← Back to sermon library

Matthew 27 as we continue to consider the 
crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our focus this morning 
will be on verses 45 to 46, but I will begin reading in Matthew 
27 at verse 32. Now as they came out, they found 
a man of Cyrene, Simon by name, him they compelled to bear his 
cross. And when they had come to a place 
called Golgotha, that is to say, place of a skull, they gave him 
sour wine mingled with gall to drink. When he tasted it, he 
would not drink. Then they crucified him and divided 
his garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was 
spoken by the prophet. They divided my garments among 
them, and for my clothing they cast lots. Sitting down, they 
kept watch over him there, and they put up over his head the 
accusation written against him, This is Jesus, the King of the 
Jews. Then two robbers were crucified 
with him, one on the right and another on the left. And those 
who passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads and saying, 
you who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save 
yourself. If you are the son of God, come 
down from the cross. Likewise, the chief priests also 
mocking with the scribes and elders said, he saved others, 
himself he cannot save. He is the king of Israel, let 
him now come down from the cross and we will believe him. He trusted 
in God, let him deliver him now if he will have him. For he said, 
I am the son of God. Even the robbers who were crucified 
with him reviled him with the same thing. Now from the 6th 
hour until the 9th hour, there was darkness over all the land. 
And about the 9th hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice saying, 
"'Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani, that is my God, my God, why have 
you forsaken me?' Some of those who stood there when they heard 
that said, this man is calling for Elijah. Immediately one of 
them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it 
on a reed and offered it to him to drink. The rest said, let 
him alone, let us see if Elijah will come to save him. And Jesus 
cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. Then 
behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, 
and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves 
were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen 
asleep were raised. And coming out of the graves 
after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared 
to many. So when the centurion and those 
with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and the things 
that had happened, they feared it greatly saying, truly, this 
was the Son of God. Amen. Well, let us pray. Our 
Father in heaven, we come to scripture now and we pray for 
the ministry and the aid of the Holy Spirit. We acknowledge that 
you are the great and the living and the true God, Father, Son, 
and Spirit. We acknowledge your handiwork 
and creation, and certainly beautiful days like this lead us to consider 
a God who made this world and all things in it. We acknowledge 
the fact that you govern all your creatures and all their 
actions, that you are in the heavens and you do what you please. 
And we acknowledge on the Sabbath in a special way your work of 
redemption, how we praise you for sovereign grace, how we praise 
you for election, how we praise you for the work of redemption 
wrought out by our Lord Jesus and his life, his death, and 
his resurrection. We thank you for the ministry 
of the Holy Spirit who takes that accomplished work and applies 
it to the hearts of your people. And we pray that today, as we 
look to the cross in a very specific way, that we would appreciate 
afresh what the Savior went through on our behalf, that we would 
see Him there in our stead, taking the wrath and the curse and the 
punishment of God Most High that was appropriate to us. How we 
thank you that you made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, 
that we might become the righteousness of God in him. Thank you that 
he was delivered up because of our offenses and he was raised 
for our justification. Thank you for the glorious gospel 
of free and sovereign grace. And do forgive us now for all 
of our sins and unrighteousness. Do cleanse us in the blood of 
the Lamb. Fill us with the Holy Spirit. 
Give us understanding into the Scriptures. And for any and all 
who have come here this morning that are not in Christ, we pray 
that today would be the day of salvation. We pray that they 
would see their own sin and the wrath and fury of a holy God, 
and they would see the utter and complete sufficiency of Jesus 
Christ to save to the uttermost all who draw nigh unto God through 
Him. Bless our time together, we pray, 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Well, as I said, our focus 
this morning will be on verses 45 and 46. In many respects, 
we're slowing down just a little bit because it's such a very 
important passage of Scripture, and the narrative itself slows 
down. Matthew has not given a lot of 
concern or a lot of attention in terms of time and record-keeping 
or specifics with reference to time and record-keeping, but 
here he indicates this sixth hour until the ninth hour, this 
three-hour period. I think there's at least an implied 
silence. Darkness and silence come over 
the land. As it were, the clock begins 
to crawl. As we come to the agonizing portion 
of our Savior's cry of dereliction, we see that the Lord God Most 
High has set him forth in such a way for the glory of God and 
for the good of sinners." As I said, this is our third message 
concerning the crucifixion. We noticed in beginning in chapters 
27 from 32 on, we have seen the crucifixion proper, verses 32 
to 38. Secondly, the mockery of the crucified, one, in verses 
39 to 44. And this morning, the cry of 
dereliction, or what has been called the cry of dereliction 
in verses 45 and 46. So there are two things that 
we want to consider this morning. First, the darkness over the 
land, and then secondly, the cry from the cross. But in the 
first place, note this darkness. The time is given us in verse 
45, now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour. This would have 
been from noon to 3 p.m., so the brightest and hottest part 
of the day, and yet it's darkness over the land. And this was the 
time for the slaying, 3 p.m., the time of the slaying of the 
daily sacrifice. France suggests that it was the 
time the official slaughter of the Passover lambs began. So 
we see that consistency there in terms of our Lord's death 
and the slaughtering of those Passover lambs. And then with 
reference to the darkness, from the sixth hour until the ninth 
hour, there was darkness over all the land. So Matthew doesn't 
explain the theological significance for this. He doesn't tell us 
why it was dark. He doesn't tell us why these 
things occurred in the way that they did. And so it's best for 
us to consider other portions of Scripture, other themes, other 
things, other reasons or reasons from other places as to why there 
would have been darkness here. Well, I think in the first place, 
it is the appropriate setting for the events unfolding. It's 
a dark situation. It's an unfortunate situation. 
It's a wretched situation. Describing the coming crucifixion, 
our Lord Jesus in Luke 22, 53 says, When I was with you daily 
in the temple, you did not try to seize me, but this is your 
hour and the power of darkness. So darkness has flooded the land 
at this particular instance. This shows The reality that what 
our Lord is undergoing is indeed a dark event. But as well, we 
see the sympathy of nature here. The sympathy of the created order, 
the mourning of nature itself. And many commentators have observed 
this. I'll just cite Thomas Manton. 
