Forsaken

[VictoryinJesus]

Note the wineprss was trodden "outside the city" too, Revelation 14:20 Lexicon: And the wine press was trodden outside the city, and blood came out from the wine press, up to the horses' bridles, for a distance of two hundred miles. and wow is Strong's useless for this one, yikes. Too, i mean, as that english xlation is crap too. Some even say "1600 stadia?" Lets just make numbers up now lol, 200 miles, tra-la

Hebrews 13:12-14 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. [13] Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. [14] For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Same “outside the city”?

 

[amadeus]

…
Far too often people are blinded by their own hatred to the extent they strike out against Christ believing they are just insulting other Christians. This is a struggle we probably all face to an extent. It is easy to yield to the flesh rather than walk in the Spirit.

Even so like Moses who apparently became so angry on the LORD's behalf that he proceeded to disobey the LORD!

"Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.
And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him
And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?
And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.
And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them" Num 20:8-12

But it is the "likes of us" (Christians like @Steve Owen, and me) that God will use for His kingdom. We do not have to agree on issues, but we need to keep in mind that when we resort to insults we are not only insulting one another. We insult Christ and treat as worthless that blood that purchased our very souls.

 

[Taken]

What does it mean to you that Christ was forsaken?

Hi John ~

A few things first and foremost of Scriptural teaching ~

1) OT God taught men expressly BY His Word.
2) Human men greatly desired to SEE God, while still in their Corrupt Human form.
3) God promised a WAY for a Human mans desire to be accomplished.
4) NT God SENT His Word from Heaven To Earth in the Likeness of a Faithful Human form, WHILE maintaining Gods Express IMAGE.
5) Jesus, Son of God; the Word of God, is manifested and revealed To Human men, as the Image of God in the Likeness as a Faithful Human form.
6) This Jesus, Son of God, IS mankinds EXAMPLE for hearing AND seeing AND testimony what a Converted Human man SHALL expect and experience.

ALSO ~ expressly Scripturally taught;
Human men ARE:
Body, Soul, Spirit.

ALSO ~ expressly Scripturally taught;
God can NOT dwell IN Corruption.

1) NT ~ Human men CAN become spiritually Crucified with Christ. Their BODY Spiritually Dead, cleansed, sanctified, covered, kept...
2) Their Spiritual Life proceeding via, Living IN Christ's risen holy Body.
3) Their soul restored. (Saved)
4) Their own spirit having received Gods Seed, is thus Quickened to everlasting Life. (Born Again).

Still is the matter of the Physical Body.
Still is the Requirement of Gods VOW, to be accomplished...

The LIFE of a human man, God Requires IS the mans LIFE; which IS the mans BLOOD.

Gen 9
[5] And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will Irequire the life of man.

I lean more toward believing...
Jesus OUR Example was Foretelling human men of What WILL HAPPEN, and What EMOTION a human man WILL Momentarily feel and experience.

1) A (converted) human will have a few seconds Before his physical bodily death in consciousness that his BODY is about to become physically DEAD.

2) Gods Spirit leaves the Body...
(Which is at this point I believe...
The forsaken, leaving, abandoning, may be momentarily experienced...since the Body is about to enter into Physical Death (CORRUPTION), which God can Not Dwell IN Corruption)...

Followed by:
3) The restored soul, Leaves the Body.
4) The quickened spirit, Leaves the Body.
5) Physical bodily death.
6) Immediate joining of soul and spirit with God.
7) Dead body corrupts, decays, waits for resurrection.

Why have YOU forsaken "Me" ?
"Me" being exclusive regarding the BODY of a Converted man, when Physical Death of the BODY is inevitable.


Glory to God,
Merry Christmas

Taken

 

[bbyrd009]

Hebrews 13:12-14 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. [13] Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. [14] For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Same “outside the city”?

i would say so, yes

 

[bbyrd009]

but the truth that Jesus did not die for our sins, at least in the way we are taught, and that we are also supposed to renounce a king and leave the camp, is not very comfy for most "believers" i guess. i mean who really leaves the world?

