Assyrian Forums
 Home  |  Ads  |  Partners  |  Sponsors  |  Contact  |  FAQs  |  About  
 
   Holocaust  |  History  |  Library  |  People  |  TV-Radio  |  Forums  |  Community  |  Directory
  
   General  |  Activism  |  Arts  |  Education  |  Family  |  Financial  |  Government  |  Health  |  History  |  News  |  Religion  |  Science  |  Sports
   Greetings · Shläma · Bärev Dzez · Säludos · Grüße · Shälom · Χαιρετισμοί · Приветствия · 问候 · Bonjour · 挨拶 · تبریکات  · Selamlar · अभिवादन · Groete · التّحيّات

Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34.

Archived: Read only    Previous Topic Next Topic
Home Forums Peshitta Topic #638
Help Print Share
Biga
 
Send email to BigaSend private message to BigaView profile of BigaAdd Biga to your contact list
 
Member:
Posts: 193
Member Feedback

Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34.

Sep-06-2001 at 09:39 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

Hello dear All,

I searched through the Forum but I didn't find detailed explanations about this famous verses.

1. What is the correct writing of Eli, Eli... ?
Lmana, lama, lema, lamana or what stands really here? Sabachtani, shabaqthani or shwaqthani?

2. Shabachtani really rooted from "shbaq" as Lamsa states (spare, keep, forgive) ?

3. Lmana (if it is correct) can stand really only explanatory and not in questions? Lamsa quoted as "lmana or l'mana or lemana" from KJV but I found simply lama in the KJV.

4. Why do not refer Luke to this in Lk. 23.46 but suggests Jesus didn't belive that he is forsaken by God?

5. Why uses Jesus the word "Eli" if he uses Northern Aramaic where God is Alaha, Allaha?

6. Jesus really quoted Psalms 22? Lamsa's translation writes here "why hast thou let me to live?" and not forsaken. In same cases the evangelists extended the verses with something like "said ... because the Scripture/prophecy must be fulfilled by XY."

7. It is correct what Lamsa translated here (for this I was spared!) explanatory?

My seven questions

thanks,
Gabor

Print Top

 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

1. RE: Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34.

Sep-07-2001 at 04:23 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Akhi Gabor,

1. What is the correct writing of Eli, Eli... ? Lmana, lama, lema, lamana or what stands really here? Sabachtani, shabaqthani or Shwaqthani?

According to the Eastern Peshitta, and the Eastern scribal vowel tradition, it is "Eil, Eil, L'mana Shwaqthani."

2. Shabachtani really rooted from "shbaq" as Lamsa states (spare, keep, forgive) ?

Yes. Another meaning is "To Leave."

3. Lmana (if it is correct) can stand really only explanatory and not in questions? Lamsa
quoted as "lmana or l'mana or lemana" from KJV but I found simply lama in the KJV.

No, L'mana is a start of a question - not an explanatory note. Lamsa is badly mistaken here.

For example, see the usage of L'mana in Matthew 8:26 and 9:11.

For an exhaustive study, refer to the Lexical Concordance on this site (using word number 12195)

4. Why do not refer Luke to this in Lk. 23.46
but suggests Jesus didn't belive that he is forsaken by God?

Of course Jesus wasn't forsaken by God.

But because a possible meaning of the root Shwaq is "to leave", the Greeks mistranslated this saying from the original Aramaic.


5. Why uses Jesus the word "Eli" if he uses Northern Aramaic where God is Alaha, Allaha?

There have always been many different dialects in Aramaic. Even today, there are 16 modern dialects. I can 'switch' between 4 or 5 of them myself, since my extended family, through marriage, contains people who are from different regions and speak different dialects (but all are highly mutually intelligible.)

So when Jesus was in Galilee, he spoke like a Galilean, but when He was in Judea, He spoke as a Judean (so they could understand Him easier.)


6. Jesus really quoted Psalms 22? Lamsa's translation writes here "why hast thou let me to
live?" and not forsaken. In same cases the evangelists extended the verses with something like "said ... because the Scripture/prophecy must be fulfilled by XY."

I don't think He was quoting Psalms 22. I agree with your excellent point that Matthew would most likely have written an explanatory note here to alert his readers that this fulfilled a Messianic Psalm.

7. It is correct what Lamsa translated here (for this I was spared!) explanatory?

I don't think so. But I don't think his translation here is erroneous deliberately. He simply failed to consider the alternative "Why am I being spared?"

