New Perspectives, Historical Context and Textual Problems in Psalm 22

Introduction

This article will suggest new perspectives for Psalm 22 and also attempt historical contextualization as well as resolving some difficult textual problems.

Psalm 22

Psalm 22 is incredibly important in the New Testament. R. D. Patterson summarises:

“Pride of place for the use of Psalm 22 belongs to the writers of the NT. Direct citations of this psalm occur fourteen times (cf. v. 1 with Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34; v. 5 with Rom 3:5; v. 7 with Matt 27:39; Mark 15:29; v. 8 with Matt 27:43; Luke 23:35; v. 18 with Matt 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24; v. 22 with Heb 2:12; v. 23 with Rev 19:5; v. 31 with John 19:30). In addition, J. H. Reumann suggests that allusions to the whole psalm are reflected in the NT (e.g. Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 24:27; Acts 13:29; 1 Pet 1:11), as well as several of the psalms individual verses (cf. v. 13 with 1 Pet 5:8; v. 15 with John 19:28; v. 21 with 2 Tim 4:17; v. 24 with Heb 5:7; v. 28 with Rev 11:15; 19:16; v. 29 with Matt 27:42; Mark 15:31)”.[1] [2]

Of course, the importance of Psalm 22 is magnified because, not only was it (at the very least) partially recited by Jesus during the crucifixion, it was also (actively but unconsciously) fulfilled by the various protagonists/participants. A perceptive study is provided by H. A. Whittaker in his Studies in the Gospels.[3] Our first step towards achieving a new perspective on Psalm 22 was provoked by the insight provided by G. Booker into the citation in Matt 27:46 (Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?) adapted from Ps 22:1, in which he suggests links with Gen 22:13.[4]

The phrase “Why hast thou forsaken me?” is linked by both Whittaker and Booker with Gen 22:13 through the NT use of sabachthani. However, the Hebrew for “thicket” in Genesis is sebak ($bs) and the problem is further complicated by the fact that the English translations of the Greek texts of Matthew and Mark do not indicate that Matthew and Mark have very different words written – transliterations (what the audience heard) of the words Jesus spoke. This device is probably used to reflect the audiences’ confusion over hearing (understanding) Eli/Eloi/Elijah and reflects that the original citation (as heard) may have been in a mixture of Hebrew and/or Aramaic. Nevertheless, Matthew (found it necessary) and makes it explicit (by adding the caveat….“that is to say”) that it is a quote from Ps 22:1. In itself this indicates that something unusual is going on…..as if Matthew is saying…..pay attention!!

Psalm 22 (KJV)	Genesis 22 (KJV)
v.1 Why hast thou forsaken me? Matt 27:46 Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?	v.13 behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns v.13 And Abram lifted up his eyes and beheld, and lo! a ram caught by his horns in a plant of Sabec (LXE)
v.1 …why art thou so far (qwxr) from helping me…(literally; far from salvation of me) v.11 Be not far (qwxr) from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help. v.19 But be not thou far (qwxr) from me, O LORD : O my strength, haste thee to help me.	v.4 Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off (qwxr)
v.4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted……	Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
v.4 and thou didst deliver them	v.8 My son, God will provide himself a lamb
v.20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. v.20 Deliver my soul from the sword; mine only one from the power of the dog. (JPS)	v.12 seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
v.30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.	v.17 I will multiply thy seed…. thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies
v.27 and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.	v.18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed

E. A. Knapp comments,

“If Matthew’s first two words of the quote are Hebrew and Mark’s are Aramaic then the obvious question is what language are the remaining two words, “lama sabachthani” (lema sabacqani)? In an interesting coincidence these words are used in both Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew (the Hebrew used at the time of Yeshua)”

…and,

“Where the Psalm has “azavthani” the gospels record Yeshua saying “sabachthani,” which is a word used in both Aramaic and in Mishnaic Hebrew. Logically Matthew wouldn’t have changed “Eloi” to “Eli” to make it match the words of Psalm 22 and then not change “sabachthani” to “azavthani” as well, in order to make the quotation of the Psalm match precisely. It is almost completely unrecognized and unappreciated that Yeshua’s use of “sabachthani” in place of “azavthani” is actually a well-known rabbinic technique. Rabbis used this technique of replacing a word with a synonym to point the discerning reader to a midrash (rabbinic interpretation/teaching) about another related verse.”[5]