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus "has too pure eyes to behold sin"

ha
Who told you that you were naked?

 

[John Caldwell]

ha
Who told you that you were naked?

For the last time - I was wearing boxers!

 

[VictoryinJesus]

i would say so, yes

but the truth that Jesus did not die for our sins, at least in the way we are taught, and that we are also supposed to renounce a king and leave the camp, is not very comfy for most "believers" i guess. i mean who really leaves the world?

kind of eye opening to all hopefully waiting with great expectation for this great slaughter, blood to the horses bridle...like waiting hopefully still for the slaughter of his blood...and for Pauls ...
Hebrews 13:12-14 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. [13] Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. [14] For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

And for Moses...Hebrews 11:24-28 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; [25] Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; [26] Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. [27] By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. [28] Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

 

[bbyrd009]

kind of eye opening to all hopefully waiting with great expectation for this great slaughter, blood to the horses bridle...like waiting hopefully still for the slaughter of his blood...and for Pauls .

really not too hard to figure out where the desire for a sacrifice is coming from either huh

Christ died for my sins alright; when i killed Him

 

[Steve Owen]

I cannot help who would and would not affirm "me". On this issue, there are many who would yet we do not hold to everything the other affirms (C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, George MacDonald, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Ignatius....to name a few). The point is not affirming my position but explaining what I believe.

Well you are very unwise to take your theology from C.S. Lewis, and even more unwise to do so from N.T. Wright. But I am not accusing these men out of one corner of my mouth of teaching heresy, and then, out of the other corner, saying that they're not heretics. As for Justin Martyr, I claim him firmly for Penal Substitution.

"Why are You so far from helping Me and from the words of my groaning" does make sense. This is the point of the passage. I do not understand why you believe God had to separate from Jesus in order for Jesus to save us. That seems to be a very unbiblical idea, certainly different from traditional Christian belief at least until the Reformation period.

Do not the words 'so far from' conjure up in your mind some sort of distance?
Sin separates from God, who is the fountain of all life. When Adam and Eve fell into sin, they were driven out of the garden (Genesis 3:23-24), out from where God would walk with them. When Cain slew Abel, he went 'out from the presence of the LORD.' When Saul disobeyed God, not only did God's prophet, 'Samuel [go] no more to see Saul until the day of his death' (1 Samuel 15:25), but 'The Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul,' (1 Samuel 16:14) so that he declared, "God has departed from me and does not answer me any more.....' (1 Samuel 27:13). And when Judas agreed to betray our Lord, 'He went out [from the presence of Christ] immediately. And it was night' (John 13:30). Unto the wicked, Christ shall say, "Depart from Me, you cursed....."

We are all sinners, and are therefore by nature, 'Without Christ, being aliens [outsiders] from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world' (Ephesians 2:12-13). Our prospect is to be, 'Punished with everlasting destruction [away] from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power' (1 Thessalonians 1:9). But for those who trust in Him, Christ has taken, not only the punishment, but the separation from God upon Himself. He has taken our place, borne our sins in His own body and has suffered, 'the just for the unjust, to bring us to God.' And this suffering is not only physical but penal; He suffered the separation that was due to us, so that He cried out, "My God, My God! Why have You forsaken Me?"

I am accusing many people whose teachings I admire as holding to a very false doctrine. These include D.A. Carson, Mark Dever, Joel Beeke, John Piper, Timothy Keller...among many others. But I am Baptist, so that may give you a glimpse into my own presuppositions when it comes to "following men" and doctrinal disagreements.

But you will not accuse these men, as you have accused me, of teaching heresy. You will not accuse John Bunyan, C.H. Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Stott and a galaxy of other great men of God of teaching heresy. But you will accuse me. Why is that?

