, it is "after" He died that God answered the prayer not to forsake Him, and ultimately God did not forsake Him because He did not abandon Him to the realm of the dead (cp. Psa. 16:10 - "You will not forsake my soul to Sheol.") Thus, the prayers for both deliverance from death and not to be forsaken were not answered while He was hanging upon the cross - as if God prevented these things from happening at all; rather, the answer came subsequent to His death and having been forsaken temporarily while upon the cross.
I'm sorry, Doc, with all due respect this seems like philosophical speculation to me. The Psalm clearly says God did not hide His face from the afflicted one. I'm not a Hebrew/Greek scholar so I don't know for sure but the idea that God "has not hidden His face" would seem to apply to the entire ordeal, not just post-death/resurrection. But maybe there is something that I just don't see going on here.
I understand what the psalm clearly says, but any statement in Scripture - no matter how clearly worded - must always be interpreted in light of context. We can make the Bible say anything we want if we ignore context. So please tell me: what is the context of vv. 22-24? Is the context that of the cross, or is the context post-resurrection?
Also, I would simply ask: when He prays "Save my life," (v. 19), and then we are told, "You answered me" (v. 21), what does it mean when it says that God answered the prayer to save His life? Precisely how and when did God answer that prayer to save His life?
These are two questions I'm seriously asking you to answer: what is the context of vv. 22-24, and how and when did God answer the prayer to save His life?
When: immediately, on the cross.
How: via resurrection
You know Jesus was not resurrected on the cross, correct? So the answer did not come immediately, but 3 days later. It seems to me that amounts to a small moment of being forsaken. "In a small moment I have forsaken you, And in great mercies I will bring you back." Isaiah 54:7
Like Jason said: When? Immediately, on the cross. How? Through the resurrection. I think Psalm 22 makes that distinction for us. God hears Jesus' cry and does not hide His face during the suffering (v24). Then God delivers through vindication, via resurrection.
Doc, I think your view collapses those two things into one moment and requires temporary abandonment. But the Psalm explicitly says the opposite - that the afflicted one suffers fully, to the point of death (v15), and yet is not forsaken in that suffering.
I appreciate your insightful remarks. Here, you have moved the discussion beyond the explicit data and exegesis of the text of Psalm 22 to broader theological data. It seems to me that there are two key theological issues that enter the discussion:
(1) There is the issue of what penalty Christ had to take upon Himself to pay for our sin. The wages of sin is death: not just physical death, but spiritual death. Adam died the day he ate the fruit, and that death was spiritual in nature. Spiritual death involves alienation from God (Isa. 59:2). How then can we say that Christ paid in full for our sin on the cross if He suffered only physical death, but not alienation from God? If the price I am to pay for my sin involves both physical death and alienation from God, and yet Christ took the penalty for my sin upon Himself, then correspondingly He must have suffered both physical death and alienation from the Father. I donβt see how a solely physical death is sufficient to pay the price. Thus, I would argue that Christ did not merely βfeelβ forsaken by God anymore than a sinner merely βfeelsβ alienated from God. If the sinner is in fact alienated from God (regardless of what he feels), then Jesus in fact took that alienation upon Himself. In other words, the sinnerβs penalty for sin is not a subjective experience; it is an objective reality. I would think, therefore, that Christ could not merely subjectively experience the feeling of abandonment; rather, for the justice of God to be satisfied at the cross, there had to be the objective reality of alienation.
(2) There is the issue that you raised regarding the trinity. The weakness I see in this argument is that it presupposes an understanding of the trinity. To be honest, I donβt think that any of us really understands it. We know and affirm the facts and the data: three persons in one God. Iβm not sure that we can really grasp and process those facts. To argue that the Fatherβs abandonment of the Son would violate the unity of the Godhead appears to claim more than we can really know. Cults argue against the trinity precisely because they believe that it is impossible for God to speak with God, and yet there be only one God. Yet, in the Bible God speaks to God all the time, in both the OT and NT. If we focus too much on the separateness of the persons, we avoid the error of modalism, but delve into other heresy. If we focus too much on the oneness of God, we can become modalists. In this case, I think the argument leans too heavily upon the unity of God; if God can talk to God, then perhaps God can be alienated from God. Of course, the alienation of which we speak is relational: not ontological. It seems to me that if God can choose to talk to God, then itβs equally possible that God can choose βnotβ to talk to God: thatβs a relational concept.