Jesus was on that Cross, in the worst imaginable agony, for hours, and was pleading with God to finish it.


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Biga
 
Send email to BigaSend private message to BigaView profile of BigaAdd Biga to your contact list
 
Member:
Posts: 193
Member Feedback

2. RE: Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34.

Sep-10-2001 at 09:41 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Dear Paul,

your answer helps a lot. Thank you!
After reading your answer I thought this is not a big mistranslation but maybe not the biggest among of his translations... (I think here to the translation about Satans and demons - it would be very good to hear about it, why his translations are there incorrect.)

It is good to see the heart of translation in one message but the only on what I was speculating: On which dialect we are speaking when dying on the cross? Maybe on the dialect of land on which we are living, where are we come from. (By the way the soldiers didn't understand Him). But it is only my speculation and no more

Print Top
Biga
 
Send email to BigaSend private message to BigaView profile of BigaAdd Biga to your contact list
 
Member:
Posts: 193
Member Feedback

3. RE: Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34.

Sep-12-2001 at 09:15 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
Dear Paul,

we talked a lot about that Jeshua really quotes the Psalms 22 in the hungarian forum. Paul can you point to another evidences that He didn't quote the Psalms? My friends argued with the context which refers to the Psalms, I argued with the missing comment in Matti 27.46. It seems it is a draw.

God bless you!
Gabor

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

4. RE: Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34.

Sep-14-2001 at 04:08 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
Shlama Akhi Gabor,

For one thing, the Peshitta Psalm 22 reads exactly like what Jesus cried out. But that doesn't mean that 'Shwaqthani' means 'forsake.' It can mean 'left me', but I think Jesus (and Psalm 22) are saying 'spared me.'

This idiom is present in English as well. Think about the meaning of 'Left.'

"Left me" can mean "Physically removed yourself from me", but it can also mean "Spare me", as when we say "Leave me alone."

It's that distinction in meaning you should concentrate on, for the same variance in meaning of the English "Left" is present in the Aramaic "Shwaq" - only more so.

So Jesus may very well be quoting Psalm 22 - but what Psalm 22 means exactly is up to debate.


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Stephen Silver
 
Send email to Stephen SilverSend private message to Stephen SilverAdd Stephen Silver to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

5. RE: Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34.

Sep-14-2001 at 08:52 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #4
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
Stephen Silver wrote:
You are correct. The Hebrew ROOT, "azab", or azav", "Ayin-Zayin-Bet", has two meanings.

1)to leave, leave behind; to forsake, abandon, desert, quit; to loosen, release, relinquish, set free, let go; to omit.

2)to help, assist; to build, repair, fortify.

These definitions are listed in the Reuben-Alcalay Hebrew-English Dictionary.

Now, this word, in the form "azav'tani", as it appears in Psalm 22, also appears in Deuteronomy 28:20. These are the only places where this form of the word, "azav", appears in the TaNaK. The first mention of the ROOT "azav", is found in Genesis 2:24, "yaazav", "leave/forsake". This ROOT continues to be used to mean "forsake/leave", in Genesis 24:27, "forsake/leave", 28:15, "forsake-leave", 39:6, "left", 39:12, "left/forsook", 39:13, "left/forsaken", 39:15, "left/forsook", 39:18, "left/forsook", 44:22, (used twice), "leave/forsake", 50:8, "left". So, all of the uses in Genesis, mean either "forsake", or leave", in the context of "forsake", rather than "spare".

Genesis 2:24 (First Mention in TaNaK)
"Therefore a man shall LEAVE his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Deuteronomy 28:20
"YHVH will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the wickedness of your doings in which you have ("azav'tani/YOU HAVE FORSAKEN ME)."

By the "principle of first mention", this use of the word, "azav'tani", should prevail, in it's contextual use, in Deuteronomy 28:20, to mean "you have forsaken me". The context does not allow it to defer to the secondary meaning of it's root.

The word, "azav'tani", can only mean, "you have forsaken me", in Deuteronomy 28:20, or, when used in conjunction with, "lama/for what", it would become, "lama azav'tani", "for what have you forsaken me", based upon "the principle of first mention", and the various uses in the first book of the TaNaK, Genesis.

It is interesting, that in both the uses of "azav'tani", the context of "Me", is YHVH ELOHIM. Of course, this is understood, as a fulfillment of Psalm 22, by those that believe that the sufferer, in Psalm 22, is indeed Yahshua HaMashiakh, as He died for the sins of the "world/olam/alama".

Fkrwbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver


Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

6. RE: Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34.

Sep-14-2001 at 11:58 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #5
 
Shlama Akhay Paul w'Stephen:

I would like to offer a different possibility. Matti 27:46 is a MIDRASH on Psalm 22, but not a quote OF Psalm 22.

In time, the MIDRASHIC use of Psalm 22 became confused AS Psalm 22.

This is what I mean:

But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people. All who seek me mock me. They hurl insults, shaking their heads: 'He trustsin the LORD, let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.

(Psalm 22:7-9)

In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him, 'He saved others', they said,'but he cannot save himself. He's the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross and we will believe in him. He trusts in God, let God rescue him now, if he wants him...'

(Matti 27:41-43)

In all, there are more than a dozen parallels between the accounts in Matthew and Psalms 22. Psalm 22 has his strength dried up like a potsherd, Matti has them quench his thirst with vinegar. Psalms 22 has the band of evil men encirle, piercehis hands and feet, Matti puts THE VERY INSULTS OF THE PSALM INTO THE MOUTHS OF THE PHARISEES AND THE PSALM SOUNDS LIKE A FIRST PERSON ACCOUNT OF THE CRUCIFIXION (I count MY bones, they pierced MY hands and feet).

What I believe is that the imagery of Psalm 22 was so intense and prophetic, that when the Messiah uttered words that SOUNDED like Psalm 22, interpreters could not resist making him QUOTE it as well.

We have to separate the excellent root studies that Stephen presents which are true, from the WORD USAGE OF ARAMAIC IN THE FIRST CENTURY AS REFLECTED IN THE PESHITTA. They are two different things. The ROOT has two meanings, but it is the usage of the WORD SHBAK that is key. However, since FORSAKE does not make sense in light of other direct pronouncements from the Messiah, and since he would not be asking for forgiveness for himself, "keep" or "spare" seems the only remaining viable choices.

I believe the Peshitta records the correct quote and the Greek made an understandable-- but wrong assumption that has been sent down tainted to this day. Y'shua did NOT quote the Psalm-- his sacrifice rather emobdies and fulfills it.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top
ValiantForTruth
 
Send email to ValiantForTruthSend private message to ValiantForTruthAdd ValiantForTruth to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

7. RE: Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34 & Psalm 22

Oct-07-2001 at 09:20 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 
Greetings all,

Here is an article that shows how these passages may be connected. It is the best one I have read so far. I have pasted it here for convenience.

Agape,
Don

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There is probably no scripture more misunderstood than Jesus cry from the cross, "My God. My God. Why hast thou forsaken me?" Did Jesus Christ really utter these words? Would Jesus have accused his heavenly Father of such an act of desertion? Did God really abandon His only begotten son as he was dying on the cross?

Matthew 27:46:
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

We understand this verse word by word except for the foreign words. "Eli" means "my God." Lama, or lemana means "why" or "for what purpose" and always introduces a question. It occurs 53 times in the Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament (#1584) and is translated "why" 45 times, "what" 5 times, and "for what purpose" 3 times. "Sabachthani" comes from sebag meaning to leave, forgive, allow, reserve, or spare.

It does appear from reading this verse in the King James version that God forsook Jesus while he endured the agony of the cross. In fact most of the other Bible versions translate it the same way. How could a loving heavenly Father do such a thing? A key question to ask is, "Is this verse in harmony with the other verses on this same subject?" If this verse contradicts other scriptures on this subject it must be suspect because Gods Word cannot contradict itself.

Lets look first at John 16:32.

John 16:32:
Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered , every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Jesus was talking about the time of His crucifixion and of His death. He said, "the Father is with me." Although Jesus knew everyone else would forsake him, he took comfort knowing that his heavenly Father would be with him. He knew God had always been with him, why would He forsake him at this crucial hour.

John 8:29:
And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

Was Jesus pleasing His Father when he endured the cross? You bet he was. He always did his Fathers will so he must have been pleasing God.

John 6:38:
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Whose will was Jesus doing when he was dying on the cross? he was doing His Father will then, too.

II Corinthians 5:19:
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself....

If God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself how could He have left him?

John 10:30:
I and my Father are one.

God and Jesus Christ were one in purpose. They were acting together to accomplish the same purpose. How could God forsake Jesus and they still be one? Look at what Christ said at the time He was taken captive.