Often, however, the crux is not the philosophies and theory held but how they are held. For example, I believe that John Gill's belief that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are the same is a heresy. I believe it misunderstands the nature of angels and God. But on the same hand, I do not believe John Gill himself a heretic because of how he held this belief.

The word 'heresy' is not something that should be bandied about by someone like you who is not fit to clean the boots of a great champion of orthodoxy like John Gill, who very possibly saved the Baptists and others from turning unitarian en masse in the early 1700s. I would to God we might see his like again in Britain. He is by no means the only person who had that mistaken belief about Michael. The 'angel of the Lord' is at various times described as being the Lord Himself (eg. Judges 6:12-14; 13:21-22).

There is simply NO reason to believe that God separated from Jesus on the Cross. This is true because no verse states that God separated from Jesus (by your own definition "forsake" can mean to "withdraw help"); there are many verses that state God will NOT forsake the righteous, and the dichotomy presented in your theory is absent Scripture.

To withdraw help is to abandon and to abandon is a synonym of to forsake, as I have shown you already. You are scrabbling about making a difference where none exists. Christ was forsaken on the cross. We know because He told us. It is the plain word of Scripture. Why can you not believe it?

Rather than Christ's suffering and death (the blood of Christ) being sufficient to redeem mankind, why do you add this separation?

Because that is what the Bible teaches, and because if Christ has not experienced separation from God on our behalf, you and I are going to experience it ourselves. 'Assuredly I say to you, you will by no means get out of there until you have paid the last penny.' That is something we could never do, but, Praise His Name! Christ has paid the very last penny that we owe for our sins, and part of that is the separation from God that was due to us.

 

[John Caldwell]

Well you are very unwise to take your theology from C.S. Lewis, and even more unwise to do so from N.T. Wright.

I will stop here. You are confused, Steve. I think it is because of my wording. I have not taken my theology from those men any more than you took yours from John Calvin.

My point is that it is that you affirmed my definition of "forsake" is within the range of meaning for the word (God withdrew His help). At the same time you have not offered any passages stating that God separated from Jesus for 3 hours.

 

[Steve Owen]

Steve Chalke is right in that it is against God's nature to punish the righteous in place of the wicked. In fact, Scripture is clear that this is an abomination to God. Also, Scripture is clear that Jesus "has too pure eyes to behold sin" (Jesus cannot condone sin). While the "cosmic child abuse" argument can be easily explained away, the disregard for Scripture cannot.

Steve Chalke is certainly not right, but it is of course true to say that it is against God's nature to punish the righteous in place of the wicked. That is why it was necessary for God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ to come and satisfy His own justice. Nor does the Lord Jesus condone sin in any way, which is why it was so horrific for Him to have our sins laid upon Him and to bear them upon the cross.

Instead of denying these wonderful truths or trying to water them down, you should be on your knees praising the God who went to such lengths to save us.

 

[Steve Owen]

I will stop here. You are confused, Steve. I think it is because of my wording. I have not taken my theology from those men any more than you took yours from John Calvin.

You are entitled to stop at any time you wish, but that does not affect my desire to display the truth; not especially to you, though hope springs eternal, but to any others who may read this thread.

My point is that it is that you affirmed my definition of "forsake" is within the range of meaning for the word (God withdrew His help). At the same time you have not offered any passages stating that God separated from Jesus for 3 hours.

In your fevered imagination you may believe that I have affirmed that 'withdrawing of help' is a suitable translation of enkataleipo, but reality is different. According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, it is only a synonym for 'forsake' when it has the meaning of 'abandon.' I gave you an example of this twice already, but you seem to have missed it. Here it is again:

'Let us suppose for a moment that you were someone's second at a boxing match. Halfway through the match you withdrew your support from him, and went and sat in the seats at the back of the hall. At the end of the bout, he might well come up and say to you, "Why did you abandon me halfway through the match?" He might equally use the word "forsake" because in that context, the two words are synonymous. Would your protestations that you had only 'withdrawn your support' from him cause him to change his accusation of abandonment? I think not!'