βThe wages of sin is death: not just physical death, but spiritual death.β
Paul says death, not spiritual death. The question at death is then whether the person has the spirit of life to live after death.
" Into Your hand I commit my spirit, || You have redeemed me, YHWH God of truth."Psa 31:5 "And Jesus having again cried with a great voice, yielded the spirit...". So it must be that at death Jesus was separated from the spirit of life. But God redeems Him from the dead by sending the Spirit to raise Him back to life. Rom 8:11 "The Spirit of God, who raised Jesus from the dead..."
There is no such thing as "spiritual death."
Spirit is eternal, which is why the enemy spirits will be locked up by fire.
And that is also why Jesus did not attempt to "destroy" the evil spirits that He removed from people.
Only His physical body died, and in the spirit, with His soul intact as well, He "preached to the spirits in prison," according to 1 Peter 3:19.
Since spirit is eternal and cannot die, He had to come as a human and shed His blood, since "a spirit has not flesh and bones."
Because only his physical body died He was never separated from the Father or the Spirit, who are totally spirit.
I don't see anything in the comments that addresses the one big problem I see with God turning His face away from Jesus, and that is this: If God turns His face away from the Son due to the sin Jesus bore, wouldn't this mean that the Father is "separated" from the Son, therefore crating a "fracture" of the Trinity? And if the Trinity is fractured, then wouldn't this mean that God ceases to be God, if even for a moment?
I think itβs usually said that the suffering/separation happens βin the human natureβ whereas βin the Divine natureβ there is no separation. Of course, that raises other questions, but the hypostatic union of truly human - truly divine is difficult for us to conceptualise.
Yes, that's often said. But Christ's human and divine natures were not thus separable, and there's still no defensible argument from scripture for there being any such separation in the first place.
Thatβs very much up for debate.
The problem is that Scripture doesnβt explain exactly how βthe Word became fleshβ so any explanation, including asserting that there is no division, is an attempt at understanding what the incarnation means.
By saying that Christ is βvere deus, vere homoβ one has to try to explain how he can be truly human and truly divine.
The credal formation and saying things like βChrist suffers in the human natureβ does not necessarily mean that youβre saying that there are completely separate natures.
Itβs simply an attempt to explain something thatβs very difficult to explain.
The fact that we have everything from Nestoriusβ to Apollinariasβ views goes to show that itβs difficult.
Keep up the excellent work! This is exactly what the western Church needs today - learning how to properly understand and interpret Scripture through the proper lens and framework.
I agree! It's rather refreshing, isn't it?
Very interesting interpretation, Jason!
'OT in the NT' was one of my favorite Bible college courses.
I'm curious how you would translate the NT Greek texts (Mark 15:34 & Matt 27:46)?
Also, I take issue with your "victory" = "the cross".
Didn't see any proof for DEATH being a victory in Psalm 22, but that's another subject.
Iβm fine with the traditional translations of Mark 15:34 and Matt 27:46.
Iβm not the one who equated victory and the cross. It was Jesus who did that, and both Mark and John emphasize this point. E.g., βIf I be lifted upβ and Markβs identification of the passion and cross as the moment of Jesusβ enthronement and exaltation. Thatβs very clearly the moment of victory in the Gospel of Mark; in keeping with Markβs upside-down irony throughout, the cross the moment the Kingdom has come in power. Thatβs also why Mark doesnβt really need to dwell on the resurrection. The victory had already been won; Christ had already been exalted. John understands this, which is why Jesus finally drinks something on the cross in John despite saying he wouldnβt taste the fruit of the vine until the kingdom.
Hmm...if you're fine w/the traditional translations ("why have you forsaken me"), then why did you say they are incorrect, or misinterpreted?
