Biblical Misunderstandings

Did God Forsake Jesus 

on the Cross?

Did God Forsake Jesus on the Cross?


The quick answer to this question is, No.


Hebrews 13:5 is very clear: "For He (God) has said, I will not, not not, leave you or forsake you." (AMP, prior to 1987) This same unconditional promise is found originally in Deuteronomy 31:6 and then repeated in verse 8.


"Be strong, courageous and firm, fear not, nor be in terror before them; for it is the Lord your God (Yahweh your Elohim) who goes with you. He will not fail you or forsake you." AMP + (CLV) Verse 6.


"It is the Lord who goes before you; He will not fail you or forsake you." AMP Verse 8.


Those unconditional statements (meaning that they don't depend on anything that we do) carry through to every event in life. We can attempt to leave God, but God will never leave us.



Is God "a Holy God Who Cannot Look on Sin?"


Many people say, "God is a holy God who cannot look on sin."


Really?


So they are saying that when Adam and Eve made their big mistake, God was in Heaven, shielding Their eyes, and saying to one of the archangels, "Tell Us when it is all over, so that We can go down and punish them in Our fierce anger?"


When God did come down to talk with Adam and Eve about their mistake it was not a rushed thing. God came in the cool of the day, as usual, not because the air-conditioning had failed in heaven, but because that would be the most suitable time for...Adam and Eve.


Or consider Cain. There was no problem with his sacrifice - grain was perfectly acceptable as an offering to God, and grain offerings were later enshrined in the Law at Sinai. The problem was in Cain's heart, and that is what God spoke to him about. Genesis 4:6-7. In other words, ritual worship without allowing God to change our heart is not enough. 


After Cain killed Abel God did not hesitate to come into his presence to help him deal with the issue. God was not looking to take vengeance upon him, but tried to get him into a place where he would admit his mistake so that he could be healed. Cain, like his parents before him, refused to be drawn into Contrition (being sorry and saying so), Confession (saying what he had done wrong), and Repentance (a change of mind where we acknowledge our mistake and decide not to do it again).


Because Cain would not draw near to God he reacted instead, and verse 17 records that "he went away from the presence of the Lord."


Once again, in Genesis 6, we see that God is not the least bit afraid "to look on sin" as He "saw that the wickedness of man was great in the Earth." Verse 5. And then in verse 12, "And God looked upon the world and saw how degenerate, debased and vicious it was."


Or Genesis 11, where mankind decided to build a city and a tower which reached into the sky. Did God shield Their eyes as this event took place? "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built." Verse 5. The Lord actually came down to see, which suggests that it must have been very puny indeed.


And the result? Does God fear connection with mankind, in all their sinfulness, or relish the connection? They have no need to descend to our level, but They do so out of great, bottomless and unfathomable love. "Come, Let Us go down..." Verse 7.


Consider Abraham, when he asked his wife to say she was his sister and available to enter the king's harem. He was trading his wife for sex to save his own life (or so he thought), not trusting God, without any sign of repentance from him afterwards, yet God still appeared to him later. Abraham made that same mistake twice (Genesis 12 and Genesis 20), and had sex with his wife's maid as well.


Is it any wonder then, that "After these events God tested Abraham" (Genesis 21:1) so that Abraham had yet another chance to see where his trust lay? God knew, but Abraham did not.


Sin does not affect God or diminish Them in any way. Sin only affects us.


Sin does not make God pull away from us or forsake us. God uses our failed temptations to keep drawing us back.


Adam and Eve (Genesis 3) demonstrate this perfectly.


They did the wrong thing, and God came to meet them where they were.


God asked them questions to which He already knew the answers, to draw them out, to give them opportunities to say, "I'm sorry, I should not have eaten the fruit, I won't do that again."


In their defiance Adam blamed his wife and God while Eve blamed the devil!


There was no Contrition - "I'm sorry" - there was no Confession - "I ate the fruit You told us not to eat" - and there was no Repentance (change of mind) - "I won't do that again." 


In spite of all this God still forgave them and slew two magnificent creatures from Their Creation - with the shedding of blood there is forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22, Leviticus 17:11) - and covered them with the skins. Sin is not a problem for God and has never been one.


Sin is only a problem for us.


Both Old Testament (Hebrew) and New Testament (Greek) words which are translated as "holy' mean "to set apart' or 'to be set apart'. 


