Today we take a break from the historical Jesus and focus just on the
Gospel narratives for a Passion Week-themed entry on the Jesus Blog. In Mark 15:34 and Matt 27:46, the Gospel narratives
portray Jesus as yelling from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?" I wrote my MA thesis
on this verse in Mark many moons ago and have always found it interesting. In my experience, preachers love to preach
this verse because it makes for good pulpit drama, God abandoning his own son
and whatnot. I also think people tend to
read Paul's statement that "God made him who knew no sin to be sin"
(2 Cor 5:21) onto the Gospels here and say, "Ah, see, that's when he did
it." But we can't read Paul onto
Mark or Matthew and the sinlessness of Jesus is not a prominent theme in Mark
and Matthew at all, certainly not like it is for Paul or Hebrews (4:15) or some
of the Johannine literature (Jesus as the "lamb" in the Gospel and
Revelation, or 1 John 3:5) or the church fathers. I'm also not concerned here with the
theological implications of God's potential abandonment of Jesus. There are other blogs dedicated to such
topics.
I'd rather like to ask whether, on the level of the Gospel narrative,
Mark and Matthew actually intend to claim that God did, in fact,
"forsake" Jesus. One can read
the narrative in such a way as to support either claim. For those scholars who see Mark 15:34 as a
divine rejection of Jesus, they think this is the climax of Mark's dark and
somber description of Jesus' demise. Judas
abandons Jesus when he betrays him (Mark 14:10), the disciples fail him in
Gethsemane and abandon him (Mark 14:50), the naked young man abandons him (14:52),
the Jewish leaders reject him in his
trial, Peter denies him (Mark 14:66-72), the priests and crowd reject him in
favor of Barabbas (15:11) and now, God himself abandons Jesus. Jesus thus dies as utterly and totally
abandoned.
For those scholars who see Mark 15:34 as pointing to something more
positive, however, the narrative can be read otherwise and as the climax of
Jesus' distinct commitment to follow God in the midst of others' inability or
unwillingness to follow. Judas betrays
Jesus, but Jesus presses on with the last supper, during which he states again
his knowledge of how this will all end (Mark 14:17-20). The disciples and the naked young man abandon
Jesus in Gethsemane, but in the same location he commits himself all the more
to God's will (Mark 14:36). The Jewish
leaders reject Jesus in his trial, but he affirms his identity as the Son of
Man sitting at the right hand of God (14:62).
Peter denies Jesus, but Jesus fails to deny being the king of the Jews
before Pilate (15:2). (The translation of this verse as "Yes, it is as you
say" or some equivalent is a travesty because it doesn't preserve the
ambiguity of Jesus' answer in the Greek, which is literally "You
say." The point at present is that he doesn't say "no.") In other words, from this perspective, Jesus
becomes more and more committed to following a path he claims is God's will and
foreshadowed in Scripture while others consistently fall off that path.
This brings us back to Mark 15:34, which is the next thing that Jesus
says in Mark's Gospel after he answers Pilate.
As almost all scholars of the Gospels know and many lay readers of the
Gospels do not (though some do), what Jesus says in Mark 15:34//Matt 27:46 is a
verbatim quotation of Psalm 22:1 (Psalm 21 in the LXX). (Check out this
interesting post on the pronunciation of the Aramaic with some observations
about the Greek transliteration.) This
is important because Psalm 22 is a lament psalm where the psalmist concentrates
alternately on either his seeming abandonment by God to his enemies or his
conviction that God can deliver him now in light of his deliverance of other
Israelites in the past. The downswings
focused upon his present circumstances eventually give way to a triumphant
finish to the psalm where the psalmist expresses his conviction that, despite
how things look right now, he will praise the Lord (22:22-23, 25), who has, in
fact, not abandoned him (22:24) and
is working a great deed that will bring about the worship of all the earth
(22:27).
The pertinent question here is whether Mark and Matthew desire us to
read Mark 15:34//Matt 27:46 in light of all of Psalm 22 or just the bleakness
of its opening verse. If the former, the
verse would be the ultimate expression of Jesus' commitment to the
Lord despite the causes for despair that surround him. If the latter, the verse indicates the final abandonment in a series of preceding abandonments.