Matthew 26:53:
Thinketh thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Twelve legions of angels is 72,000 angels. The Father would have given Jesus 72,000 angels. When God brought His people out of Egypt it said an angel went before them to keep them in the way -- an angel. What could Jesus have done with 72,000? Jesus could have walked right out from among this group of men if He had wanted to. But he didnt. Why? Lets look at the next verse.

Matthew 26:54:
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Jesus asked this rhetorical question to confront their thinking. He told Peter to put his sword away because he knew what the Word said. Jesus was more concerned about the scriptures being fulfilled than that he be tortured and die. Jesus desire was to do Gods will. He wanted the scriptures fulfilled. He always did the Father's will, so he must have been doing God's will when He was dying upon the cross.

In John 18:11 when the soldiers came to take Jesus he asked a similar question, "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" Again Jesus asks this rhetorical question to confront Peters thinking. Jesus had spent some agonizing time in prayer in the garden of Gethsemane when he had asked the Father three times "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39) Jesus did not want to endure the torture and death he saw ahead of him, and asked God if there were some other way. When he knew there was no other way he submitted to the will of his Father, making Gods will his will.

Yet Matthew 27:46 says, "Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This verse contradicts the rest of the Word on this subject. God did not forsake Jesus. He was in him reconciling the world unto Himself. Jesus knew what his Fathers will was, and he was determined that it be fulfilled. He was carrying out his Fathers purpose, and God was with him throughout this horrendous experience.

People teach that Jesus became sin, and God cant stand sin. Therefore He had to forsake His son in his hour of need. If God forsook Jesus Christ because of sin, what chance do you or I have. God never forsook Jesus. How could we ever believe Hebrews 13:5 where it says, "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee," if, in fact, He forsook Jesus at any point. Remembering those other clear scriptures that are not in harmony with this one stops us from wrongly dividing this scripture.

The difficulty with Matthew 26:47 is due to an error in translation. "Forsaken" is the wrong choice for the translation in this verse. The Greek word translated "forsaken," enkataleip can mean "to leave" in the sense of forsaking and abandoning, or "to leave" in the sense of sparing or allowing to remain. The context determines the meaning.

II Timothy 4:10 and 16:
For Demas hath forsaken (enkataleip) me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook (enkataleip) me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.

Both of these verses use the same Greek word (enkataleip) in the sense of forsaking or abandoning. Demas forsook Paul; he physically left him. All at Paul's first trial forsook him. This is one usage of this word. However there is a second usage of this word.

Acts 2:27:
Because thou wilt not leave (enkataleip) my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Here on the Day of Pentecost Peter quotes David speaking prophetically of the Messiah. God didnt allow his soul to remain in the grave. God raised him from the dead. Enkataleip is used here in the sense of allowing it to remain.

Romans 9:29:
And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left (enkataleip) us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

God didnt forsake or abandon a seed, He spared one. They werent forsaken; they still remained. Had they not been spared we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah. This too is an example of enkataleip used in the second manner, meaning to spare or to allow to remain. The Lord spared us a seed or allowed a seed to remain for us.

Similarly the Aramaic word sebaq has the same two meanings. It occurs in II Timothy 4:10 and 16 as did the Greek word enkataleip with the first usage. It also is used with the second meaning.

Acts 24:27:
But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix' room: and Felix, willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left (sebaq) Paul bound.

The word "left" in Act 24:27 doesnt mean Felix forsook Paul. Rather he left him in prison. Paul remained bound as a favor to the Judeans.

Romans 11:4:
But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved (sebaq) to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

The word "reserved" in Romans 11:4 is sebaq. Here it carries the second meaning also. These seven thousand men were not forsaken, they were left after the rest succumbed to the pressure to worship Baal. These seven thousand remained. They were reserved or spared because they didnt bow the knee to the image of Baal.

Jesus Christ's life was a fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies. In his final hours on the cross, his mind was most certainly encouraged by the Psalmist who remained faithful to God through the torturing pressures of life. Jesus Cry of Triumph was a quotation of Psalm 22:1.

Psalm 22:1:
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?...

The words "hast forsaken" in this verse is the Hebrew, azab. This word also has these same two meanings. It also is used of forsaking or abandoning, and it is used of remaining, reserving, or sparing. Lets look at some other examples.

Psalm 27:10:
When my father and my mother forsake (azab) me, then the LORD will take me up.

