The Sufferings of Christ, Part 1 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X. The Vindication of Pſa. 22.1.
Pſa. 22.1. My God, My God, why haſt thou forſaken me?
Dialogu MAny Divines conclude from this Text, that God did forſake his ſon in his anger, becauſe he had imputed to him all our ſins: but yet other Divines differ from them. M. Broughton ſaith, My God, My God, ſheweth that Chriſt was not forſaken of God, but that God was his hope. 2. Saith he, The word forſaken is not in the Text, but Why doſt thou [leave] me? namely, why doſt thou leave me to the griefs following from the malice of the Jews? as they are expreſſed in the body of the Pſalm. 3. Saith he, None ever expounded one matter, and made his amplification of another; but Pſal. 22. hath amplification of griefs cauſed by men, and not from Gods anger. Therefore the Propoſition in the firſt verſe is not a complaint to God that he forſook his ſoul in anger for our ſinnes. M. Robert Wilmot ſheweth at large that the term forſaken is not ſo proper to this place as the term leave, and he doth parallell it with the word leave, in Pſal. 16.10. M. Ainſworth ſaith, the Hebrew word which we tranſlate [forſaken] may be tranſlated, why leaveſt thou me? And he ſaith in a Letter to my ſelf, that there is no materiall difference between leaving and forſaking, ſo as the meaning be kept ſound. Therefore it followeth by good conſequence that Chriſt doth not complain Pſa. 22. that God had forſaken him in anger for our ſins.
Anſw. The Hebrew word (as alſo the Syriack uſed by our Saviour, Mat. 27.46.) and the Greek word uſed here by the Septuagint, ſignifyeth to leave another helpleſſe in their neceſſity or extremiry, which appeareth not only in its frequent uſe in the Scripture, but alſo in that this very word per Antiphraſin (it being one of thoſe Hebrew words that have two contrary ſignifications) ſignifyeth to help up that which is down, or fortifie, Nehem. 3.8. & 4.2. and ſuch leaving we uſually expreſſe by forſaking, and accordingly its read by Latin Expoſitors promiſcuouſly, who all do in effect ſay with M Ainſworth; there is no materiall difference betwixt leaving and forſaking, ſo as the meaning be kept ſound, which with M. Ainſworth was, but with you is not, therefore you chuſe leaving, which with us is more generall, and refuſe forſaking which is a more proper term.
The Hebrew word then ſignifying to Forſake; the word [forſaken] is in the Text more proper then the word [leave] contrary to M. Broughton.
The leaving or forſaking here is not only bodily, but chiefly ſpirituall; The matter propounded in the firſt verſe, and amplified in the body of the Pſalm, is the ſame; namely, the paſſion of Chriſt, Pſa. 22. hath amplification of griefs cauſed by men inſtrumentally, and by Gods anger as the efficient cauſe; Gods anger and mens herein are not oppoſite, but ſubordinate one to another. Anger in Scripture is taken ſometimes for the hatred of God unto a perſon: ſometime for the execution of vindicative juſtice, in the latter ſenſe God was angry with Chriſt, not in the former.Separation from God in ſenſe or feeling, Abſolute ſeparation from God this ſecond was in Chriſt. Perk. Gal. 3.13. Forſaking is either totall and finall, ſo God forſakes the Reprobate; or partial and temporal, as concerning the fruition and ſenſe of the good of the promiſe, ſo God forſook Chriſt, and of this forſaking Chriſt complaineth in this place, being a principall part of that puniſhment, which Chriſt as the ſurety of the Elect was to undergo; the words clearly holding forth this truth, the Text neither according to Grammaticall ſenſe, nor Analogy of faith can admit of any better interpretation. Chriſt in his death was made ſin imputatively, that is, he ſuffered the guilt and puniſhment of ſin, a chief part whereof was this divine paenall deſertion, his death was joyned with the curſe, made up of the pain of ſenſe, and the pain of loſſe: If the pain of loſſe be not joyned with the pain of ſenſe, there can be no ſufficient cauſe given of ſo bitter and lamentable a cry for that perſon who was God man, therefore it follows by good conſequence, that Chriſt doth complain Pſa. 22. that God had forſaken him in anger for our ſinne.
