Difficult Passages

A Pastoral Reference
All Entries
32 Gospels / Theology

Jesus' Cry of Dereliction

Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34; cf. Ps 22

The Difficulty

From the cross, Jesus cries out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani) — quoting the opening line of Psalm 22. What does this mean? Was Jesus actually forsaken by the Father? If so, did the Trinity fracture on the cross? If not, why did Jesus speak these words? The traditional Reformed reading — that the Father turned his face away from the Son as Christ bore divine wrath — has become a fixture of popular atonement theology (“the Father turned his face away”), but many theologians argue this is both unbiblical and Trinitarian heresy. How do we understand what happened in that moment?

Responses

Genuine Forsakenness (Penal Substitution)

Summary: In bearing the sin of the world, Jesus actually experienced divine abandonment — the Father’s wrath fell on the Son in place of sinners.

The classic Reformed and much evangelical position (John Calvin, Charles Hodge, Stuart Townend’s popular hymn “How Deep the Father’s Love”). Jesus took upon himself the sin of the world and, in that moment, bore the Father’s wrath and experienced real abandonment. “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us” (2 Cor 5:21); Christ “became a curse for us” (Gal 3:13). The cry expresses real theological reality: the Father could not look upon sin, and so turned away from the sin-bearing Son. This is the heart of penal substitutionary atonement.

Strengths

Takes the cry at face value as expressing Jesus’ actual experience. Consistent with penal substitution theology. The Reformed tradition has developed this carefully. Pastorally central for many evangelicals.

Weaknesses

Arguably compromises the doctrine of the Trinity — the Father and Son cannot be actually separated without fracturing the divine being. “God turning his face away from God” introduces division into the Godhead. The idea that the Father could not “look upon” Christ contradicts “the Father is always with me” (John 16:32). Many theologians (including Reformed ones) now reject “the Father turned his face away” as heretical.

Further Reading

  • John Calvin, Institutes II.16.10–11
  • Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2
  • John Stott, The Cross of Christ (IVP, 1986) — careful evangelical treatment
  • For the popular expression: Stuart Townend and Keith Getty, “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us” (1995)

Psalm 22 in Its Entirety

Summary: Jesus is quoting Psalm 22 to invoke the entire psalm — which begins with forsakenness but ends in vindication and God’s victory.

Many scholars (N.T. Wright, Richard Hays, Raymond Brown) argue that Jesus’ cry must be understood as a citation of the whole psalm, not just its opening line. In Jewish practice, citing the first line of a psalm invoked the entire text. Psalm 22 moves from despair (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) through suffering imagery that precisely matches the crucifixion (“they have pierced my hands and feet… they divide my garments among them”) to a triumphant conclusion: “He has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one… future generations will be told about the Lord” (22:24, 30). Jesus isn’t expressing abandonment but claiming the whole arc: from the pit of suffering to the proclamation of God’s reign. The cry is confession of trust, not despair.

Strengths

Grounded in Jewish citation practice. Honors the literary integrity of Psalm 22. Avoids the Trinitarian problems of “real abandonment.” Consistent with Jesus’ other cross-words (“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit,” Luke 23:46).

Weaknesses

Can seem to minimize the depth of Jesus’ suffering. Turns a cry of anguish into a theological lecture. If Jesus was invoking the whole psalm, why did the cry shock the witnesses so deeply?

Further Reading

  • N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996), pp. 604–611
  • Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Baylor, 2016) — masterful on the Old Testament in the Gospels
  • Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah (Doubleday, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 1043–1088
  • Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion (Eerdmans, 2015), ch. 3

Genuine Suffering, No Metaphysical Separation

Summary: Jesus experienced the full human anguish of apparent abandonment, but the Father was never actually separated from the Son; the cry expresses the depth of human suffering entered into, not Trinitarian rupture.

Held by many Catholic, Orthodox, and moderate Protestant theologians (Hans Urs von Balthasar, Thomas Weinandy, Fleming Rutledge, Jürgen Moltmann in a nuanced form). Jesus, fully human, experiences the real human sense of abandonment that suffering creates — and enters into solidarity with all who have ever felt forsaken by God. But metaphysically, the Father was never separated from the Son (John 16:32 — “the Father is with me”; 2 Cor 5:19 — “God was in Christ reconciling the world”). The Trinity does not fracture; rather, the triune God enters into the depths of human desolation. The cry is real but does not describe a divine separation — it describes the Son bearing human experience to its darkest point.

Strengths

Preserves Trinitarian orthodoxy. Takes seriously the fullness of Jesus’ humanity. Pastorally powerful — Jesus knows the feeling of abandonment from the inside. Consistent with the rest of the New Testament’s witness to the unity of Father and Son.

Weaknesses

Can seem to minimize what Jesus underwent on the cross. Requires careful distinction between real human experience and metaphysical reality that may be lost on congregations. “He felt abandoned but wasn’t” is a subtle claim.

Further Reading

  • Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion (Eerdmans, 2015) — magisterial Anglican-Episcopal treatment
  • Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale (Ignatius, 1990)
  • Thomas Weinandy, Does God Suffer? (University of Notre Dame, 2000)
  • Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Fortress, 1974) — though Moltmann pushes further than this view

God’s Self-Identification with the Godforsaken (Moltmann)

Summary: On the cross, God truly enters the experience of godforsakenness, identifying with all human suffering; this is the mystery at the heart of the Trinity.

Jürgen Moltmann’s influential position (The Crucified God, 1974) argues that the cross is the event in which God is fully God — not a god who remains aloof from suffering but a God who takes suffering into God’s own being. The Father “gives up” the Son, and in doing so, Father and Son are both differentiated and united in the Spirit of surrender. This is a real event within the Trinity, not a metaphysical impossibility. The cross is the moment when the trinitarian God identifies with every godforsaken human being — the tortured, the abandoned, the dying. It’s both the deepest mystery of God’s being and the basis for theological responses to human suffering.

Strengths

Deeply addresses the problem of suffering. Makes the cross the defining event for the doctrine of God. Immensely influential in liberation theology, black theology, and modern pastoral care. Takes Jesus’ cry with full seriousness.

Weaknesses

Some argue it introduces change and suffering into the immutable God. Can be read as modalism (the Trinity as modes of divine experience). Highly sophisticated and difficult to communicate pastorally.

Further Reading

  • Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Fortress, 1974) — the foundational text
  • Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom (Harper & Row, 1981)
  • Alan Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday (Eerdmans, 2001)
  • James Cone, The Cross and the Lynching Tree (Orbis, 2011) — black theology in Moltmann’s tradition