How does Mark 15:34 relate to the concept of the Trinity? Psalm 22 Background 1. Direct citation of Psalm 22:1 signals fulfillment of messianic prophecy. 2. Psalm 22 moves from abandonment (v. 1) to vindication (vv. 22–31), paralleling cross-to-resurrection. 3. Early Jewish targums and Dead Sea Scroll 11QPsa treat Psalm 22 as messianic; the gospel writers deliberately invoke that expectation. Distinction of Persons within the One Godhead 1. “My God” – relational language presupposes personal distinction (Son addressing Father), not separation of essence. 2. Matthew 27:46 uses identical wording, underscoring synoptic agreement. 3. Throughout Mark, Jesus has already been identified as “the Son of God” (Mark 1:1; 9:7); therefore this cry does not negate divinity but expresses distinct personhood. Unity of Essence Safeguarded 1. John 10:30 – “I and the Father are one.” Unity (ἕν, neuter) = one in essence, not one person; Mark 15:34 does not contradict. 2. Hebrews 9:14 – Spirit sustains Christ at the cross (“through the eternal Spirit”), confirming undivided Trinity acting in concert. The Cry and the Work of Atonement 1. 2 Corinthians 5:21 – Father “made Him who knew no sin to be sin,” explaining the judicial “forsaking.” 2. Isaiah 53:10 – “Yet it pleased the LORD to crush Him”; Mark 15:34 = moment that prophecy climaxes. 3. Penal substitution entails judicial, not ontological, distancing: the Son experiences covenant curse as representative of sinners. Hypostatic Union 1. Chalcedon (AD 451) affirmed two natures “without division”; Mark 15:34 showcases full humanity (genuine anguish) while earlier miracles and forthcoming resurrection display full deity. 2. Early witness: Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.19.3 cites Psalm 22 in connection with incarnate Logos, maintaining both divinity and real suffering. Early Church Trinitarian Reading 1. Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 30 uses the cry to demonstrate real distinction of Father and Son against modalism. 2. Athanasius, De Incarnatione 10 argues that the forsaking is functional within redemptive plan, not ontological separation. Answering Common Objections 1. “Break in the Trinity?” – impossible; Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8 attest to divine immutability. Judicial abandonment concerns covenantal wrath, not metaphysical rupture. 2. “Jesus denied deity?” – Mark’s Gospel ends with resurrection (16:6) and implicit worship (Matthew 28:17), affirming deity post-suffering. Psychological and Behavioral Insights 1. Intense physical trauma (hematidrosis, hypovolemic shock) synergized with spiritual burden; authentic emotional expression validates the incarnational model and enhances empathy (Hebrews 4:15). 2. Behavioral science notes that vocalizing distress can deepen relational bonds; here, it highlights intra-Trinitarian love displayed publicly. Resurrection as Vindication 1. Minimal-facts data set (empty tomb, early creed of 1 Corinthians 15, conversion of James and Paul) historically corroborates that the One who cried out was subsequently raised, proving divine identity and confirming Trinitarian claims. 2. Romans 1:4 – “declared to be the Son of God with power by His resurrection,” closing the narrative arc begun at Mark 15:34. Liturgical and Devotional Implications 1. Believers may lament to God without disbelief; Psalm 22 pattern invites lament-to-praise trajectory. 2. Worship includes acknowledging the price paid by the triune God: the Father gave, the Son suffered, the Spirit empowered (Hebrews 9:14). Conclusion Mark 15:34 simultaneously reveals (a) the real human anguish of the incarnate Son, (b) the judicial outworking of redemption within the unified plan of the triune God, and (c) the clear distinction yet inseparable oneness of Father, Son, and Spirit. Far from challenging Trinitarian doctrine, the verse powerfully displays its depth. |
    |