Introduction
Matthew 27:45-50, while being a famous passage in the synoptic chronology of Jesus’ crucifixion, is also easily misunderstood apart from its original first century context. There are two primary ways in which the passage is misunderstood. The first mistake is a misinterpretation in what is meant by Jesus quoting Psalm 22 and results in a theological conundrum about the relationship between Jesus and the Father. The second mistake comes by overlooking the crowd’s statement about Elijah and what prompted it. Ironically the subject of Elijah probably only comes up because of another misunderstanding of what Jesus said on the cross. Through careful analysis of the cultural context of the passage a clear unified message rises to the surface, which helps to explain both the meaning behind Jesus’ words and the reaction of the crowd.
Translation
45a Now from the sixth hour,
45b darkness came into being upon all the earth
45c until the ninth hour.
46a About the ninth hour
46b Jesus cried out in a loud voice saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?"
46c (that is, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?")
47a Now some of those who were standing there heard
47b and said that, "This is a summoning for Elijah!"
48a And immediately one of them ran and took a sponge,
48b filled it with sour wine
48c and put it on a stalk,
48d giving it to him to drink.
49a But the others said, "Let it be.
49b See if Elijah comes to rescue him."
50a Then Jesus screamed again in a loud voice
50b as the breath of life departed.
Outline
Jesus Crucified (45-46)
Setting Established (45)
Timeframe Given (45a, 45c)
Darkness Spreads (45b)
Jesus Speaks (46)
Time Given (46a)
Quotation of Psalm 22 (46b)
Translation of Psalm 22 (46c)
The Crowd Responds (47-49)
Witness Interpret Jesus Words (47)
Witnesses Standing Listening (47a)
Witnesses Reference Elijah (47b)
Jesus Is Offered Wine (48)
Sponge Taken (48a)
Sponge Filled (48b)
Sponge Skewered (48c)
Sponge Given (48d)
The Crowd Pauses (49)
Others Make Request (49a)
Others Reference Elijah (49b)
Jesus Dies (50)
Jesus Screams (50a)
Jesus’ Spirit Departs (50b)
Structural Analysis
This narrative passage begins with a description of the setting for Jesus’ crucifixion. A timeframe is given and the atmosphere of darkness is described. At an approximate time given Jesus speaks, drawing upon Psalm 22. Upon hearing his words, the crowd responds in three ways. The first response is to mistakenly think Jesus is summoning Elijah. The second response involves offering Jesus wine. The third response is to stop everything and see if in fact Elijah will come to his aid. Upon the completion of these interactions Jesus screams and breathes his last.
Historical Cultural Context
The passage begins by establishing the timeframe for the events. By using a Roman day for calculations this darkness was present from noon until three in the afternoon. This detail is crucial for understanding the ominous nature of the scene. Darkness was present at the moment when the sun would normally have been the most visible over the land. The darkness was both literal but also a metaphor accompanying the events of the day. Hagner notes that, “the idea of the sun going down at midday is an apocalyptic image for a time of great sorrow and mourning employed in Amos 8:9 (cf. Jer 15:9). Darkness is, of course, also a common metaphor for judgment that will come on the Day of the Lord.” Anyone who was familiar with these concepts would have recognized the significance of the darkness upon reflection.
Following this period of darkness Jesus then cries out and quotes Psalm 22:1 which reads, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” Many people have read the verse out of context to arrive at the belief that God had abandoned Jesus, turned away, and created some sort of cosmic separation. This obviously creates many theological dilemmas when considering the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet, somehow, this is a fairly common reading of the text. Richards for example says that, “at the moment of death an awesome rent was torn in the very fabric of the Godhead.” However, Jesus death would have only had an effect on the location of Jesus and not the nature of the Trinity. More telling are the words of Utley who says, “Jesus [while speaking on the cross] was experiencing separation from God, the last great experience of sinful man.” He implies an actual separation in the Trinity.