There has been some considerable debate over whether, for Jews in the
time of Jesus, citation of the first verse of a psalm automatically indicated
the rest of the psalm. We intuitively
know how this works from our own experience.
When I hear "Turn it up..." I automatically grow sideburns, a
Justin Boots hat appears on my head, and a cold MGD appears in my hand. I'm immediately ready to tell everyone that I
hope Neil Young will remember that a southern man don't need him around . . . anyhow. When Anthony Le Donne hears, "Yo fellas,
y'all ready to do this?" his glasses become flip-ups and he's immediately
ready to tell everybody that Motown Philly's back again. And James Crossley is an undefeated pub quiz
champion when it comes to identifying professional wrestlers based on just the
first parts of their entrance music.
He's a particular fan of Steve Austin's shattering glass, which is also
his ringtone.
But was this common practice for first-century Jews? It's clear that this happened sometimes, but
not necessarily every time. So it doesn't
exactly solve the problem for us. I
don't think it needs to, though. I think
that Mark and Matthew do want us to
understand Jesus' citation of Psalm 22:1 in the context of the broader psalm
precisely because they contain several other allusions from the psalm. (I'll focus just on Mark.) The soldiers' casting lots for Jesus'
garments in Mark 15:24 is definitely from Psalm 22:18. The reference to the mockers "wagging
the head" in Mark 15:29 is definitely from Psalm 22:7. The taunt to save in Mark 15:30-31 is
possibly an allusion to Psalm 22:8. The
"despise" or "reproach" of the two co-crucifieds in Mark
15:32 is possibly an allusion to Psalm 22:6.
The confession of a Gentile in Mark 15:39 is possibly an allusion to
God's acknowledgment by Gentiles in Psalm 22:27. The reference to the
"kingdom/dominion" in Mark 15:43 is possibly an allusion to the
"kingdom/dominion" of the Lord in Psalm 22:28. The crucifixion of Jesus in general is possibly an allusion to Psalm 22:16. Some of these are more possible than others,
but at least three (Mark 15:24//Psalm 22:18; Mark 15:29//Psalm 22:7; and
Mark 15:34//Psalm 22:1) are certain.
For these reasons, I think it's more likely that the author wants his
audience to understand Jesus' citation of Psalm 22:1 in light of more than just
that verse of the psalm. Let me say it
another way. The author's memory of
Jesus' death has been conflated with Psalm 22 in several places. Thus, when the narrative is read this way, Jesus' statement, far
from communicating God's abandonment, communicates something along the
lines of, "It looks really bad right now. It looks like I've been abandoned. It looks like my enemies have won. But in reality this is what God's deliverance and establishment of his kingdom look like." In my mind, this makes
more sense of the broader narrative of Mark's Gospel.
If you're interested in reading further on this topic, see Holly J.
Carey's monograph, Jesus' Cry from the
Cross. Finally, I shouldn't pretend
that this ties up every loose end. The
best arguments against this type of reading of Mark 15:34 and Matt 27:46 are
that Luke and John both decided not to follow Mark and Matthew. They change Jesus' last words from the cross,
and scholars often think this is because they want to avoid such a negative
portrayal of Jesus, which would reveal that they did indeed think of Mark's and
Matthew's endings as negative. Of
course, this really reveals only how Luke and John read Mark and Matthew, not
necessarily what Mark and Matthew intended.
Further, it might be the case that Luke and John agreed about Psalm 22
(they repeat some of the allusions) but simply wanted to avoid any chance of
misinterpretation. Every once in a while you'll run across statements in the literature saying that those who take the perspective I have here simply don't want to face the possibility that the authors think Jesus was abandoned. Although that might be true for some, it's certainly not true for all of us. Regardless, we rarely
get entirely tied up loose ends anyway.
As it stands, though, I think there's much reason to read Mark's and Matthew's portrayals of Jesus' seeming
abandonment by God as just that . . . seeming. Thoughts?
Well written.. The things that are seen (abandonment, enemies won) are temporal.. The things that are unseen (salvation, deliverance) are eternal. 1 Cor 4 .. Chris, I am not as studied as I once was... And I am shootin from the hip here, I am not able to dig up scripture before work.. But I always felt like Jesus was sent down as a man so that we could all relate to his example. His exclamation for me illustrated how deep the sacrifice was bounding His tie to humanity even further. Sorry, not very academic , more a hunch. :-) I enjoy your posts. Much love brother.