The Septuagint (LXX) employs sabek in Gen 22:13 which is a transliteration rendered by the English Septuagint translation (LXE) as “a plant of Sabec”, similar to the Aramaic sabachthani and rendered as a Greek transliteration (sabacqani) in Matt 27:46. The suffix “thani” means: you do this to me. The Greek transliteration of Sabach is also similar to the well-known Hebrew word Zabach, which is used for sacrifice, however, the solution proposed by Whittaker and Booker (although conveying a similar concept as sacrifice) is preferable, “My God, My God why have you have entangled me?” (Like a ram, i.e. like a sacrifice [Zabach], trapped in a thicket, in a bush of entanglement [Sabec].) Clearly, we are dealing with multiple associations and word-plays all leading back to the sacrifice that God provided in Genesis 22.

This is further supported by the Psalmist’s emphasis on the word “far” or “afar”[6] used multiple times to express a feeling of abandonment (God is distant), a deliberate contrast with Abraham’s faithful view into the distant (same word) future; “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). The word “rejoice”, acting as a play on the meaning of Isaac’s name (‘laughter’). The contrast is between the “eye of faith”, that sees the distant future clearly (afar off),[7] with loss of hope that accuses God himself of being distant (afar off) and disinterested in human salvation. However, this understandable human feeling of divine abandonment is reversed in the second half of the Psalm. Booker comments on Ps 22:1 as follows;

“Why art thou so far from helping me? Contrast Psa. 35:3; 62:1, 6, 7. This so far is almost literal, for Golgotha was “without the camp”, remote from the Holy of Holies and on the north side of the temple area: Lev. 1:11.”[8]

We might add that the taunt in v. 8, “He trusted on the Lord” is literally “he rolled himself”. Patterson notes,

“The Hebrew verbal form (lg, gal) could be understood as a perfect, “he trusts/trusted,” paralleling the previous perfect, “he delights,” rather than the imperative of the MT. The basic meaning of the root is “be round, roll.” Used figuratively the verb takes on special spiritual significance. The Psalmist advises the believer “to roll himself upon the Lord in total commitment to God” (Ps 37:5).”[9]

In a footnote Patterson adds the following,

“In a crucial moment of Israel’s redemptive experience Joshua pronounced God’s declaration, “This day have I rolled away (galal) the reproach of Egypt from off you” (Josh 5:9). Accordingly, that place was named Gilgal. Interestingly, the root was also used to form the word for skull—gulgoleth. The Aramaic form of the word was to be forever remembered in the Greek NT as the place of our Saviour’s crucifixion—Golgotha.”[10]

The Gilgal link is important because it supports the Abrahamic theme (the Abrahamic covenant was renewed at Gilgal). Golgotha (the “far place” outside the camp) became a place of covenant renewal and rolling away (gal) of reproach, a circumcision of the “heart” (cf. Jer. 4:4) for the faithful children of Abraham. The reference to the “fathers” trusting in God is a self-evident reference to the patriarch’s faith and particularly to that of the eponymous forefather Abraham which is used by Paul as the NT exemplar of justification by faith (although faith also requires “works” but not self-justifying “works of law”). What immense faith did it require for Abraham to be prepared to kill his son? Particularly in an era where the “gods” often demanded human sacrifice. Truly, Abraham must have seen “afar off” and trusted the revelation of God. (Abraham believed in the steadfast mercy of Yah; in the promise of an heir; rather than believing that Yah was capricious like the foreign “gods”).

The Psalmist appeals for the rescue of his “darling” (KJV), or, “only one” (JPS, Jewish Publication Society) this directly links to the “thine only” (KJV) in Gen 22:12. Note the word son is placed in italics in the KJV as it is not present in the original Hebrew. The Psalmist has only one life and it is dear to him and Abraham has only one son, only one child of promise. In that sense, Isaac is the firstborn (not Ishmael) and becomes “thine only” (son) in Genesis 22 and this dovetails with Zech 12:10, “they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn”. Note literally; mourning for only (this is the only one whom they previously pierced). Booker comments on Ps 22:20, “Deliver….my darling” as follows,

“This highly unusual expression means ‘my very special one’ (Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; Psa. 35:17; 68:6 (solitary); Prov. 4:3; Jer. 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zech. 12:10). LXX reads “my firstborn”.[11]

