Amlodhi

Hello rlcjhardesty,


I sometimes find myself wondering if people even know what the term "context" actually means, or if they're just repeating something they've read or heard someone else say.

However, let's indeed look at the context of Ps. 22:

vs. 2 "O my god, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and in the night, I am not silent."

This sounds like a man praying to his God for deliverance. This expression is used here just as we would use it, i.e. "I have been calling you day and night", indicating over a prolonged period of time. That this has been going on for some days and nights is supported by the authors apparent frustration in not yet having received an answer.

vs. 4 "In you trusted our fathers, they trusted you and you delivered them."

Israeli people speaking in the NT writings refer to their ancestors as "our" fathers. Jesus, however, never refers to these ancestors as "our" fathers but, rather, he always refers to them as "your" fathers or "the" fathers.

Also, in using the phrase "our fathers" in this verse, the man speaking reveals that he is praying for some "group" to be delivered. It would make no sense for him to use the term "our fathers" if he were alone and praying only on his own behalf.

vs. 6 "But I am a worm . . "

I don't think that Jesus would have called himself a worm.

vs. 10 "I was cast on you from the womb, from my mother's belly you are my God."

Jesus wasn't pre-existent? God has only been his God from the time of his exit from the womb? Sounds much more like a normal man talking

vs. 20 "Deliver my soul from the sword, my only one from the dog's hand."

John 19:34 says that Jesus was pierced in the side with a spear, the Greek is "logche" meaning a "lance" or "spear". The Greek for "sword" is "rhomphaia" = saber, or "machaira" = a dirk, or short sword. The Hebrew for spear is "chaniyth" = "lance" and the term for sword used in Ps. 22 is "chereb" = a cutting instrument, a sword.

As you can see, this verse describes a man praying to be delivered from death by "the sword". Jesus was pierced by a spear (and then, only after he was dead). If this verse intended to say something beyond what it purports to say then the term for spear could have been used, thus matching the NT. But it doesn't because Ps. 22 has nothing to do with the NT.
The sword is an oft used euphemism for death by attack or in battle. Jesus never prayed to be delivered from the sword, nor did he fall by the sword.

In addition, the man speaking in verse 20 is asking that his "nephesh" (soul) be delivered. The Hebrew "nephesh" means simply a living breathing creature. Thus, in keeping with the contemporary Hebrew theology in the time that the psalm was written, not only is this man asking that his life be spared, he says that it is his "only life".

vs. 21 ". . . you have answered me."

Hence, the man's prayers get answered. Since Jesus wasn't rescued from the cross, being answered in the NT can only refer to the resurrection. But Jesus never prayed to be resurrected, he simply always stated that he would be. In fact, in many places he says that he will raise himself. Also, see next verse below:

vs. 25 ". . . my vows I will pay before his fearers."

Jesus is going to make vows to God after the resurrection? I think humans make vows to God, not someone who has ostensibly been with God from the beginning.

The above are some of the verses that most apologists like to ignore when expounding on the "amazing" similarities between Ps. 22 and the crucifixion events. As to the verses you quoted in your favor, let's look at those:

Upon close examination, the majority of the verses that are said to be so remarkable are actually not much more than vague generalizations: i.e. "they laugh", "they shake the head" can apply to dozens of events described in the bible.

"I am surrounded by my enemies"; how many times did that happened in the OT, do all the other occasions foreshadow Jesus also?

"spread apart are all my bones." Apologists like to imagine Jesus stretched on the cross here, however, the term used for "spread" here is "parad" which translates more properly as "to break through". This also better fits the overall context of this particular pericope in that it is describing a man who is thirsty, half starved and generally at the end of his rope, i.e "my bones are breaking through" (cf. vs 17, "I count all my bones").

As to the casting of lots, understand that this is a poem, a hymn. The poet is emphasizing the man's nearness to death. If the poem/hymn is meant to describe David himself, however, it could also be a reference to his enemies intent to seize his rightful kingship.

An independent reading of these verses would suggest nothing beyond that they are intended to mean exactly what the contemporary context indicates that they mean. That is, a man being pursued by his enemies, praying to his God to be delivered from death by the sword, he (actually per vs. 4, "they") are hungry, weary, thirsty and ragged.

There are two (dubious) reasons that some tend to see foreshadowing here, one is that quite often, the terms used for translation from the Hebrew are not chosen according to the best or most common usage but are, rather, selected from less likely usages for the purpose of "slanting" the implications in favor of an apologistic rendering. The other often ignored reason is that the methodology of exegesis was extremely commonplace at the time of the writing of the NT. The exegetical Qumran documents provide ample attestation to this. With all of the extant precedence for this methodology, it seems rather likely that the writers of the NT were influenced by various verses in the OT rather than the other way around.

Incidentally, the usage of the English term "pierced" in verse 16 falls into reason #1 in the paragraph above. This has been explained in detail before and can be found in the thread titled "interesting translation", which I think now is on page 2 of the biblical criticism and history forum.

Suffice it to say here that the (masoretic) Hebrew term (k'ari) translated as "pierced" should more likely be translated as "like a lion". However, there are extant examplars from which it can be deduced that the original term was more probably "karu" which would more properly translate this phrase to something like, "dogs have encircled me. . . they gore (or gnash into) my hands and my feet".

Regardless, there are Hebrew terms that properly translate as "pierce" in the sense of puncturing (but the term in Ps. 22 isn't one of them). Any of the proper terms could have been used here, but they weren't.

Thus, it is quite easy to say, as you did in your post, that Ps. 22 is a foreshadowing "even if you refuse to believe it", but when you think about it, such an assertion really means nothing more than you choose to believe it. And since you "choose" to believe it, you simply assume that others must be "refusing" to believe it.

But it's not a matter of refusing, it's simply a matter of not reading into the verses anything more than was intended. Since psalms (or poems/hymns) were not usually written about every Tom, Dick and Harry, it is likely that the title of this hymn means exactly what it says, i.e. a hymn "of" or "about" David. Thus, the hymn says it is about David, in several places the hymn makes obvious references to a man pleading for deliverance from death for himself and his group, and the context of the entire psalm can easily be seen to fit the conditions David was said to endure with his "renegades" from persecution by king Saul.

So, as it happens, we're not "refusing" to see anything. We're simply choosing to see only what is actually there.

Namaste'

Amlodhi