ReplyDeleteTwo negative considerstions. First he just does not say more. Filling in is projection.
ReplyDeleteSecond, if this is intended to invoke the whole Psalm, this supports the contention that there was no Jesus. Since he is just a rewrite of the OT.
The text at best equivocates between a negative Roman opinion of Jesus and a positive one.
Looks like we are offered two choices. The text is deliberately indeterminate at best.
Anonymous, let me see if I can herd these cats. In your first comment, I assume you mean Jesus by "he." But I wasn't writing about Jesus. I was writing about the authors of Mark and Matthew, who do say more (see the allusions). On your second point, I can't see how invocation of the psalm leads to Jesus' non-existence at all. Does any singer's sampling of a previous song indicate that that singer doesn't exist? Does an author's citation of a previous author indicate that he or she doesn't exist? Does your reference to my blog post indicate that you don't exist? I agree with your third point, I think. The text is trying to navigate how this appeared from multiple perspectives, including, in my opinion, how it appeared to the disciples from a pre-Easter perspective versus a post-Easter perspective.
DeleteVery extensive borrowing might do that.
DeleteSo then why not add from Zek., or the command to pierce thru the false prophet?
The text remains equivocal. Even after an equivocal resurrection too, literal or spiritual, immediate or eventual.
Missing in your list is the crucial 22.24?
DeleteFor Ps 22:24, do you mean that Mark 15:37 could be an allusion to it? Yes, that's another possible allusion. What do you mean by, "Very extensive borrowing might do that"? You mean it might indicate, as you said above, that there was no historical Jesus? No, no it doesn't come close to indicating that.
DeleteVERY extensive borrowing would suggest a wholly derivative character.
DeleteLooking then for still more parallels, look at Zech. 13.1-7. Which by the way, would not offer the more positive post Easter reading.
Anonymous:
DeleteRegarding the quotation of Scripture and the question of historicity, I would recommend reading Mark Goodacre's "Scripturalization in Mark's Crucifixion Narrative" (http://markgoodacre.org/Markcrucif.pdf). You'll notice that Goodacre quotes a few people pretty extensively, but I hope that you'll have no problem believing John Dominic Crossan, one of Goodacre's interlocutors, does indeed exist.
Would you classify Jesus as sinless even if Paul/John emphasized it?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand the question. Paul and the author(s) of the Johannine corpus *do* emphasize Jesus' sinlessness.
DeleteWould Jesus have known Psalm 22:16 as, "They have pierced my hands and feet, " or "Like a lion my hands and feet"?
ReplyDeleteBilbo, I have no idea how we would know one way or another.
DeleteGood blog post, by the way.
DeleteGreat information Chris. First let me confess that I make no claims of being a a theologian. However it has been my understanding that God did forsake Jesus on the cross. (Or seems to have). A person who dies in their sin is sent to hell ( a separation from God) so it would seem to me that Jesus would have to feel the full impact of a separation to be our ultimate redeemer. The Apostle's creed makes mention that Jesus descended into Hell. One issue that comes up though is how exactly does one person of the trinity separate himself from the other two?
ReplyDeleteHowever I also think there are some things we won't ever fully understand in this world.
Thank you again for the well written post.
Jon, thanks for these thoughts and thanks for reading the blog. As you'll note in my post, I was restricting myself to what Mark's Gospel and Matthew's Gospel themselves tell us, rather than reading theological categories from elsewhere into those texts. So on that level, I have to say that most of what you have raised simply is not in the texts of the Gospels. Those ideas emerge later in Christianity and in other texts.
DeleteI actually felt my comment went beyond the intent of your post - Thank you for your response.
DeleteI would also add that I feel that even though Matthew and Mark only quoted verse 1 that all of Psalm 22 would apply
DeleteDr. Keith, thanks for this!