Rivka Ulmer[12] notes that Rabbinic hermeneutics situate Psalm 22:21 in the context of sacrificing a son,

“The interpretation of the verse Save my soul from the sword, yehidati [my only one] from the power of the dog (Ps. 22:21) does not only focus upon the lemma “dog,” but also upon “my only one.” Genesis Rabbah 46:7 (see Sifre Deuteronomy 313) contains an interpretation relating this Psalm to the Aqedah, the sacrifice of Isaac. Rabbinic hermeneutics situate Psalm 22:21 in the context of sacrificing a son. Your only son (Gen. 22:12) is implied and juxtaposed to my only one (Ps. 22:21); the text states God said to Abraham: “I give merit to you, as if I had asked you to sacrifice yourself and you did not refuse it.” My only one in this case would indicate that God recognized Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son. In another midrash, Numbers Rabbah 17:2, a lemma from Genesis Your only son, referring to Isaac, is changed to “your soul,” proof-text is Psalm 22:21. The ram sacrificed saves not only Isaac, but also Abraham. These passages show a nexus between Psalm 22:21 and Isaac, the “only son” of Abraham. The problematic passage in Genesis which ignores Abraham’s other son, Ishmael, is clarified through this interpretation of Psalm 22:21. The second part of the verse containing the dog motif is implied. The dog motif could refer to the biblical Moloch who required child sacrifice”.[13]

The reference to “seed” is also self-evidently an Abrahamic theme employed by Paul in the NT to express the singular seed Christ but also all those who are “in him” (i.e. his descendants or offspring) and true inheritors of the covenant promises. Psalm 22 concludes with the same “seed” theme as Genesis 22. The interim conclusion is that Psalm 22 (and therefore implicitly the crucifixion event in the Gospels) draw powerful parallels with the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22.

The Living God

Whether or not a critical or a conservative stance is adopted, Psalm 22 is at least 2,500 years or, arguably, nearer 3,000 years old and therefore composed anywhere between 1,000 to 500 years before the crucifixion event. The antiquity of the Psalm should (but often does not) influence the way the Psalm is interpreted. Psalm 22 clearly reflects cultic elements that are often missed and therefore lead to interpretive errors. Cultic ritual allusions, referencing either the tabernacle (at Shiloh or the temporary set up by David at Jerusalem), or the first temple (built by Solomon and established until BC 586) are abundant (and often ignored) in this Psalm. Yahweh dwells between the “cherubim” (or “living creatures”)[14] as the mercy-seat represents his earthly throne. Numerous references are made to the “faces” of the cherubim (~ynp paniym: Hebrew plural but always expressed as singular).

Psalm 22	Notes
v.3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel	Isa 6:1-3 I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 2 Above it stood the seraphims … And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
v.21 thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns	RV, RSV, and NIV read wild oxen. This is a reference to the ox-faced cherubim Ezek 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, each had the face of a man; each of the four had the face of a lion on the right side, each of the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and each of the four had the face of an eagle.
v.24 neither hath he hid his face from him	Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
v.27 all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.	Literally: and they-shall-worship to faces-of you all-of families-of nations

Yahweh is “enthroned” on the “divine chariot”, think here of the “fiery chariot” that snatched away Elijah in a whirlwind.[15] Of course, this is visual language representing the cherubim which are over the mercy-seat. The ancients did not understand the glory of Yahweh as permanently dwelling on the ark (“the heaven of heavens[16] cannot contain thee”). Moreover, the face(s) of the cherubim praise Yahweh (Holy, Holy, Holy) and Yah “inhabits” (or is enthroned) in the midst of these praises.[17]

Therefore, the face(s) do not represent Yahweh himself, but rather elements of his redeemed creation and worshiping towards the face(s) means joining in with the praises of the redeemed (the cherubim). The face(s) are therefore understood as an integral part of Yah’s “glory” (no doubt the faces shinning with reflected glory) and uttering praises. They (the faces) are not Yah, but rather they reflect the fullness of his work and therefore they also represent Yah in his redemptive, salvific aspect.