Dialogu Our Saviours complaint muſt run thus, Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adverſaries, to be uſed as a notorious malefactor? It's not ſo fit a phraſe to ſay, Why haſt thou forſaken me into the hands of my malignant adverſaries, as to ſay, Why haſt thou left me into the hands of my malignant adverſaries?
Anſw. Our Saviours complaint runs ſo in your interpretation, namely, as concerning men; but it runs not ſo according to truth either only or chiefly. He was not only a notorious malefactor (though unjuſtly according to men) as you would have it: but he was a notorious malefactor having upon him the guilt of the ſinnes of the Elect by imputation, and that juſtly before God.
It is as fit a phraſe to ſay Why haſt thou forſaken me in the hands of my malignant adverſaries, as to ſay Why haſt thou left me into the hands of my malignant adverſaries. The words of the Pſalmiſt are, Why haſt thou forſaken me, or Why haſt thou left me? and no more: the addition, fit or unfit is the Dialogues paraphraſe, not the Pſalmiſts phraſe.
Dialogu God forſakes the damned totally and finally, becauſe there is no place of repentance left open to them, but he did not ſo forſake his ſon, neither did he forſake his ſon by any inward deſertion, as he doth ſometimes forſake his own people for the triall of their grace: but he left his ſon only outwardly when he left him into the hands of Tyrants to be puniſhed as a malefactor without any due triall of his cauſe.
Anſw. Rather there is no place of repentance left open to the damned, becauſe they are forſaken totally and finally: we ſay, that Chriſt was forſaken paenally, yet partially and temporally, not totally and finally: Chriſt was forſaken in way of trial, though not only, nor principally in way of triall, Luke 22.28. Heb. 2.18. & 4.15. And he was in all points tempted like unto us.
Dialogu Therefore the complaint of Christ lies fair and round thus, Why haſt thou left me in my righteous cauſe unto the will of my malignant adverſaries, to be condemned and put to death as a wicked Malefactor?
Anſw. This is but the ſame in effect in more words with what you lately ſaid in fewer words, and therefore receiveth the ſame anſwer.
Dialogu. John Hus appealed to Jeſus Chriſt for juſtice, ſaying, My God, My God, why haſt thou forſaken me? Ammond de la Roy Martyr, in the time of his torments ſaid, Lord, Lord, why hast thou forſaken me?
Anſw. It's a moſt lame and ſick conſequence; The Martyrs or others in the time of their deſertions under the caſtigatory wrath of God, complained in theſe words; therefore Chriſt ſuffered not paenall deſertion. As weak is the other conſequence, God for the manifeſtation of his glory in the witneſſing of his truth; for the good example of others, the diſcovery of the tyranny of Antichriſt, forſook David and others with a caſtigatory deſertion: therefore he forſook not Chriſt with a paenal deſertion for the manifeſtation of the glory of his juſtice.
Dialogu. Chriſtopher Carlile upon the Article of Chriſts deſcent into hell, ſaith not one word of the ſuffering of his fathers wrath, yet he makes uſe of Pſal. 22.1. and of M. Calvins judgement in other points, though he doth differ from him in his expoſition of Pſa. 22.1.
Anſw. If he doth differ from him without reaſon, we may oppoſe Calvins authority with reaſon, againſt his without it. It's not the authority of Calvin that concludes for; much leſſe the authority of Carlile that concludes againſt: but the reaſon of either according to truth, that determines the queſtion.
Dialogu. The holy Ghoſt hath indited this Pſalm by the Prophet David in the Perſon of Chriſt. If ſo, then all the words of this Pſalm muſt have relation to the perſon of Chriſt. The Pſalm it ſelf hath two principal parts, the firſt is from ver. 1. to 21. in all which Chriſt doth complain to his father of his unjuſt uſage by his malignant Adverſaries: the 2d part of the Pſalm is from the 22. ver. to the end.