ReplyDeleteI wonder what implications Brueggemann's work on Psalms might have for our reading of Mark's usage of Psalm 22 (Spirituality of the Psalms and its mother text, The Message of the Psalms). I don't have the material on hand at the moment, but if my memory serves me Brueggemann considers 22 a kind of psalm of disorientation, not a narrow category per se, but rather a broad framework through which to understand many of them. If I'm representing him correctly, we can view these kinds of psalms as conveying very real and raw abandonment as opposed to merely 'seeming' abandonment. He reads the psalm's positive conclusion to be something that has taken place after the disillusionment of the heart of the psalm has been experienced, and not something that does away with that despair/abandonment but rather represents God's having heard and come back to the psalmist after change has occurred. Brueggemann also considers how certain psalms might have been used liturgically or ritually in this way. Anyway, the implications of this are interesting in that such a reading of the psalm, if indeed it could have been viewed that way in Mark's context, still allows for real, complete abandonment and a negative reading of Mark's use of 22:1 even with the rest of the psalm's content/context being applied. What do you think?
Damon, thanks so much for these thoughts. Very interesting. I don't think there's any doubt that these psalms were used liturgically in this way, and there's also no reason that one couldn't read the Gospel narratives as indicating that Jesus was genuinely in despair. My own question isn't about Jesus' interiority, even according to the Gospel authors, but about the authors' convictions about what was going on. For me, though, reading it in terms of its broader context makes the argument for "complete abandonment" unconvincing. I also just don't think that Mark's Gospel is as dark as some others do.
DeleteDamon, to say it another way, however one reads the psalmist's sense of abandonment in Psalm 22:1, one must similarly read the psalmist's convictions of non-abandonment in Psalm 22:24.
DeleteOne more point to consider, perhaps along the lines that Damon indicates: I would think that emphasizing the silver lining at the end of Ps 22 is something close to a misuse of the psalm. The flicker of hope that the end of the lament doesn't trump the lament. In other words I don't read Ps 22 in a teleological way. Moreover, given Mark's ambiguous ending, I'm not sure that we can judge whether or not the passion narrative is best read this way either. Finally, Stephen Barton has made a compelling case that Mark's God is more hidden than revealed. I think that most natural reading of Mark's passion illustrates this point.
ReplyDelete-anthony
Relating to that, if we read Mark as relating to Ps. 22, then both texts to the highly parallel Zech. 13.1-7, most cause for the optimistic reading of Mark, and of Jesus in general, begins to shrink.
DeleteAnthony, a few things.... First, it's not a "silver lining" or a "flicker of hope" at the end of the psalm; it's the better part of the entire second half of the psalm. Second, I'm not sure how in the world it could be a "misuse" of the psalm to cite the rest of it when the authors are as well. The end doesn't trump the lament (and I never claimed that it did), but the lament doesn't make the end magically go away either. Third, Mark's ending is ambiguous about the proclamation of the Gospel, not Jesus. The tomb is empty even in Mark. Fourth, I'm not sure what God being hidden or revealed has to do with it. Fifth, I think the most natural reading of Mark's passion is the one that recognizes that there's more of Psalm 22 there than just 22:1.
DeleteAll good points. Especially related to the empty tomb. I'm happy to concede my point about ambiguity at the end of Mark. I will stick with my impression that it is the lament of the psalm (and not the peppy conclusion) that infuses Mark's narrative with meaning. As much as I might like an "always look on the bright side of life" ending, this is not what I hear in the parts of Ps 22 that are explicit in Mark. - I think that God's hiddenness is quite important for my case and I will have to revisit this topic to better clarify what I mean. Perhaps in another post.
Delete-anthony
Sounds good.
DeleteThe text therefore remains equivocal at best. At its most positive, we are offered hope and promises, not an account of actually accomplished deeds.
ReplyDeleteTo this day, the world is still waiting to get "full"y, in a second coming, all that was promised soon, 2,000 years ago. Which is not entirely positive.
What is offered are promises, promises. But not accomplishments. Leaving the lamentation ascendant.
Anonymous, I have no idea what you're talking about. What does any of this have to do with the Second Coming?
DeleteKingdom now, vs. later.
DeleteIn ps. 22 and in the NT, many promises of an ideal kingdom, etc., are made. But
many prophesies, promises, seemed slow in realization. To some, the bigger promises seemed false therefore.
Some later suggested the first coming of Jesus finally fufilled all promises. Or that any unfulfilled, would need another day, a second coming,a day of the Lord, to accomplish.
In the meantime. many promises seem rhetorical.
Anonymous, you're speaking in very vague generalizations. But thanks for contributing.
