Why the Cross was Excruciating

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Aug 10, 2020 at 19:22

Why the Cross was Excruciating:
It is interesting that DNM would choose to examine the linguistics of one of the more contentious phrases amongst the last words of the Jewish Savior spoken on the cross. The various descriptions of the scene have fascinated this observer for decades for multiple reasons, each reason dependent upon which observations of ages past tried to convince the reader of truth. Even the one of the movies made about the crucifixion had picked up on the conversations of the religious leaders trying to understand what Yeshua had just said. Were they just bad in hearing; or were there dialectic issues in trying to determine what the dying Savior said?
To you're the results of your query; was it 'lama' or 'lemna'(lmna)? Even at that, determining what was meant is just as controversial as the literal words. So, as it may be qualified, what were the sources; or more specifically, what was the source of the language spoken on the cross, for the parole evidence is that the words were quoted from the Ketuvim. This begs the further question: who wrote the Psalm 22; and was it in paleo-Hebrew, or Aramaic? The first answer is this Psalm is ascribed to David, of whom it may be understood and which by certain appearances of his circumstances of his times, was responding to some anguish of thought. It is presumed David was in query mode to his Eternal Sovereign, so Eli(?), Eloi(?), (Elohim(?)) is easily identified as to whom his inquiry is addressed.
In many respects, humanity can relate to the despair of that question, for how many uncounted times has the oppressed sectors of humanity tried to comprehend their circumstances by asking the heavens: why? When such inquiry is addressed to the Higher Power, it becomes the quintessential unanswerable question. It is found in the essence of the Psalm, and its use on the cross becomes easily understood in the face of the anguish endured by the Savior when the bystanders who had him crucified by Roman dictate mocked the Christ to assuage any conscience left that they were in their own cloud of righteousness as they watched the Savior exclaim his last words to a mostly unbelieving crowd. All of that changed three days later.
Yet now we come to the point of the crucifixion altogether, the basis of forgiveness by believing in the Christ on the cross; that his exclamation of being forsaken is the anguish he bore for the redemption of all of humanity. It (He) speaks to the eternal mystery of how much was suffered in this particular death on the cross; for death on the cross was, in and of itself, commonplace.
Being forsaken is an exquisitely damaging and, yes, excruciating place in the human psyche; for which there is little that can be done materially to quell the mental attacks that force an individual to a psychological place where the essence of not being able to return to a safe haven is realized. For that brief moment in human history, the humanity of Yeshua, the carpenter from Galilee was on display while at the moment the Eternal Sovereign, the One that Yeshua called Father, looked away, forsaking His only Son. History has not been the same since.
So, ܐܝܠ ܐܝܠ ܠܡܢܐ ܫܒܩܬܢܝ , can be understood in many tongues, but reading it from the heart can be understood in only one way: believing in Yeshua saves the believer because he took the pain and punishment for us for our unbelief: that's the choice. We no longer need to fear being eternally forsaken if we choose to take His love for us to heart.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".