My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?

[Ruth]

My God, My God Why have you forsaken me? are the words our Lord spoke from the cross. This has bothered me a lot when I hear preachers say it is because God turned away when the sin of the world was put on Him. That doesn't ring true because if He said that He will never forsake us or leave us then why would He forsake His own son? So I did some research and learned that even though Jesus did say those words - we are told in Psalm 22 what was really going on.


We have often heard it said:

God is perfect and cannot look upon sin.

Actually, that statement cannot be correct. I know it is taken from the scripture in Habakkuk but many don't read the whole verse and it has become an incorrect statement in Christianity.

How could God judge what He does not look upon?

The statement in Habakkuk is that God cannot look upon sin and approve it. He won't wink and look the other way. He must judge it and that was the reason Jesus had to come to pay our penalty.

Habakkuk 1
13Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

I know that it also is the explanation for why Jesus said on the cross "Why have you foresaken me?" and it is touted that it is because God had to look away because of the sin. Again, that is not the case. How could He have judged the sins and received the payment if He didn't look at it? If you read Psalm 22:24 which is the Psalm of the suffering Messiah.

Psalm 22:24
24For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

I just wanted to clarify that statement that I hear so often and it simply cannot be accurate.

[70C20]

My God, My God Why have you forsaken me? are the words our Lord spoke from the cross. This has bothered me a lot when I hear preachers say it is because God turned away when the sin of the world was put on Him. That doesn't ring true because if He said that He will never forsake us or leave us then why would He forsake His own son? So I did some research and learned that even though Jesus did say those words - we are told in Psalm 22 what was really going on.


We have often heard it said:




Actually, that statement cannot be correct. I know it is taken from the scripture in Habakkuk but many don't read the whole verse and it has become an incorrect statement in Christianity.

How could God judge what He does not look upon?

The statement in Habakkuk is that God cannot look upon sin and approve it. He won't wink and look the other way. He must judge it and that was the reason Jesus had to come to pay our penalty.




I know that it also is the explanation for why Jesus said on the cross "Why have you foresaken me?" and it is touted that it is because God had to look away because of the sin. Again, that is not the case. How could He have judged the sins and received the payment if He didn't look at it? If you read Psalm 22:24 which is the Psalm of the suffering Messiah.



I just wanted to clarify that statement that I hear so often and it simply cannot be accurate.

If Jesus was in all ways tempted as we,He needed ,as captain of our salvation,to meet certain conditions to redeem our fallen Adamic nature.I couldn't find the verse I was looking for,but It seems that by saying"My God,why hast thou forsaken me",he was near death , and was experiencing death as a man,feeling hopeless,afraid,subject to the one who usurped the power of death over now fallen mankind.Heb 2:9;14-16...v.9But we see Jesus,who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,crowned with glory and honour;that He by the grace of God should taste death for ev ery man"...V14"Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,He also Himself took part of the same;that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death,that is ,the devil.."v16 "for verily He took not on Him the nature of angels;but he took on Him the seed of Abraham"....Good study , Ruth, Good Post.

[Ruth]

Thank you. I agree with your additional scriptures and how they add to the same conclusion.

[Allen]

Hi Ruth,

Thank you for your post. It is a far more common sense (child-like) take on this scripture than any other that I've seen. Your point is simple and direct.

Here's another point to consider - learned from a message researched with the help of a Rabbi. Today we refer to each psalm by its ordered number, but that convention was not in place until several centuries after Christ. The Hebrews referred to every psalm by its first line, unless there was a specific name assigned.

For example, if I tell you today that the “23rd Psalm” brought me great comfort, you would know exactly what I meant. Because by the "name" alone you would understand that I am invoking all that is referenced in the psalm. It is also interesting that this is the only occasion where what Jesus said needed to be translated. Why? He invokes the 22nd Psalm, by it's "name" at the time, "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?" Most people, even the Jews of the day, did not speak in the formal form of their language. Scripture states that some bystanders didn't understand and thought he was calling for Elijah.

But the Temple crowd who were there, who spoke Hebrew, understood him. The chief priests, scribes and Pharisees knew exactly what he was saying as he cried out, "PSALM TWENTY-TWO!!" He was invoking the entire psalm. The psalm that often is subtitled today, The Suffering Servant. He was telling them, "Remember this psalm? Look with your eyes on its fulfillment. Look at what is happening."