Anſw. The inditing of the Pſalm by David with the diſtribution thereof, nothing diſproveth the deſertion mentioned verſ. 1. to proceed from the wrath of God.
In this Pſalm Chriſt complaineth of his unjuſt uſage by his malignant adverſaries, but not of that only nor principally.
The paſſions whereof Chriſt complaineth in this Pſalm, may be conveniently diſtributed into four heads. The ſuffering the wrath of God, ver. 1.2.11. The grief of his ſpirit by reproaches, ver. 6, 7, 8, 17, 18. His fear from the cruelty of his enemies, verſ. 12, 13, 16, 20, 21. The torture of his body by crucifying, ver. 14.15, 16, 17. the greateſt whereof was the ſenſe of the wrath of God.
Dialogu Therefore ſeeing Chriſt in this place doth double the term of his affiance in God, ſaying, My God, My God; it proves evidently that God had not forſaken his Son in anger for our ſins, but that God was still his hope; and that he would at laſt turn all his ſufferings but unto the tryal of his perfect obedience.
Anſw. Of forſaking and anger, we have diſtinguiſhed before; where we ſaw that God forſook Chriſt temporally and partially, in executing upon him as our ſurety the vindicative juſtice due to the elect for their ſins, all which conſiſts fully With this ſtedfaſt and unſhaken affiance in God. Therefore his ſufferings were not only in way of teſtimony, but alſo in way of ſatisfaction to divine juſtice.
Dialogu Why art thou then ſo far from my help, and from the words of my roaring? Why doſt thou leave me unto the will of my malignant adverſaries, notwithſtanding my prayers, and my righteous cauſe?
Anſw. You wrong the Text in reſtraining it unto the wrath of man. Chriſt principally if not wholly herein, looks unto the wrath of God.
Our Lords complaint here expreſſed by a Metaphor of roaring, is by the Evangeliſts called crying with a loud voice, Mat. 27.46. Mar. 15.34. Luke 23.46. By Paul, strong crying, Heb. 5.7.
This laſt Text M. Ainſworth cites to the ſame purpoſe, whoſe judgement the Dialogue ſeems much to account of.
Dialogu. My heart is melted in the midſt of my bowels, that is to ſay, the evil spirit that is in my malignant Adverſaries, and their doctors, do make my humane affections to melt in the midſt of my bowels.
Anſw. If your Expoſition were good and full, yet it is impertinent unto the argument, taken from the firſt verſe. The cauſe of the fainting of his ſpirit illuſtrated from a compariſon of melting wax, was neither only nor chiefly his ſuffering from the wrath of men, but from the wrath of God.
Dialogu Thou hast brought me unto the duſt of death, verſ. 15. God doth not ſo bring Chriſt unto the duſt of death, as he doth other men, namely, not ſo as death is laid upon man for ſin, Gen. 3.19.
Anſw. The Scripture mentioneth no other death then what is inflicted juſtly for ſinne, and M. Ainſworth whom the Dialogue often cites, ſeemeth to underſtand death to be laid upon Chriſt, according to the ſenſe of Gen. 3.19. expreſly quoting that Text in his Commentary upon this Verſe. But do you ſhew the difference between the death of Chriſt and the death of other men; whence it may appear, that death was not laid upon Chriſt for ſin.
Dialogu But for the better underſtanding of the true difference, I will diſtinguiſh upon the death of Chriſt; for God appointed him to die a double kinde of death. 1. As a Malefactor, and 2. As a Mediatour, and all this at one and the ſame time.
1. He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate counſell and decree, he gave the devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him, and into the Scribes and Phariſees, and Pontius Pilate to condemn him, and to do what they could to put him to death, and in that reſpect God may be truly ſaid to bring him into the duſt of death, Gen 3.19.