Note azab is used here in the sense of forsake or abandon. The Psalmist says that father and mother could forsake him, but he knew the Lord would take him up. Even the dearest most loving of people could forsake or abandon us, but not our loving heavenly Father.

Psalm 37:25:
I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken (azab), nor his seed begging bread.

Here again, azab is used in the sense of "forsake" or "abandon." Here the Psalmist says he has not seen the righteous forsaken. Dont you think Jesus qualified. God would not have forsaken His son.

Psalm 37:28:
For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh (azab) not his saints; they are preserved for ever...

This should establish the truth that God doesnt forsake or abandon his saints. He didnt forsake David in Psalm 22 and He didnt forsake Jesus on the cross either. Azab also carries the second meaning.

Leviticus 19:10:
And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave (azab) them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

God instructed them to leave or reserve some of the grapes for the poor and the stranger. They were to leave some; to let some remain on the vine. The word "leave" in Leviticus 19:10 means leave in the sense of reserving or sparing. It is also used in Ruth in the same way.

Ruth 2:15,16:
And when she was risen up to glean, Boaz commanded his young men, saying, Let her glean even among the sheaves, and reproach her not:
And let fall also some of the handfuls of purpose for her, and leave (azab) them, that she may glean them, and rebuke her not.

Boaz instructed them to leave, azab, handfuls on purpose for Ruth to glean. Yes, they were left on purpose; they were reserved for Ruth; they were spared so Ruth could glean them. It is not only used of grapes and grain but also of people. Look also at Ezekiel 24.

Ezekiel 24:21:
Speak unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellency of your strength, the desire of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left (azab) shall fall by the sword.

"Left" in Ezekiel 24:21 does not means leave in the sense of forsaking, but in the sense of remaining. The sons and daughters that had been spared so far were going to fall my the sword. So in all three of the Biblical languages we have seen that the words translated "forsaken" could also be translated "spared," "reserved," or "remaining."

If I knew you were coming and I saved a piece of pie for you, it would be left. Not in the sense that I abandoned it, but in the sense of it being reserved or designated or set aside for you. It was left for a reason or a purpose -- to bless you. I allowed it to remain. I watched over it, making sure no one else ate it so that it remained for you. I reserved it for you.

Jesus was not forsaken rather he was left on the cross for a purpose. He had to remain there until His Fathers business was fully completed. In John 4:34 Jesus said, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." When the work was completed, Jesus recognized it, and said, "It is finished" and he gave up the ghost. It is interesting to note that the first recorded words of Jesus in the Bible are found in Luke 2:49 where he said, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" The last words before he died were "It is finished." He had finished the work His Father had given him to do. All the time in between he was about His Fathers business.

There are many prophetic statements in Psalm 22 that were fulfilled while Jesus hung on the cross. David spoke these words by revelation of his own experience and his own circumstance, and not all of Psalm 22 can be said to be prophecy regarding the Messiah, but much of it is. For example lets look at verses one and two again.

Psalm 22:1,2:
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

Notice the italics in verse one. This last phrase could be translated, "Far from helping me are the words of my roaring." He cried day and night wondering if God even heard him. Nothing David said seemed to avail anything. He knew that only God could bring his deliverance. These words were true regarding David, but were they true regarding Jesus Christ? Would Jesus have ever confessed that his Father didnt hear him? No! On the contrary he declared that He always did. Look at John 11 and Jesus prayer for the raising of Lazarus.

John 11:41,42:
Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jesus confidently asserted that God always heard him. Therefore Psalm 22:2 could not have been spoken prophetically of Jesus. Yes it was true of David. He was not sure that God heard his cry, but Jesus could have never said that. David continues to describe his anguish and despair until verse 19 when he begins to praise and worship God in spite of the circumstances. In verse 21 David realized and confessed that God had heard him. David expected God to save him from this situation as He had done many times previously.

The opening question in Psalm 22:1 could also be translated, "Why hast thou spared me?" For a while in Davids life he was on the run, and it seemed like he would go from one crisis situation to another. It was proverbially as if he escaped from a lion and a bear met him. Paul could have asked this same question after he was delivered from the shipwreck and then bitten by the viper. Why did you spare from the shipwreck -- so I could die from this viper bit? Davids heart was asking, "Why did you spare me from the last trouble? When I find myself in this one?"