I think he describes it well. He says, at the passion of Christ, 
the earth trembled. The sun seemed to be struck blind 
with astonishment, and the frame of nature to put itself into 
a funeral garb and habit, as if the creatures dare not show 
their glory while God was manifesting His anger for sin and Christ 
was suffering. I said one, I'll go ahead and 
cite Spurgeon two. He says, this darkness was supernatural. It was not an eclipse. The son 
could no longer look upon his maker surrounded by those who 
mocked him. The son covered his face and 
traveled on in tenfold night in very shame that the great 
son of righteousness should himself be in such terrible darkness. I think that gets at the creature 
shielding his eyes from the situation at hand. But I think the darkness 
is an expression of divine judgment. The darkness is an expression 
of divine judgment. And I think if you think back, 
perhaps, to the Exodus, at the time of the first Passover, Just 
prior to the death of the firstborn, there was a darkness that came 
over the entire land of Egypt. It was a darkness that could 
be felt. What was that suggestive of? 
It was suggestive of God's wrath and His fury and His anger displayed 
toward sinners. We also have a passage in the 
prophet Amos, and you can turn there, serves as a helpful background 
for our darkness here. But in the prophet Amos, which 
is targeting the northern kingdom, specifically for the rebellion 
against God and the judgment that is to come upon them, in 
Amos, the prophet, chapter 8, verse 9. God says, "'It shall 
come to pass in that day,' says the Lord God, "'that I will make 
the sun go down at noon, "'and I will darken the earth in broad 
daylight. "'I will turn your feasts into 
mourning, "'and all your songs into lamentation. "'I will bring 
sackcloth on every waist, "'and baldness on every head. "'I will 
make it like the morning for an only sun, "'and its end like 
a bitter day.'" And then turn to Matthew's gospel, back to 
Matthew's gospel, a couple of passages that highlight the consistency 
of darkness with the judgment and the fury of God, specifically 
in Matthew 22. Matthew 22, speaking of the exclusion 
of the wicked from the holy people of God. Matthew 22, verse 13, 
that man found without the wedding garment, the king says, bind 
him hand and foot, take him away and cast him into outer darkness, 
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And then again in chapter 
25, specifically in verse 30, and cast the unprofitable servant 
into the outer darkness, there will be weeping and gnashing 
of teeth. As we go back to Matthew 27, 
this darkness over the land reveals divine displeasure and wrath 
and judgment due to sin. And here specifically, it is 
targeted against the Son of God's love. And this is a very difficult 
portion of Scripture, specifically verse 46, this cry from the cross 
So I want to spend some time here, first to consider the cry 
of the Son of God, secondly some theological considerations, because 
there's a lot of problems when we get to a passage like this 
that can result itself in just bad theology. This idea that 
there might have been a division between the Father and the Son. 
popular contemporary Christian song where it says, the father 
turned away from the son. That really needs to be qualified. It really needs to be understood 
what is happening here and in this cry of dereliction. So after 
these theological considerations, we'll look thirdly at the scriptural 
background to this cry. Fourthly, the various views of 
the passage. And then fifth, try to get at 
the meaning. of verse 46. Note first the words 
of Christ. They are a combination of Aramaic 
and Hebrew. And it's probably this cry that 
pierces the darkness and the silence. And it is interesting 
that when Jesus calls out It's not upon his persecutors, it's 
not upon his mockers, it's not upon his tormentors, it's not 
upon those who have hung him there, but it's to the Father. 
He cries to the Father. And if we ask the question why 
Matthew gives us the Aramaic-slash-Hebrew rendering and then translates 
it for us, I think Davies and Allison are on the right track. 
They say the answer is presumably twofold. First, the words were 
Jesus' last, and therefore seemed especially important. Now, last 
in terms of his life, with reference to his post-resurrection, there 
are words to be sure. But in Matthew's description 
of the crucifixion, this was the final statement that our 
Savior uttered. So it was important for him to 
give us that Aramaic and Hebrew. And then he says, without them, 
the misunderstanding about Elijah would be unintelligible. In other 
words, when he cries this forth, they interpret, or some interpret, 
and I'm gonna argue that it was a deliberate misinterpretation, 
that he was calling upon Elijah. And then with reference to the 
translation, that is, my God, my God, why have you forsaken 
me? This is the fourth saying of 
the Savior from the cross. It's the only one that Matthew 
records, but in total, there were seven sayings from the Savior 
when he was on the cross. The first was, Father, forgive 
them, in Luke 23. The second was, today you will 
be with me in paradise, Luke 23. The third is when he says, 
woman, behold your son. He says to John, behold your 
mother. That's in John 19. This one is 
the fourth saying of the Savior. The fifth is, I thirst, in John 
19. The sixth is, it is finished 
in John 19, and then the seventh is again found in Luke 23, Father, 
into your hands I commit my spirit. So the seven sayings of the Savior 
from the cross, it's important that we understand those things 
and their significance. So that's the cry, again, just 
barely or just on the surface considered. Secondly, I mentioned 
some theological considerations. It's important, again, we must 
understand what this text does not teach. Some of this stuff 
is just bizarre out there and we need to be on guard. In the 
first place, the cry of Jesus here does not indicate any division 
among the persons of the Trinity. The cry of Jesus here does not 
indicate any division among the persons of the Trinity. That 
is heresy, and we're not to imbibe that for a moment. In fact, one 
very popular commentator asks, or he says, if we ask in what 
ontological sense? Now, kids, I don't want to confuse 
anybody this morning, but ontology refers to being. or another term 
that's really gonna help define it, metaphysics. Oh, now I know 
what ontology means. Pastor, thank you, because I 
often use metaphysics. When we refer to ontological 
trinity, we mean God as God is, God in himself, Father, Son, 
Spirit, three persons, one Godhead, the same in substance, equal 
in power and glory. They have always existed and 
they will never not exist. That is our God. He is triune. He is Father, Son, and Spirit. And so this particular commentator 
says, if we ask in what ontological sense the Father and the Son 
are here divided, the answer must be that we do not know because 
we are not told. That's terrible. There is no 
ontological division. The rest of the Bible tells us 
that. It never gives us the idea that 
there could be any breach, division, rupture, or a cessation of unity 
between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So whatever 
2746 means or 2746 describes, it must not be understood as 
to imply a division among the persons of the Trinity. Secondly, 
the cry of Jesus does not indicate a dissolution of the hypostatic 
union. Again, dissolution means a dissolving 
of, a removal of, and the hypostatic union means the person of Christ. 
He is one person in two natures. He is truly man. He is truly 
God. Not two Christs, one Christ, 
but one Christ that possesses two natures, divinity and humanity. The hypostatic union is not dissolved 
at the cross. The hypostatic union does not 
cease at the cross. There's not a time when Christ 
isn't what he is described in Scripture as. In fact, John Gill 
says, when he is said to be forsaken of God, the meaning is not that 
the hypostatic union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself. 