Again, if you were a lawyer acting for someone and in the middle of the trial you didn't show up, your client would justly accuse you of abandoning or forsaking him. For you to say that you had 'withdrawn your support' would not alter the fact that you had abandoned him.

Let us now look at enkataleipo; the word translated 'forsake' in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. The other places in the N.T. where this word appears are:
2 Corinthians 4:9. 'Persecuted, but not forsaken.....'
2 Timothy 4:10. 'For Demas has forsaken me.......'
2 Timothy 4:16. '......But all forsook me.'
Hebrews 10:25. 'Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together....'
Hebrews 13:5. '......."I will never leave you nor forsake you.'"
There is one place where enkataleipo is translated as 'leave,' but you will see that the meaning is clearly 'forsake' or 'abandon.'
Acts 2:27. 'For You will not leave my soul in Hades.....'
Now change the word 'forsake' for abandon' and you will see that it works perfectly well. Now try it with 'withdraw support' and you will see that it doesn't work at all in some cases, and only in others when you allow it to be a synonym for 'abandon.'

There is one place where enkataleipo appears at first glance to have a quite different meaning:
Romans 9:29. 'Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left [enkataleipo] us a seed [or 'Seed'] we would have become like Sodom......'
Here, none of the words or expressions we have been using work at all, unless we think of the 'Seed' as being the Lord Jesus Christ, who is described as the 'Seed' of the woman in Genesis 3:15, and is portrayed as the Seed of Abraham in Galatians 3:16.
So I think it is entirely legitimate to translate Romans 9:29 as 'Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had forsaken for us a Seed, we would have become like Sodom......' Unless God had forsaken Christ upon the cross 'to demonstrate His righteousness' (Romans 3:25-26), there would have been no hope for the redemption of mankind. If we don't accept this rendering, we have to explain the strange use of enkataleipo in Romans 9:29.

 

[John Caldwell]

You are entitled to stop at any time you wish, but that does not affect my desire to display the truth; not especially to you, though hope springs eternal, but to any others who may read this thread.

In your fevered imagination you may believe that I have affirmed that 'withdrawing of help' is a suitable translation of enkataleipo, but reality is different. According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, it is only a synonym for 'forsake' when it has the meaning of 'abandon.' I gave you an example of this twice already, but you seem to have missed it. Here it is again:

'Let us suppose for a moment that you were someone's second at a boxing match. Halfway through the match you withdrew your support from him, and went and sat in the seats at the back of the hall. At the end of the bout, he might well come up and say to you, "Why did you abandon me halfway through the match?" He might equally use the word "forsake" because in that context, the two words are synonymous. Would your protestations that you had only 'withdrawn your support' from him cause him to change his accusation of abandonment? I think not!'

Again, if you were a lawyer acting for someone and in the middle of the trial you didn't show up, your client would justly accuse you of abandoning or forsaking him. For you to say that you had 'withdrawn your support' would not alter the fact that you had abandoned him.

Let us now look at enkataleipo; the word translated 'forsake' in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. The other places in the N.T. where this word appears are:
2 Corinthians 4:9. 'Persecuted, but not forsaken.....'
2 Timothy 4:10. 'For Demas has forsaken me.......'
2 Timothy 4:16. '......But all forsook me.'
Hebrews 10:25. 'Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together....'
Hebrews 13:5. '......."I will never leave you nor forsake you.'"
There is one place where enkataleipo is translated as 'leave,' but you will see that the meaning is clearly 'forsake' or 'abandon.'
Acts 2:27. 'For You will not leave my soul in Hades.....'
Now change the word 'forsake' for abandon' and you will see that it works perfectly well. Now try it with 'withdraw support' and you will see that it doesn't work at all in some cases, and only in others when you allow it to be a synonym for 'abandon.'

