The Meaning Of
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?
Commentaries say a lot about the mystery of Christ’s abandonment: God the
Father laid the sins of mankind on his Son and forsake him (let him suffer
hell) so that sinners can be saved and never be forsaken by God. I grew up
with this viewpoint. Believers’ salvation will not be endangered if they
continue to believe so. However, there is more embedded in it.
Most expositors evade the difference between the cry of David and Jesus. 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 “lama azavthani” (why have you
forsaken me?) and Jesus said “lama sabachthani” (why have you sacrificed
me?). Both Matthew and Mark (in both
Byzantine and Alexandrian texts) have Jesus saying sabachthani, not
azavthani or shebakthani.
In no way can we get rid of SABACHTHANI.
The suffix “thani” means: you do this to me. Zabach is a well-known
word in Hebrew Scripture. The NASB95 translates the word
(zabach) 295 times as sacrifice or offering, and the word
עזב (azav) 170 times as forsaken, abandoned or leave. (Logos
Bible Software 4, Guides, Bible Word Study. See Strong: H2076, H2077, and H5800).
are confronted by crucial questions:
Did Jesus misquote David? No.
Jesus said something similar but different.
misquote Jesus? No. In the best Greek texts, Matthew and Mark have Jesus
saying sabachthani. Martin Luther changed sabachthani to
azavthani in his translation, but the main Greek texts do not support
Did Matthew translate
sabachthani wrongly? No. I think Matthew was
inspired to use this translation to show readers the similarity and
difference between David’s and Jesus’ question. It is meaningful that Bible
translations put a reference to Ps. 22:1 at Matthew’s Greek quote, not at
his Hebrew quote, because sabachthani is not in Ps. 22 in the
choose an incorrect translation for the Greek word (ἐγκατέλιπες,
engkatelipes) that Matthew used? No. Answering Yes to any of these four
questions would impede the integrity of either Jesus or Scripture.
argument that Jesus spoke a rare form of Aramaic stands with weak legs on
thin ice. The New Testament refers ten times to Hebrew but not to Aramaic.
Alleging that “Eli” appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible (except here), is
incorrect, because Eli- was part of the names of 351 people in the Old
Testament. The words “la” and “ma” both means “why” and occurs many times in
Hebrew Scripture. “Eli, Eli, lama” are Hebrew words in the Hebrew Bible
(Ps. 22:2). Check it out in this picture:
understand the problem and the suggested solutions we have to look at the
The word Jesus used (sabachthani or sacrificed) differs from the word
David used (azavthani or forsaken) and from Matthew's translation
(engkatelipes or forsaken).
People try to solve the problem by changing Scripture. Luther changed
sabachthani to azavthani. Today, many scholars change sabachthani to
shebakthani (leave as it is). Both changes of Scripture are unacceptable: it
puts words into Jesus’ mouth.
It is better to keep Greek Scripture unchanged, and to find an
acceptable explanation for the differences. I think Matthew referred readers
to Psalm 22 to let them see the difference between what David said and what
Jesus said, and to make them think about the meaning of that difference.
The idea that Jesus used the Chaldean word “shebak” (שבק)
and not the Hebrew word "zabach" (זבח) is widely advocated in an effort to bring Matthew's Hebrew and Greek words
in line with each other. Many expositors avoid this topic entirely
because they either think the two words are identical or they don't want to
make a choice. There are
convincing reasons why we should accept sabachthani and reject
saying that Matthew transliterated wrongly, implies that the Spirit and the
Bible made a mistake. Transliterate here means Matthew wrote Hebrew words in
Matthew’s transliteration for the Hebrew is σαβαχθανί (“sabachthani” with α
as second and χ as fifth letter, not ε and κ as in “shebakthani.”). English
does not have the guttural sound needed to pronounce the Greek χ and the
Hebrew ח (they sound like the g in the Dutch "goede morgen"), so they replace it with k.
the word “shebak”
appears once in Ezra (6:7) and three times in Daniel (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 or leave it as it is. Jesus definitely did not say, “Why
have you spared me?” It is highly improbable that Jesus would start with
Hebrew (Eli, Eli, lama...) and then borrow a foreign word from a foreign
country. (See footnote on Aramaic words in the gospel of Mark).
if Jesus wanted to
say he felt forsaken he could just have used the word David had (azavthani)
without importing a foreign word (shebakthani). Jesus said what he wanted to
say: lama sabachthani (why have you sacrificed me?) By doing that, he
focused our attention on the essence of the Cross: an atoning sacrifice. The
Chaldean word shebak leads to a marsh of questions about possible
disunity in the Trinity.