I, too, do not believe that God "cannot look upon sin." Sin is not God's Kryptonite; it's ours. God does not have X-ray vision incinerating sinners if he’s not careful. As you've pointed out, scripture in context explains itself. Unfortunately, this doctrine of demons, propagated by "good, though deceived" men through human religious wisdom, strikes fear in the heart of man when whispered by the accuser of our soul. And we are all susceptible, unless we know the truth.

No, that darkness which surrounded Jesus for three hours was not because God turned His back or left Him alone, but because as He paid the penalties of all sin for all ages, every demon force of darkness crowded in to witness His defeat. And in those final moments when the cloud was so think, He endured one final temptation - to believe He was cut off and alone. But, just as He did in the wilderness, He answered by quoting scripture. He did not loose faith. That, according to Rom 14:23, would have been sin.

Two beliefs are exposed here. Both must be true or both must be false. One, Jesus believed that He was abandoned and was stating a fact, or He was quoting scripture. Two, God’s response to Sin is separation and punishment, or He responds with Mercy through Love. Remember, God never changes, and Love never fails. When Jesus, before the cross, told us that He would never leave us or forsake us, He was only saying what He heard His father saying. He was quoting the Father. And God does not make exceptions.

Rom 8:38, 39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[mattfivefour]

Interesting post, Allen. I am not sure where the rabbi got the information that the tehillim (psalms) were not referred to by number until several centuries after Christ. They are numbered in ancient Hebrew manuscripts that have been recovered and, indeed, they are numbered in the Septuagint which was written between 300 and 100 years before Christ. Why would each bear a number if it were not for the purpose of referral? Just wondering.

Nevertheless, the idea of identifying a psalm by it's first line is interesting. Certainly we refer to scriptural concepts by quoting single lines. To a Christian who is a s learned in his scriptures as a Jew was of old, all I have to say is a snippet of a scripture and instantly that person knows what I am referring to without me quoting chapter and verse. For example-- "For God so loved the world" or "There hath no temptation taken you " or "If a man be overtaken by a fault". In every case you understand the teaching of the passage to which I am referring. So it makes sense to me that Jews in historical times could have used first lines to refer to specific psalms.

Thanks for posting this, brother.

[myinnuendo999]

You make some good points. However I have to disagree with you.
When you consider that Jesus had 2 natures -- in his human nature Jesus was separated for that moment and was forsaken by the Father. In Jesus' divine nature he was not.

Notice that Jesus said "my God, My God and not my Father my Father..

God cannot look upon sin and for that moment of all eternity Jesus bore the sins of the world.. Jesus was not just repeating what he heard the Father say, he was fulfilling Scripture. Jesus said, " Until heaven and earth disappear not the smallest letter not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" Matthew 5:18.

As far as Rabbi teachings, We have the Holy Spirit and do not need anyone to teach us. But as his anointing teaches you about all things--and as that anointing is real not counterfeit---just as it has taught you remain in him."--1 John 2:27

[Obadiah]

Allen:

I have long believed that the key to understanding Jesus' cry is precisely what you've proposed: He was quoting the opening line of Psalm 22 to direct His hearers to the entire content of that psalm. He was not making a theological statement about being forsaken by God; He was invoking the beginning of the psalm to attest to its fulfillment in Him.

Like mattfivefour, though, I do have to take issue with the notion that the psalms were not numbered. In Acts 13:33, Paul refers to "the second psalm" when he quotes Psalm 2. The order was apparently not fixed, though, as the variations in the Qumran manuscripts attest (see Abegg, Flint and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, pp.510-11).

myinnuendo999:

I would caution you not to dismiss the evidence of rabbinic teachings. The NT was written by first-century Jews in the context of first-century Judaism. Understanding that context is vital for understanding much of the NT. A great deal of misinterpretation over the centuries stems from reading the text outside that setting.

The sense of 1 John 2:27 is greatly enlightened by reading it in view of the new covenant background of John's writing, as superbly treated by D.A. Carson in the anthology The New Testament In Its First Century Setting.

You can't separate the humanity and divinity of Jesus. You can't have God 'looking upon' His divine nature and 'looking away from' His human nature. Christ is Christ; His humanity and divinity are not divisible.