There is one place where enkataleipo appears at first glance to have a quite different meaning:
Romans 9:29. 'Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left [enkataleipo] us a seed [or 'Seed'] we would have become like Sodom......'
Here, none of the words or expressions we have been using work at all, unless we think of the 'Seed' as being the Lord Jesus Christ, who is described as the 'Seed' of the woman in Genesis 3:15, and is portrayed as the Seed of Abraham in Galatians 3:16.
So I think it is entirely legitimate to translate Romans 9:29 as 'Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had forsaken for us a Seed, we would have become like Sodom......' Unless God had forsaken Christ upon the cross 'to demonstrate His righteousness' (Romans 3:25-26), there would have been no hope for the redemption of mankind. If we don't accept this rendering, we have to explain the strange use of enkataleipo in Romans 9:29.

You misunderstand.

I am not saying you are confused about your view. I am saying you are confused about mine.

The reason I believe this is because you seem to think that I "take my theology" from those who have echoed my belief (like Lewis, Martyr, and Wright). You are wrong on that count. I arrived at my view vis Scripture.

I suspect that you also do not take your theology from men like Calvin, Gill, and Beeke - but arrive at your conclusions vis Scripture as well.

The difference is not Scripture but our understanding of it.

The reason I believe "forsake" means to "withdraw help" in the issue of question is that I believe the context is of God offering His Son as a sacrifice by Christ becoming sin for us (falling under the bondage of the law of sin and death).

You admitted it is a valid definition for the word (you actually provided the definition). But you disagree that it fits the context. I believe it fits the context very well.

I believe your reasoning out of Scripture is flawed and dependent on presupposed theories (to include secular judicial philosophy).

I also believe holding that God separated from Scripture denies the nature of God Himself. It stands in opposition to passages that speak of an immutable and righteous God.

Jesus has too pure eyes to look upon sin. God will never abandon the righteous.

Most importantly, however, is I believe the dualism you offer is false and creates a false dichotomy. Jests Is God.

 

[Steve Owen]

You misunderstand.

I am not saying you are confused about your view. I am saying you are confused about mine.

The reason I believe this is because you seem to think that I "take my theology" from those who have echoed my belief (like Lewis, Martyr, and Wright). You are wrong on that count. I arrived at my view vis [sic]Scripture.

Well Lewis, Martyr and Wright came before you, so I don't think they can have echoed your belief.

I suspect that you also do not take your theology from men like Calvin, Gill, and Beeke - but arrive at your conclusions vis [sic. via?] Scripture as well.

Well we are getting somewhere. Previously you have accused me of following tradition, and more latterly of teaching heresy.

The difference is not Scripture but our understanding of it.

The difference is your reluctance to follow the Scripture where it leads and to compare Scripture with Scripture. Instead, you cling to your beliefs like a baby to its milk bottle. You resolutely refuse to engage with the Scriptural arguments I provide

The reason I believe "forsake" means to "withdraw help" in the issue of question is that I believe the context is of God offering His Son as a sacrifice by Christ becoming sin for us (falling under the bondage of the law of sin and death).

And this, I suppose, is a step forward. You used to deny that Christ was made sin. But we both believe this

You admitted it is a valid definition for the word (you actually provided the definition). But you disagree that it fits the context. I believe it fits the context very well.

Oh Boy! Here we go again! I did nothing of the kind as you know perfectly well. Do you even know how to read a dictionary? Here's the dictionary definitions again:

Abandon. v.t.Give up to another's control or mercy; yield oneself completely to a passion or impulse; give up (possession, habit, game); forsake (person, post, ship).
Forsake. v.t. Give up, break off from, renounce; withdraw one's help, friendship or companionship from, desert, abandon.
First of all, note that 'forsake' is a synonym for 'abandon' and 'abandon' is a synonym for 'forsake.' Now note the semi-colons. There are two meanings given for 'forsake: one is to give up, break off from or renounce. then we have the semi-colon. The second meaning is to withdraw one's help, friendship or companionship from someone, to desert and abandon. But these are synonyms for each other!!! 'Forsake' only means to withdraw one's help when it also means to desert and abandon, as in the examples I showed you. You still obviously haven't read them because you haven't commented on them.