The fullness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him. Again, just 
try to get at what's going on here and not end up heretical. 
A third theological consideration is that the cry of Jesus does 
indicate that the three persons of the Trinity did not suffer 
on the cross. Rather, the second person, according 
to his humanity, suffered on the cross. Now, you may not realize 
how important each of these three considerations are, but they're 
very important. Not because I came up with them, 
but because they're under attack. The church has a problem today 
with what's called theology proper. Theology proper is the doctrine 
of God. It concerns who God is. It considers what God does. It 
considers who Christ is in his blessed person. And there's all 
kinds of suggestions out there from otherwise good men, evangelical 
brothers, that are teaching things that the Bible and church, or 
the church as a whole, has never held to whatsoever. In fact, 
listen to one of them. He says with reference to the 
suffering on the cross, the three then are at Calvary suffering, 
not only from the sin of the world, but suffering for it. The Son's passion cannot be external 
to the Father and the Holy Spirit. They are in it as they embrace 
and include the Son. The pain of the cross is the 
pain of the triune God. The church has never taught that. 
The Bible doesn't teach that. It is Christ, according to His 
humanity, that bears the wrath and fury of God on the cross. This may sound good, it may sound 
sappy, it may fill the heart with emotionalism, but it is 
a betrayal of the written word, brethren, and we cannot allow 
that. Emotional ism and sentiment and 
warm feelings can never trump sound theology. We must maintain 
truth at all costs. And for this particular person 
to suggest that it was the three persons of the Trinity suffering 
on the cross is to go against the Bible. It is to go against 
the teaching of the church. One man, a good man, says, with 
reference to what I call the ad extra, what God does outside 
of Himself. Ad intra describes who God is 
in Himself. Ad extra is what God does to 
those who are outside of Himself. The ad extra works are willed 
and effected by Father, Son, and Spirit. But the work of incarnation 
and mediation, and specifically the cross work, is ascribed to 
the Lord Jesus. It's not given to the Father, 
it's not given to the Spirit, but it's Christ as covenant mediator 
that goes through this suffering, and that according to His humanity. Let's consider thirdly the scriptural 
background to the statement. Notice in verse 46, my God, my 
God, why have you forsaken me? This is straight out of the Psalms, 
isn't it? Brother Mike read Psalm 22. This 
is Psalm 22, verse 1. You need to understand what's 
happening in Psalm 22. If Jesus is going to take this 
as the last statement recorded by Matthew and pray it up to 
the Father, it is important that we get Psalm 22. Well, Psalm 
22 is David's psalm crying out for the intervention of God. 
And David cries out for the intervention of God with a couple of particular 
arguments. From verses 1 to 10, he cries 
out that God will intervene based on God's past faithfulness. In other words, you are holy. You've delivered our fathers. 
You were there with me from the womb. Based on that reality of 
your proven faithfulness and your proven fidelity, God deliver 
me, vindicate me, help me. And then in the second section, 
he cries out for God's aid because of the present calamity that 
he's undergoing. In other words, in verses 11 
to 21a, he's describing the sorts of things that he is suffering 
under. And based on that difficulty, 
he is asking the Father to help him, to aid him. And then from 
21b to the end, it is praise to God for his having heard David 
and having answered David. Now, before we move on, it is 
important to make this final observation concerning Psalm 
22. It was written by David, but 
it isn't about David. David had a lot of suffering. 
David had a lot of trials. David had a lot of agony in his 
life. In fact, you go back to 1 Samuel 
16. When David is anointed, what 
happens? His troubles begin. He's about the most perfect example 
of the anti-health wealth prosperity gospel you could ever imagine. 
What happened, David, when Samuel anointed you with oil and the 
Holy Spirit comes upon you with power to separate you for kingly 
office? Was life just one big ball of 
happiness? No, he was hunted like a dog. 
He was tried, he was afflicted, he was desperate, not only from 
external enemies, but from Saul himself. But what he describes, 
specifically in Psalm 22, verses 11 to 21, he describes torture. He describes execution. And if 
you go back in the history of 1 and 2 Samuel, if you go back 
into those prophetic books, you will not find that as having 
been David's experience. He was not tortured and he was 
not executed. David is writing about David's 
greater son. In fact, Alec Motier makes this 
observation. We are listening to David the 
prophet looking forward to the suffering Messiah. On the one 
hand, David wrote it, but it's not about David. It's about David's 
greater son, David's Lord. Fourthly, we ought to consider 
the various views of Matthew 27, verse 46. Now, some of you 
might be saying, well, we're spending, what, 20 minutes now 
telling me what the text does not mean? I hope to tell you 
what the text does mean, but again, in theology, We need to 
understand not only what passages mean, but we need to make sure 
we understand what they don't mean. We don't want to be heretics. We don't want to be Socinians. 
We don't want to be those who would have been classically, 
or who would have been excised, or removed, or excommunicated 
from the church for views that, unfortunately, they find themselves 
on blogs today, or openly promoted in evangelical seminaries. As 
I said, there is a problem with theology proper, and as far as 
I'm able, I don't want you guys to duplicate that. Fourth, the 
various views of the passage. We'll run through these, at least 
a couple of them quickly. First, the view that he was expressing 
the opinion of others and not his own. The view that he was 
expressing the opinion of others and not his own. Calvin deals 
with this briefly in his Institutes. It's probably not what's happening 
here. Secondly, the view that it only 
seemed like Jesus was being forsaken. The view that it only seemed 
like Jesus was being forsaken. But there's a common theme in 
Matthew's gospel that shows opposition to Jesus. Opposition by his countrymen 
in Matthew 13. Opposition by his disciples in 
Matthew 26. And opposition by all the people 
of Israel according to Matthew chapter 27. So, it's not just 
a statement wherein Jesus thinks or seemingly has been forsaken. Whatever the impact of forsakenness 
means, it wasn't a seeming thing, but it actually occurred to the 
Son of God. Now, there is a third suggestion 
that the view is, or a view that Christ prayed the entirety of 
Psalm 22. Matthew didn't record the rest, 
he only recorded 22-1, but Jesus did, having known the Psalter, 
having sung the Psalms, having been schooled in their use, would 
have taken the entirety of Psalm 22, and he would have prayed 
that as well. Now, I will not dismiss or disagree with the 
reality that Psalm 22 is fulfilled in Matthew 27 and 28. It most certainly is fulfilled, 
because when the psalmist cries out for deliverance in Psalm 
22, 21b, he says very specifically, and you have answered me. And 
the remainder of the psalm is the psalmist praising God for 
having answered him. calling upon God to be exalted, 
to be believed in, to be feared. So if you compare the movement 
in Matthew 27 and 28, you've got Matthew 27 reflecting the 
first half of the psalm, where the psalmist is crying out for 
deliverance, and he is not being granted deliverance. That's Matthew 
27. But then Matthew 28 is resurrection, 
it is exaltation, it is triumph, and that's the latter half of 
Psalm 22. All that to say there is definite 
movement in Matthew 27 and 28 in terms of reflecting the application 
of the psalm, but I suspect that this was the only portion of 
the psalm that Jesus cited here on the cross. And then the view 
that the Father abandoned the Son. The view that the Father 
abandoned the Son. Again, it's a famous song, the 
Father turns his face away. If we're going to sing that song, 
we need to understand it qualified. We need to understand it distinguished. We need to understand it in its 
biblical setting. The idea that God the Father 
abandoned the Son is contrary to Psalm 22. I mean, Psalm 22, 21b couldn't 
be any clearer. You have answered me. The idea that the father abandoned 
the son without qualification, Now, this is popular language. 