When Jesus cried out: “Why have you sacrificed me?” the answer is
logical and biblical: God offered his Son as atoning sacrifice so that
sinners can be forgiven and saved ‒ the essence of the well-known John
Unity of the Trinity.
Shifting the focus from
forsaken to sacrificed eliminates theorizing about God the Father
abandoning God the Son, an act that is theologically inexplicable.
Martin Luther asked, “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. There cannot be disunity in the Trinity. The
Father's testimony about his Son, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I
am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17, 17:5), is eternally true, even on the Cross
where he was completely obedient by finishing the Father's plan of salvation
(Phil. 2:8-9). A few minutes after he cried "lama sabachthani," he gave his
spirit over to the Father. They remained One (John 10:30).
John Calvin remarked on Matt. 27:46 that
Christ "felt himself to be in some measure estranged from him (God)." "The
perception of God's estrangement from him, which Christ had, as suggested by
natural feeling, did not hinder him from continuing to be assured by faith
that God was reconciled to him." "By the shield of faith he courageously
expels that appearance of forsaking."
John M. Gibson (The Expositor's Bible)
comments, "There is no reason indeed to suppose that the Sufferer was really
forsaken by God, even for a moment. Never was the love of the Father deeper
and stronger than when His Son was offering up the all-atoning sacrifice.
Never was the repeated testimony more sure than now: 'This is My Beloved
Son, in Whom I am well pleased.' But none the less was there the sense
William Hendriksen held this opinion on Matthew 27:46
-- "The question has been asked, 'But how could God forsake God?' The answer
must be that God the Father deserted his Son's human nature, and even this
in a limited, though very real and agonizing, sense. The meaning cannot be
that there was ever a time when God the Father stopped loving his Son. Nor
can it mean that the Son ever rejected the Father. Far from it. He kept on
calling him "My God, my God." And for that very reason we may
be sure that the Father loved him as much as ever."
Old and New Testaments often refer to 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” (Rev. 5:6, 12, see 7: 14). The NT refers
at least 18 times to salvation through the blood of Christ. However,
the apostles did not refer in their letters to Christ's forsakenness.
does not find references to the forsakenness of Christ where it is to be
expected. Jesus warned his disciples three times about his coming death
without mentioning abandonment by his Father. To the contrary, he stated
twice that his Father had not left him because he did his will (John 8:29,
16:32). The record about Jesus' struggle in Gethsemane does not refer to the
dread of being forsaken by the Father. Some preachers assume this was the
cause of his fear, but this assumption is not supported by scripture. The
letters of the Apostles do not link atonement and reconciliation to the
forsakenness of Christ. Check these:
Atonement: Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:17, 9:5, 1 John 2:2, and 4:10.
Reconciliation: Rom 5:10, 2 Cor. 5:18, 19, Eph. 2:16, Col. 1:20 and 22).
"Forsaken" in NT
New Testament uses many different words to indicate forsaken/abandon.
The word Matthew used (engkatelipes) is used 8 more times in the New
Testament: all (except the first two) with reference to people, not Christ (Acts 2:27 and 31,
Rom. 9:29, 2
Cor. 4:9, 2 Tim. 4:10 and 16, Heb. 10:25, 13:5). On the day of Pentecost, Peter emphasized that Christ was
NOT abandoned to the grave or in hell (eis hades, Acts 2:31). He
suffered hell on the cross before his death.
The Greek word kataleipo (forsake, abandon, leave) is used in various
forms 24 times in the New Testament, without referring to Christ on
the Cross. In first century theology, not the forsakenness but
the sacrifice of Christ was front and center. Emphasis on his abandonment
Despite all the evidence from
Hebrew and Greek Scripture, some maintain that Matthew used the words THIS
IS between his Hebrew and Greek phrase, assuming that the first equals the
second: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" this is "My God, my God,
why have you forsaken me?" Like German, Greek has male, female, and neutral
words. So the word for THIS can be either houtos or haute or touto.