'Let us suppose for a moment that you were someone's second at a boxing match. Halfway through the match you withdrew your support from him, and went and sat in the seats at the back of the hall. At the end of the bout, he might well come up and say to you, "Why did you abandon me halfway through the match?" He might equally use the word "forsake" because in that context, the two words are synonymous. Would your protestations that you had only 'withdrawn your support' from him cause him to change his accusation of abandonment? I think not!'

Again, if you were a lawyer acting for someone and in the middle of the trial you didn't show up, your client would justly accuse you of abandoning or forsaking him. For you to say that you had 'withdrawn your support' would not alter the fact that you had abandoned him.

I note also that you have no comment to make on my word study on enkataleipo. What's the matter? Has the cat got your tongue?

I believe your reasoning out of Scripture is flawed and dependent on presupposed theories (to include secular judicial philosophy).

On the contrary, my reasoning is based on the holiness, justice and righteousness of God as portrayed in the Scriptures.
Penal Substitution is rooted in the character of God as He revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7. “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding with goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty.” Immediately the question arises, how can God be merciful and gracious, how can He forgive iniquity, transgression and sin without clearing the guilty? How can He clear the guilty if He abounds with truth—if He is a ‘just Judge’ (Psalm 7:11)? How can it be said that, ‘Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed’ unless God can simultaneously punish sin and forgive sinners? The answer is that ‘God……devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him’ (2 Samuel 14:14). Those means are Penal Substitution.

I also believe holding that God separated from Scripture

???

denies the nature of God Himself. It stands in opposition to passages that speak of an immutable and righteous God.

It does nothing of the sort and you have not explained why you think it does.

Jesus has too pure eyes to look upon sin.

Agreed. Do you think Spurgeon and Loyd-Jones never read Habakkuk?

God will never abandon the righteous.

Amen! But where are these righteous people whom God will never abandon? By nature, 'There is none righteous, no not one!' That is why it was necessary for God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ to pay in full the penalty for sin, which includes separation from the presence of God, so that we may become the righteousness of God in Christ.

Most importantly, however, is I believe the dualism you offer is false and creates a false dichotomy. Jests [sic] Is God.

Indeed so, but there is a threeness in God as well as a oneness and until you work that out, your theology will inevitably be flawed. God Himself shed His blood upon the cross (Acts of the Apostles 20:28), but the Father did not do so. God the Son died, but God the Father did not die. There is therefore separation between Father and Son at that point. It is a high mystery and I suggest you apply yourself to John Owen, the complete works of whom you have apparently read, to resolve the mystery.

 

[John Caldwell]

Well Lewis, Martyr and Wright came before you, so I don't think they can have echoed your belief.

Well we are getting somewhere. Previously you have accused me of following tradition, and more latterly of teaching heresy.

The difference is your reluctance to follow the Scripture where it leads and to compare Scripture with Scripture. Instead, you cling to your beliefs like a baby to its milk bottle. You resolutely refuse to engage with the Scriptural arguments I provide

And this, I suppose, is a step forward. You used to deny that Christ was made sin. But we both believe this

Oh Boy! Here we go again! I did nothing of the kind as you know perfectly well. Do you even know how to read a dictionary? Here's the dictionary definitions again:

Abandon. v.t.Give up to another's control or mercy; yield oneself completely to a passion or impulse; give up (possession, habit, game); forsake (person, post, ship).
Forsake. v.t. Give up, break off from, renounce; withdraw one's help, friendship or companionship from, desert, abandon.
First of all, note that 'forsake' is a synonym for 'abandon' and 'abandon' is a synonym for 'forsake.' Now note the semi-colons. There are two meanings given for 'forsake: one is to give up, break off from or renounce. then we have the semi-colon. The second meaning is to withdraw one's help, friendship or companionship from someone, to desert and abandon. But these are synonyms for each other!!! 'Forsake' only means to withdraw one's help when it also means to desert and abandon, as in the examples I showed you. You still obviously haven't read them because you haven't commented on them.