If our analysis is correct, then perhaps other verses should be interpreted in this light (i.e. in the light of cultic worship);

My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought (tpv) me to (l) the dust of death. Ps 22:15 (KJV revised)

All of the versions treat the rare (4x) tpv neutrally (cf. the LXX, ‘brought me down’) as “brought/lay/set”. The verb could be more specific to fires, i.e., “set [on the fire/on the hearth]” as in “Set (tpv) on the great pot, and seethe pottage for the sons of the prophets” (2 Kgs.4:38) and “Set (tpv) on a pot, set (tpv) it on, and also pour water into it” (Ezek 24:3).[18] In the last instance, Ezekiel enacts a parable where the city of Jerusalem is likened to a pot and the people (bones and meat) are stewed dry and burnt on the fire. Our suggestion is that Ps 22:15 presents the figure of an earthenware pot (not a potsherd) burnt dry on the hearth stones of the altar of burnt offering.[19]

“He has dried up my strength and my tongue cleaves to my mouth; like an earthenware pot he has set me down in the dust of death”. (My paraphrase)

The imagery reflects a neglected earthenware vessel left to burn dry on Yahweh’s altar…….nothing left but ash (dust of death).

Perhaps we can also reconfigure v.21,

“Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns” Ps 22:21 (KJV)

We have already noted (above table) that “unicorns” denotes the “wild-oxen” face of the cherubim, but what of the lion? The first part of the verse as an exclamatory appeal: Save me! And the second part as the response: From mouth of the lion and from the horns of the wild-oxen you answered me.

The victim appeals for help and the immediate response comes from the lion-ox faces of the cherubim (symbolizing Judah/Israel, Ezek 1:10, 10:14). In other words, Yahweh, who inhabits the redeemed of Judah-Israel responds from the mercy-seat in the temple/tabernacle. However, we must look beyond the tabernacle/temple with its cherubim iconography (otherwise they become mere idols), beyond the visionary cherubim of Ezekiel (otherwise they become mere mythology), even beyond the heaven of heavens (otherwise they become a mere physical containment and the creator is greater than his creation), for Yah chooses to manifest himself in the metaphysical, in the character and spirit of beings conformed to his image, Jesus Christ and his saints.

Animal Imagery

One of the most debated (and intractable problems between Jews and Christians) is the translation of Psalm 22:16;

“For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet” Ps 22:16 (KJV)

The JPS version has the following:

“For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet”.

We will discuss the textual differences below. For now, we simply note that the MT represented by the JPS apparently does not make sense at this point. Following the JPS, it literally reads,

“For dogs surround me, a company, wicked ones, they have encompassed me as the lion (at) my hands and my feet”

A lion does not “encompass/encircle” hands and feet. It doesn’t even bite or snap at them (like a dog/jackal might) it stalks, crouches, leaps and kills by grabbing the victim’s neck. Moreover, the solution that we have proposed (the lion cherubim face) would be destroyed by this contrary symbolism. The lion is portrayed as a royal beast denoting strength or courage whereas the dog was a wild pack animal (not the domesticated pet of today) used to denote idolatry (male cult prostitutes are called “dogs”).[20] The following chiasm can be constructed:

A1 STRONG BULLS (surrounding) v.12
	A2 MOUTH OF LION (gaping comparison) v.13
		A3 DOGS CIRCLING (wicked assembly) v.16a
		B3 POWER OF DOG (deliverance from) v.20
	B2 MOUTH OF LION (answer from) v.21a
B1 HORNS WILD OX (answer from) v.21b

The translation, ‘as a lion (at) my hands and feet’, would form the centre of the chiasm (placing A3 and B3 on either side). This is a possibility and would balance the reverse parallelism by placing ‘lion’ at the centre:

Bull-Lion-Dog-Lion-Dog-Lion-Ox

However, as we have suggested, the text of Ps 22:16 does not make sense, particularly with regards to Genesis 22 typology. In fact, neither does the choice of ‘to pierce’ as we would expect hands and feet to be ‘bound’ if the sacrifice of Isaac is typed. We will examine the debate on this verse in more depth below, for now we note the balance of the reverse parallelism. A1 and B1 are coupled by the idea of strength (the horn being a symbol of power), A2 and B2 are coupled by the motif of the mouth.

In A2 the mouth of the bulls (strong enemies) is compared to that of a hungry lion. The enemies are not lions, but they have the appetite of a hungry lion (a desire for usurping royalty?). B2 depicts the response (for deliverance) coming from the lion’s mouth. This is obviously intended as a contrast – The enemies might well be strong bulls with mouths like (compared to) a hungry lion, but the voice of deliverance comes from the cherubim, i.e., from the actual royal ‘lion-mouth’ (and from the ox-horn). We can speak of peripeteia (a reversal of fortune) and this is emphasised by reversing the chiasmic structure.