I'm sure I've said it before. The father turned his face away 
from the son. And if I said it without qualification, 
I was wrong. We need to understand what's 
happening. This passage itself shows us that he's not abandoned 
without qualification. He's not forsaken without qualification. Why? Because he's buried and 
he's raised the third day. Obviously, the father didn't 
forsake him or abandon him. We ought to remember as well 
the fact that the cross was the plan of the Father. It would 
be a rotten thing to do for the Father to develop or to purpose 
a particular plan, and the Son to willingly comply with that 
plan, and then the Father abandon Him. According to scripture, the cross 
was no afterthought. According to scripture, the cross 
was no, well, it's a plan B to try to redeem those who rejected 
the kingdom, as old school dispensationalism taught. It's not a plan B, sort 
of a convention by which the father enacts a new plan or new 
phase of the plan to try to rescue sinners. No, it was always the 
plan of the father. I mean, from the very beginning, 
Genesis chapter 3, often said before, when God made those garments 
or got those garments from the animals for Adam and Eve, he 
didn't unzip a bear suit. It was a bloody sacrifice and 
God removed the skin and covered Adam and Eve. When Abraham takes 
Isaac to Mount Moriah, the site of the future temple, and Isaac 
says, where is the land for offering? And Abraham says, Yahweh will 
provide. As we move throughout the Old 
Testament scriptures, I mean, it comes into more clarity at 
Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, to be sure, but it was always the purpose 
and the plan of the father for the son to undergo what the son 
is undergoing here. So the idea that he forsook him 
or abandoned him in an unqualified manner doesn't make sense of 
the text. And then we ought to appreciate 
the fact that the father never wavered in his love for the son. He doesn't love him less at this 
particular time. Some of the Puritans went so 
far as to say, he loved him more. He never loved him more than 
when he was at the cross. Now I love that sentiment and 
I think it expresses well the reality behind the scene, but 
it's not altogether true. God's love doesn't increase and 
it doesn't diminish. He can't love Jesus any more 
than he's ever loved Jesus. The same is true for us. Some 
people don't like that doctrine of impassibility. It sounds threatening 
and menacing and it reduces God to a static and inert being. No, impassibility secures the 
reality of our confession. He is most loving. Do you realize, 
believer, that when you, by grace, have come to the Lord, God's 
love for you doesn't increase and it doesn't diminish because 
it can't. You got this idea on a Thursday, 
well, God doesn't love me as much today. God's love can't 
grow. Say, well, that doesn't seem 
right, but it can't diminish either. Why? Because he's most 
loving. How do you get more most? You can't heap up any other modifiers 
to make most loving better. Honey, I love you the most that 
I'm ever gonna love you. That's a good thing if your spouse 
is able to say that to you. But even then, it's not altogether 
true, because it can increase, and unfortunately, it can diminish. 
But when God says, or when the scriptures tell us that God is 
love, you ever consider John saying there, we love, but it's 
not true that we are love, is it? I mean, if somebody said, 
I want you to describe yourself for me, would you say, I am love? 
If you would, you've got problems. Sorry. You've neglected the doctrine 
of total depravity, and you need to study your Bible. We don't 
describe ourselves like that because it's not essential to 
us, but God is. His attributes. All that is in 
God is God. He doesn't diminish. He doesn't 
increase. And if that is true for us, the 
adopted sons of God, it is true of the eternally begotten Son 
of God. speaks to this suggestion that 
the father stopped loving the son. He says that is impossible. He can no more cease to love 
Christ than to love himself. His love was not turned into 
wrath, though his wrath only was now manifested to him as 
our surety. And that brings us finally to 
the meaning of the words. Two things here we ought to consider. 
First, the reality that the Father did not deliver the Son from 
the agony of the cross. That's the cry of dereliction. 
That's the cry of forsakenness. That's the cry of abandonment. That in this present distress, 
in this current suffering, in this agony that Christ was undergoing, 
the Father didn't deliver him, did he? The Father doesn't rain 
down a ladder so that Christ can ascend back into heaven. 
No. In fact, the parallel line in 
Psalm 22 at verse 1, after the psalmist writes, why have you 
forsaken me? He goes on to say, why are you 
so far from helping me and from the words of my groaning? Abandonment 
and forsakenness does not mean the father stopped loving the 
son. Abandonment and forsakenness does not mean that the father 
would no longer have dealings with the son. Brethren, it doesn't 
even mean the father turned his face from the son. It means that 
he didn't proffer help at this particular instance to deal with 
this particular distress. This is the same thing that Isaiah 
the prophet teaches in Isaiah 53 at verse 10. It tells us there, 
Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him. He has put him to grief. See, what Christ is crying out 
here is legit, it is true, it is the reality, but it's not, 
the father turned his face from the son. The father abandoned 
the son forever. The father forsook the son. No, 
it's with this present crisis. Christ on the cross, suffering 
on our behalf, is feeling the full weight and fury of God's 
wrath, and he cries to him, why hast thou forsaken me? I think 
what is in view, if there was anything removed, it was the 
removal of God's favor in terms of His smile, God's closeness 
in terms of intimacy and communion. And we'll explain why in just 
a moment, but a few of the men in the past help us. Poole says 
it must be understood with respect to God's consolatory manifestations. Not an utter forsakenness, not 
an abandonment, not a turning of the face away, but that it 
was with respect to God's consolatory manifestations. John Gill says, 
but he was now without a sense of the gracious presence of God 
and was filled as the surety of his people with a sense of 
divine wrath, which their iniquities he now bore. You see, it's not 
God abandoned him, God forsook him in an unqualified way. It means that the smile of God, 
if we can use that sort of popular language, was not Christ at that 
particular moment. Again, we'll explain why in just 
a moment. Francis Turretin gives probably 
the most specific answer, and I'll just quote a portion, but 
as to a participation of joy and felicity. God suspending 
for a little while the favorable presence of grace and influx 
of consolation and happiness that he might be able to suffer 
all the punishment due to us. See, that's what it is. If we 
argue or we sing or we speak of God's forsaking the Son, we 
need to understand what it doesn't mean. We need to appreciate what 
it does mean. And when we do, we can appreciate 
the work of the Savior on our behalf because of the reasons 
for that withdrawal. You know why, first and foremost, 
this happened? It's because of us. Right? Why hast thou forsaken me? I 
mean, strictly speaking, it's not a real quest for knowledge 
by the Savior. He knows his task. He knows his 
mission. He doesn't shrink back from it. 