2. Notwithſtanding all this, Chriſt died as a Mediator, and therefore his death was not really finiſhed by thoſe torments which he ſuffered as a Malefactor, for as he was our Mediatour he ſeparated his own ſoul from his body by the power of his God-head. All the Tyrants in the world could not ſeparate his ſoul from his body, Joh. 19.11. no, not by all the torments they could deviſe, till himſelf pleaſed to actuate his own death by the joint concurrence of both his natures, Joh. 10.18.
Anſw. The plain meaning of the Authour in this diſtinction is, Chriſt died as a Malefactor only (though unjuſtly) in the Jews account, but not as a Mediatour: As a Mediatour only in Gods account, but not as a Malefactor.
This diſtinction in name, but in truth a Sophiſm, is uſed as a crutch to ſupport the halting doctrine of the non-imputation of ſin unto Chriſt.
Chriſts death as a Mediatour (ſaith the diſtinction) was not really finiſhed by thoſe torments which he ſuffered as a Malefactor: the Jews are ſaid to put Chriſt to death, becauſe they endeavoured to put him to death, but did not ſeparate his ſoul from his body; in that ſenſe they did not put him to death, ſo is the diſtinction expreſly interpreted, pag. 100.
If Chriſts death was a ſuffering then the formall cauſe thereof was not that active ſeparation of his ſoul from his body, ſo often mentioned by the Dialogue, otherwiſe Chriſt ſhould have been his own afflicter, yea, and in this caſe his own Executioner, which laſt the Dialogue it ſelf expreſly rejecteth. But the Dialogue reſuming and inſiſting further upon this diſtinction elſewhere, let the fuller ſpeaking thereunto be referred till then.
Though Haman according to the true ſenſe of that Text, Eſt 8.7. be ſaid to lay his hand upon the Jews, yet are the Jews no where ſaid to be ſlain by Haman. Abraham is ſaid to have offered up Iſaac, yet Iſaac is no where ſaid to be ſlain by Abraham, as Abraham did ſacrifice Iſaac, ſo was Iſaac ſacrificed, that is, interpretatively or virtually, not actually. But how often do we reade in Scripture that Chriſt was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews, Act. 2.37. & 4.10. 1 Cor. 2.8. By this reaſon it may be ſaid, that the Jews only endeavoured to offer violence unto Chriſt, and put him to ſmart, but did not actually and really, becauſe they could do neither without the permiſſion of the Divine nature, nor did either without both his Mediatorly permiſſion and conſent. The Jews accounting of Chriſt as of a Malefactor or Tranſgreſſor, was that the Scripture might be fullfilled, Mat. 15.28. and was juſt in reſpect of God, though unjuſt in reſpect of them.
Chriſt in Gods account ſuffered not only as a Mediator, but alſo as a malefactor or tranſgreſſor, i. e. a ſinner imputatively in reſpect of the guilt and puniſhment of ſin; he was ſuch a Mediator to whom it was eſſentiall (for the time) to be a Malefactor, that is, to ſuffer the guilt and puniſhment of ſin. The Prieſthood was eſſentiall to the Mediatour. To be a ſacrifice for ſin was eſſentiall to the Prieſthood, Iſa. 53.10. Therefore to be a ſacrifice for ſinne was eſſentiall to the office of a Mediatour.
As Chriſt was by office, ſo he died. Chriſt died not only as a Mediatour, Heb. 8.6. but alſo as a ſurety, Heb. 7.22. He ſhall bear their iniquity, Iſa. 53.11.Bajulabit. as a Porter bears a burthen, and that upon the Tree, 1 Pet. 2.24. He was made ſin, 2 Cor. 5.21. Chriſt ſeparated his ſoul from his body, as a ſubordinate cauſe, not as a principall efficient, that is, as a ſurety, by voluntary yeelding and offering up his life, Heb. 9.24. but not as an executioner. We reade Joh. 10.18. that Chriſt laid down his life, but not that he took it away by violence; the ſame word that is here uſed concerning Chriſt, Peter hath concerning himſelf, I will lay down my life for thy ſake, Joh. 13.37. and John hath concerning Chriſt and the Saints, becauſe he laid down his life for us, we ought alſo to lay down our lives for the brethren, 1 Joh. 3.16. But it was not lawfull for Peter or the Saints to take away their own lives.
