Also, Jesus’ last words indicate His divine perseverance. I can’t think of any more beautiful words from the cross than, “It is finished”; I believe the word in the Greek is TELE’OS, which was used in financial or legal language as well – my understanding is that is is like a man paying my debt of a billion dollars, turning to the witnesses, and saying, “It is settled – permanently!”
And His final words, “Father, into your hands . . .”, certainly leave no doubt that the passion on the cross was not a product of shortsightedness or doubt.

re 48 and Jesus last words.

I agree with those interpreters who take Jesus’ brief words as a reference to the entire 22nd Psalm (one of many that Jesus would have memorized). The entire Psalm is not one of despair, but one of hope, in which the Psalmist believes that God will rescue him in the midst of all the trials that assail him. So too Jesus, who by referencing the very first words was indicating his belief that he would be rescued by God in the midst of all that was happening.

Thus, Jesus words are not an indicating of loss of hope or that he has been abandoned, but rather his words are full of hope and an indication of expectation of rescue.

regards,
#John

Was wondering why you never answer any of my questions… I know I have this disorder as well…mainly because I need to stop and think out what I am trying to state or even ask. Thanks!

John T iii

So how do YOU explain the last statement by Jesus in the Bible? Where he clearly seems puzzled by his crucifixion; and clearly believes he that he has been abandoned by God.

Thereby, doubting his own, earlier, very positive, declarative assertions.

I did not miss Michael’s point. The point I was trying to make is that we, as Christians, have to make declarative statements.

As I read CMP’s original post, I can’t find where he said all declarative statements are imbalanced. It’d probably help me to understand if you’d point out where he described scripture as an overstatement.

Dave Z
I did not miss Michael’s point. The point I was trying to make is that we, as Christians, have to make declarative statements.

Renton
In your comment (#39) about Jesus’ question on the cross, how does all His statements about his death prior to the crucifixion fit within your statement? He just the night before, at the last supper, mentions his death as a ransom for many so at what point did He lose his memory and forget who he was?

Dan Powers writes:

I have to honestly present them the pros and cons of several options and then the reasoning behind my selection and backup the numbers.

Good thought. That’s the reason I like Millard Erickson’s Systematic Theology book so much. He goes into depth on various points of view, then presents why he holds the position he does. Other theologians sometimes seem to say, “Some people believe this or that, but they’re wrong, here’s the correct position.” With Erickson, I feel like he’s really done his homework and he has more credibility to me because of that.

To Renton: many thinking Christians desire to resolve these very issues. Perhaps Michael will start a new blog on this? We, as Gentiles, are not bound under the Mosaic Law, because we are not Jews, but we are condemned under God’s Law (of human conduct), thereby necessitating Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, having died for all, making all one in the newe Body of believers, and as it says, “Nailing the writings contrary to our nature to the cross . . .”. This is a critical point of theology, whether or not you are Dispensationalist in belief.
I firmly believe and can show, thanks to the Theology Program, that there is no hypocrisy or moral relativism in reconciliation of the Old and New Testaments.

So the law of the Old Testament still stands … but say, we are free to disobey the law of God found there, that told us not to eat pork and shellfish? The Old Testament God told us not to eat pork or shellfish; but in the New Testament, Peter seeing a dream, in which God told us to take all kinds of things and eat them.

What not just say the Bible is relativistic?

Personally, I’d like to practice a Christianity that talks a little straighter. Not with a forked tongue, saying two things at once.

For example: didn’t you just describe relativism, in effect? If you said that a) the old law still stands as an example; but b) having been fulfilled, is no longer in force. So c) that today, what was once the law of God, has been effectively, dropped. The old law of the Jews, not being totally appropriate to Christianity.

Why not just honestly, simply say, that? WHy not just say that Christianity has been relativistic, from the days of the Bible itself?

Why not just say that part of what was once firmly the law of God, a law that all real followers must obey, was simply dropped; it not being so relevant to Gentiles and Christians.

What’s wrong with being a relativist? The Bible itself does it.

Even Jesus himself was apparently not all that sure of even himself, in that final moment on the cross.

Granted, these seem like unconventional readings. But … after all, the Bible is not simple. Let’s try some different readings from what we are used to.

I liked the post. Keep up the good work.

There is another way to look at this and still keep the point of the post. When I present a project to my senior managers, they want to know what I have done to research the solution. What they are asking for is credibility in my argument to spend thousands of dollars. I cannot tell them that all of the others options are terrible and my solutions will save billions. I have to honestly present them the pros and cons of several options and then the reasoning behind my selection and backup the numbers.