This question in Psalm 22:1 is also rhetorical because David already knows the answer. He answers the question and states the purpose later in the Psalm. In verse 22 he says, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren..." In verse 25 he says, "I will pay my vows..." In verse 30 he says, "A seed shall serve him..." The answer is clear. Man has a purpose to live for God although at times things may appear to be gloomy. This is clearly stated in Psalm 118.

Psalm 118:17,18:
I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD.
The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.

As Jesus hung on the cross he found strength in Psalm 22. Jesus understood that many of the statements in this Psalm spoke prophetically of him. His Cry of Triumph showed his recognition that he was fulfilling this Word of God as he laid down his life. Verse 8 are the exact words the religious leaders cast at Jesus as they passed by the cross.

Psalm 22:8:
He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

In verse 15 the Psalmist described the dryness of his mouth saying, "and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death." Jesus' next words after this Cry of Triumph were, "I thirst." He had refused other drinks offered him that day, but requested this one. Verse 16 says, "They pierced my hands and my feet." This was literally true of Jesus that day. Verse 18 is cited in the Gospels in reference to the soldiers gambling for his clothes after he was crucified.

Psalm 22:18:
They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

The final words in the King James translation of Psalm 22:31 are "that he hath done this." The Hebrew words used here may be translated, "It is done." or "It is finished." These were Jesus' final words from the cross. Salvation and redemption were finished. For what purpose was he spared? To finish the work God sent him to do; to die for all mankind; to be the Passover lamb.

Therefore since Gods forsaking his only begotten son at that moment would contradict not only Gods loving nature, but also many other scriptures. The question from the cross was not "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?" Rather, it was "My God, My God, Why did you spare me?" Or, "My God, My God, For what purpose have you left me here?" But why was the question asked? Didnt Jesus know the answer? Yes, he did.

John 12:27:
Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

The question mark in this verse is wrongly placed after "say." It should appear after "hour." The question. should read, "What shall I say, Father save me from this hour?" The New American Standard Version does just that:

John 12:27:
Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour.

This question was posed a few days before his crucifixion, and he immediately answered it: "...for this cause or purpose came I unto this hour." That was the answer to the question then and it was still the answer to the question a few days later when he hung on the cross. Therefore, the question on the cross in Matthew 27:46 is a rhetorical question.

The answer was obvious. "My God, My God, for what purpose have you spared me? For this purpose have I come to this hour!" His purpose was to finish his Fathers business. Jesus Christ as the Passover lamb was sacrificed for us. His purpose was to suffer and die for all mankind. He paid the price for us. His was not a cry of despair, but a cry of triumph, in that he was fulfilling his whole purpose, shedding his blood as the Passover lamb. Others forsook Jesus, but not his Father.

Jesus knew the literal answer to his question, "For this purpose you spared me!" He said it in the form of a rhetorical question for emphasis. He knew why! He wanted the others to ask the same question? He was confronting their thinking so they too would consider why he was there. It was put in the form of a question not to obtain information or to seek a reply, but to cause those that were present and heard him to think and to consider the matter. Remember Jesus statement in John 11?

John 11:41,42:
Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

Thats the same reason Jesus made his Cry of Triumph. He cried with a "loud voice." There was great intensity in his voice and he spoke with great effort. Not because he wanted God to tell him the purpose for which he was spared and allowed to remain on the cross, but rather so those who were there would believe that God had sent him and that he was fulfilling Gods Word while remaining on the cross.

Jesus frequently used rhetorical question to encourage people to think and consider things more indepthly. We already looked at two rhetorical questions he spoke to Peter when the soldiers came to take him. He asked, "But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" and "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? In Matthew 8:26 when his disciples came to him when they were in the midst of a storm at sea he asked, "Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?" In Matthew 14:31 after Peter had walked on the water he saw the sea boisterous became afraid and began to sink when Jesus caught him and asked, "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" In Matthew 26:50 when Judas came with the soldiers to betray Jesus, Jesus asked, "Friend, wherefore art thou come? Jesus was not seeking information. He knew why Judas was there. When asked at the last supper who it was who would betray him he answered "He...to whom I give a sop." He later gave it to Judas and told him "that thou doest, do quickly." When Judas came to Jesus in the garden to betray him with a kiss Jesus knew what he was doing, but he asked a rhetorical question to confront Judas thinking to get him to consider what he was doing. Jesus knew, and he wanted Judas to think about it

However, not only was this cry a rhetorical question, but it was also a gnome, a quotation from the Old Testament. As a gnome it directed their thinking to the appropriate Word of God that would allow them to come to the correct conclusion. Surely this Cry of Triumph brought to their remembrance this familiar Psalm. Then they would see that the mocking of the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders was foretold by God. Instead of causing doubt, this mocking should have helped them to realize that this was transpiring in fulfillment of Gods Word. The parting of the garments and the casting of lots for his vesture further documented the truth that he was the Messiah. The combination of these two figures of speech was a most emphatic presentation of the truth. "For this cause or purpose had he come to this hour."