I have no idea what would be different about the verse if Jesus had addressed it to "My Father" instead of "My God." God the Father is no more divisible into God and Father than Christ is divisible into divine and human.

Understanding Jesus' cry in light of rabbinic hermeneutics eliminates the theological problems occasioned by trying to understand it on the surface.

[jesuschangesall]

Blessings to All...
I humbly express the way i understand,in respect of other believers views...
The Lord cried: Matthew 27:46 (New King James Version)

46 And 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?”[

and:
Mark 15:34 (King James Version)

34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

It seems to me,that He was referring to God The FATHER and God THE HOLY SPIRIT,because ELOI is plural of EL,where EL stands for GOD and ELOI for GODS.....

This is a very important and sacred subject to me,and while I don't pretend to have the exclusive right interpretation,I still believe that HIS CRY,excruciating cry, expresses the anguish and utter desperation of THE SON that NEVER had experienced separation from THE FATHER no,not even for a second,and in that moment HE IS suffering that,and HE CRIES...

JESUS,truly rocks the very foundation of my life,because I see HIM,The Perfect and Unblemished LAMB of GOD sacrificed for ME ( me,the jerk!) EXPERIENCING as THE SUBSTITUTE the ETERNAL SEPARATION from GOD that I would experience IF He hadn't saved me.

I understand from The Scriptures that,not only ALL THE SINS of men,from ADAM to the last man that will be born ,were ON HIM,but HE BECAME SIN!
Now,this is very very shocking,I cannot understand it,is truly beyond my grasp,I am only a puny man with a limited brain....HE IS GOD.
The drama unfolding on that cross of Calvary is IMMENSE.
THE SUN refused to shine...I read that for 3 hours it became dark......

Jesus has been SLAIN before THE FOUNDATION of THE WORLD!
JESUS did experience in the time and space dimension 2000 years ago,something that was PREORDAINED
BEFORE the very foundation of the world,in the DIVINE COUNCIL of our Great TRIUNE GOD...

I often wondered WHY JESUS prayed 3 times if was possible to save MAN in a different way than for Him to go to the cross....Was JESUS AFRAID of DEATH?was HE afraid of physical suffering?
Or....as I think,couldn't even bear the thought of being SEPARATED from ELOI...

We,DON'T KNOW what it is TO BE ONE WITH GOD in eternity....we,as SINNERS,are UTTERLY LOST on our way to HELL and while we have been separated from God because of our SIN/S,we will STAY SEPARATED for ETERNITY IN THE LAKE of FIRE!( not after salvation of course!)
HE,being GOD from Eternity to Eternity, HAS NEVER BEEN SEPARATED from GOD....

I find it amazing,I find it MIND BLOWING,in fact,I find that THE CRUCIFIXION is truly the greatest event in Eternity,because HE SAVES US TOTALLY,but to do that HE MUST become our PERFECT SUBSTITUTE...

I fall on my face,I cry,i am stunned,i am breathless,i cannot for one moment reduce that event to a theological debate,because HE IS DOING THAT FOR ME!so that I can experience UNITY with GOD,and while in this side of eternity,I must WALK BY FAITH,I still fall,i still sin,I still come short in many ways,i have a perpetual washing because of HIS BLOOD and a TOTAL PARDON and removal of my iniquity,UNTIL that day when I will be either raptured or resurrected and BE PERFECTED in one moment by THE PERFECT GOD that I worship and HAS BECOME MY FATHER thanks to JESUS!
Now,that I,me,means EVERY BELIEVER,every child of GOD born again by HIS SPIRIT...

Of course HE fulfilled ALL the prophecies and cited verses from the psalms that ONLY THE TRUE MESSIAH ( that He was and is) could utter ...too many wonderful fulfillments of His Word take place at that Calvary,impossible to examine in greater details here...but one thing is SURE,the cry IS FINISHED,is THE 6th cry and 6 is the number of Man...IT IS FINISHED on our behalf!

ALLELUJAH!

[Obadiah]

It seems to me,that He was referring to God The FATHER and God THE HOLY SPIRIT,because ELOI is plural of EL,where EL stands for GOD and ELOI for GODS.....

But eloi is not the plural of el. It's a singular form.

