The words are, of course, a quotation of the first verse of Psalm 22, a psalm which moves from despairing appeal to triumphant faith, and the Christian reader can, with hindsight, see the appropriateness of this total message. But it is illegitimate to interpret Jesus' words as referring to the part of the psalm which he did NOT echo. As throughout the crucifixion scene, it is the suffering of the righteous man in Psalm 22, not his subsequent vindication, which is alluded to. (Matthew (Tyndale Commentaries)), R. T. France)
Leon Morris, D. A. Carson, and Craig Blomberg are helpful on this point as well:
Speaking loudly as He did, Jesus evidently meant the words to be heard. There is no great difficulty in translating Jesus’ words (as Matthew did for his non-Hebrew-speaking readers): My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? But understanding what they mean is a much more difficult problem. For some modern readers the words are so shocking and so different from anything Jesus said throughout His ministry that they feel it is impossible to accept them. One way of doing this is to point out that the Psalm that begins in this way goes on to praise God for deliverance as the Psalmist says, "From the horns of the wild oxen you have rescued me . . . in the midst of the congregation I will praise you" (vv. 21-22). The suggestion is made accordingly that in his hour of need Jesus was reciting a psalm that brings comfort and that we are to understand from the words quoted that he went through the whole psalm. To this it may well be retorted that if this was the case almost any other verse in the whole psalm would convey the meaning better than those Jesus actually quotes. But in any case it is perilous to argue from the use of one verse that Jesus was quoting the whole psalm . . . . (The Gospel According to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary)) Leon Morris)
A large number of commentators have interpreted the cry against the background of the whole of Psalm 22, which begins with this sense of desolation but ends with the triumphant vindication of the righteous sufferer. The chief difficulty is that though OT texts are frequently cited with their full contexts in mind, they are never cited in such a way that the OT context effectively annuls what the text itself affirms (Bonnard). If the context of Psalm 22 is carried along with the actual reference to Psalm 22:1, the reader of the gospel is to understand that the vindication comes with the resurrection in Matthew 28, not that Jesus' cry reflects full confidence instead of black despair. (Matthew and Mark (Expositor's Bible Commentary)), D. A. Carson)
Just as Jesus would have learned to pray and sing many of the psalms in his private and corporate devotional life, so also it is natural for him to quote one here in a situation so parallel to that of his kingly ancestor. What is more controversial is the question of whether Jesus, in uttering this cry of dereliction (or Matthew in recording it), was thereby alluding to the entire psalm, following the common rabbinic practice of citing just the beginning of a given text when a larger, entire passage was in view. This would enable one to interpret Jesus' words as anticipating the same victory described in 27:19-31 even as he uttered his cry of abandonment . . . However, neither Jesus nor Matthew seems to have employed this technique elsewhere, and nothing in the immediate context of Matt. 27 suggests it (though of course elsewhere repeatedly predicted his resurrection, which in fact does occur). So it is probably safer not to assume that Jesus' cry abandonment was simultaneously a cry of faith. Jesus really did sense the absence of his Father, and this is precisely the moment when we should expect him, in his humanity, to be least confident of his future . . . Readers of the Gospels who cannot accept this concept probably reflect an unwitting Docetism - the heresy that Christ was not fully human. Indeed, if one wants to do more with Matt. 27:46 than hear a cry of dereliction, one is better off looking to other uses of Ps. 22:27-31 in the Gospels as a sign of God's judgment . . . Throughout church history, Jesus' cry of dereliction has been identified as the moment of divine abandonment. Jesus, who died to atone vicariously for the sins of humanity, recognized at this point in his suffering that he no longer was experiencing the communion with his heavenly Father that had characterized his life . . . Jesus, as the sin-bearing sacrifice, must endure the temporary abandonment of the Father. (Commentary On The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament, On Matthew 27:46, Craig Blomberg)
We Must Get The Cross And The Trinity Right
We must get the cross and the Trinity right. Considered as the divine Logos (the divine Son) in the eternal intratrinitarian relationship with His Father, the Son was not forsaken. But when considered as the incarnate mediator (the God-Man), however, Christ was at that moment in time on that cross, forsaken and damned, and God was angry with Christ on the cross so that sinners might be saved. Christ, according to His divine nature, was not forsaken, but as the God-man, according to His human nature, He most certainly was. We must affirm that, or we lose the Gospel. Consider this:
The Person of Jesus was created and born according to His human nature. But the Person of Jesus was not created and born according to His divine nature because God cannot be created or born but exists eternally. (The "according to" language comes from Scripture: Romans 1:3: ". . . concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh . . . .")The Person of Jesus got tired, hungry, and slept according to His human nature. But the Person of Jesus did not get tired, hungry, or sleep according to His divine nature because God cannot get tired, be hungry, or sleep.The Person of Jesus died on the cross according to His human nature. But the Person of Jesus did not die on the cross according to His divine nature because God cannot die.
In a similar way, because our sins were imputed to the Person of Jesus, God the Father forsook, was angry with, and damned the Person of Jesus on the cross according to His human nature. But God the Father did not forsake, get angry with, or damn the Person of Jesus according to His divine nature because it is impossible for conflict (forsakenness, anger, damnation) to exist in the intratrinitarian relationship between the Father and the Son. It's also true that the Father was not angry with the Person of Jesus according to His human nature as the perfectly obedient last Adam. Jesus achieved His perfect obedience to the will of God (God's law) as the last Adam according to His human nature, not His divine nature, and so in this respect, Jesus, according to His human nature, was also well pleasing to the Father. But, because our sins were imputed to Christ, it really was God the Son (the Person of Jesus Christ) Who, according to His human nature, experienced the true relational reality of God-forsakenness, the anger of God, and damnation. But it was not the human nature which suffered, but the Person according to this nature. "And since the Person is infinite, all that Christ suffered was of infinite efficacy and value." (Wilhelmus à Brakel). Jesus did all of this so that we will never face those judgments.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!
So, as the Heidelberg Catechism states:
Why must He [Jesus] also be true God? So that, by the power of His divinity, He might bear the weight of God’s anger in His humanity and earn for us and restore to us righteousness and life.
It is always important to remember that the Person Christ Jesus suffered, not merely a nature. Petrus Van Mastricht is helpful on this point:
He suffered not only as man, nor only as God, but simultaneously as God and man.
XI. All these things the Mediator endured, whether in body or in soul, neither only as man, nor only as God, but as the God-man, simultaneously as God and man, just as, according to the nature of the theandric effects, each nature bestowed its own part to Christ's sufferings: while the human nature alone sustained and suffered them (since passive potency does not occur in the divine nature, Mal. 3:6; James 1:17; and much less death, because the divine nature is incorruptible, Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16), the divine nature furnished to his sufferings an infinite weight, value, and price, so that they were God's sufferings (Acts 20:28), and the blood of the Son of God (1 John 1:7), suited to cleanse us from all sin. (Theoretical-Practical Theology, Redemption in Christ, Vol. 4, 2023, page 415).
1. A Concern About The Way Pastor Kevin DeYoung Writes About The Cross In His New Daily Doctrine Book
2. The Bible Says The Father Turned His Face Away From Jesus On The Cross
4. More Thoughts On Being God-Forsaken