It was about the ninth hour, three o'clock in the afternoon, when Jesus spoke these words from the cross, "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani." By this time Jesus had gone through nearly forty hours of interrogation, mockery, beatings, and suffering without so much as murmuring one complaint. Why, would he accuse God now? He didnt. His was not a cry of despair implicating God as an irresponsible and uncaring Father. Rather this was a Cry of Triumph. This was the culmination of his purpose and the consummation of the work the Father had given him to do. Jesus knew he was drinking the cup his father had prepared for him. He knew he was doing his Fathers will, dying as the Passover lamb.

Jesus endured this agony and suffering to fulfill the Word of God. He took our place. He was our substitute for sin. He paid the price of his innocent blood to redeem you and me. It wasnt the rope tied around his midriff or the nails driven through his hands and feet that kept him on that cross. Rather, it was his uncompromising and relentless love for His Father and His Word. He delighted to do Gods will (Psalms 40:8), and for the joy that was set before him, he endured the cross despising the shame (Hebrews 12:2). He could have walked off the cross if he wanted, with twelve legions of angels at his command. Why did Jesus keep hanging on that cross. Because he loved us. They didnt take his life that day. He so loved us that he gave himself for us. Through every moment of this agonizing death God was with him providing him strength and comfort. What was the joy that was set before him? He knew that he was fulfilling his Fathers plan of salvation that would pay the price for the sin of all mankind.

Jesus knew his purpose and the culmination and consummation of his Fathers business. He could have literally said, "For this purpose you spared me!" "This is why I came unto this hour!" But, because he wanted those present to also see his triumph (Colossians 2:14,15), he put this declaration in the form of a question which brought the minds of the people present back to Gods wonderful Word in Psalm 22. He knew the agony he was enduring was the fulfillment of the scriptures, and he wanted those present to also see and understand what was transpiring before their eyes. With his "tongue cleaving to his jaw being brought to the dust of death," he asked for a drink After receiving that drink he mustered his strength and declared "It Is Finished!" What was finished? Your redemption and mine. Jesus Christ had given His own life. He who knew no sin had become sin so that you and I might become the righteousness of God in Him. All his life he had been about his Fathers business and finally he had finished it. Then he gave up the ghost. They didnt take his life, he laid it down for you and me.

God like any loving parent stayed with His Son. This was not only their triumphal hour, but ours also. For it was at this point that Jesus Christ, the second Adam, fulfilled all the legal requirements for our redemption and salvation. This was Christ's purpose. Jesus' cry did not implicate God as an irresponsible and uncaring Father. Rather, it declared Jesus Christ's faithfulness to God's plan of redemption and his concern for all mankind. Now we have an accurate translation of Matthew 27:46, one of the most difficult verses of Scripture in the King James version, "My God, My God, Why did you spare me? For people who have eyes to see and ears to hear the answer is obvious.

Christian Family Fellowship 2001
www.cffm.org


Print Top
Biga
 
Send email to BigaSend private message to BigaView profile of BigaAdd Biga to your contact list
 
Member:
Posts: 193
Member Feedback

8. RE: Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34 & Psalm 22

Oct-09-2001 at 10:05 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #7
 
Simply excellent!

Thank you for sharing it!

cheers,
Gabor

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

9. RE: Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34 & Psalm 22

Oct-11-2001 at 12:56 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #7
 
Shlama Akhi Don,

Thanks for posting this wonderful article. I fully agree with the conclusion. I have translated this phrase "Why are you sparing me?"

The idea that God would forsake His own Son is something quite alien to the message of the Gospel.

I can't remember how many times I've read something that has attempted to defend the traditional Western understanding of this phrase based on the Greek rendering of the Aramaic.

I think I even read once where someone was trying to imply that, at that very moment, all the sins of mankind were (like a swarm of flies) suddenly converging on the person of Messiah and, since God cannot "look upon" sin, He "forsaked" Him.