He announces it in Matthew 16, Matthew 17, and Matthew 20. When 
he says, why hast thou forsaken me? It's not a search for information, 
but an expression of his agony. an expression of his grief, an 
expression of his distress at undergoing not the mockery, not 
the spitting, not the physical abuse, but the withdrawal of 
the smile of his father. And he undergoes this not because 
he was sinful, not because he was a criminal, not because he 
was an insurrectionist, but because we are. Consider Matthew 1.21, 
he will save his people from their sins. Consider Matthew 
20.28, just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but 
to serve and to give his life a ransom for many. And then 2 
Corinthians 5.21 really illustrates this idea of substitution, Christ 
taking our place. God made Him, the Father made 
Christ, who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become 
the righteousness of God in Him. Or Galatians 3.13, what does 
it tell us? Christ became a curse for us. See, that's why the cry of dereliction, 
that's why, why hast thou forsaken me? It's because he identifies 
with us. It's because he is our covenant 
head. It is because he is our representative. It is because he is our priest. 
In fact, one of the early fathers, Hillary, said this. He said, 
nay, it was we who were forsaken and disregarded, so that it was 
as appropriating our personality that he offered these prayers. 
He says elsewhere, appropriating then our person and ranking himself 
with us, he used these words, for we are bound in the fetters 
of sin and the curse as faithless and disobedient and therefore 
forsaken. In other words, Christ is our 
substitute here at the cross. Why hast thou forsaken me? Because 
he stood in our place. We sing that, don't we? Bearing 
shame and scoffing rude, in my place condemned he stood. That's 
the rationale behind this particular statement of our Lord Jesus Christ. Not that the Father turned away 
from the Son. Not that the Father abandoned 
the Son in some unqualified way. Not that the father shielded 
himself from the son. The father is pleased in the 
altogether lovely, altogether always. He doesn't leave the 
son. He doesn't forsake the son. Continually, 
the father undergirds the son. The father sustains the son. 
who by the eternal spirit offered himself to God according to Hebrews 
9. All three persons are present 
in terms of the cross. They're not suffering like McLeod 
suggests, but they're all three there, the Father's wrath being 
appeased, the Son being the appeaser, and the Spirit sustaining the 
Son while He undertakes that glorious work. And then Matthew 
Henry makes this observation, he says, Christ was made sin 
for us, a curse for us, and therefore though God loved him as a son, 
he frowned upon him as our surety. You see, the text makes perfect 
sense. He's not forsaken in some unqualified way. He hasn't turned 
his face from Him. No, He never stops loving the 
Son, but He frowns upon the Son as the Son is our surety, as 
the Son bears our wrath, as the Son bears our curse, as the Son 
who has made sin for us and as the Son who has made a curse 
for us. This is the means by which God 
would save His people from their sins. Christ knew it from the 
outset, Christ was always embracing of it, and Christ underwent it 
willingly. That's another thing we ought 
to appreciate, the doctrine of penal suffering. You know, I've 
often said before, you may not have heard it, that doesn't mean 
I haven't said it, but the Puritans, especially Boston in its human 
nature and its fourfold sense, spoke of a twofold punishment 
with reference to God's wrath toward sinners. And if you're 
an unredeemed sinner today, perhaps you ought to pay attention here. 
Because I think this passage teaches us something of the wrath 
of God that we'll draw out in just a few moments. But this 
twofold sense of the punishment of God, of the punishment of 
God in terms of sinners. There's a punishment of sense. 
S-E-N-S-E. Sense, our senses are involved. The Scriptures declare that there 
will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. There's that 
punishment of sense. Now remember that Christ on the 
cross is bearing hell. Christ on the cross is suffering 
hell. Often, probably one of the biggest 
questions or repetitive questions that I think Reformed pastors 
get asked is, how do you explain that in the Apostles' Creed where 
Jesus descended into hell? There's a lot of ways to explain 
that. That's not the purpose here, but suffice it to say that 
Christ suffered hell on the cross. So there's this punishment of 
sins, but there's also a punishment of loss. You see, sinners on 
this side of judgment get to enjoy something of God, don't 
they? I mean, just look outside today. Isn't it beautiful? So warm and toasty and all the 
colors are bright and beautiful. Everybody gets to enjoy that. 
You may go home today and have a nice steak. That's something 
you get to enjoy from God. Ladies are sad, none of us make 
steak on a Sunday, it's too busy. Are you crazy? They'll get soup 
and they'll like it. Sinners on this side of judgment 
get to enjoy something of God. On the Day of Judgment, there 
is that punishment of loss, the deprivation of any good from 
God. It's a terrifying situation. Punishment of sense, cast into 
the lake of fire, weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and this punishment 
of loss, where the goodness of God is taken from us. This answers to the suffering 
of the Savior. There is a punishment of sense 
to be sure, but it's this punishment of loss that evokes the cry, 
my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Again, Flavel says, 
it was a penal desertion, that has to do with penalty, inflicted 
on him for satisfaction for those sins of ours, which deserve that 
God should forsake us forever as the damned are forsaken by 
him. to understand the significance 
of this. Because Christ says, my God, my God, why hast thou 
forsaken me? Those in Christ will never utter 
that. I mean, there may be the daily 
trials and turmoils and hardships of the Christian life. There 
may be that time where we sense that God is not smiling upon 
us. Our confession speaks to that. 