Also, I want you to know that I do not subscribe to the THEOLOGY that's been peddled about all of this, so that's not at issue w/me. What is at issue is getting the true sense of what the Gospels (and Jesus) were communicating, and I don't think you did. For example you say:
"Jesus is consistently speaking on a heavenly, eternal level. A few examples:
Jesus: βBeware the leaven of the Pharisees.β Disciples: βAnd they began to discuss with one another that they had no bread.β (Mark 8:15β16)"
Clearly that's not spoken "on a heavenly level". Instead, Jesus was warning his disciples to be cautious when dealing with the bureaucrats of 2nd Temple Israel b/c they were INTERPRETING THE LAW with their own perverted agendas woven into it, and if the disciples said something that was considered illegal, they would get into BIG TROUBLE "with the law". It was a warning to them to 'vet' the Pharisees' legal reasoning and halakha but not get into it with them. Once again, this is a GOVERNMENTAL/LEGAL matter, not RELIGIOUS/THEOLOGICAL. There's plenty of evidence in the gospels proving what I just said. Just search on "test" to see some of them.
And the bit about Jesus being taken into custody and his followers not understanding or not wanting to accept his warning was not a 'heavenly" message. It was a statement of reality. He KNEW that the public officials wanted to arrest him. But he got the heads-up from YHWH when it was gonna happen. Unfortunately the brainwashed 'Jews' (his disciples) were thinking KINGDOM, Jesus is gonna LIBERATE US. The point isn't 'heavenly' vs. 'earthly'. Instead, the point is YHWH's AGENDA vs. PATRIOTISM + PERSONAL SELFISHNESS. IOW, Jesus' followers were not in the same headspace as he was. He was working towards YHWH's REDEMPTION, whereas they were thinking in terms of saving Israel from Rome and the evil rulers in their own government, and then RULING OVER THEM ALL under Jesus' authority. It's obvious what was going on there. It was POLITICAL, not RELIGIOUS.
Anyway, all of this, including Psalm 22, had to do with POLITICS not RELIGION. You appear to not be looking at the bigger picture in your interpretations. And you appear to be only looking at your literary 'methods' almost exclusively, albeit in terms of RELIGION/THEOLOGY instead of REALITY. As long as you do that, you will continue to misinterpret the Bible to suit your own agenda and not the NT authors'.
Incidentally, the rest of the NT plainly tells us WHEN Jesus got "exalted". It was when he became "seated at the right hand of God". "The right hand" is a well known phrase indicating a position of law enforcement power. Getting strung up by the government is far from 'being exalted'. It's actually the opposite. The NT tells us that Jesus got exalted AFTER his resurrection, and AFTER his 40 day appearance just AFTER he "ascended into heaven". At least that's what I read in the NT. Correct me if you think I'm wrong.
So I do not see Mark as telling us that Jesus's death was his victory. And I seriously doubt that David would agree that DYING = VICTORY. Instead, the opposite is true. Finding oneself ALIVE after being pursued in battle by an enemy = victory. Isn't that what the resurrection proved? Wasn't Jesus' resurrection YHWH's way of VINDICATING Jesus? That's what I read in Paul's statement at the end of 1 Corinthians 15. Do you agree?
I hope Jason will reply because you have made some good points. I for one, agree with you that the resurrection is the actual victory but the cross is the merit for Jesus deserving the place at the right hand of God. So is Jesus is already crowned King on the cross even if not yet ascended in power, as time is not a constraint with God. This is ironic and I think that's what Jason is trying to say is the recurring theme of Mark.
Thanks for your comments, Sorin. I'm glad to see you agree with me. I'm merely reciting what I find in the NT, not offering a CONTRIVED OPINION.
I do not see Mark as considering Jesus to have become king "on the cross". Not only is that absurd, but it contradicts the rest of the NT. Moreover, IF Mark (presumably the Apostle Peter's ideas that Mark recorded) saw any kind of 'victory' in Jesus' death, it would be a different kind of victory. Instead of a KINGSHIP (under the New Covenant = "inheritance"), it would more likely refer to A COMPLETION OF DUTY, as is required under the MOSAIC covenant (Commandments 1 + 2 = allegiance + obedience to YHWH).
