Appeal in the Ancient World
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Matthew 27:46 NASB
My God – Why does Yeshua cry out from the cross? Some time ago we discovered that his words are really the opening statement of a psalm of vindication. He is telling his audience that what they are witnessing is the physical expression of Psalm 22. He is not telling his audience that he has been abandoned by God. Since they knew this psalm, they also knew that the speaker in the psalm is acquitted and justified. This helps us set aside the common misinterpretation that God has to turn His face away from Yeshua when he took sin upon himself. Frankly, that just doesn’t make any sense in the light of God’s interface with a thousand-year history with Israel.
But there’s another part of this cry that needs to be elucidated. It starts with the ancient view of God Himself:
From the human perspective, it is only natural to cry at the violation wrought by suffering. Appeal has its basis in the involuntary expression of anguish. From the deity’s perspective, as an agent empowered to relieve distress, he heeds this outcry to direct his attention to its source. He does not act unilaterally. After all, this deity is not generally portrayed as omniscient in the contemporary sense; he is not all-knowing all of the time. His mind is conceived as rather like a normal human one, albeit one with certain unusual abilities: something akin to a potent emperor. He has great powers of reconnaissance—through messengers and the expression of the needy themselves—but he needs to be told where to look and, even, reminded of his promises. This system of management ends up according great efficacy to human speech even as it confines human agency in general to reaction.[1]
You may need to read Lambert’s comment several times. Pay attention to the statement, “this deity is not generally portrayed as omniscient in the contemporary sense.” That’s right. The God of Israel is not like the god of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Erickson or Grudem. The God of Christianity is essentially a philosophical idea, a personification of Plato’s perfect forms, the extension of early Greek thinking along the lines of Parmenides (if you don’t believe this, then please read God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience[2]and you will discover just how much of what we think about God is really an extension of Greek philosophy). YHVH is much more human. He is deeply moved with emotion. He has cognitive abilities that appear to be human. He acts as a “potent emperor.” In fact, the Tanakh’s description of YHVH is a far cry from the god of Athens, subsequently incorporated into the Church. When Yeshua cries out from the cross, he not only provides an explanation of the circumstances in the psalm of vindication, he also appeals to the Father who needs to hear from His son, a Father whose attention needs to be directed to the utter injustice of this event, so that this Father can act to reconcile the travesty.
The Hebrew God, prior to Babylon, is much more tribal, human and personal than any representation of God in the Church. In order to understand who this God of Israel is we need a clean sweep of the Western God of transcendental attributes. It might be useful to ask yourself, “How does YHVH appear to Abraham?” and see if Abraham’s God is the same as the one you encounter in the theological authors of today.
Topical Index: My God, Psalm 22:1, human, attributes, Matthew 27:46
[1]David Lambert, How Repentance Became Biblical, p. 35.
[2]Skip Moen, God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience, available on the web site
Knowing God is man’s highest station.
Knowing how much God is like man
is one of man’s highest surprises.
Skip, your book taught me many things (and untaught me many more) but I think the most useful skill I ended up with is the permission(!) to challenge my paradigm, as well as the imperative that requires me to. What was the biggest surprise was that it is fun! What was an even bigger surprise is that challenging your paradigm does NOT endanger your faith! THAT WAS WEIRD! When I went to look at that more closely, what I saw shocked me. I was taught that you base your faith on the facts, but what I saw was that faith is actually based on whoever is perceived as being in charge of the facts. Somebody switched the faith baby in the cradle!
I think the most horrible effect of the Greek legacy (form over function) that we were handed has been this sleight-of-hand that convinced us that faith was about the facts. Not only is that profoundly opposite of what faith really is in essence (leaving us to think that “faith” is a noun instead of a verb, for example) it is nefarious because once you convince somebody that faith: belief: trust: is about THINGS (which it can never be and never is) than they can be perfectly controlled by whoever claims to be the ‘owner’ of those things: facts: creeds: dogmas. This is because faith still works, even if we are believing the wrong things about it, because trust is what faith is in practice, and trust is what we put in relationships with others. If, however, we choose to put our trust in facts and things, etc. we are going to (guaranteed! automatically!) trust whoever is perceived to be in control of those facts. This is awful! This is why we now have 60,000+ denominations! We followed the facts out the door like zombies and put our trust in whoever’s hand we saw them in.