[jesuschangesall]

It seems to me,that He was referring to God The FATHER and God THE HOLY SPIRIT,because ELOI is plural of EL,where EL stands for GOD and ELOI for GODS.....

But eloi is not the plural of el. It's a singular form.

I am sorry,you are right,what i meant is that HE said MY GOD (The Father) MY GOD ( The Spirit)...
this Hebrew language is pretty complicated for me,it is just what i believe He said.....so,please forgive my mistake...Thank You!

[Allen]

Obadiah,

Thank you for your support on the point, and correction on the Hebrew. Both were well said, brief and appreciated. I am seeking truth about this and you have helped.

There seem to be many arguments about what HAD to be done for Papa to get His sons and daughters back - redemption/salvation, and HOW it must have been done. I find the reasoning of man to be astounding. His knowledge at times captivating, and more often than not, reminiscent of that tree that stood in the garden.

As Ruth so simply pointed out, the topic is simple. A child's questions can often raise the the blood pressure of scholars.

I, too, can't quite see the Lord interacting with all those biblical characters, all the while looking over their heads or averting His eyes so that He didn't look at them. And, BTW, how did that work when in Job, Satan presented himself before God and had that conversation?

I am so blessed that He does see us, has declared that we are righteous in His eyes, seated us with Him in the heavens and invited us into His purpose. We are all on the journey of Him forming Christ within us.

[Romans 12:2]

I'm going to have to side with myinnuendo999 on this one. By taking on the sins of the world, He was to be abandoned to send the sin to hell. Hell is the absence of God. This was the moment He needed to be seperated. He needed to be US in order to receive OUR punishment. If He never did, then there would be no sacrifice.

[Romans 12:2]

The plural version "elio" makes no sense as God is Three in One. One Father, One Spirirt and One Savior are all one God. He refers to God, so why would there be a need for a plural tense? Remember only one God. Multiple entities, but only one God.

[Allen]

myinnuendo999:

Please help me understand what scripture passage states that God can not look upon sin? And just what is sin anyway?

My first question is a serious one. On the second one, I'm 62 and confessed Jesus as Lord at about 10, shortly thereafter took my inheritance and left for the world to party. After 17 years I had spent it all, and ended up with the pigs. In my filth I heard Jesus knocking on the door of my heart. (Forty-five years later He clearly showed me that He was standing on the inside of that heart, where He had come to live at 10. It was I who had left.) As I remembered my Father and started home. He met me on the way and clothed me with His robe of righteousness. He truly is prodigal. I still cherish the embrace.

Sorry, I got sidetracked. I still flip over to journaling sometimes. What I intended to say is that I've been around this for awhile and have spent, in some cases, years in various and sometimes opposing streams of doctrinal teachings. Don't you find it curious that there are so many honest, sincere, intelligent men on all sides of a doctrine? I have heard many of the opinions and definitions of sin, and have a few off-the-wall of my own, but what's yours?

My nature is to ask questions when I find discrepancies between what is commonly taught and my Father's character and His Word. In the last ten years or so I've centered more on getting to know Him, not more about Him. (For years my "conversation" with God was more like leaving VM on the machine and waiting until He got back to me. Then a man taught me Jer. 33:3, and I believed) As I've spent more time alone and in dialog with Him, He has never violated or been inconsistent to His word, of course, and yet sometimes He has radically destroyed and rebuilt my understanding of His word. I'm not talking about the deep stuff, just the simple 'who He is and who He isn't' and 'who I am and who I'm not' stuff.

So, back to the top two questions. They are sincere. Where and what? I'm sure you have insights that will help, but please refrain from the doctrinal essays. I'd like just your thoughts.

Thanks,

Allen

[micah719]

sin = missing the mark, falling short
transgression= crossing boundaries, stepping out of bounds, trespassing

Sorry, I'm in class now, couildn't write you an essay if I wanted to!

[myinnuendo999]

I don't think my little peon brain can do justice to what happened when God the Father turned His face away from His Son. All I know is what limited knowledge and wisdom God has granted me from Scripture.
Let's establish according to God's word what sin is: Sin is lawlessness-1 John 3:4 "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact sin is lawlesness."

What does sin do in our relationship with God? Our sins SEPARATE us from God.--Isaiah 59:2 "But your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you,
so that he will not hear."