There is however one cultural consideration being left out of these interpretations. When Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1, he was not referring to that line in isolation, but in the larger context of Psalm 22. David begins the Psalm feeling as though God had abandoned him, but that is neither the theme nor the climax of the text. He goes on to say that God is holy and trustworthy and will bring about salvation. Jesus is making a statement about the nature of God in spite of his present sufferings. This seems to be the most logical interpretation but others are still unconvinced. Hagner says, “it is impossible to assess what this may have meant to Jesus. This is one of the most impenetrable mysteries of the entire Gospel narrative. While difficult to assess, one interpretation creates theological difficulties that are avoided by the more obvious interpretation. Jesus’ statement was meant to provide a contrast between his feeling at the moment and the truth of who God is. Meyer correctly states, “this subjective feeling must not be confounded with actual objective desertion on the part of God (in opposition to Olshausen and earlier expositors), which in the case of Jesus would have been a meta-physical and moral impossibility. Jesus felt abandoned, but was not actually deserted. Surely anyone who has suffered greatly can relate to this paradox.
As the passage continues the people listening to Jesus think he is calling for Elijah. This seems at first like an illogical jump, but Hagner explains that, “when [they] heard Jesus crying out ηλι ηλι, E̅li E̅li, they thought he was calling upon Elijah. This would have been an easy mistake to make, according to Matthew’s text, because of the similarity between אֵלִי, ʾēlî, and אֵלִיָּה, ʾēlîyah.” This similarity in sound between the words helps explain the origin of their misunderstanding. Some suggest that they did not misunderstand the words, but upon seeing the similarity changed them to mock Jesus. Lenski says, “these wicked mockers pervert the first two words of Jesus and disregard the rest. It’s hard to infer the tone or intention of those speaking here, but that the words used were similar is certain. Following this, as another onlooker offers Jesus wine, he is told to stop so that they can see if Elijah would indeed come to the aid of Jesus. This could indeed be mockery or sincere belief that Elijah would come. Both views may have accurately described some of the people who were present.
Contextual Exegesis
The research clearly shows that the cultural context for this passage is crucial for a correct understanding of the text. The surface reading of Jesus’ statement about being forsaken leads to theological impossibilities. The convoluted arguments used to explain this “separation” between the Father and the Son lead to nowhere and only serve to convolute the meaning of a fairly simple statement. The correct understanding maintains the integrity of the Trinity and shows more clearly the suffering of Jesus and the faithfulness of God. Jesus experienced suffering like the Psalmist before him and yet still chose to trust in God.
The research also clearly shows that the crowd’s comments about Elijah were triggered by a distortion of the word ʾēlî, whether intentional or accidental. If intentional, then it added to the mockery of the crowd. If accidental, then it showed the crowds confusion over the nature and identity of Jesus. The whole story is ultimately one saturated in confusion about Jesus.
Personally I grew up in a context where many of the songs we sung in church conveyed an interpretation about Jesus in this passage. One song that comes to mind, How Deep The Father’s Love For Us, says, “the Father turns his face away.” It was a common teaching in my tradition that something temporarily changed in the nature of God at that moment. It was only through research and further study that I was able to understand the actual meaning of the passage.
Conclusion
Proper exegesis of this passage results in a clearer understanding of the text in its original context. Without its cultural context, this passage gets interpreted to teach something totally theologically inaccurate about the very nature of God and his Son. An understanding of the Hebrew words used in the passage also helps bridge the divide between Jesus’ statement and subsequent conversation amongst the witness of the crucifixion. This is a passage where proper Biblical interpretive skills are essential for understanding the unity of the Trinity.
Works Cited
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.
Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew, ed. William Stewart, trans. Peter Christie, vol. 2, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1884.
Newman, Barclay Moon and Philip C. Stine. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1992.
Richards, Lawrence O. The Bible Reader’s Companion, electronic ed. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991.
Ritzema, Elliot and W. Hall Harris III, et al., eds., The Lexham English Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012.
Utley, Robert James, The First Christian Primer: Matthew, vol. Volume 9, Study Guide Commentary Series. Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 2000.