The “Dogs/Dog” in both A3 and B3 is unambiguously the enemy, intent on harassing and killing the victim – which is why it is strange that the MT should have ‘lion’ at this point?? Again, note that “power” is a dog attribute, providing each animal with a unique form of control: Bull (Strength)-Dog (Power)-Ox (Horn). Also note that the theme of surrounding/encompassing/encircling is a very important theme in the poem.

The Textual Problem in Psalm 22:16

Are the evil doers at the victim’s hands and feet like a lion, or did they pierce his hands and feet, or perhaps something else? This well-known textual problem is given a comprehensive treatment by Glenn Miller.[21] Miller concludes that the two best readings are “pierced” and “tied” with the first reading to be preferred. The data is tabulated below:

Version	Date	Heb/Gk	Translit.	Interpretation
LXX (Septuagint)	300-100 BC	ὀρύσσω		dig/pierce
Nahal Hever Scroll (5/6 HevPs ­ Col. XI, frag. 9)[22]	50-100 AD	כארו	ka’aru	they dug/pierced?
MT	1000 AD	כארי	ka’ari	as a lion

It should not be assumed in advance that the MT reflects the original text of the biblical books better than the other texts. The Hebrew in the earliest copy of the Psalm (Nahal Hever Scroll) is k’ry, with the waw ending y, indicating a 3pp verb form (“they dug/pierced”). This is strong evidence against the MT “like a lion”, and we should also note that some MT manuscripts have k’ry.[23]

The Original setting of the Psalm

All prophetic texts have a short term first (typical) context and a longer term actualization (fulfilment). Psalm 22 is no exception to this rule, and although it may not be possible to recover a plausible original context, at the very least an attempt should be made. It is not sufficient to label the Psalm as “Messianic” and simply ignore the original setting[24] by stating that the Psalmist was only vaguely aware of the meaning of his own writings. The Psalms express heart-felt personal emotions and are obviously based on very real situations. Those experiences are employed to inspire (divine inspiration) great literary art and messianic prophecy, but that does not detract from the original context.

This is (according to the superscription) a Davidic Psalm but that does not necessarily mean that it was written by David.[25] It may have been completely composed or perhaps partially composed by him, but the title (Hebrew) “for David” can mean “pertaining to David”, or “for the Davidide” (i.e., a Davidic King) or, perhaps it is generic, denoting a certain Davidic style. A brief survey of accessible Internet scholarship on date, authorship and situation is tabulated below:

Scholar	Author	Event	Bib. Ref.	Scholar ref.
Delitzsch	David	Desert of Maon	1 Sam 23:25–26	Delitzsch, Psalms 1.305.
Moll	David	disillusioned old age		Moll, Psalms 138, 168.
Alexander & Dahood, and others	Unknown			Alexander, Psalms106; Dahood, Psalms1.138.
Anderson & Tostengard	Unknown	sickness		Anderson, Psalms 1.185; Tostengard, “Psalm 22” 167; Frost, “Psalm 22”, 102.
Rabbinic (Kimchi)	Esther Period	Haman’s plot		Midrash
Hitzig & Holladay	Jeremiah Prison			Delitzsch, Psalms 1.304; Holladay, “Background”, 153–64.
Craigie	Generic	any sick Israelite		Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 198.
Buttenwieser & Stuhlmueller & Olshausen	Maccabean Era			Buttenwieser, Psalms, 588–606; Stuhlmueller, “Psalm 22“, BTB 12 (1982): 86–90; Olshausen.[26]
Patterson	David		2 Sam 22:4–7, 17–20, 49–50	Patterson, “Psalm 22”, 214-215.
Booker	David	Absalom’s rebellion & Saul’s persecution	2 Sam 15–17, 1 Sam 20; 21:1–15	Booker, Psalm Studies.
Thirtle Ps 22:1-21	David	Ziklag	1 Sam 30.1-6	Thirtle, OT Problems, 315.
Thirtle Ps 22:22-31	Hezekiah	Suffering Servant	Isaiah 53 etc.	Thirtle, OT Problems, 315.