In this case, Matthew used the latter (touto).
There are several places in the gospels where "this is" does not mean two
things are equal, but one resembles or symbolizes the other.
instituted the Last Supper, he said of the bread "this is my body"
(touto estin), and of the cup "this is my blood" (touto estin).
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul used these words when describing the Last
Supper. Here "this is" does not mean A = B, but A is like B, or A symbolizes
B. Bread resembles Jesus' body.
In the synagogue of Capernaum, Jesus compared himself to the manna
Israel ate in the desert, saying "I am the bread of life. This is the
bread that came down from heaven" (John 6:48, 58). Again, Jesus is not bread
but he is like bread.
When Jesus explained the parable of the sower (Matt. 13), he first
describes the various soils on which the seed fell, and then adds "this
is" he (houtos estin), and describes four kinds of people.
Again, people are not soil but they are like soil. The four kinds of soil
resemble four kinds of people.
When Peter addressed the Sanhedrin, he
referred to Jesus, saying, "This is (houtos estin) the Stone rejected
by you, the builders..." (Acts 4:11). Jesus is not a stone, but he is like
the stone spoken of in Ps. 118.
Therefore, "this is" in Matt.
27:46 can be interpreted this way: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"
resembles (or reminds us of) "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus as the Word
of God reinterpreted David's cry. When David felt forsaken, God had a higher
purpose in mind. When Jesus looked forsaken, God's purpose was to give him
as atoning sacrifice so that sinners can be saved.
Does it make a difference whether one interprets sabachthani as forsaken
or as sacrificed? The phrase, "Why have you sacrificed me?" avoids the escape route of explaining Jesus’
vital question by means of rare Aramaic words. It keeps us 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 not the
complaint of a desperate victim, David, but the shout of our victorious
Savior, Jesus. When Christ asks with a loud voice, “Why have you sacrificed
me?” he wants all believers to shout, “To reconcile us with God, and to give
us eternal life! Hallelujah!”
Footnote on Aramaic words in the gospel of
Theological introductions to the gospel of
Mark are fraught with uncertainties. Different theories exist about its
author, sources, place of origin, original form (Greek or Aramaic), goals,
readers, style, and date of completion. In the end, no sure conclusions are
The same vague explanations are submitted for
the so-called Aramaic words used by Mark: Boanerges (3:17), Talitha koum
(5:41), Ephphatha (7:34), Abba (14:36), Golgotha (15:22), and Eloi Eloi lama
sabachthani (15:34). Mark's transliteration (writing Aramaic words with Greek
letters) does not fit in easily with real Aramaic. The theories remain in
suspense. (The word "corban" (7:11) is a Hebrew word (קרבן)
that is used 79 times in the Old Testament. If Mark used a Hebrew word in
one place, he could have done it in another too).
Then there are also the Bar-names (instead of
the Hebrew "Ben:" son of): Bartholomew (3:18), Bartimaeus (10:46), and
Barabbas (15:7). These names show that Aramaic could have been used in Israel
in the first century. The fact that two of the disciples and the first seven
deacons had Greek names (Acts 6:5) does not prove all Israel spoke Greek at
that time. It is highly likely that the Hebrew
language did not completely die out during the exile but was revived when
many returned to their homeland -- as they did in 1948. Even today, when expatriates return to their country of
origin, they like to speak the native tongue. Daniel and Ezekiel wrote
their books in Hebrew during the exile, except for those parts where Daniel and the
Babylonian king had a conversation in the king's language.
It is not surprising that the phrase, "Eloi
Eloi lama sabachthani," does not occur like that in the Aramaic New Testament.
The commentators have to stretch and shrink it to make it fit. The phrase
Jacob used in Gen. 33:20 ("El Elohe Israel," God, God of Israel) was
repeated by Jews for centuries. Mark's Eloi may be a transliteration of Elohe.
Because of the uncertainties concerning
Aramaic words in Mark's gospel, I focused on Matthew's record in which "Eli
Eli lama" corresponds with the Hebrew of Psalm 22. And if the first three
words are Hebrew, I am quite sure that Jesus would have followed it up with
another well-known Hebrew word in the Bible, namely zabach (sacrifice).
BAKER OF CAPERNAUM
The baker of Capernaum meets the carpenter