Though Chriſt by his abſolute power could have preſerved his life againſt all created adverſary power; none taketh it from me, namely, againſt my conſent, whether I will or not, Joh. 10.18. yet by his limited power, he could not, but as our ſurety he was bound to permit the courſe of phyſicall cauſes, and prevailing of the power of darkneſſe, for the fullfilling of what was written concerning him; This is your hour, and the power of darkneſſe, Luke 22.53. The Jews therefore doing that which according to the order of ſecond cauſes, not only might, but alſo (through his voluntary and obliged permiſſion) did take away his life, did not only endeavour but alſo actually kill him. Yet ſuppoſe the Jews were not inſtrumentall, in the actuall taking away of his bodily life, it is a meer non-conſequence thence to inferre the non-imputation of ſin unto Chriſt. Briefly, as this diſtinction is a meer ſophiſme and groundleſſe, ſo the diſcourſe concerning the Jews endeavouring to put Chriſt to death, but not really putting him to death, making Chriſt to take away his own life, and conſequently to be his own Executioner, is falſe and impertinent. For which, though the Jews may owe the Authour ſome thanks, yet Chriſt Jeſus himſelf and all judicious Chriſtians cannot but take it very ill.
Dialogu. Thus have I ſhewed unto you the dependance of the first part of this Pſalm; by which you may ſee how the ſcope of this Pſalm doth ſet out the ſufferings of Chriſt to proceed not from Gods wrath but from mans only. Neither do I finde any thing of Gods wrath either in this or in any other Pſalm, and yet Chriſt doth make as dolefull complaint to God of his ſufferings, both in this Pſalm, and Pſal. 69. as any can be found in all the Bible.
Anſw. What you have ſaid upon the firſt part of this Pſalm of any weight againſt the ſufferings of Chriſt as proceeding from Gods wrath, hath been conſidered, and its inſufficiency to that end ſufficiently manifeſted. It hath alſo been proved out of part of the firſt part of this Pſalm, viz. ver. 1.2.11. that Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God; yet becauſe (notwithſtanding you cannot be ignorant of much that is ſpoken to that purpoſe) you do as much as ſay, that neither here or elſewhere you can finde this truth in the Scripture, that the Reader may here ſee (for proofs from other places are to be expected elſewhere) how Chriſts ſuffering the wrath of God, is argued from his dolefull complaints in his paſſion: I ſhall cloſe this diſcourſe, preſenting him with a brief yet ſad and ſerious view of the paſſion of our Lord Jeſus,foreign. It intends all the ſuffering of afflicting and conflicting affections under the ſight and ſenſe of great and eminent peril impending. foreign Anima Chriſti fuit triſtis uſ que ad mortem extenſivè & intenſivè. Gerharm. in …. a ſubject which the Angels themſelves (how much more ſhould all beleevers) deſire throughly and narrowly to look into, 1 Pet. 1.12. by conſidering, 1. The nature. 2. The effects. 3. The adjuncts. 4. The ſubject of theſe ſufferings.
Luke expreſſeth the nature of his paſſion in generall by an Agony, Chap. 22.44. it ſignifieth the ſorrows of combaters entring the liſts with the ſenſe of the utmoſt danger of life, a metaphor taken from the paſſion of conflicting affections, in the greateſt, eminenteſt, and moſt ſenſible perils, and ſo holding forth the ſharpeſt of the fears of men. The parts of this Agony are.