Only authorship by David and/or Hezekiah holds any linguistic, stylistic and intertextual merit. Later attributions can be ruled out on these grounds alone, and “unknown” and “generic” settings are contrary to everything we understand about messianic/prophetic scriptures. The suggestion of dual authorship made by Thirtle is the strongest, although a simple delineation into two distinct “halves” is unlikely and contrary the unifying chiastic structure.

This psalm is in two parts –vv. 1-21 by David; the remainder dating from the time of Hezekiah. The situation of the former may be found in the spoiling of Ziklag by the Amalekites (1 Sam.30.1-6); though the words go beyond the experiences of the king, and provide expressions which would describe a greater persecution and deeper woe to which his promised seed would be subjected (vv.16-18). Coming into use in the time of Hezekiah, the Psalm was extended in remarkable terms, and possibly adapted in other ways. On v.24, cp Isa.53.3; and on v.30, cp. Isa.53.8, 10. The experiences of the subject of this hymn shall be celebrated in the great congregation vv.22, 25; cp. Ps.35.18; 144.9, and on his account men shall turn unto the Lord in penitent devotion (v.27.) such as he brings to subjection shall bow before him, although he was not able to keep his own soul alive a seed shall serve him: it shall be accounted by the Lord for a generation or declared successor to the throne; cp Isa.38.12; 53.8. Men shall come and talk of his righteousness to a people yet to be born – because this hath been done (vv.29-31). The story is that of the servant of the Lord; the Psalter and prophetic writings alike being concerned with Hezekiah as the great messianic type.[27]

That this Psalm uses earlier “Davidic material” and “Davidic Styling” is undeniable. We propose that the Psalmist is using Davidic phrases that correspond with his own situation. Thus, he would start the Psalm with a rough chiastic structure and an idea of how the Psalm commences (forsaken) and how it ends (victorious). Then he would employ terminology from Davidic Psalms that are relevant to his situation (of suffering/abandonment) and other prophetic writings (some of them contemporary).

Thus, Davidic Psalm(s) were “recycled” or rather used as a resource to describe similar situations. This would explain both the continuity and the differences (with earlier material) and negates the necessity to posit abrupt transitions from earlier to later material. The chiastic structure and poetic nature of the Psalm and multiple intertextual connections demonstrates that the Psalm was carefully (and ingeniously) crafted as a unified work – and by using multiple scrolls (other OT books) that were (at that time) available to him, the author achieves continuity with the past and contemporary relevance to his situation.

But that is not the complete picture as the Psalm is also messianic. So it has a future aspect that the author cannot know despite his best efforts at continuity and modernization. Although the Psalmist labours to create a work of great literary art and profound sacred expression using all the tools and knowledge available to him it is only through divine inspiration that the whole becomes greater than the parts by taking on a messianic/prophetic dimension.

We must move away from the idea that the Psalm was somehow “dictated” from heaven in its final form and realise that we are dealing with a joint project between God and man. The Psalmist is not an instrument (like a pen) but the subject of the Psalm. His emotions and experiences and literary genius are inextricably woven into the mysterious guiding inspiration that allows the Psalm to become messianic. The outcome of this ingenious process is that the Psalm speaks of past suffering and victory (David) current suffering and victory (Hezekiah) and future suffering and victory (Christ).

Connections to David

Psalm 22 has many similarities with Psalm 18, which occurs also in its historical setting in 2 Samuel 22 where it is repeated (note that 2 Samuel 20-24 form a miscellaneous collection of records not in chronological order). Certain small differences in the text are discernible between the two versions (Psalm 18 / 2 Samuel 22). Therefore, Psalm 18 is definitely from the time of David and it contains multiple thematic links with Psalm 22:

Ps 18:17: “He delivered me from my strong enemy, and from them which hated me: for they were too strong for me”. cf. strong (different word) Bulls in Ps 22:12.

Ps 18:6: “In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears”. Note that Yahweh rides a cherub in Ps 18:10.

Ps 18:41: “They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the LORD, but he answered them not”., contrast Psalm 22 in which the victim (initially) receives no answer (forsaken) – in Psalm 18 the enemies are forsaken.

Ps 18:19: “….he delivered me, because he delighted in me” and Ps 22:8; “He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted (same Heb. word) in him” (cf. 2 Sam 22:20).