What are the wages of sin? The wages of sin is Death. What is Death? Death is spiritual separation from God. For God said to Adam the MOMENT you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall DIE".
When Adam and Even sinned the Died that very moment spiritually --separated from God. God said the moment you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall DIE". When was Jesus separated from God? AT the cross the moment OUR sins were laid upon Him or when He died physically? May I submit to you that I believe Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus was separated before He died the moment God laid on HIM the INIQUITY of us ALL" and not when He died-Is.53:5-6

This is by no means exhaustive and I'm sure someone else can give a better explaination than I..
When did Jesus suffer the ultimate punishment for our sins? Before He died or after? When Jesus bore the sins of the world he suffered DEATH and tasted DEATH for everyone--Heb.2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone".

now Jesus being God in the Flesh and sinless was ABLE to pay the price of OUR sins on our behalf-the substitutionary atonement. God is HOLY and man is Sinful. Jesus having 2 natures -Romans 1:3,,,"who as to his HUMAN nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of Holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord"


I believe Isaiah 53 says it well with the Substitutionary Atonement: Jesus took our place on that CROSS and tasted DEATH for us.


Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Jesus said the most wonderful words before He died. "It is FINISHED"--Paid in FULL and that's how I know Jesus paid for our SINS on the cross before He died..And that's why I believe Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus for a moment in all eternity was separated from God because of our iniquity

[Allen]

To myinnuendo999,

No time tonight for a long answer or actually to even read & consider your entire response. Sorry, but I did note that you quoted

Isaiah 59:2 "But your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you,
so that he will not hear."

My question is, what does this verse say was between "his face" and "you"?
With an engineering background I see things mathmatically.
What do you see? Can you see my point?

Jesus' experienced what man experienced. But the face of God did not turn, either from Him or from us. Ever.
In spite of the 'experience' of sin's 'separation' Jesus did not loose faith (Rom 14:23), He quoted the Word. He did not succumb to the darkness, otherwise He would added his sin to all of ours.

[Obadiah]

The "God cannot look upon evil" quote is from Habakkuk 1:13. As always, a little context goes a long way.

The prophecy of Habakkuk is different from most in that the book begins not with something God says to the prophet but with the prophet's words to God. Habakkuk is a righteous man who's burdened by the sin that engulfs his people Israel. He prays to God:

HaShem, how long will I cry out and You don't hear me? How long will I shout of violence, and You don't come to the rescue?

Why are You making me look at iniquity? Why do You make me see wickedness?

These words would be more at home in a psalm than in a prophecy. There are a number of psalms where the author cries out against injustice and challenges God with the question, "How long?" (Psalm 13:1; 35:17; 74:10; 79:5; 80:4; 89:46; 94:3). What's unusual in this case, and the reason it's a prophecy, is that God answers the cry. He informs the prophet that He will, in fact, address Israel's sin by bringing judgment against them in the form of the Babylonians (here called the Chaldeans), describing in some depth the violence they will inflict on His disobedient people. Habakkuk's cry against violence is met with a promise of violence of a different sort.

The prophet is not comforted by God's response; rather, he's horrified at the prospect of the destruction of his people at the hands of this ruthlessly wicked enemy. He attempts to work through his anguish by reminding himself of God's justice (v.12), but the very thought of HaShem's righteousness only shifts the focus of his problem:

Your eyes are too pure to look at evil; You cannot recognize wickedness. Why, then, are you recognizing betrayers? Why do You keep silent when the wicked devours one more righteous than him?

How can God use these horrible Babylonians? They're even more wicked than the people of Judah! How is it possible for the Righteous One to utilize such a wicked instrument?

God answers him, to an extent, in the next chapter. But what's important for our discussion is the nature of the question. The prophet struggles with how God can use such a wicked and violent instrument. Yet, his original complaint was that God was not addressing the wicked violence that was plaguing his nation. First, he laments that God is tolerating the sin of Israel; now, he laments that God is tolerating the sin of the nation He's bringing against Israel.

Unfortunately, where human beings are involved, there will always be sin. But the bottom line is found in 2:4 -- thrice quoted in the NT -- "the righteous one will live by his faithfulness" (of course, Paul gives this verse a bit of a different twist, but that's another subject). One way or another, God will take care of the one who remains faithful to Him.

