Did God Forsake Jesus at the Cross?

“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” “My God, My God, why have thou forsaken me?

You have three options to interpret Jesus’ words on the cross: 1. God turns his face from Jesus and the trinity is split. 2. Jesus was actually calling to Elijah which would have fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi four but would then have the words in the gospels “miss translated.” 3. Jesus is quoting Psalm 22 as remez* and the immediate audience knew that the end of the Psalm is victory.

1. If you go with the first option typically aligned with Calvinism and Reformed theology your going to have to reconcile Biblical covenant not lining up specifically with the phrase “I will never leave you nor forsake you” in Hebrews 13:5 and Deuteronomy 31:6 and echoed throughout the Bible as a covenant promise. If God turns his back on Jesus, will He turn it on you? Doesn’t seem to line up with the Character of God.

2. It seems that some of the original audience according to the synoptics interpreted what Christ was saying this way, (as a calling out to Elijah to return) but our texts seem to quickly correct that notion. However, that leaves Elijah not ever appearing as a mystery perhapsps we are atill waiting for. Some are also going to connect John the Baptist here as prophecy fulfilled. But the greater problem with this view is that you’re saying that there’s an error in the text which I don’t think works for most people’s theology.

3. In my opinion, the best option is to interpret the voice as remez of Psalm 22. Jesus used a lot of remez in His teaching so it fits theologically.

When you study Psalm 22 you find that the hymn acknowledges the pain of feeling abandoned (sign of Christy’s humanity), but it goes on to declare abiding faith in God, and that He will not abandon his righteous faithful one (sign of Christ’s divinity). The implication is that God does not turn his face from Jesus and doesn’t break covenant promises. The genre is actually in literary contranym form (found so much in the Scriptures, especially wisdom literature) showing unwavering confidence in the faithfulness of God. The text contrasts what we feel compared to what God is actually doing -as extremes. This also fits very well with the backwards or upside down kingdom dynamics of the humility of Christ to the cross.

*remez: The great teachers during that day used a technique that was later referred to as remez. When they were teaching they would use part of a scripture passage in a discussion assuming that their audience had knowledge of the Bible and a simple word or phrase (which was usually an idiom or something they wouldd have had menorized) might point the audience towards what they understood as a full teaching to a certain text, without actually having to recall the entire thing. Apparently Jesus who possessed a brilliant understanding of scripture and at the very least considered, the greatest teacher by the world’s standards, used this method regularly.

If you’re interested in really diving in and reading more about this follow this link…

JESUS QUOTES PSALM 22

Jesus was quoting the first line of Psalm 22, which was an especially beloved psalm by the Jews of this time. All of the Jews looking on would know what was going on. Jesus often taught using Remez and this is no different.¹ The Psalm begins with the psalmist believing that God has forsaken him. This is defined in the psalm by God’s silence, not his abandonment. There are two voices in Psalm 22. Unfortunately, this is pretty common in scripture, but people fail to follow the poet genre or even realize what is happening. Isaiah 53 echoes the same type of two voice narrative. We have one voice saying what they think and then another one later that speaks clarity. Sometimes in scripture we read a narrative and never get the clarifying second voice of God. This can be tricky. We often want to read every passage as “thus saith the Lord,” but we would be mistaken and lead to poor theology. I am so thankful for Job because we get the first voice thinking His friends are giving “GODLY” counsel but the at the end God (second voice) actually says none of that counsel is of me. This is similar to the way we should read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

Next the psalm says “I am a worm”… in Hebrew this is the same word for scarlet. Jesus was covered in blood, scarlet, some see this as a picture of the suffering servant of Is 53. Continuing, this prophetic psalm states he was despised, bones out of joint (but not broken), hands and feet pierced, clothes divided by lots…

Jesus’ next statement from the cross is “I thirst” which is the middle verse of this psalm.

But in verse 19 it says that God actually is not far off in all of this! Verse 21 says God answers his cry!

Verse 24 says God does not abhor the afflicted (Jesus) and has not hidden his face and has heard the cry for help…. I want you to get this…. I do not believe that God has not forsaken or abandoned Jesus! The trinity isn’t split here. This isn’t God turning His back. As hard as it is to read and witness it is actually part of a beautiful redemptive plan. God didn’t turn his back and Jesus and He won’t turn His back on you.

This is a completely different story than what people wanted or were looking for. It seems backwards or upside down. Christ leading by humility not power. But that is the way of Jesus.