'Let us suppose for a moment that you were someone's second at a boxing match. Halfway through the match you withdrew your support from him, and went and sat in the seats at the back of the hall. At the end of the bout, he might well come up and say to you, "Why did you abandon me halfway through the match?" He might equally use the word "forsake" because in that context, the two words are synonymous. Would your protestations that you had only 'withdrawn your support' from him cause him to change his accusation of abandonment? I think not!'

Again, if you were a lawyer acting for someone and in the middle of the trial you didn't show up, your client would justly accuse you of abandoning or forsaking him. For you to say that you had 'withdrawn your support' would not alter the fact that you had abandoned him.

I note also that you have no comment to make on my word study on enkataleipo. What's the matter? Has the cat got your tongue?
On the contrary, my reasoning is based on the holiness, justice and righteousness of God as portrayed in the Scriptures.
Penal Substitution is rooted in the character of God as He revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7. “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding with goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty.” Immediately the question arises, how can God be merciful and gracious, how can He forgive iniquity, transgression and sin without clearing the guilty? How can He clear the guilty if He abounds with truth—if He is a ‘just Judge’ (Psalm 7:11)? How can it be said that, ‘Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed’ unless God can simultaneously punish sin and forgive sinners? The answer is that ‘God……devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him’ (2 Samuel 14:14). Those means are Penal Substitution.

???

It does nothing of the sort and you have not explained why you think it does.

Agreed. Do you think Spurgeon and Loyd-Jones never read Habakkuk? Amen! But where are these righteous people whom God will never abandon? By nature, 'There is none righteous, no not one!' That is why it was necessary for God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ to pay in full the penalty for sin, which includes separation from the presence of God, so that we may become the righteousness of God in Christ.

Indeed so, but there is a threeness in God as well as a oneness and until you work that out, your theology will inevitably be flawed. God Himself shed His blood upon the cross (Acts of the Apostles 20:28), but the Father did not do so. God the Son died, but God the Father did not die. There is therefore separation between Father and Son at that point. It is a high mystery and I suggest you apply yourself to John Owen, the complete works of whom you have apparently read, to resolve the mystery.

You seem confused, which is my mistake. I forget there is a language (in usage) deference between us.

Where I am from "echoing" does not always mean saying something afterwards. Otherwise you merely echo Calvin.

The issue with accepting your theory that forsaken means "to separate from" is that it does not. The second problem is that it is an unbiblical definition to assume God separated from Jesus. The third problem is that it is an anti-biblical definition. It is unbiblical because it is not in the Bible. It is anti-biblical because it contradicts what is in the Bible.

I think that you have assumed too much and taken (from Scripture) too little.

"The Righteous" that God will not abandon IS Christ. The people are those who are in Him.

You explained away any need for Christ's death in redemption by explaining that it us not really about Christ "sharing in our infirmity" but what He experienced "instead of" us (not His blood shead) but God abandoning Him instead of abandoning us. Christ's blood, in your view, is worthless except that it represent the lack of God's presence.

Instead, I will believe that Christ became sin for us, suffered for us, shared in our infirmary, and by His stripes we are heald. I do not need your theories. Scripture is enough.

 

[Steve Owen]

The issue with accepting your theory that forsaken means "to separate from" is that it does not.

I spent a considerable amount of time looking at the usage of enkataleipo, and you have nothing to say about it but "'Tain't so!" That is frankly pathetic on your part and no way to conduct a discussion. This is, after all, a discussion forum.

The second problem is that it is an unbiblical definition to assume God separated from Jesus.

Psalms 22:1-2 says very clearly that He did.

The third problem is that it is an anti-biblical definition. It is unbiblical because it is not in the Bible. It is anti-biblical because it contradicts what is in the Bible.