DeleteThanks for the responses! What strikes me about the abandonment aspect of the psalm is that it is meant to stand on its own even apart from the praise it offers afterward. Again, if I'm reading WB correctly, the author of a lament psalm isn't worried about the lament having to 'answer for' the end or vice versa. It's rather a both-and situation where both aspects are aspects of relationship with God. I can't argue the gospel side of things, especially concerning the author's intended claims; however, after grappling with Brueggemann's concept, it's difficult for me to accept the wholly positive understanding of 'forsakenness.'
ReplyDeleteThanks again!
Thanks, Damon! I haven't ever said that one has to read the Markan and Matthean passion narratives as "wholly positive," including the citation of Ps 22:1. I've said only that there is likely more to the story than just the despair of the first verse. In other words, I never said we should remove that sense of despair altogether. As to the psalm itself, I think you need to decide whether you do think the lament is "meant to stand on its own" or whether it is "a both-and situation." I would say the latter. How do we know that it's meant to stand on its own when the psalmist obviously held the two sections together? Brueggemann I so great, but he can't make the second half of the psalm disappear. I think, though, that what you mean is that the reader isn't supposed to allow the praise of the second half to dull the lament of the first half. I would agree with that, and haven't said otherwise.
DeleteThe praise ending in effect asserts the full triumph of God over all. But that is not yet realized in a world that includes evil, and so forth.
DeleteSo the praise section makes unsubstantiated assertions. And sounds a bit blustering, or shrill. It is therefore not as positive as it first seemed. Indeed, after the lament, it appears as a too-obviously pious non sequitur.
Anonymous, I think you're assuming that whatever you count as God's victory is definitely what the psalmist counted as God's victory, which is egocentric and very unlikely. The OT and NT have varied assumptions about the relationship between God's victory (now or later) and the existence of evil. There's not a single conception of it.
DeleteDr. Keith, I realize that my words 'stand on its own' were likely a poor choice. I'm fairly sure we're on the same page about it. Let me try to clarify my words. By 'stand on its own,' I'm not saying that the ending has cancelled out the lament. I was trying to communicate in that phrase that even in light of the ending, the lament carries much weight for the whole. I think we agree on that but my phrasing there was admittedly careless. I've enjoyed this post! Thanks.
DeleteAnd I've enjoyed the dialogue, Damon. It's great to hear from you and I hope all is well.
DeleteI think that if these considerations only concern Mark and Matthew perspectives (instead of that of historical Jesus), then I guess we can all agree on the fact that both evangelists believed in Jesus' resurrection and their gospel accounts are influenced by their respective post-resurrection theology/christology (otherwise they wouldn't have probably written any gospel and their christians communities wouldn't have existed). Under this assumption, it seems easy to postulate that they are following Isaiah. When it comes to historical Jesus, assuming he really spoke those words, I guess we'd need superpowers to know what he really thought..
ReplyDeleteEven that might not help, Lollo! :)
DeleteYeah, I wrote Isaiah while I meant Psalm 22. Not bad, I think I'm still far from showing any superpower :)
DeleteChris, I really enjoyed this post. It was good to see you engage in such extensive exegetical work while focusing on Mark and Matthew as autonomous texts in their own right. Many (even within our field) often fail to approach the texts in such a careful way. I also thought you made some compelling points that made me rethink Mark's take on this. Again, good post.
ReplyDeleteThat's high praise coming from you, my friend. Thanks.
DeleteI worry that too much alleged autonomy - and/or a slight but selective admission of external evidence - however, often "frames" a situation to achieve a desired result.
DeleteLeaving out evidence is a way to prejudice the result. To be sure, I can see the justice of including Ps. 22.1 ff in a focus "just" on Mark, say. But if we are going to bend the rules, even an iota, then....
Though finally I would agree with anyone who suggests that apparently, Mark in "itself," insofar as we can even think of it in isolation and apart from our other conceptualizing frames, is surprisingly equivocal regarding many key aspects of Christianity.
Anonymous, what evidence have I left out? As to the focus on Mark and Matthew, those are the only two Gospels that have that quotation, which should have been relatively obvious from the post.
DeleteWhen Jesus prayed in the garden he differentiated between his will and God's. This seems to mean that while he understood a relationship between himself and God that was different he did not see the two as identical. This cry from the cross could be because at that point Jesus could not find God because he was still looking for the God he prayed to but was now fully realising an identification with God that we call trinity.