We fall under God's fatherly displeasure. You see that in 
1 John 1.9, if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just 
to forgive us and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 
That doesn't mean that each and every day, if we don't fetch 
forgiveness from God, if we die that day, we're going to go to 
hell. No. Justification answers to that reality. Justification 
is an act of God's free grace wherein He pardons all our sins 
and accepts us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness 
of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone. We are forgiven! It's not contingent upon us asking 
for forgiveness. Now, we should, and in the language 
of 1 John 1, 9, it's to maintain that fatherly smile. It's to maintain that sweet fellowship 
and communion with the Father. It's not to fetch forgiveness 
by which we are forgiven and are gonna go to heaven. That's secured by Christ. And 
in that, we ought to rejoice. The idea that we fetch our own 
forgiveness because of something good in us or because we remembered, 
what if we forgot a sin yesterday morning that we didn't confess? 
Does that mean we're going to hell? If that's a gospel, that 
ain't good news, brethren. That is not good news. The good 
news is that God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself. 
The good news is that God made him who knew no sin to be sin 
for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him. 
Now, of course, try to confess your sins. definitely cough them 
up, vomit them out, ask God for mercy, ask Him for grace, ask 
Him for forgiveness. But in that context of 1 John 
1, 9, it's not to fetch a justifying forgiveness, it is to fetch the 
smile of God. If we confess our sins, He's 
faithful, He's just, to forgive us and to cleanse us from all 
unrighteousness. So there may be that turmoil 
in our lives, there may be those seasons, there might be those 
times, there might be what some call spiritual depression. The 
psalmist mentions it in Psalm 42, Psalm 43. Why art thou downcast, 
O my soul? Hope thou in God. There are seasons, 
to be sure, where it may seem like God has forsaken, because 
we don't know His nearness, and we don't see those consolatory 
smiles. But in terms of our eternal standing, 
in terms of our heaven or hell, in terms of the reality that 
we will be with Christ where He is, because He said, Why hast 
thou forsaken me? You and I will never have to 
do it. We'll never, ever have to say, why have you forsaken 
me? Isn't that good news? That's just enough to make one 
jump up in the air and kick his heels together and do a bit of 
a holy jig, actually. So we see the reality that the 
Father did not deliver the Son from the agony of the cross in 
terms of the meaning of the words, but we ought to appreciate finally 
the reality that the Son did not shrink back from fulfilling 
the will of the Father. We see in this the manifestation 
of His distress. It's real. It's felt. It is His experience. It is what 
He is undergoing. And as I said, in terms of the 
question, Jesus isn't seeking information from the Father. 
He's not seeking a response from the Father. He is expressing 
his grief and agony at having been forsaken by the Father. Again, that qualified forsakenness 
not delivered from this present distress. Again, Flavel says, 
the Godhead restrained and kept back for this time, all its joys, 
comforts, and sense of love from the manhood, yielding it nothing 
but support. He did not feign, but feel the 
burdensomeness of it." He's not faking it here. This is a reality 
for the Son of God. But as well, this cry of distress 
or this cry of dereliction, again, we need to qualify and define 
dereliction, but we don't have the time for that. It evidences 
his continual faith in God, doesn't it? Isn't this the mock of the 
religious leaders in verse 43? He trusted in God. Let him deliver 
him now if he will have him. For he said, I am the Son of 
God. Remember last week I said we oftentimes focus on Matthew 
4 as the temptation of the Savior. And certainly Matthew 4 is the 
temptation of the Savior. But he is in our humanity. He is suffering according to 
his humanity. He identifies with us. He takes 
on our humanity with all the essential properties and the 
common infirmities thereof. He's in the most extenuating, 
grievous situation in terms of suffering and trial and difficulty, 
and he hears people saying this. Well, he trusted in the Father. 
Let's see if the Father will deliver him. I don't know about 
you, brethren, but if I was in the most difficult straits and 
somebody came along and said, where is your God? Where is the 
Father? Where is the one whom you claim 
allegiance to? Again, we saw that last week 
in not just one psalm, but a few of the psalms. David's enemies 
challenge him that way. They come to him and they say, 
where is your God? If you're so in tune with this living God, 
if you're so in tune with the God of Israel, why are you such 
in a bad situation? You might hear it today. What 
good is it being a believer? You live in poverty, or you're 
suffering, or you're castigated, or you're rejected. It's not 
about everybody else. I mean, we got it pretty good 
here in Canada. But you hear that complaint, well, where's 
your God? If you serve the true and living God, why is your life 
so terrible? That's why the contrariness of 
this prosperity gospel, it's just so not anywhere near the 
Bible, anywhere near the truth. That people get sucked into that 
is a pathetic testimony on how foolish man is. But you see that, 
right? You might feel that at times. 
Well, why do you serve God? You're a loser. Your life is 
terrible. Would you ever be tempted to 
go, well, yeah, maybe I'm on the losing team here. I'm not 
saying this went through the mind of the Savior. I don't know 
what went through the mind of the Savior at this particular 
instance, but he's got all this external pressure, all these 
people saying, well, he trusted in God. Absolutely he trusted 
in God. Notice what he says, my God, 
my God. He never renounces faith in the 
Father. He never forsakes the Father 
in any way whatsoever. He never turns back. He never 
shrinks back. In this admission, or in this 
confession, or in this ascription, He is declaring His purpose to 
go to the very end. Typically, Jesus prays, Father, 
Here the father in a real sense has stopped smiling upon the 
son. The son nevertheless lays hold 
of God. Matthew Henry said it this way. 
He said that our Lord Jesus, even when he was thus forsaken 
of his father, kept hold of him as his God, notwithstanding. And then a final thing before 
we leave and apply. There's an analogy here with 
Gethsemane, isn't there? There has to be. What's Gethsemane? Christ agonizing at the prospect 
of the cup. Doesn't he tell his disciples 
that? My soul is exceedingly sorrowful even unto death. Doesn't 
he go to the Father and he says, Father, if it is possible, let 
this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, Father, not my 
will, but thine be done. Brethren, I submit that if the 
prospect of the cup caused the Son of God to cry to the Father 
that if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, the actual 
drinking of the cup here in Matthew 27, it is absolutely consistent 
to hear him say, Why hast thou forsaken me? It is absolutely 
positively consistent with his humanity, with the Old Testament, 
specifically Psalm 22, and the suffering servant passages in 
the prophet Isaiah, to hear him cry these things forth, but all 
the while resign to do the will of the Father, never shrinking 
back, never stopping, never deceasing, never ending, until he fulfills 
all that the Father had given him. Well, brethren, there we 
go, verses 45 and 46. I realize that there might have 
been a little more doctrinal stuff involved in this, but as 
I said at the outset, you can't be wrong on theology proper. 
