lama sabachthani

[Matthew23]

Matthew 27:46
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Why did our Messiah say these words as He hanged from the cross?

Here's my thoughts:
I did a search for the words "will forsake" at my favorite online bible site. I was looking for some other time in the bible when G-d had forsaken someone. The first scripture that came up on the search was Deuteronomy 31:6. Well that one didn't exactly give me what I was looking for. Instead, I got whacked upside the head with a surprise. I had actually heard part of the verse many times before... "for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you." Along with that verse popped up many others having nothing to do with G-d forsaking anyone. Rather they all had to to with Man forsaking G-d. So, I had to come and give you my thoughts on this.

I saying, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" J-sus had obviously been forsaken by G-d. Well, the bible says that G-d will not forsake His people so...

J-sus, having taken the sin of man with Him on the cross, became sin for us (redundant?). He has taken our place, He was our substitute and was forsaken in that moment By G-d for our sake.

[hyssop]

Matt,

If I understand you, you're saying that it was not J-sus; so who/what, exactly, <I>was</i> on the cross in the moment Yahweh left the scene of the crucifixion?

[Matthew23]

Oops. Maybe I didn't explain my thoughts too clearly. I didn't mean that it was not J-sus who was on the cross, I was just trying to explain why He was forsaken at that time. He was forsaken because He had our sin on Him. G-d was always with Him until that one moment. Just think how He must have felt! I understand why He was forsaken, but what I still don't understand is... Why didn't He know why He was forsaken?

[chris]

Shalom Matthew23! Check out Psalms 22. Yeshua did know He was forsaken, He was fulfilling the prophecy of Psalms 22.

[hyssop]

Excellent, Chris! I was not aware of Psalms 22 and you, my friend, are right on: "He was fulfilling the prophecy of Psalms 22."

And what does Psalms 22 say was going on?<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=1>Psalms 22 KJV</font><HR>[6]<FONT COLOR=BLUE> But I <I>am</i> a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. </font>[7]<FONT COLOR=BLUE> All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, <I>saying</i>, </font>[8]<FONT COLOR=BLUE> He trusted on the L-rd <I>that</i> he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.</font>

. . .

[12]<FONT COLOR=BLUE> Many bulls have compassed me: strong <I>bulls</i> of Bashan have beset me round. </font>[13]<FONT COLOR=BLUE> They gaped upon me <I>with</i> their mouths, <I>as</i> a ravening and a roaring lion. </font>[14]<FONT COLOR=BLUE> I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. </font>[15]<FONT COLOR=BLUE> My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. </font>[16]<FONT COLOR=BLUE> For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. </font>[17]<FONT COLOR=BLUE> I may tell all my bones: they look <I>and</i> stare upon me. </font>[18]<FONT COLOR=BLUE> They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. </font><HR></blockquote>There is nothing in these scriptures that I can see to indicate that Yahweh left the scene because He saw Yashua as the substitute for this "assembly of the wicked" who were killing Yashua.

However, there is another possibility: perhaps, Yahweh left the scene because, had He stayed, He would have destroyed all those who were killing His Son. Yashua was fulfilling Yahweh's plan, according to the scriptures. Had Yahweh destroyed the wicked who were killing His Son, the plan would not have been completed.

And Matthew, I don't know that one could say that Yahweh really forsook Yashua. Yes, He left the scene of the crucifixion, but He raised Yashua to eternal life--a far cry from being forsaken (permanently). Maybe, "for the L-rd your G-d goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you," is talking about permanently forsaking the individual.

[chris]

It humbles me deeply, Psalms 22. Oh the things He went through for the likes of me!! He died alone, truly alone, upon that cross. Forsaken by his disciples, his fellow Jews, even by His Father. G-d had to forsake Him. G-d has no part with sin, and Yeshua became sin for us. G-d could not even look upon Him. But when that sin and curse of Adam was burned up in the fires of Hell, G-d reached down into its belly and pulled His Son up to everlasting life. (((He is risen)))

[Matthew23]

Thanks for replying, you guys. Chris, thanks for pointing me to Psalm 22. That's definitely a great piece of prophecy, and I see what you mean about the fullfilment of scripture.

J-sus was definitely forsaken on the cross. He said it Himself. What is puzzling to me though is that He asked the question "why?"(Matthew 27:46)

Any ideas?

[chris]

Shalom Matthew23!

I don't know for sure. Some say that after they had mocked and spit upon Him, beat Him to the point of death, pushed a crown of thorns upon His head, made Him carry that cross some of the way, nailed Him to a cross (naked), stood the cross up b4 all to see, He was so delirious with pain, embarassment, and grief that He cried out "WHY!!" This is a good enough explanation for me, but I imagine it was also for the fullfilment of Psalms 22:

Ps 22:1 My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

[Matthew23]

I understand the fullfilment part. But what I don't understand is this:

J-sus, the Son of G-d should have known what His Father's plan was and therefore should have understood why He was forsaken.

I have my own theory on this. This might sound corny, but I just thought of this about five minutes ago after reading your post. I don't exactly have the best ways of expressing myself, but here goes:

First of all, I believe that J-sus has two natures, one of man and one of G-d (Yahweh). I know I'm opening up a can of worms here on this particular message board by saying that! But anyways, I think that when the man J-sus was forsaken by G-d, the man did not understand why He had been forsaken, because the all knowing G-d in him was gone! Does that make sense? Is it ridiculous or not?