So the "God cannot look upon evil" idea is not a straightforward as it might seem when it's bandied about apart from the context of the saying. God is too pure to tolerate sin in the long run -- but, in the short run, even God doesn't really have much choice. He can't judge all sin instantly, or we'd all be gone. And the only instruments He has to judge it in this world are sinners themselves. When He finally pulls up stakes and brings forth the final judgment, He alone will be the judge and He will be able to mete out perfect justice. Thanks be to Him that Christ has offered Himself on our behalf so that God is able to receive us in mercy and grace instead.

[Allen]

Again Obadiah, with great gentleness, has brought context, insight and understanding to the discussion. Your chosen name here, means Servant of God, it fits your text. But perhaps A Server of God is more descriptive. A spiritual connotation has to do with discernment. It shows. Thank you.

At the risk of being crucified (I jest), I've examined the Hab 1:13 in 14 different versions, and I think Eugene Peterson's Message is interesting:

Hab 1:13 But you can't be serious! You can't condone evil! So why don't you do something about this? Why are you silent now? This outrage! Evil men swallow up the righteous and you stand around and watch!

In this... modern language, this "key" verse to the position seems more like a rant from a distraught prophet than a biblical declaration of God's limits. The term 'God' by definition excludes limits.

I believe this to be an unfortunate - but brilliantly planned and executed - error of "exactly how and exactly what" happened, in the Mystery of the Cross.

Again, the point that I am advocating is rooted in knowing my Father, and is what I consider to be an attack on God's character... the character of Love. If someone would accuse my wife of an action that was completely out of character for her I would not only disbelieve it, I would suspect the one telling the tale. I accepted a lot of 'tales' about God, even when I knew a lot about Him, but that was before I knew Him.

In Revelation he is called the "accuser of the brethren", but he is normally referred to as simply the accuser. Flowery sermons aside, I think the imagery of satan bringing an accusation of sins committed before the Judge is silly. Really? I don't think it ever crossed his mind. But he is quite successful at bringing accusations to men against the men AND BETTER YET, he has been most successful at bringing accusations to men against God.

In recent years I've discovered that my heart can discern and embrace things when my head is still in pursuit of logical reasoning.

I am no longer in agreement with this lie about my Father. But I am also aware that this is more than a lie, it is a masterful stronghold. It's my opinion that a stronghold consists of at least three lies, woven together. (Ecc 4:12) A cord of three strands is hard to break, and one wall does not a prison make.

I do appreciate the forum that is provided here and the generous and helpful spirit by all to examine this topic. I am fairly new at this type of interaction.

Nite.

[mattfivefour]

In Revelation he is called the "accuser of the brethren", but he is normally referred to as simply the accuser. Flowery sermons aside, I think the imagery of satan bringing an accusation of sins committed before the Judge is silly. Really? I don't think it ever crossed his mind. But he is quite successful at bringing accusations to men against the men AND BETTER YET, he has been most successful at bringing accusations to men against God.

While I agree our Adversary accuses men to themselves and accuses God to men (after all that latter is indeed what he did in the Garden in his second lie), Satan also most certainly accuses men to God. The verse in Revelation that refers to Satan as the "accuser of the brethren" (Revelation 12:10) says in whole: "Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, 'Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night.'" The underlined phrase appears in the koiné Greek as ὁ κατηγορῶν αὐτοὺς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. The word ἐνώπιον (enopion) means "before", "in front of", "in the presence of". Further, the words "accuser" and "accuses" are not from the Greek διάβολος (diabolos) from which we get our word "devil" and which in the original comes from a Greek compound verb meaning ""to slander". Instead here both the noun and the verb are forms of the Greek compound κατήγορος (katagoros) which literally means "to speak against someone before the assembly", in other words "to bring a complaint at law". Because it is compounded from the Greek agora (or public marketplace where the chiefs of the people met to decide all issues) it describes speaking against someone before a public tribunal in order to charge and accuse them. It is the opposite of the defense of a person: apologia.

Clearly, then, from a partial exegesis of this verse "charging us legally, accusing us to God continually" is exactly what Satan does. And on what ground can he charge us legally before God? Only on the basis of sin, for it is sin alone that separates us from God. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that your statement "I think the imagery of satan bringing an accusation of sins committed before the Judge is silly" is not correct.