I was talking to Shane in the parking lot about how young men 
and older men, not old men, but young men and older men differ. When you're a young pastor, you're 
willing to die for like 20 things. Not every chapter in the Confession, 
but just about all of them. Older men say, nah, I'll die 
for the Trinity, justification by faith alone, person and work 
of the Lord Jesus, person and work of the Holy Spirit. Beyond 
that, you know what? Paedo-Baptists are my brethren, 
and I love them, and I hope God blesses them and prospers them. 
I'm not going to die for baptism by immersion. Now, some of the 
old Baptist brothers are probably turning over in their grave, 
you're betraying us. Now, I'll fight tooth and nail 
for the truth of believer's baptism. I'm not gonna die for it. You 
gotta be willing to die for theology proper. So that means you gotta 
know theology proper. You gotta understand who God 
is in himself. You gotta understand how God 
relates to the creature. How everything that is not God 
is creature. And the scripture gives us these 
analogies. God is light and there is in 
him no darkness in him at all. Even that's an analogy, brethren, 
because light is creature. It's made. It's built by God. Ultimately, creature can never 
tell us specifically about Creator. We argue by analogy. We understand 
things by what's called analogical predication. Again, you might 
say, well, I don't want to hear all this before my soup or my 
steak. But I'm telling you, at some point in your Christian 
life, you need to meditate upon chapter 2 in our confession of 
faith. You need to get the doctrine 
of chapter 2 of our confession of faith in your minds and in 
your hearts so that you will not fall prey to every wind of 
doctrine and every new evangelical that departs from the path. These 
are days in which the prophet Jeremiah is absolutely right. 
We need old path Christianity. One of the best reprints of an 
old Puritan work was that one of Obadiah Sedgwick, which, what 
a great name. Obadiah Sedgwick, what a great 
name. Pregnant ladies, there you go. 
Obadiah Sedgwick, whatever your last name happens to be. The title that they've given 
this reprint is The Old Perspective on Paul. and use it to one's 
ears. Because the new perspective on 
Paul sounds a whole lot like Roman Catholicism. The new perspective 
on Paul sounds a whole lot like there was never a reformation. 
The new perspective on Paul doesn't sound like anything Paul ever 
said. In fact, one of the sort of academic critics of the new 
perspective on Paul, one of its chief adherents is a man by the 
name of N.T. Wright, and he wrote a book called 
What St. Paul Really Said. And one man said, he ought to 
have entitled the book, What St. Paul Never Said. I can't even begin to describe 
how that has infiltrated evangelicalism and reformed. I had an interesting 
discussion one time with another reform minister, and he was saying 
how he was going to preach on a particular book, and as I want 
to do, I'll say, what commentators are you using on that particular 
book, and all the ones that he named. Actually, he asked first, 
and I named my list of guys, and he didn't like any of them. 
That didn't offend me at a personal level. I could care less at a 
personal level if he doesn't like Calvin, or Luther, or John 
Eady, or John Brown, or John Gill, or John Calvin. It's all 
with Johns. John, you got a good name as 
a Bible commentator. But everybody you mentioned seemed 
connected to a new perspective on Paul. I thought, this is reform. You're supposed to preach justification 
by faith alone. You're not supposed to conflate 
justification and sanctification. You're not supposed to do that. 
That's what Rome does. That's why people are swimming 
the Tiber. They get a bit of that in them. They get a bit 
of a flattening out of the way of salvation. There's no distinction 
between justification and sanctification. It's all one conglomerate. My 
faith and my works endears me to heaven. Brethren, this comes 
even closer than new perspective on Paul. There's a debate within 
reformed circles right now on the place of good works in terms 
of final salvation or final justification. Those two finals don't even need 
to be there in my estimation. We're justified. There's no two 
stages to justification. You don't get more justified 
It's the beauty of it, isn't it? God takes wretches like us 
and he washes us and he gives us a righteousness which avails 
with him. That's why it's good news. If it was the other way, 
it would be good advice. Believe on Jesus plus do good 
things and then hopefully God will accept you. So a lot of 
this stuff is happening right before our eyes. Blogs, Twitter. It's an amazing thing that 140 
characters on Twitter, you can pack a lot of heresy in 140 characters 
on Twitter. You can pack a lot of heresy 
into a blog entry. My point, brethren, is that you 
ought not to say, oh no, it's going to be all doctrinal, this 
trinity, hypostatic union. You've got to know this. And 
dare I say that you should want to know it? I often ponder the 
statement of the psalmist. He says, great are the works 
of the Lord. They are studied by all who have 
pleasure in them. And I muse upon the fact that 
there's people out there that actually like to study weird 
things. They like to study bats or they 
like to study, you know, not necessarily, that's probably 
a good thing to study. It's okay. They like to study 
stamps or coins. They like to study, you know, 
history, which that's not bad. But to get a Christian to actually 
delight in the work of redemption and study it, or study the God 
who has saved them? Who of you has fallen in a relationship 
with a young woman or a young man, or an old woman or an old 
man, and hasn't wanted to get to know them? And yet in the 
church, it's like pulling teeth to get people to read their Bibles 
or a decent theology book. You know, I don't have the time. 
I'm sorry, but if you have the time to study stamps, you probably 
have the time to study your Bible. If you have the time to perfect 
a new souffle, you have the time to study chapter two in our confession 
of faith. You see, it's a matter of what 
is it that pleases us. Greater the works of Yahweh, 
they are studied by all who take pleasure in them. In my estimation, 
churches that preach the truth ought to be packed every Sunday. 
Churches that preach the truth ought to be packed every Wednesday 
night. I'm not saying our church, because I'm here. I'm just suggesting 
that if the people of God have an appetite for God, and there 
is actual preaching presenting God, then why in the world would 
we not be there? What is more important in our 
lives Isn't this the essence of eternal life, according to 
Jesus in John 17 3? And this is eternal life, that 
they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom 
thou hast sent. If you have an aversion to reading 
your Bible here, if you have an aversion to studying theology 
here, man, heaven may not be the best idea for you. Because 
guess what you're going to be doing in heaven? taking in the 
glory of God. If the works of the Lord are 
great and they are studied by all who find pleasure therein, 
how are you with the scriptures? How are you with the confession? 