For mankind, that means that 'holiness' is an attitude, first, of setting ourselves apart to God or for God's purpose(s), which then can affect our behaviour.


For God, well, that means that God is different. 


Although mankind was originally in the image and likeness of God, that does not mean that God is 'like us'.


The 'Wrath' of God


God does not think like us, move like us, act like us or react like us. When we read things in Scripture that suggest that God has negative emotions like us (anger, hatred, revenge, jealousy and so on) that is what is called 'an anthropomorphism', which is an attempt to explain God using human standards and examples of expression.


One good example of this is in Romans 1:18, where Paul states that "God's wrath is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness of men who in their wickedness repress the truth."


We tend to immediately think of God having an anger reaction like we might towards something that is unpleasant, and then bringing a strong punishment, but that is not how Paul explains it. Through verses 19 to 32 Paul explains how God's wrath is seen, and it's nothing like human anger at all. In fact, according to Paul, God simply lets these people, the evil-doers who are the object of His wrath, eventually do what they want to do, without intervention! (That is in stark contrast to the way God continually works to move us out of making mistakes into making gains.)


"And so, since they do not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a base mind (their own mind set on evil) to do things not proper." Verse 28.  Words in brackets are mine.


Sin is not a problem for God.


Isaiah 53 is that famous chapter devoted to the coming Messiah, written at least 500 years before the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. The second part of verse 4 is especially intriguing; the first part is included to help locate the second.


"Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. Yet we considered Him stricken, smitten and afflicted by God." (AMP) 


While the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus was planned ahead by God, from the foundation of the world, in fact (Revelation 13:8), it wasn't God who executed the plan, but the enemy seeking to destroy the Lamb of God. In fact, had they realised the immense power that would be released among those of us who have yielded to Him, according to 1 Corinthians 2:8 "they would have never crucified the Lord of glory." 


"But Didn't Jesus Become Sin for Us?"


That's a misunderstanding of 2 Corinthians 5:21, which uses a figure of speech called Metonymy, where one noun is replaced by another to represent it. (See, for example, Genesis 28:22, where Jacob says, "And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God's house.")


Almost all translations express it like this:


"For our sake He made Christ to be sin who knew no sin, so that we (who knew no righteousness) might become the righteousness of God." (Words in brackets added for clarification, emphasis and understanding.) That leaves readers who don't understand about figures of speech and the Old Testament Law in a void.


In the Old Covenant, which was a shadow of the New, when someone had sinned they brought a young ram to be offered as a sacrifice. Its blood was dashed upon the altar and round about (see Leviticus 6-7) "...for the life is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement." Leviticus 17:11.


Or consider Isaiah 53:10, speaking into the future. "Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise Him...when You and He make Him an offering for sin He shall see His offspring..." (Bold italic type added for emphasis.)


Psalm 40:6-8 was updated slightly by the writer of Hebrews when he said, "Lo, I am, come to do Your will," (Hebrews 10:9), while verses 8-10 show that Jesus willingly went to His death, according to His father's will, with His Father's complete approval.


Hebrews 10 has more:


"...we have been made holy (set apart) through the offering made once for all of the body of Jesus Christ." Verse 10 (Brackets added for explanation.)


"Whereas this One. after He had offered a single sacrifice for our sins, sat down at the right hand of God..." Verse 12


Or Ephesians 5:2. "...as the Christ loved you and gave Himself up for us, a slain offering and sacrifice to God..." 


Or we can look at the Day of Atonement ritual in Leviticus 16, in which all of the sins of the nation were removed from their sight in two operations on one day of the year:



Do you see a parallel with Jesus, in the crown of thorns placed on His head representing the sins of the world, and then being laid in a tomb, out of sight of the people (as in a 'wilderness'), by a man who was ready? When Jesus did return on the third day it was in an entirely new form where He was not recognised by the people who knew Him previously, "the first born from among the dead." Colossians 1:18.


Jesus completed the Old Testament ritual

 by being the actual sin offering 

to end all sin offerings.


"For by a single offering He has forever completely cleansed those who are set apart (holy)."  Hebrews 10:14.  "...there is no longer any sacrifice left to atone for sins." Hebrews 10:26b


There is no mention anywhere that He became sin to end all sin. If Jesus had become sin itself, He would have then needed some other offering to atone for or remove the sin that was now Him, because sin cannot remove itself. Remember, the sin is transferred to the sacrificial offering, and with the blood shed in the death of the sacrifice there is forgiveness of sins and the remission of (payment for) the penalty, death.