@#$@#!

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
Biga
 
Send email to BigaSend private message to BigaView profile of BigaAdd Biga to your contact list
 
Member:
Posts: 193
Member Feedback

10. RE: Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34 & Psalm 22

Oct-12-2001 at 10:02 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #9
 
Hello Paul,

it is possible I don't say any news here, but it was very interesting for me, when I asked from myself, what language do use a man inmediatly before the foreknown death? I think his mother-language as in Matti 27.46.

Peace,
Gbor

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

11. RE: Mt. 27.46, Mk. 15.34 & Psalm 22

Oct-13-2001 at 09:13 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #7
 
That article is AWESOME. That is the standard for how to apply Scripture. Notice how the writer went beyond Greek and into Hebrew because he KNEW the Psalm being quoted within the Greek was in that language. He even had the foresight to look at how ARAMAIC was used, tacitly knowing but not saying directly that Y'shua spoke this language.

Now, once this writer gets into the habit-- if in fact he has not already doing so--- of recognizing that Y'shua's words are recorded EXACTLY in his native language in Peshitta-- as opposed retrofitting Greek texts into what an Aramaic version MAY HAVE SAID-- he will be very close to a rare and special understanding. As I said, he may very well be there now. This amazed me, because he was even able to do so using KJV and relating it outwards.

The day is coming, I believe, when scholars will recognize that the Aramaic ORAL TEACHINGS of Y'shua are in the Peshitta-- that even if Aramaic Primacy cannot be proved to them that the 65% of the Gospel records that have his discourses must be studied in Aramaic just as we would always study Shakespeare in English. Otherwise, the state of affairs is that we go from Aramaic oral teachings to(badly) translated Greek NT texts, to middle English KJV style THEE-THOU-THINE (like Shakespeare and some of his jargon, like how most people don't know what "an unction of a mountebank" is) and then- finally-- into modern English prose.

My response, "This is Andrew from Shadow Translation Traffic, reporting a major jam on the Greek side of the New Testament and a gaper delay as people get astonished learning about it. We recommend detouring around it by taking the expressway of looking at the Peshitta and taking it straight on to the English bypass."

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top

Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic


Assyria \ã-'sir-é-ä\ n (1998)   1:  an ancient empire of Ashur   2:  a democratic state in Bet-Nahren, Assyria (northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, southeastern Turkey and eastern Syria.)   3:  a democratic state that fosters the social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of their religion, race, or gender   4:  a democratic state that believes in the freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture in faithfulness to the principles of the United Nations Charter — Atour synonym

Ethnicity, Religion, Language
» Israeli, Jewish, Hebrew
» Assyrian, Christian, Aramaic
» Saudi Arabian, Muslim, Arabic
Assyrian \ã-'sir-é-an\ adj or n (1998)   1:  descendants of the ancient empire of Ashur   2:  the Assyrians, although representing but one single nation as the direct heirs of the ancient Assyrian Empire, are now doctrinally divided, inter sese, into five principle ecclesiastically designated religious sects with their corresponding hierarchies and distinct church governments, namely, Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic.  These formal divisions had their origin in the 5th century of the Christian Era.  No one can coherently understand the Assyrians as a whole until he can distinguish that which is religion or church from that which is nation -- a matter which is particularly difficult for the people from the western world to understand; for in the East, by force of circumstances beyond their control, religion has been made, from time immemorial, virtually into a criterion of nationality.   3:  the Assyrians have been referred to as Aramaean, Aramaye, Ashuraya, Ashureen, Ashuri, Ashuroyo, Assyrio-Chaldean, Aturaya, Chaldean, Chaldo, ChaldoAssyrian, ChaldoAssyrio, Jacobite, Kaldany, Kaldu, Kasdu, Malabar, Maronite, Maronaya, Nestorian, Nestornaye, Oromoye, Suraya, Syriac, Syrian, Syriani, Suryoye, Suryoyo and Telkeffee. — Assyrianism verb

Aramaic \ar-é-'máik\ n (1998)   1:  a Semitic language which became the lingua franca of the Middle East during the ancient Assyrian empire.   2:  has been referred to as Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Syriac, Classical Syriac, Syriac, Suryoyo, Swadaya and Turoyo.

Please consider the environment when disposing of this material — read, reuse, recycle. ♻
AIM | Atour: The State of Assyria | Terms of Service