[chris]

Blessings Matthew23

Not corny. I try my best to always respect another's believes and opinions. So whatever is on your mind, please feel free to speak it! I personally do not think Yeshua is part of a trinity, but that is a whole other can of worms... LOL! Think about this though: what if He did not say "Why hast thou forsaken me?" What if He said something else? He would not be fully fulfilling Psalms 22. Jews could use this to say "He was not the Messiah." Remember, Psalms 22 was already written at the time, and those devoted rabbis and pharisees probably had that particular passage memorized. Yeshua was both fullfilling and giving those Jews a sign that He truly was the Messiah.

Always keep questioning...

[Searching]

Squid?

Salutation Matthew and Chris,

Chris, I have seen some of the threads that you have mentioned at Theology Forums. I am not ignoring you...I just have had little time lately...trying to get A's in my classes eh?

Matthew,

So you know...I am younger than you. I am twenty-two, and a college student. I met Hyssop and Folks a while ago.

In this thread, I understand that you feel that Messiah was a substitute sacrfice. Let's get this straight...Good. I don't hope you don't change your beliefs unless convienced. There Should be no other way.

Being 'new' to this board and this trane of thought...I am Curious if you would care to start a new thead about 'substitutionalism'.

You see...I have a september 12th story as well. I am sure it is a bit different, however all are good eh?

Anywho...I have a few questions about Messiah not being a substitute as well....I hope we could colaborate.

We can 'gang up' or should I say reason a bit about New Testement scriptures about this doctrine.

You see, often when I think about "what the Father Wants" against a substitute...I often have to think about what "I" would expect from someone. 'Blood?'...some one "in the Place?" In my opinion is apauling. But we must 'think' using scriptures eh? I have questions myself.

We must ask questions...and I am sure we both have them...

You see...When I 'see' the Old Testement scriptures...'Substitutionalism' is a definite no no. In the New...It sometimes seems correct.

A 'scientist' must observe all aspects....eh? Even if the US looses to Germany.

Well, Let's see what we can get to eh?

Till Tommorrow,

Start if you wish...happy to oblige (sp?).

Peace,
Valid Name....

Searching

[chris]

Shalom Searching, I did not think you were ignoring me. I just told you so you would know. Please, take all the time you need. There are many times when I cannot reply too quick. Really, I don't mind. In fact I want you to get those A++'s!

[MyNameIsYura]

What I don't get is how Trinitarians view this.

Okay, how can the Father leave the Son if the Father and the Son are one God?

Let's say I have one pencil that was broken, but I taped it together, and let's say one part of the broken part is the father and the other part is the son. So if I put the pencil in my pocket, how can I not put both the father and the son into my pocket? As soon as you separate the broken parts, you no longer have a full pencil, both you have 50% of the father side and 50% of the son side of the broken pencil.

So the Father is only 50% God and the Son is 50% God? But wait, let's not forget the Holy Spirit, so no, it's more like 33% each now.

But then it bring the question of Colossians 2:9. The deity in Colossians 2:9 is singular deity, so who was this singular deity? If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is that singular deity, then do I have a paradox for you.

James 1:17 Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

Please look up in the dictionary what the word "variation" means if you don't know.

So now here's the question. Was the fulness of deity in Jesus before he was born from the womb of Mary?

Now answer this, if the singular deity in Colossians 2:9 is all three members of the Trinity, then how can that be since James 1:17 say the Father cannot change in any shape or form?

Now better than that, if the singural deity in Colossians 2:9 is all three members of the Trinity, then you must acknowledge that all three members died on the cross and went to preach to the dead.

[Menachem]

Which did jesus quote, really?

Hello everyone I am new here so be patient with me i have a few comments about this Psalm and how and why jesus was not quoting it so please bear with me.

Shalom Matthew23! Check out Psalms 22. Yeshua did know He was forsaken, He was fulfilling the prophecy of Psalms 22.

I would like to first concentrate on the phrase "Eloi/Eli, Eloi/Eli Lama sabachthani"

written in greek as this is in the NT: source
ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι

now bear with me. there is an idea that he quoted from Psalm 22:2 now my question is why is it that none of the Psalm rederings in either greek, hebrew or Aramaic match up with this quotation by jesus which is supposedly Psalm 22:2

here is what the LXX reads on Psalm 22:1: source
κυριος ποιμαινει με και ουδεν με υστερησει

he obviously did not quote the LXX.

The Hebrew says:
אֵלִי אֵלִי לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי
saying in Hebrew "Eli, Eli, Lamah Azavtani"

The Aramaic Targum to this psalm says:
אֵלִי אֵלִי מְטוּל מַה שְׁבַקְתַּנִי
saying in Aramaic "Eli, Eli, Metual Mah Shevaktani"

So which one did he quote from?

the letter reconstruction from the Greek letters to the Hebrew leters would be this:
σ =ש

β= ב

χ=ח

θ =ת

ν=נ

ι=י

thus making the word read in its transliteration back as שבחתני since the "Chi" in greek is the equivalent to the Chet and not the Qof in hebrew. the word reads as rendered. So it is not he word from the Targum based on its backwards transliteration.

So, I repeat, Which one did he supposedly quote from?

Shalom,

[smadewell]

I haven't a clue. Enlighten us.