Today I received a great email response from a dear friend (and revered Old Testament scholar) with his thoughts on this post. He had a bit of a different take that I wish to share here.
He writes:
“My God, my God, why….” I need to begin not with the cross but with the final meal followed by the visit to the garden and the arrest. At table Jesus spoke calmly about the cup—this cup is my blood shed for you. But then shortly after, once they had made their way to the garden, he prayed that famous line, “Father, if it’s possible let this cup pass from me.” How dramatically different from how he spoke of the cup at the supper! What made the difference, I ask? What was it about the cup , as he prayed, that stunned him, overwhelmed him, knocked the wind out of his sails, moved him to fling himself to the ground on his face and sweat a blood-like liquid? I think there are only 2 candidates. First are his sufferings about to take place. My problem with that is that Jesus fully knew this was a major and horrific part of his mission. The only other alternative, it seems to me, is that he got a glimpse of his Father’s involvement or non-involvement in his execution.
To be sure, Jesus makes a third interesting reference to the cup when he says to Peter as he is arrested, “Put your sword away. Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me to drink?” (only in John, 18:11). But then shortly after that, he prays, “Why?”
So, here is Jesus on the cross having already experienced a battering, half alive, half dead, semi-delirious, not able to tell me how many fingers I am holding up in front of his face. What is a person in that condition able to communicate? If, as you argue, Jesus is identifying himself as Messiah proclaiming his confidence in God’s deliverance, I can guarantee that nobody anywhere near the cross got the point, not the soldiers (maybe the centurion), not his family, and neither the disciples nor the women standing aloof.
I think a case can be made for the Father turning his face away, but not in the sense that the Father fractured the intimacy among the Trinity, that he literally abandoned his son went off somewhere else. (I am in full agreement with you here.) I am impressed (and staggered) that Paul will use in Rom. 5 the same Greek verb he used 3X in chapter one to describe what God did with the wicked—handed them over/gave them over to describe that the Father did to the Son, gave him over. I am equally staggered by the fact that Paul in Romans uses the same word to describe what the Father did to the Son that the Gospels use to describe what Judas did to Jesus, handed him over.
My own spin on the cry of Jesus is as follows, and by the way, “said in a loud voice” is better rendered “screamed,” only one of 2 times Jesus screamed. What would cause him to scream? God was present at the cross as much as he ever was with his Son. And Jesus repeatedly said, “the Father is ever with me.” He could have stopped the execution, but he did not, even though he had the wherewithal to do so. God was present at the cross, but he did nothing. He watched, but did not get involved. In that sense he turned his face away.
Many believers have said, “I prayed , but where was God? Why was he silent?”
The bottom line: God did nothing to save his Son in order that he might do everything to save us.
And my response:
I really appreciate the thoughtful reflection—and I love the feedback!
Let me offer a few brief thoughts in response, if I may. First, I really resonate with your interpretation, and I don’t think yours and mine are incompatible in any strict sense. There are two core convictions that I believe we share: (1) the unbroken unity of the Trinity (we’re absolutely together on that!); and (2) that Jesus is intentionally quoting Psalm 22 on the cross (which, in my view, is undeniable—though I know that not everyone agrees).
If you’re interpreting the Father “not stopping the execution” as the equivalent of “turning his face away,” I’m totally good with that—big smile. That distinction is important, and I think you’re walking that line with pastoral and theological sensitivity.
I’d also add that, in my view, God did ultimately rescue Jesus—just not from execution, but from the finality of death. The resurrection is the true deliverance, and it’s a far greater vindication than if the Father had pulled him down from the cross. It (bodily resurrection of the Divine Son who is fully human in his incarnation) also secures our hope for the full redemption of creation/cosmos through the resurrected Son. That’s the kind of rescue that redeems the entire cosmos
As for the cry from the cross—yes, I completely agree that no one standing there thought, “Ah! Psalm 22!” The text even tells us they thought he was calling for Elijah. But I’d argue that the crowd’s immediate failure to grasp the allusion doesn’t rule out Jesus’ intent in quoting the psalm. So much of what Jesus said and did wasn’t fully understood in the moment. It wasn’t until after the resurrection and Pentecost that the pieces began to come together. Take Peter, for instance—he certainly didn’t understand the necessity of Jesus’ death at the time (he even rebuked him for it!), but by Acts 2:22–24, he’s clearly connecting the dots and interpreting the cross through the lens of God’s redemptive plan.
Anyway, just a few thoughts! I’m so grateful for your insights and your engagement—it really does sharpen and encourage me.
What are YOUR thoughts?
