Matthew 27:49 Commentary: Misunderstanding Jesus

The scene at Golgotha is thick with irony and misunderstanding. Jesus’ cry, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”, quotes Psalm 22:1 in Aramaic. The word Eli (“my God”) sounded to many bystanders like the name of the prophet Elijah. First-century Jewish expectation, rooted in Malachi 4:5, 6, held that Elijah would appear before the coming of the Messiah to restore all things. Some of the crowd had even thought John the Baptist might be Elijah (John 1:21). At the cross, the onlookers heard the word “Eli” and jumped to the conclusion Jesus was crying out for Elijah’s help.

Their taunt is also a commentary on the Old Testament theme of divine rescue. Immediately before this, one of the bystanders had run to offer Jesus cheap wine (sour vinegar, a common drink for soldiers and laborers) on a sponge. But the rest, perhaps a larger group of Jewish leaders and onlookers, ordered him to stop: aphes (“Let him be; leave him alone”). They wanted to see if the prophet who did not taste death (2 Kings 2) would now appear and save Jesus. This mockery echoes the earlier challenge of the chief priests: “He saved others; himself he cannot save… let him come down from the cross, and we will believe him” (Matthew 27:42).

The Mishnah and other Jewish traditions describe Elijah as one who “appears frequently” to the righteous and may come to rescue them. Gill references Jewish literature to suggest that the onlookers had a popular notion of Elijah’s sudden appearances. Yet here they openly doubt that even Elijah would come for Jesus. Their words are a test, and a rejection. They refuse to see that the one crying out in Psalm 22 is fulfilling those very scriptures, not bypassing them.

The supplied sources note a significant textual variant in Matthew 27:49. Some manuscripts (including Codex Bezae and a few Old Latin witnesses) add a clause: “Another took a spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood” (see interlinear). Adam Clarke and Gill both mention this longer reading. However, early and reliable witnesses (e.g., Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus) omit it, suggesting it is an interpolation influenced by John 19:34. The consensus among text-critics is that the shorter text, ending with “saving him,” is original. The longer reading is not followed in most modern translations (WEB, KJV, ASV, BSB, YLT, Darby, Douay all end at “save him”).

From the early church onward, this verse has been read as a moment of profound irony, the mockers ensure Jesus’ suffering in order to test a deliverance that would never come (since Jesus had come to die, not to be rescued). Chrysostom and other patristic writers noted the crowd’s confusion between “Eli” and “Elijah” as evidence that the Jewish leaders stubbornly refused to recognize Jesus, even when he spoke the words of Scripture. Medieval devotional literature reflected on the cruelty of denying a drink to a dying man. The Reformation tradition, as seen in Matthew Henry and later in Barnes and Gill, emphasized the depth of Jesus’ humiliation: abused by enemies who preferred a waiting game over mercy. Modern expositors continue to highlight the mockers’ tragic misreading of the moment, treating the cross as failure when it was in fact the centerpiece of salvation.

Three-point outline

1. Mishearing the cry. The bystanders confused “Eli” (My God) with “Elijah.” Their ears were tuned for a national deliverer, not a suffering Messiah. Jesus was speaking the lament of Psalm 22, not calling for rescue. Application: we too can mistake God’s work when we expect him to act on our terms.
2. Mocking with “wait.” The command “Let be” (ἄφες) withheld compassion. The mockers refused Jesus even a sip of vinegar because they wanted to see if Elijah would save him. They valued a spectacle over mercy.
3. The silence of a promised helper. Elijah did not come. That silence was part of the Father’s plan, Jesus would die alone so we would never be abandoned.

Five-point outline

1. The setting: six hours of unnatural darkness, Jesus’ loud cry, and confusion.
2. The misidentification: “Eli” is not “Elijah,” but the crowd chose a hero over the Son of God.
3. The cruelty: deliberately blocking the small comfort of a drink to keep the taunt alive.
4. The test: “Let us see if Elijah comes”, a challenge that assumed Jesus needed a prophet’s help.
5. The truth: Jesus was not calling for a rescuer; he was drinking the cup of wrath alone.

Illustration hooks

• Misheard words. A child crying “Mama” can be mistaken for “Dada” when we are expecting something else. The crowd expected Elijah, so they heard Elijah.
• Waiting for rescue. When someone suffers, friends sometimes whisper, “When will God step in?” At the cross, the mockers turned that longing into a dare.
• Withholding kindness. A co-worker’s distress can be ignored if we think a better solution is coming. The spies on Golgotha refused a small act of mercy, betting on a miracle.

Questions your congregation is asking

• Did Jesus actually call Elijah? No, he recited Psalm 22, but the Aramaic word for “my God” sounds like “Elijah” in the local dialect.
• Why did they prevent him from drinking? To keep him alive long enough to see if Elijah would appear; their test needed a conscious subject.
• Does this verse suggest Jesus was hoping to be rescued? No, he had already refused wine mixed with gall (v.34) and would soon commit his spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46).

This short verse captures a moment when human cruelty and misunderstanding intersect with the deepest work of God. The bystanders hear a cry of abandonment and turn it into a challenge. As you read Matthew 27:49, notice how the crowd’s words reveal what they expect from God, and how far that expectation is from the cross.

Discussion questions

1. Read Matthew 27:45, 49. What details does Matthew include that are not in the other Gospels? Why might he include them?
2. The crowd heard Jesus say “Eli” and thought he was calling Elijah. What does this confusion suggest about their understanding of Jesus and Scripture?
3. Why do you think the bystanders refused Jesus a drink at this point (v.49)? What does “let him be” (ἄφες) tell you about their motives?
4. In what ways does the crowd’s taunt, “Let us see whether Elijah comes to save him”, echo the earlier mockery of the religious leaders (v.42, 43)?
5. Jesus had already refused to drink wine mixed with gall (v.34). How does this contrast with his acceptance of the vinegar on a sponge? What does it say about his priorities?
6. The Old Testament teaches that Elijah will come before the Messiah (Malachi 4:5). How does the crowd’s expectation of Elijah actually blind them to Jesus’ identity?
7. How does this verse help you understand the loneliness of Christ’s death? What does it teach about God’s willingness to suffer misunderstanding for our sake?