It is in the Bible, and I have been at considerable pains to show you where it is. You have no answer to my Biblical evidence except to insist that it's not there. But it is there, and you know it.

 

[John Caldwell]

I spent a considerable amount of time looking at the usage of enkataleipo, and you have nothing to say about it but "'Tain't so!" That is frankly pathetic on your part and no way to conduct a discussion.

I could have saven you time (I studied Greek at the graduate and post-graduate level).

ἐγκαταλείπω has a range of meaning consist with "forsake". It means to abandon, to desert, to leave helpless or in straits (it is always situational, never "to separate").

I actually agree with the definition you provided ("to withdraw one's help"). In the context of Psalm 22 and the Cross it means to leave helpless, in straits, to withdraw help. This is confirmed by the next verses (in Matthew) as Scripture interprets "forsake" for us (no need for your theories). It was a call for deliverance. The question was to whom Christ was calling.

Insofar as entertaining the idea God separated from Christ, there is no need. The Bible states this will not happen so it is easily dismissed.

Read your Bible, Steve. The answers are there. No need to invent theories.

 

[Steve Owen]

ἐγκαταλείπω has a range of meaning consist with "forsake". It means to abandon, to desert, to leave helpless or in straits (it is always situational, never "to separate").

Thank you for agreeing that enkataleipo means to 'forsake' or 'abandon.'
2 Corinthians 4:9. 'Persecuted, but not forsaken.....'
2 Timothy 4:10. 'For Demas has forsaken me.......'
2 Timothy 4:16. '......But all forsook me.'
Hebrews 10:25. 'Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together....'
Hebrews 13:5. '......."I will never leave you nor forsake you.'"
There is one place where enkataleipo is translated as 'leave,' but you will see that the meaning is clearly 'forsake' or 'abandon.'
Acts 2:27. 'For You will not leave my soul in Hades.....'

All these have the sense of 'abandon.' None of them have the sense of 'withdraw support.' But please note that I am quite happy with 'forsake' as a translation of enkataleipo because that has the meaning of 'abandon' within it as you have agreed (see Oxford Concise Dictionary ).

 

[John Caldwell]

Thank you for agreeing that enkataleipo means to 'forsake' or 'abandon.'
2 Corinthians 4:9. 'Persecuted, but not forsaken.....'
2 Timothy 4:10. 'For Demas has forsaken me.......'
2 Timothy 4:16. '......But all forsook me.'
Hebrews 10:25. 'Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together....'
Hebrews 13:5. '......."I will never leave you nor forsake you.'"
There is one place where enkataleipo is translated as 'leave,' but you will see that the meaning is clearly 'forsake' or 'abandon.'
Acts 2:27. 'For You will not leave my soul in Hades.....'

All these have the sense of 'abandon.' None of them have the sense of 'withdraw support.' But please note that I am quite happy with 'forsake' as a translation of enkataleipo because that has the meaning of 'abandon' within it as you have agreed (see Oxford Concise Dictionary ).

Yes. The word means "forsake". I never disagreed with that. Your definition "withhold ones help" is fitting. So is "abandon" ("to withdraw protection, support or help").

But you are adding to the definition and Scripture by trying to sneak in the idea of "separation". Scripture speaks of Christ being forsaken to suffer and die (and defines His cry as a cry for deliverance) in the exact same passage).

But you ignore the meaning of the Greek word, the meaning of the English word, the definition provided by Scripture that n the Matthew passage, and the context of Scripture to claim God separated from Christ.

This is in opposition to orthodox Christian faith which states that the Father and Son are inseparable. By insisting God separated from Jesus your theory denies 1. the Nicene Creed's use of "eternally begotten", and 2. the Chalcedonian Creed's statement that the Father and Son cannot separate (they are inseparable).

You do not have to agree with historic Christian faith or these Creed's (in part or in full) and you obviously do not. But this means your view is well outside traditional Christian faith on this topic.