Let me just make a quick plug for the confession. We don't 
do that because there's somehow something holier about the 17th 
century. They just got it right. I don't 
know why we would try to reinvent the wheel. We hear that a lot. People that adhere to a historic 
confession. Oh, you think it's like the Bible. 
No, we don't. It's not the Bible. It's not 
authoritative. It's not inspired. It's not infallible. Dare I say 
it is inerrant in the sense that when it's right, it's inerrant. 
Two plus two equals four is an inerrant statement. That should 
not bother anybody. That's a statement without error. 
When our confession teaches certain biblical truth, we could say, 
don't do this, because on Facebook they'll tell you you're a horrible 
person, but we could say that it is inerrant. So far as it 
is expressing an unerring truth, it is inerrant. Your birth certificate 
is inerrant. That's not a, unless somebody 
lied, I guess somebody could have lied. You could be five 
years older, younger than you are. We don't hold it because 
it's old, we hold it because it's right. I've often mused, 
thankfully, that God caused the early church to hammer out the 
doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the person and work 
of Christ. I don't think we could today. I'm sure we could if God so was 
pleased, but those guys did Herculean work. Now, I'm not saying we 
agree with everybody back there and everything they ever thought 
or everything they ever wrote, but imagine feeling your way 
on the doctrine of the Trinity and on the person and the work 
of Christ in the first few hundred years of the church. You've got 
the Bible, to be sure. The Bible calls us, causes us, 
or challenges us, or expects us, rather, is the best word, 
to theologize to contemplate, to consider, to compare scripture 
with scripture, to come up with doctrinal formulations. That's 
what we're expected to do. Thankfully, the early church 
did it with the doctrine of Christ and the Trinity, and the Reformation 
period church did it with the doctrine of justification by 
faith. If they did it well, why would 
we want to redo it again? Our attitude ought to be Charles 
Hodge with reference to old Princeton. You will never hear a new thought 
here. You will never hear a new development 
in theology here. Would have been great if that 
actually had come to pass, but I like the sentiment. What's 
Hodge suggesting? There's no need to redevelop 
the theological wheel. It's been rolling fine through 
the history of the church. A confession of faith that we 
adhere to as a church is most beneficial and helpful when it 
comes to doctrine at the point of the Trinity and who Jesus 
is. Well, in conclusion, in terms 
of the obvious applications, we see here the depravity of 
man. The depravity of man. The darkness displayed the divine 
displeasure and judgment for man's sin. The fact that our 
Savior went through this for us highlights the depravity of 
man. And then the language of the 
psalmist in Psalm 22. He refers to his enemies as bulls, 
lion, dogs, lion's mouth, and from the horns of the wild oxen. We have been in this section 
of scripture for just a few weeks now, but we would agree, wouldn't 
we? These people are acting like beasts. These people are acting 
like animals. These people are acting worse 
than something that's not an image-bearer of God that is acting 
instinctually to try and destroy prey. Now when we consider that, 
we see the sinfulness of man. And it's not just the religious 
leaders, though we know they are complicit. Matthew 26, 3-5. 
Matthew 26, 14-16. Matthew 27, when they testify against Jesus. We know it's not just the Roman 
governor. He gave the death order with 
reference to Christ, his hand-washing ceremony notwithstanding. Pilate 
was culpable and guilty. And not just all the land of 
Israel, according to Matthew 26. They say, may his blood be 
on us and our children. As I reminded us last week, Romans 
4.25 puts the onus on us. He was delivered because of our 
offenses. He doesn't highlight the religious 
leaders there, he doesn't highlight the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, 
and he doesn't mention the unbelievers in Israel. He mentions us. He 
was delivered up because of our offenses. And we ought to see, 
not appreciate in a right way, but appreciate in a correct way, 
just how bad we really are. You know, when we think that 
we're really good and, yeah, you know, I'm not like those 
guys, we get that Luke 18 sort of prayer posture. Thank you, 
God, that I'm not like other men. Boy, before you do that, 
go to this passage, go stand at the foot of the cross and 
ask yourself, are you really good? No, we're not. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, 
we ought to appreciate the wrath of God. Again, not appreciate 
it like, wow, I can't wait for it, but appreciate it in terms 
of the truthfulness of it. Wrath is revealed in Matthew 
27 here at the cross. Ye who think of sin but lightly, 
here its guilt may estimate. Mark the sacrifice appointed, 
see who bears the awful load. Tis the word, the Lord's anointed 
Son of Man, Son of God. Flavel again makes this observation. He says, if he had not cried, 
my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? We must have howled 
out this hideous complaint in the lowest hell forever. O righteous 
God, O dreadful, O terrible God, thou hast ever forsaken me. It's a missing element in gospel 
preaching today. We like to hear of the love of 
God. We like to hear of the grace of God. We like to hear of the 
goodness of God. We like to hear of the mercy of God. Do you know 
why those particular attributes please us? Because of the backdrop. because of the alternative, because 
of the contrary, God's wrath, His fury, His curse, His judgment, 
the fact that He must punish sin and sinners, the fact that 
He is a holy God. You ever consider why would men 
make up this god? You understand why the Canaanites 
made up Baal? Who doesn't want a storm god 
that when you copulate, he gives you rain and fertilizes your 
crops? I mean, that seems designed with 
our proclivities in mind. But who develops a thrice holy 
God who will punish his creatures for their violations of his law? That's what the scriptures tell 
us. God is holy, God is just, and God will visit with vengeance 
all those who rebel against him. But praise God Almighty for Matthew 
27 and verse 46, because God sent His Son into this world 
to live, to die, to be raised on the third day, so that all 
who look to Him in faith, isn't this John 3, 16, all those who 
believe will have everlasting life. So look to the Savior, 
look to the one who stood on that cross, look to the one in 
whom alone there is forgiveness, there is mercy, there is grace. And run, flee, hide, find your 
refuge in the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, let us pray. Our Father, 
we thank you for your word. We thank you for what our Savior 
went through on our behalf. And truly, it is an amazing testimony 
that Paul gives us in interpreting for us the events of the cross, 
that you made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we 
might become the righteousness of God in him. I pray that you 
would encourage our hearts as we see again the Savior and his 
great love for us, and I pray for those outside of Christ that 
you would draw them, by grace, to the one in whom there is forgiveness. We ask that you would go with 
us now, bring us together tonight, that we may worship you in spirit 
and truth, and we pray through Christ the Lord. Amen.