ReplyDeleteRoselyn, thanks for your comment, but what you're suggesting here is basically exactly what I was arguing against. Also, the text never says that Jesus "could not find" God. The Trinity is nowhere in Mark's Gospel, and if it's anywhere in Matthew, it's only possibly in the Great Commission where the Father, Son, and Spirit share the same "name." Even that is not necessarily clear cut. The concept of the Trinity comes fully much later in Christianity.
DeleteRoselyn, I understand where you are going, but Christ never wavered from his commitment to do the Father's will. In Luke 22:42 (and I realize we are not speaking of Luke here) Jesus prays, "Saying: Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done." Jesus' fully human nature (in contrast to his fully divine nature) did not want to suffer and die, but overriding that agony of anticipation in the garden was his commitment to the will of his Father.
DeleteSt. Paul began a letter with "May the grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all," the words that begin our Catholic Mass today, but I think the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully developed until the third century by Tertullian.
As a pious Jew of the first century, I do think Jesus would have been very familiar with the psalms.
Either Jesus didn't mean what he is reported as saying (possible, see rest of the psalm) or he did. If he felt abandoned by God, either he was abandoned (unlikely given the rest of scripture) or he felt abandoned. When a person feels abandoned but has not been (eg lost child in a shop) it is because they are out of touch with the other (eg parent). One reason Jesus could feel out of touch with the parent is that he Jesus was no longer separated from the Father but was one with him as he had not been while he was carrying out his earthly ministry. (true we didn't call this trinity for quite a while but that was because our understanding changed not because the relationship of Father Son and Holy Spirit changed).
ReplyDeleteRoselyn, Jesus was never separated from the Father or from the Holy Spirit. Jesus had said, "The Father and I are One." If you read the Gospel of John, he begins by saying "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." God did not stop being God because "the Word became flesh." God cannot be separated from himself, nor are there "parts" of God. God cannot have "parts." God is utterly simple; he is not complex.
DeleteTo get back to the blog author's question, no, I don't feel Mark or Matthew felt God had abandoned Jesus. I believe, given their audience and their sufferings for the faith, they were just highlighting Jesus' suffering. Being Jews, they would have been fully conversant with the Hebrew Scriptures.
Gabrielle, thanks for your contributions on this post. While I agree that we do not have enough evidence in the text to conclude that the authors of the Gospels think God separated himself from Jesus, we have to admit that there's also not enough to conclude that this definitely did not happen. The texts simply do not tell us what they think is going on with the interiority of Jesus or God, and the texts demand that we not view them as one and the same. As mentioned already, I don't think its appropriate to read the Trinity onto these texts in this way. It's also not appropriate to import GJohn to explain something in Mark or Matthew. We must respect them as independent authors.
DeleteYou're welcome. I love discussions like these, doesn't matter if I turn out to be right or wrong as long as I learn. (I'm a post-grad theology student, love to learn.)
DeleteI agree, the Trinity has no place in any answer to your question, and I do realize the Trinity was a much later development. When I said I didn't think Mark thought Jesus was actually abandoned by God, I was thinking of the Jewish term for "hell," i.e., sheol. Those who did not die in God's friendship went to hades, those who did die in his friendship went to "Abraham's bosom." The Creed does say, "He (Jesus) descended into hell," but I think sheol is the proper interpretation for the word, and I think Jesus would have descended to "Abraham's bosom," i.e. been saved from separation from God, or what most people simply refer to as hell. However, I believe it is possible that the Father did desert Christ for a time. This is the only "saying" of Jesus from the Cross that appears in more than one Gospel, but Matthew probably did use Mark as one of his sources, so that has to be taken into consideration.
I don't think we can answer the question with certainty. My gut feeling is no, God did not desert Jesus, but I cannot prove that or offer any really compelling argument that he did not, and I agree with you that there is not enough evidence to prove that it did not happen. Since Psalm 22 was mentioned, what about Psalm 16:10? "For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption." I feel Jesus did descend to sheol, but not to hades. Being in sheol, in "Abraham's bosom," he would have never been abandoned by God.
A very interesting question and a very interesting conversation. Thank you for making us think.