So, from a GOVERNMENT/LEGAL perspective, Jesus fulfilled his covenant obligations, that is, under the MOSAIC covenant, not the NEW covenant. It's the NEW covenant that 'granted the kingship' to Jesus, not under the OLD covenant. And for his REWARD, he "received a kingdom" from YHWH as a GIFT under the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant promise, known as the New Covenant.
All of this is found in the NT (and OT). I'm not making any of this up in my own mind. I'm just looking at the bare textual and historical facts in terms of the legalities and realities of the covenants.
guess: mark = marcus antonius aka marc antony, who apparently condemned the senate after they killed julius gaius caesar on the senate floor. that would make jesusβ stripes be a reference to the stab wounds that caesar recieved.
moses = minos of crete merged with the muses of the mountain, of which there are nine rather than ten
caanan = greece, who were the aggressors against egypt, not enslaved by egypt. greece tried to impose monotheism using ra. after they left during the minoan period, egypt was free to return to polytheistic akhenaten worship.
guess: abrahamic = augustine policies from the agustuses
I think your perspective is absolutely correct that Jesus on the cross is only the suffering servant fulfilling the covenant Israel committed to. The resurrection and ascension into the cloud is the actual enthronement, not the cross. But I think there is something to the irony that the way the story is told as if the characters of the trial and crucifixion are mocking a king's inauguration, complete with royal robe, crown of thorns, elevated platform of the cross "And the charge inscribed against Him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS." This is in jest but it is actually dress-rehearsing the actual picture of the cloud rider given the throne.
Thanks for your comments. Could be true, not sure, b/c I haven't looked into it, and my memory isn't what it used to be. My method of looking at the 'dress rehearsal' and 'mocking' would be to see if I can find OT texts that validate the the event. If so, then I would take those texts in their OT native contexts and see how they compare with the NT text. Then if there are correlations, I would 'do the math' by importing into the NT text the context of each of the quotes to see what point the NT writer possibly wanted to make. Jason tried to do that with Psalm 22. He did OK up to a point, but then he went off the rails. So that's how I would deal with it, but don't have time just now to do it. Maybe you can do that research and report back?
Jesus said in John that his time was coming when he would be glorified, that is in his being lifted up on the cross. If the cross is not a victory then it must be a defeat, the antithesis of our understanding of what was achieved by Christ in his death. Our faith is built on the prophets and apostles, and Christ being the cornerstone. Paul clearly articulates the victory achieved by a Jesus on the cross. βHe blotted out the handwriting that was against us, opposing us with its legal demands. He took it right out of the way, by nailing it to the cross. He stripped the rulers and authorities of their armor, and displayed them contemptuously to public view, celebrating his triumph over them in him.β
ββColossiansβ¬ β2β¬:β14β¬-β15β¬ βNTFEβ¬β¬ The resurrection/ascension vindicated that victorious death.
Yes, you could say it like that in religious terminology. But I prefer to stick to the history and context. If you want to see the historical financial background to the Colossians text that you quoted, you can read my blog on it here:
https://b2bbiblereading.wordpress.com/2021/05/06/certificate-of-debt/
Paul makes his point in a way that upper society business persons could easily understand. I doubt 1 in a million 'Christians' today have any clue what Paul was talking about. Therefore, they will not be able to 'appreciate' his point, which leads to generalizing what he meant, as you did in your comment. No offense intended.
Do you have an opinion on whether, when someone quotes/reads scripture in the Gospels, we're supposed to understand only the quoted section or a whole passage? One example would the Psalm you discuss here, and another might be when Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah in Luke 4:18-19. In Luke, it specifically says He closed the scroll, but do you think we are to understand verses 18-19 as a stand-in for a longer portion of Isaiah?
I think in general the context is also in view, so yes, I think those larger parts are usually in view.
Excellent article. I've actually been saying this for years. It's so difficult to get people to listen sometimes.
Another thought on the "sacrifice" - in Revelation 5:9-10, the 4 living creatures and the 24 elders sing this new song: "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God, from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." Aren't sacrifices forsaken? Obviously Jesus did not stay forsaken - but that verse means something more than just that he felt alone.
Most sacrifices were eaten, not forsaken.