1. Extreme ſorrow, and he began to be ſorrowfull and very heavy, then ſaith he unto them, My ſoul is exceeding ſorrowfull even unto death, Mat. 26.36, 37. His ſorrow was lethal and deadly, both extenſively and intenſively; extenſively, continuing unto the laſt gaſp: intenſively, killing of it ſelf in time; had there been no other cauſes reſolving and melting the ſoul gradually, as wax is melted with the heat. My heart is like wax, it is melted in the midſt of my bowels, Pſa. 22.14.
foreign.2. Amazement, and he began to be ſore amazed, Mar. 14 33. which ſignifieth an univerſall ceſſation of all the faculties of the ſoul from their ſeverall functions, Phyſitians call it an Horripilation, we uſually a Conſternation; Like a clock in kelter, yet ſtopped for the while from going, by ſome hand laid upon it. That ſuch intermiſſion of the operations of the ſoul, the effect of this formidable concuſſion, might be without ſin, is evident to him that remembers Chriſt ſlept, Sleep ordinarily implying a ceſſation of the exerciſe of the intellectuall faculties for the time.
foreign3. Expavefaction. He began not meerly to be amazed but alſo to be very heavy, the word notes expavefaction, which was ſuch a motion of his minde ſuperadded unto his Conſternation: whereby for the time he was diſenabled, as concerning the minding of any thing elſe, being wholly taken up with the dreadfull ſenſe of the righteous wrath of God; as the eye intenſly fixed upon ſome object, taketh no notice of any other object before it for the while.
foreign4. Fear, Who in the daies of his fleſh, i.e. of his infirm fleſh before his death and reſurrection, when he offered up prayers and ſupplications with ſtrong crying and tears unto him that was able to ſave him from death, and was heard in that which he feared, Heb. 5.7. his fear was an afflicting affection ariſing from the ſight and ſenſe of the greateſt morall evil, namely, the fearfull wrath of God.
foreign.5. Deſertion, or being forſaken of God, that is left helpleſſe and ſuccourleſs in his extremity, Mat. 27.46.
The effects of his paſſion were.
1. Fervent prayer, Mat. 26.36. earneſt prayer, Luk 22.44. being fallen upon his face, ver. 39. with ſtrong crying and tears, Heb. 5.7. three times ſaying the ſame words, My Father if it be poſſible let this cup paſſe from me, Mat. 26.44.
2. Bloudy ſweat, and being in an agony he praied more earneſtly, and his ſweat was as it were great drops of bloud falling down to the ground, Luke 22.44.
Nam ter humi ſtrato, contritio cordis, & ille
Sanguineus ſudor, crux fuit ante crucem.
3. That dolefull, loud, and lamentable cry, and about the ninth hour, Jeſus cried with a loud voice, ſaying, Eli, Eli, lamaſabachthani, that is to ſay, My God, My God, why haſt thou forſaken me: Mat. 27.46.
The Adjuncts of his paſſion were.
1. An Angel comforting him, And there appeared an Angel to him from Heaven ſtrengthening him.
2. A miraculous Eclipſe continuing three hours,Aut Deus naturae patitur, aut mundi machina diſſolvitur. ſo contrary to the courſe of nature, as that an underſtanding Heathen at the ſight of it cried out, Either the God of nature ſuffereth, or the frame of this world is diſſolved.
Laſtly, The ſubject of all theſe ſufferings, namely, Jeſus Chriſt God-man. Now ſum up all theſe in order; An Agony wherein were lethall ſorrow, conſternation, expavefaction, fear, deſertion, fervent praier, bloudy ſweat, dolefull and loud cry, need of ſtrengthening from an Angel, put all theſe together in a perſon who was not a meer creature, but God-man, having a perfect ſoul and body, free from all morall infirmity, of ſound health and exact temper, who not only was God, but knew that God was his, Mat. 27.46. fully underſtood the glory of the bleſſed, that his ſoul immediatly upon its diſſolution ſhould be in Paradiſe, Luke 23.43. that his body after three daies ſhould riſe again, Matt. 16.21. and that in the interim it ſhould not ſee corruption, Pſa. 16.10. and then I appeal to the conſcience of each Chriſtian Reader, whether ſuch a paſſion in ſuch a ſubject argueth not greater ſufferings then of a meer naturall death, or could argue leſſe then the ſufferings of the greateſt evil that could befall him that could not ſin; namely, the wrath of God.