Jesus, though He is suffering, has His mind set on the victory at the end of this psalm. The saving deed that brings the reconciliation of God and the nations. Remember in the garden, the table of nations and the feast of tabernacles? “Not my will but yours be done.” Christ knew that dying was what it would take to win the victory and when he was arrested in the garden, He stated that he could call legions of angels to save him if he wanted to and God would send them… God was not forsaking Jesus.²

NOTE: I think there is a valid argument for the splitting of the trinity but I don’t personally think it is the best explanation. I do however greatly respect Greg Boyd who constructs it this way.³

The psalm concludes stating: ^22:31They will come and tell about his saving deeds; they will tell a future generation what he has accomplished. Jesus’ next statement on the cross… “It is finished” or “it is accomplished” referring to the concluding line of this psalm and the accomplishment of His saving deed.

2 Cor 5:19… assures us that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The perspective of the crowd in IS 53:10 is that we perceived that he was stricken by God (that’s what the world thought.) But the true perspective was that God was pleased to heal Him. By Healing His son, raising Him from the dead He accomplishes something great, He heals the nations. God takes the first step in reclaiming the nations and through the sending of His spirit at Pentecost will now partner and entrust us to be his physical agents of reconciliation.

Then with one last surge of strength, he once again presses against the nail, straightens His legs, takes a deep breath, and utters His seventh and final cry: “Father into thy hands I commit my spirit”.

Jesus dies as the Passover lambs were being slaughtered as our Passover lamb of the new exodus delivering us from the Spiritual Powers and rescuing us from enslavement to Sin by defeating Sin in the flesh.

The cross is hard but it was necessary. It was brutal but it was freeing. Something happens at the cross that we can’t full understand. The captives are set free, the keys to death are regained, and there is a victory won in the cosmos that we may never fully understand. The RESURRECTION POWER IS BEAUTIFUL.

JESUS FULFILLS The Day of Atonement: The purification, the cleansing of sacred space, becomes the sacrifice and the scapegoat, and transfers himself to be the forever high priest.
JESUS FULFILLS The Passover lamb by dying for everyone giving us unending freedom and reinstating our place in partnership with him in the royal priesthood of believers. We will soon become the temple of the Holy Spirit.
JESUS FULFILLS The feast of Tabernacles so that the nations may be regathered unto Him by us, manifested as His hands and feet.

THINKING SLIGHTLY REFORMED

I have many good friends that are reformed and several of them seemed to want to “justify” a modified view of God turning His back on us. I have a slight bit of respect and room for that, but it seems contorted. I started out the holy week with this premise. Here is the basic problem with any kind of framework going that way, and honestly it is really basic. The major theme of the Bible is that God makes covenant to Humanity to return to their destiny or vocation which is walking in partnership with him. It isn’t “just” the garden, it is actually even better than that towards the recreated Heaven and Earth. That covenant picture is based on humanity continually breaking the covenant but God saying despite your unfaithfulness I will continue to show complete faithfulness. That means in His words as the grand idiom of the Bible that he will never leave or forsake us. That phrase describes His covenant faithfulness over and over, more than 30x specifically and nearly 100 times in slightly different form. One of the greatest idioms that has ever come from the Bible that is still used every day in our culture and perhaps every culture of the world is to say, “I won’t turn my back on you.” That is the beginning or the foundation of leaving or forsaking someone. But it isn’t just the first step, it is the biggest picture we have of simple “unfaithfulness.” Therefore, when God says this, what He is saying is that despite your unfaithfulness I am not even going to take the first hint or appearance of unfaithfulness. So at the cross to say that God turns his back on Jesus is majorly problematic. It is saying that God isn’t a promise keeper and that His covenant means nothing. If the covenant means nothing than you just lost the entire thread or mission of Jesus. Furthermore, if you have to do all kinds of crazy theological gymnastics to reconcile what I would call poor theological phrases and doctrines, well then “houston, you might have a big problem.” It doesn’t have to be that way!

In the article I tried to give a shout out to what might be a better view of God turning His back by quoting my well-respected friend Greg Boyd. But I had a few other friends send me what they thought was a good version of God turning His back and frankly based on the causation above. I don’t see it.

It sounds good at first reading, things you have always heard, but to me it is problematic on a number of different levels and I will keep this pretty simple:

