Christ’s fourth statement on the cross: “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”

Amazingly, no pastor, professor or commentator ever pointed out to me the basic difference between Psalm 22:1 and Matthew 27:46. In translations there was no difference. In explaining this cry of our Lord, expositors say a lot about the mystery of Christ’s abandonment: God the Father who laid the sins of mankind on his Son, forsaking him for a while (letting him suffer hell in their place), so that sinners can be saved and never again be forsaken by God. I grew up and lived by this viewpoint. And nobody’s salvation will be endangered if they continue to believe so. It is a wonderful truth, but I think there is much more embedded in it.

Christ said that the Spirit of truth “will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). We do not get the full truth all at once; it is a gradual process of growing (1 Pet. 2:2). I want to share with you the study I recently made with the help of Bible software, accompanied by meditation and prayer. It is not a long story—only two pages. In no way I want to presume that this is the final word on the matter. For me, it is the beginning of a new perspective on an old reality.

In Ps. 22:1 and Matt. 27:46, the first part of the cry is the same (Eli, Eli, lama…); the last word differs. David said “azavthani” and Jesus said “sabachthani.” There is no doubt about that. Both words end with the suffix “-thani,” meaning: you do this to me. The word עזב  (azav) occurs 212 times in the Hebrew Bible. Its primary meaning is to forsake or abandon; its secondary meaning is to give up (someone or something). The word זבח (zabach) occurs 134 times in the Hebrew Bible. Its primary meaning is to sacrifice or to slaughter as sacrifice; its secondary meaning is to give up (offering an animal as a sacrifice). It is in their secondary meaning (to give up) that azav and zabach come close to each other. However, the word Jesus used (zabach) gives a much deeper meaning to his suffering.

Many questions arise here: Did Jesus quote David incorrectly? No. Did Matthew quote Jesus incorrectly? No. Did Matthew translate sabachthani incorrectly? No. Did translators choose an incorrect translation for the Greek word (ἐγκατέλιπες  engkatelipes) Matthew used? No. Answering Yes to any of these questions would impede either the integrity of Jesus or of scripture.

The argument that Jesus spoke a rare form of Aramaic stands with weak legs on thin ice. Alleging that “Eli” appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible (except here), is incorrect, because Eli- was part of the name of 351 people in the Old Testament. (The name of Eli, the priest, is spelled differently in Hebrew). The words “la” and “ma” both means “why” and occurs many times in Hebrew Scripture. Thus “lama” presents a double “why.” Undeniably, the words “Eli, Eli, lama” are Hebrew in the Hebrew Bible.

Alleging that Jesus used the Chaldean word “shebak” (שבק), instead of “zabach” (זבח) has little support. First, Matthew’s transliteration for the Hebrew is σαβαχθανί (“sabachthani” with a χ not a κ as in “shebakthani”). Second, Daniel used “shebak” only three times (4:15, 23, 26), referring to the stump of a tree that was chopped down in the king’s dream. A voice said: “Leave the stump.” It did not mean forsake the stump, but spare the stump. Jesus definitely did not say, “Why have you spared me?” In any case, why would Jesus use a rare Chaldean word in a well-known Hebrew verse?

When Jesus cried out: “Lama sabachthani?” the answer is logical and biblical: God offered his Son as atoning sacrifice so that sinners can be forgiven and saved. Combining the secondary meanings of azav and zabach, we can paraphrase Jesus’ cry as: “Why have you given me up as a sacrifice?” The Old and New Testaments contain many examples of vicarious sacrifices. The idea of the Messiah as the sacrificial Lamb of God runs through the Bible. All the animal sacrifices pointed to him (Heb. 9:12-14). Abraham said to Isaac, “God will provide for Himself a Lamb.” Isaiah prophesied, “He was led as a lamb to the slaughter” (Is. 53:7).

John the Baptist announced him as “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 36). The apostle Paul said, “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7, NIV). The apostle Peter confirms, “You were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold… but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish” (1 Pet. 1:18-19).  In a vision of heaven, the apostle John saw “a Lamb as though it had been slain,” and multitudes of angels sang, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessing!” (Rev. 5:6, 12, see 7: 14).

Shifting the focus from forsaken to sacrificed also eliminates the theorizing about God the Father abandoning God the Son, an act that is theologically inconceivable. Martin Luther asked in despair, “God forsaken by God—who can fathom that?” We can view it this way: The Father turned his face away from Jesus, the Son of Man, laden with the sins of humanity, without forsaking the sinless Son of God, who was and remained part of the Trinity.

In the New Testament, five words are used to indicate “forsaken.” The word Matthew and Mark used to translate sabachthani (engkatelipes) is used six more times in the New Testament: always with reference to people, never with reference to Christ (2 Cor. 4:9, 2 Tim. 4:10, 16, Heb. 10:25, 11:27, 2 Pet. 2:15). Therefore we may conclude that in first century theology, not the forsakenness but the sacrifice of Christ was front and center. Theology of later centuries emphasized his abandonment.

Why did Matthew quote the Hebrew and Mark the Aramaic? Both were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit did it for the same reason that he proclaimed the gospel in many tongues at Pentecost and through the ages: to make the message clear to people of different languages. Personally, I think that Jesus would rather have used the words from the original, the Hebrew Bible, than any other. Though he said in the Sermon on the Mount that not one iota of the Law will be changed, Jesus as the Word of God, could give a deeper meaning to it. David and many others felt abandoned by God; only Jesus was given as a sacrifice by God for redemption of sinners. By his cry, Jesus showed how Ps. 22:1 was fulfilled in him, and how it got a deeper meaning through him.

Does it make a difference whether one interprets sabachthani as forsaken or as sacrificed? For me, it closes the unsatisfactory escape route of explaining Jesus’ vital question by means of rare Aramaic words. It keeps me tied to Hebrew Scripture, and at the same time gives a deeper meaning to an Old Testament prophecy. It also changes the nature of Christ’s cry. It is no longer a complaint uttered by a desperate victim; it becomes a shout of a victorious Savior. When Christ asks with a loud voice, “Why have you given me as sacrifice?” he wants all angels and believers to answer in unison with loud voices, today and for eternity, “To reconcile us with God, and to give us eternal life! Hallelujah!”

*****