Just as in the first Garden, where God provided the sacrifice and the blood offering for the transgressors, so in the second Garden God also provided the sacrifice and the blood offering for the forgiveness of sins of all of mankind. Except that in the second garden the blood of the Son of God actually cleanses us from all sin, whereas in the first Garden the sins were only covered.


Ultimately there are two translations which show 2 Corinthians 5:21 correctly:


"For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God." New Living Translation. 


"For the One not knowing sin He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him." Concordant Literal Version


Either one, both, in fact, complete the type or pattern shown in the Old Testament.



Did Jesus Really Say, "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?"


This is the most intriguing part of all.


We know that, from time to time, Jesus would take the scroll in a synagogue and read from it. That meant that He was fluent in reading and speaking Hebrew. However, it is possible that, since Hebrew was more a religious language for those who were better educated, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, the 'language of the people' when He was teaching elsewhere. His disciples and those who were at the cross for His final hours possibly were also more familiar with Aramaic. 


We know that Jesus also spoke Greek, from His interaction with Peter in Matthew 16, which includes a play on the words petros (= masculine noun, a piece of rock) from which we get the name Peter, and petra (= feminine noun, a large rock like Gibralter).


Nonetheless, Hebrew was a primary language at that time. According to Paul, Jesus spoke to him in Hebrew when he was on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:14), and Paul later addressed the crowd at the temple when he was arrested, "in the Hebrew tongue." (Acts 21:40.) 


We also know that Psalm 22 has many elements within it which directly refer to the crucifixion time of Jesus: verses 7,8,13,14,15,16,18, and verse 31. It is verse 1 which begins with those famous words attributed to Jesus in Matthew and Mark:


"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Psalm 22;1


If Jesus was quoting from Psalm 22:1, and I doubt it, He most likely would have spoken it in Hebrew. In Hebrew, those words from Psalm 22:1 are:


"Eli, eli, lema azabtani."  


Eli = My God, 'lema' is an interrogative = why, and 'azabtani' is a grammatical form of the Hebrew verb 'to forsake'. Phonetically, those words sound like this: 'Eh-lee, Eh-lee, l'mah ut-sub-tah-nee', where the 'eh' is like the 'ay' in 'day', and the 'ut' is like 'rut' without the 'r'.


However, the words in Matthew 27:46 are different; the verb, at least is Aramaic, rather than Hebrew.


"Eli. Eli, lama sabachthani" 


What is interesting is that the first three words have direct Hebrew equivalents, while the last word, 'sabachthani', is definitely Aramaic. Sabachthani has evidently been translated as 'forsaken' in Psalm 22, for example, for several thousand years in Jewish literature (the Targum, for example), but there is a problem with that. According to at least one recent source the root Aramaic word for 'forsake', in this context, would be 'taatani', or 'nashatani', to forget. 


If the root word for 'sabachtani' is 'shwaq', that means to 'keep' or 'spare' or 'allow to fulfill a purpose'. On the other hand, if the root word for sabachthani is 'sbq', that means 'to abandon for a purpose'.


I first heard about this conundrum from Peter Wade, a Bible teacher from Adelaide in South Austraila, in 1980. He showed me a copy of the Good News Bible which had been published in the Middle East, where Aramaic is still spoken. Because their intended market knew that 'sabachtani' did not mean 'forsaken' the translators had rendered the second part of the verse as, "for this purpose was I spared." I saw that with my own eyes. It could also be rendered, 'for this purpose was I sacrificed'.


Some weeks later I approached a pastor who had studied Hebrew intensively for 6 years. After showing initial surprise at my suggestion he pointed out something else: in Hebrew, he said, 'lema' is an interrogative = 'why', whereas 'lama' is a statement, meaning, 'for this purpose'.


According to Chaim Bentorah, the source referenced earlier, based on studies of the Northern Galilean Aramaic dialect that Jesus most probably used, His words, possibly, could also, more colloquially perhaps, be translated into English as "Listen to my heart, this is My destiny."


Jesus did not repeat any other verses from Psalm 22, and it's quite likely that someone, or a group of someones way back in time decided that this rendition, as a quote from that Psalm, should stand. The other intriguing part is that the Gospels were written in Koine Greek by men who spoke and wrote Greek as a first language, men who probably did not have first-hand familiarity with Aramaic. And for some reason they included Jesus' words in Aramaic, and then supplied a translation of that into Greek, a translation which does not seem to fit with the known character of God, especially as Jesus revealed it.