Faith and trust are about relationships, not facts. The Bible NEVER tells us to put our faith in the facts! Only in the Author of all of reality. We make gods of the fact-owners when we make the mistake of putting our faith in the facts, in fact. Faith is not about the facts: faith is about relationship.
This is my tribute to Skip and my gratitude to him, too, for setting me free from following the facts, when they are supposed to follow me!
I now suspect that paradigms assign facts to confirmation bias because that is how we are made, and, in a world of free choice, how reality really works. That is not a problem if I remember to put all my FAITH in God, and then in His creation; in that order. Facts are the forms that naturally follow the resulting function of that faith. To insist on following the facts around only makes us look like tail-chasing dogs, I am afraid. I can see clearly that it makes us sitting ducks for the fact-meisters, however, in the process of doing major violence to the faith we are supposed to put only in God.
Well-expressed, Laurita. This helped me to “congeal” my thoughts in response to Skip’s post. Thanks.
Most profound and absolutely true Laurita. I have a friend who needs to read your response. Thanks
Which of Skip’s books are you referring to? Enjoy your post’s Shalom
I am sorry; the one that we have been discussing lately: God, Time, And The Limits Of Omniscience.
Thanks Laurita–another book, I’ve already have a tall stack
“The Bible NEVER tells us to put our faith in the facts!”
Thank you, Laurita! This is precisely what I needed to “hear!”
This statement is both encouraging and terrifying to me. Applying it will be a challenge.
An interesting presentation in contrasting the Greek-based translation of God that I was taught and entrenched with during my formidable years and the Hebrew God with human attributes when one considers He said He is a jealous God. Yes, we need to thoroughly clean out the entrenched Greek God of “transcendental attributes” and to actively pursue a relationship with a “more human” God, and we do this by incorporating the two priority commandments in our everyday living and the consequential inner spirit aiding us in our desired efforts, as we call upon the Name and His Blessings.
I am deeply attached to the Divine Logos of YHVH and will not rest until that Logos becomes divine flesh & a life-giving incarnated spirit in me. That blessed unrest led me to an encounter with the personhood God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob and the historical roots of my faith and back again to the ahistorical, trans-personhood roots of Jesus Christ. These days I am encountering the Christ who is the All and in All (Col.3:11).
“It might be useful to ask yourself, “How does YHVH appear to Abraham?” and see if Abraham’s God is the same as the one you encounter in the theological authors of today.”
This is something that made me pause. I’ve always kind of just assumed that the God I grew up learning about (barring the idea of trinity and omniscience), was the same God that Abraham knew. But the idea of a more tribal, human, and personal God – one who is more these things than I know or realize – is thought provoking. Not having grown up with any kind of understanding of the bonds of a tribe, I think it’s even more difficult to really understand God. I already struggle with understanding Him being personal, because in so many ways it seems like He’s so much bigger and things are about the bigger picture and greater good, not about me. But this concept seems like it’s different. It’s one I want to understand more.
Since Yeshua was quoting psalm 22,it does not say whether he was able to finish it or not. You can bet those around him knew it. Could it had been a cry of triumph between him and YHWH for this was my purpose.After this ,he said in John it is finished. I just can’t see YHWH being so distracted that Yeshua needed to get his attention by showing he was suffering. Guess I don’t think of Abba as a potent emperor.
Ok, I’m confused! DID Yeshua take sin(s) upon himself? Did not Torah (G-d) say that each person is responsible for their own sin(s), that Human sacrifice is an abomination, eating and drink of blood and human flesh is an abomination. I understand that Yeshua is Torah (the Way, the Light, the Life) that Yeshua had to die to set the corner stone for the coming Kingdom (a political murder), to show that death was not the end of us, by the Resurrection, and that INDEED Yeshua will be OUR King and High Priest. Sister Laurita, I REALLY enjoy your insights, YOU have been BLESSED in your journey!