There is no sin in God, but Jesus is God, and Jesus was made by God to become sin?
ReplyDeleteThe execution of Jesus, an innocent human being, is distressing, but so are the deaths of countless human beings at the hands of other human beings -- as well as at the hands of natural disasters and illnesses. The world is a mixed bag of pleasure and suffering with the latter increasing toward the end.
What gripped me most in the film, The Passion, was the scene in which Jesus' mother watched her son fall while carrying the cross, and she moved forward to try and grab him and comfort him just as she had done when he was a child and she saw him fall and rushed to comfort him. That was love. That scene made my eyes tear up.
The rest of the film I was waiting for the bloody horror to end, since it struck me as a snuff film, a film about an innocent human being ripped apart by wolves. I didn't feel like Jesus was doing that "for me," nor that the shedding of blood was necessary before God could truly forgive anyone. Such beliefs strike me more as sympathetic magic.
Human beings have suffered at each other's hands for as long as human beings have had hands. Throughout history and in fields of human endeavor as diverse as religion, politics, science, art, and education, great minds have suffered at the hands of little minds; great hearts and souls have suffered at the hands of the heartless and the soulless; obstinate hearts, minds and souls have suffered at the hands of equally obstinate hearts, minds and souls. Those inflicting the suffering often thought they were right to do so. And those experiencing it took succor in believing that their faith, or ideas, or actions, were right (even if they weren't).
There's plenty of suffering throughout the world of nature (including plenty of designs in nature that inflict pain and death). Many humans have suffered from horrendous defects/diseases and/or disabilities and disfigurements, and suffered pain and/or rejection from other humans for decades. My heart goes out to them, and to Jesus. But I don't see how Jesus' sufferings are "divine" and "save us."
Thanks, Edward. For the sake of clarity, I never said anything about Jesus' sufferings being "divine" or saving us. The blog post is solely about the Gospel narratives.
DeleteFirst, Mark didn't stand at the foot of the Cross, so I think we have to take what he writes as Jesus' words with a large grain of salt. Second, I think we have to look at Mark's audience and ask: For whom was he writing? Mark's gospel was the first written. He was writing for the first Christians, those who were being martyred for their faith. Mark, I think, wanted them to realize that Christ, in his full humanity (as well as his full divinity) suffered, too. He felt pain, he felt abandoned and hopeless even when he knew he wasn't. God did not abandon Jesus, of course, but I have no doubt that a man being crucified would feel that he had. Mark, I think, needs to be contrasted with John, which was written much later and presents a very high Christology, in contrast with Mark's very low one. I honestly believe Mark put those words into the mouth of Jesus to help his audience understand. He wasn't going to write an explanation of the hypostatic union for people who might not even be able to read and write and didn't want to become theologians. I also honestly believe Jesus FELT abandoned, but KNEW he wasn't.
ReplyDeleteWonderful blog. Thank you for writing it.
I realize I didn't really answer the question! No, I don't think either Mark or Matthew intended to imply that God did forsake Jesus. I feel that both writers were considering their audience, which isn't a bad thing to do, and helping them identify with the humanity of Christ, rather than with his divinity because it was the human nature of Christ the early Christians needed most to experience. These early persecuted Christians needed to know that Christ suffered, too, and sometimes could feel far from the Father.
ReplyDeleteGabrielle.. Whatever you write, I'm going to agree!!!
DeleteThank you, Lollo, I guess! ;) It's nice to know one person isn't going to be fighting against me! Have a blessed Easter.
DeleteIn the garden Jesus prayed to the Father to remove the cup. he thought of his will not being that of the Father at this time. it is far more likely that Jesus changed than God the father changed. The idea that a Father would abandon a Son on the cross is really odd and not supported by the text. We do not hear the Father saying that the son is missing,\, the son feels forsaken.