Jesus knew what was in store for Him, which was why He said, rhetorically, on the night that He was betrayed, that if there was any other way to achieve the same result, let it be done in that other way. But He knew that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin," (Hebrews 9:22, Leviticus 17:11) and accepted what had to be. He knew beforehand that, with the shedding of blood, especially in the Roman style, there was also going to be much pain.


The apostle Peter, when preaching about Jesus' crucifixion in Acts 2:25, quotes King David in Psalm16:8-11.


"For David says in regard to Him, I saw the Lord constantly before Me, for He is at My right hand that I may not be shaken...For You will not abandon My soul, leaving it helpless in Hades, nor let Your Holy One know decay. You have made known to Me the ways of life. You will be filling Me with gladness with Your face."


Those are not the thoughts of someone who felt forsaken by God.


Luke, who also wrote the gospel named after him, does not give any inkling that Jesus felt forsaken by God in his account, relayed to him by people who were witnesses. Instead, he portrays a strong, focused Jesus up until the end.


"And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit. And with these words he expired." Luke 23:46.


In contrast Matthew and Mark show that Jesus' supposed "Why am I forsaken" words, while they were loud, were so indistinct, so unclear, that some standing by thought that He was calling upon Elijah (Eliyahu, rather than Eli or Eloi). It is well known that as people approach death they can fade in and out of consciousness, and often rally just at the end as if everything is okay. That does not seem to have happened with Jesus, in that His other words were clear and loud, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke. (Neither Luke nor John includes the 'forsaken' comment.)


There is only one sense in which Jesus could be abandoned:


He was 'abandoned for a purpose', and that was 'in His flesh'.


Before His crucifixion, in the Garden of Gethsemane, angels ministered to Him in preparation for what lay before Him. They could not minister to Him physically as He was hanging there on Golgotha because he had to bleed and suffer in the flesh as a human in order to fulfill, not just the Old Testament type or pattern for an offering, but the legal requirement that "the soul that sins, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). 


Since Jesus had never sinned and was 'without blemish' He became the perfect offering to complete the type, and the perfect offering to "condemn sin in the flesh' (Romans 8:4) that is, to make sin of no account for the believer, because "those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh" (Galatians 5:24) through identification with Him.


What is more, because He had never sinned, His soul would not die; His soul would not be abandoned or forsaken or left helpless in Hades.


Using Paul's example from Romans 1 as to how God's wrath is seen in action, if God had wrath (anger) towards Jesus because Jesus was, on the cross, presenting as carrying all the sin of the world, then God would have abandoned Jesus to do whatever was on His mind. (Romans 1:28.) 


And what was on Jesus' mind? To do the will of the Father, which was to present Himself as an offering for sin for all mankind, just once, that would be for all time, past, present and future. 


Isn't that amazing?


"Sacrifice and burnt offering You do not desire...Then said I, Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God.

"I have proclaimed glad tidings of righteousness in the great assembly...I have proclaimed your faithfulness and Your salvation." Psalm 40:6-8,9,10.



What We Also Know:



While God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) has no connection with sin and no intimate knowledge of sin, at the same time They are not, in Themselves, affected by it. See God's Love Chapter.


a) When the tempter in The Garden told Adam and Eve that if they disobeyed God they would actually be like God, that was a lie. (Genesis 3:5.) Since they, in that first human form, had been made 'in the image and likeness of God," they were already 'like' God.


b) When the tempter told Adam and Eve that they would then, like God, have an intimate knowledge or connection with good and evil, the Hebrew word for 'know' is the same one used in Genesis 4:1 to describe Adam having sex with Eve to produce a child. What was true for them was another lie about God: God has no intimate knowledge of or connection with evil. (Genesis 3:5.) 


Contrast this lie from the enemy leader with 1 John 1:5 which says, "God is light (meaning 'good') and there is no darkness (meaning 'evil') in Him at all."


c) God did not hesitate to continue to maintain an intimate relationship with these people after they sinned: Adam and Eve, Cain, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Samson, Peter, John and Paul and so on. There is no record for us of their change of mind or confession. We know that in some cases they did the same wrong thing more than once.



d) "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." 2 Corinthians 5:19


e) "Where sin increases, grace (the presence and input from God) superexceeds." Romans 5:20 (CLV) Or "Where sin abounded, grace superabounded." (AMP)


Back to top