Why have you forsaken me is a feeling of simple abandonment, it isn’t faithful interpretation to try to frame it as if it isn’t. Even a kindergartener would tell you that. to get into all the “judicial sense” justification is a smoke screen. Any time someone abandons or forsakes you its relational. IF God is simply quoting Psalm 22 as remez you don’t get into any horrible hermeneutics.
The trinity wasn’t broken? Let’s again keep this simple. If one person or aspect changes than it’s “split”. That is why psychologically we describe this sense as a “split personality.” You have to start twisting common definitions to make sense of a contorted theology.
Jesus as taking on Sin Himself – Does Christ bear our sin? I personally didn’t put Christ on the cross as the reformed camp likes to say. DO I sein? Yes Christ atones for that. But we don’t have to frame it as if he is literally bearing our sin. Why would we want to say it like that? Perhaps in a very light analogy, but nothing more than that, and again why? – That isn’t the “justice of God.” It is the opposite of that. The character of God doesn’t act opposite of what it says in the Bible, that would be a logical fallacy. You can’t define the character of God and then do something that is opposite to it.
“Willingly stood in the place of sinners as their substitute.” Do you realize that there actually isn’t one verse that specifically says Christ is our substitute? You have to deduct that as a systematic theology. I can see this in a very basic metaphorical sense, but it is still problematic particularly as a doctrine especially when you get into double imputation.
‘The father poured out divine wrath” – oh boy – That sounds like an angry or even abusive father. I don’t think that is a great way to describe God. He never describes Himself that way. In fact. quite the opposite again. In Exodus 34, God describes Himself as compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, abounding with loyal love and faithfulness in Exodus 34.
The elect… Most simply you’re stating that God didn’t die for everyone as John 3:16 says, and now to try to make so many of the verses in the Bible that agree with the notion that God died for everyone you are going to have to continue to conjure up a bunch more hoops to jump through. I get tired just listening to this.
federal head – and that’s in scripture? But I don’t really think I need to go there.
Adam and the curse – The Bible is very clear that we are responsible for our actions and our sin alone (to borrow the favorite reformed theme.) I don’t have to pay God or Jesus back for some sin that someone else committed. Again, that would be a contradiction of the scripture. That would be framing God doing opposite of what his covenant promises to say to us.
“wrath satisfied & dept paid” – I never get the debt paid thing. Moses didn’t pay pharaoh and Jesus doesn’t pay God or Satan. It is simply freedom in Christ. To make that out to be anything more than that is quite conflating.

All of this is what I really don’t like about reformed theology. These systematic theologies are based on a couple atonement theories, the main one being Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA), with riding on its coat tails. First, PSA is not the gospel! Some would say if you don’t adhere to PSA that you don’t adhere to the Bible. Not true. There are several other theories of PSA that have been around longer and are “more traditional.” I tend to be a basic Christus Victor person, but see some support lightly for all the frameworks. X44 has sever videos on this. But with PSA, it creates a ton of complex negation and proof texting to try to get simply core verses to support things they don’t say. To think that all of this comes back to the desire to frame God as turning his back on Jesus at the cross makes zero sense! There is a better theology, and it is really simple! I can give it to you in one line and the entire Bible supports the statement in perfect harmony:

God will never leave you or forsake you. His covenant promises that over and over. He didn’t leave Jesus at the cross and he won’t ever leave you regardless of your actions against Him. That is the central theme of the Bible.

HERE IS A BASIC SUMMARY OF WHAT A “GOOD” PSA VIEW ENTAILS…

A TRADITIONAL PSA INFLUENCED VIEW: When Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” He was not merely expressing a feeling of abandonment but was truly being forsaken in a judicial and covenantal sense by the Father as He bore the sins of His people. This forsaking was not relational in nature—the eternal love and union within the Trinity was never broken, nor could it be. The divine nature remains indivisible. Yet the Father, acting in perfect justice and holiness, turned His face away from the Son in terms of communion and blessing, treating Him as if He were sin itself—not because Jesus had sinned, but because He willingly stood in the place of sinners as their substitute.

As Scripture says, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). The Father withheld the comfort of His presence and instead poured out the full measure of divine wrath—not out of displeasure toward Christ personally, but because Christ was bearing the guilt of the elect as their federal head. He was suffering the penalty required by God’s justice. This is what it means when Scripture says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13).

This abandonment was covenantal: Jesus, as the second Adam, was enduring the curse that came through the broken covenant of works. He was fulfilling every demand of divine justice, drinking the full cup of wrath that should have been ours. The forsaking He experienced was real, but it was legal—not a break in divine fellowship, but an act of righteous judgment. Even in being forsaken, He remained the beloved Son, fully obedient and fully pleasing to the Father in His substitutionary work.

It’s important to recognize that Christ was not merely tasting wrath—He absorbed all of it. He endured the full fury of God’s justice, as if He had committed every sin ever committed by those He came to save. And in that moment, He bore it all alone, so that we would never have to. His cry from the cross is not a cry of confusion or defeat—it’s a declaration of fulfillment. Quoting the opening line of Psalm 22, He identified Himself with the Suffering Servant, and the very Psalm that begins in anguish ends in victory and vindication. That cry, then, was part of the triumph.

Because He was forsaken, we never will be. The wrath is satisfied. The debt is paid. The veil is torn. There is no more judgment left for those who are in Him. That cry from the cross is the deepest expression of God’s justice and His love meeting in one moment. The atonement was not theoretical—it was complete. Nothing remains to be added. Christ bore our judgment fully, so that we might be reconciled to God forever.

Lastly, for us to try to fully understand what this truly means is impossible on this side of the cross. I’m just thankful for all Christ has done for each of us. Every time I try to wrap my mind around this topic, my mind is blown! Praise Him who bore my sins.

Related