ReplyDeleteRoselyn, God is unchangeable. His utter simplicity requires unchangeability. It seems to me, and of course I could be wrong, that you are giving God far too many human qualities. God is not a human. God really does not "feel" anything. He is portrayed as vindictive, angry, jealous, etc. in the Hebrew Scriptures because though they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were written by human men. They told their stories as best they could so their readers could understand them. All language, by necessity, about God is analogical. We can know that God exists, but we cannot know what he is, what his substance is. Yes, Jesus asked the Father to remove the cup if it was the Father's will. Jesus was, at all times, fully dedicated to doing the will of his Father, not his own will. Jesus said, "Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done." Jesus has the will of his Father, not his own, uppermost in mind. I appreciate your dialogue, but none of this is what Chris is asking us. He wants to know if the Father truly abandoned the Son as Mark seems to write. I think it's possible since Jesus did descend to hell, i.e. sheol. However, I do not know if those in "Abraham's bosom," i.e. those who would later be saved were separated from God or not. If they were not, then I do not think the Father abandoned Jesus; if they were, then of course, the Father did, by necessity, abandon Jesus. I don't think we will ever be able to definitively answer the question, but I do know that if the Father abandoned Jesus for a time, it was part of the process of salvation, a process for which Jesus freely gave his life. No human could do it because no human can freely give him life. We are going to die no matter what. The Son of God did not have to die; he chose to die. He descended into hell. Was he separated from God at that time? Maybe.
ReplyDeleteGabrielle, I think you've rightly understood my question. I would offer a word of caution to you, though. You are bringing much, much later theology, and theology that is foreign to Mark and Matthew (not all of it, but some of it), to bear upon your answers to Roselyn. You're also confusing some things in the process. For example, the concept of sheol in the Hebrew Bible does not equate to gehenna in the New Testament, which is also not unarguably the same things as tarturos (though tarturos is arguably closer to sheol than gehenna). The point is, these matters are a bit more complex. Similarly, the Gospel narratives themselves simply just do not tell us enough about Jesus' will and God's will to say unequivocally that Jesus was at all times and all places committed unwaveringly to God's will. It just never says that, even if you do take the text as inspired. (I'll add, too, that saying the text is "inspired" also doesn't end anything since that's a notoriously vague category.) I appreciate the enthusiasm and I hope you'll continue to contribute to the blog. We welcome it. But it doesn't help anyone to take complex matters and simplify them too far.
DeleteThe very last line of Matthew has two different readings, and is equivocal.
ReplyDelete"I am with you always, to the close of the age" Mat. 28.20.
Always. Or continually; but only to the end of the age.
Anonymous, I've now started a drinking game for every time that you use the word "equivocal."
DeleteA useful concept, worth drinking to.
Delete:) What a perfect response!
DeleteI do agree the whole of Psalm 22 is being referenced when he spoke the words. At the same time I look at his circumstance and it is difficult to see how he is being cared for by His Father in the hours of his crucifixion. Jesus' care from his Father is being forsaken. Psalm 22 gives answers to the "why" and reflects Jesus' hope; but still, care from his Father is indeed being (temporarily) withheld.
ReplyDeleteartbucher, thanks for your post. Where, though, in the text, is there any mention at all for God's "care" of Jesus?
DeleteThank you for the cautionary note. I realized matters were complex, but did not mean to be simplifying them too much, so appreciate your comment. Also, thank you for the welcome.
ReplyDeleteChris, Where is there any statement in Mark or Matthew that says God forsook Jesus? There is the Ps 22 statement which might mean Jesus felt abandoned but no statement that God forsook him. Where are you getting this idea from except theological theories??
ReplyDeleteRoselyn, in a discussion like this, there is nothing but "theological" theories because one is considering early Christian interpretations. That being said, I never claimed *that* God had forsaken Jesus. The entire post is actually arguing against making that assumption. You might want to re-read it.
DeleteFormal logic notes that if Jesus thought he was abandoned by God,
Delete1) either he was right, he had been abandonef. Or
2) he was wrong in his belief.
But then either Jesus HAD been abandoned.
Or, he was wrong in his belief. But in being wrong, Jesus must have been abandoned by God.
In either conclusion, Jesus HAD been abandoned.
Formal logic notes that we cannot climb inside Jesus' or anyone else's head and determine what they were thinking. We can only work with the text, which is open to more than one interpretation.
DeleteChris, I'm sorry I didn't remember what you said originally. When you did your thesis on this did you discover when or why this reading became interpreted as God abandons Jesus? Was it the result of reformation atonement theories or earlier? Usually God is depicted as unchanging except for some early OT events why change this to make God look bad, I don't get it? Is it just a paper tiger?
ReplyDelete