There are numerous intertextual links with other Davidic Psalms, suffice to say that stylistically this Psalm can be described as “for David” or Davidic……but not necessarily composed by David.

Connections to Hezekiah

The connections to Hezekiah are prolific and not just in the first half of the Psalm (contra Thirtle).

(1) We find similar language in Isaiah 41, although Psalm 22 would reflect the situation with Hezekiah before 701 and Isaiah 41 is after.

Isaiah 41	Psalm 22
v.11 (enemy) ashamed and confounded	v.5 (faithful) were not confounded
v.14 worm Jacob	v.6 But I am a worm, and no man
v.17 their tongue faileth for thirst	v.15 dried up….my tongue cleaveth to my jaws;
v.17 will not forsake them	v.1 my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
v.20 the LORD hath done this	v.31 he hath done this

The same word for worm ([lwt as in “scarlet worm”) is used in both passages (Ps 22:6/Isa 41:14) and also in the same sense in other eighth-seventh century era writings (Isa 66:4, Job 25:6).

(2) Scorning and mocking is a feature of Hezekiah’s experience,

Ps 22:7-8 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

This is not the first time Hezekiah was scorned:

2 Chron 30:10 So the posts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh even unto Zebulun: but they laughed them to scorn, and mocked them.

His attempt at reformation compliments the typology of Isaac (which permeates Psalm 22):

Gen 21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.

The legitimate heir to the covenant being mocked! In particular, Hezekiah’s emissaries were scorned by the northern tribe of Manasseh:

Ps 22:12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

Bashan is a district east of the Jordan known for its fertility which was given to the half-tribe of Manasseh. Hezekiah, Yahweh, and the Jerusalem temple were also mocked by Sennacherib;

2 Kgs 19:21-22 This is the word that the LORD hath spoken concerning him; The virgin the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel.

(3) The psalmist’s father is not mentioned. In Ps 22: 9-10, images of the psalmist’s mother abound, but no mention is made of the father. Why? Because Yahweh had promised that he would be a Father to a son of David. (2 Sam 7:14: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son”).

Ps 22:9-10 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.

Ps 22:9-10 echoes the Immanuel prophecy! The prophecy is applicable to Hezekiah in the first instance.[28] Hezekiah’s mother has a name that means “Yah is my Father” (Abijah, 2 Chron 29:1).

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

(4) Delight and ‘being forsaken’ are important in Hezekiah’s story. Hezekiah’s wife is called “Hephzibah” (2 Kgs 21:1) which means my “delight is in her” and Jerusalem is symbolically named “Hephzibah” by Yahweh………the same word used in Ps 22:8 and a reversal of the theme of being forsaken (Ps.22:1).

Isa 62:4-5 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land anymore be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

(5) Hezekiah’s illness is reflected in the psalm,

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded (Heb: pierced cf. Ps. 22:16) for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isa 38:13 I reckoned till morning, that, as a lion, so will he break all my bones: from day even to night wilt thou make an end of me.

Interestingly, Isa 38:13 ‘as a lion’ would complement the MT of Ps 22:16 (see discussion above). However, , whether the MT text or the DSS text is chosen, they both point to Isaiah 53 (either v.5 “pierced” or v.13 “as a lion”) connecting the Suffering Servant with Psalm 22.

(6) Hezekiah victorious,

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Ps 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.

Isa 38:20 The LORD was ready to save me: therefore, we will sing my songs (i.e., Ps.22) to the stringed instruments all the days of our life in the house of the LORD.

Ps 22:16 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.

Hezekiah would not die childless; he would have “a seed” (the travail of his soul). Christ was that seed……who would live forever. Christ did not die childless. We are his seed.

Speculations

A point of interest is Isa 29:1, where Jerusalem is called ‘the lion of God’ or ‘Ariel’.[29] ‘Ariel’ is an ominous name applied to Jerusalem (Isa 29:1, 2, 7). The Qere reading of Ezek 43:15-16 has h’ry’l (Ariel) whereas the Kethib reading has hhr’l (‘mountain of God’) in v. 15 and h’r’yl (‘altar-hearth’) in v.16.[30] and in the other two instances as ’ărī’ ēl – -each of these three examples is preceded by the definite article. The Targum paraphrases both Isaiah and Ezekiel as ‘altar’, and from the context in Isaiah, this seems to be the preferable explanation of the word as applied to the city.

E. E. Averbeck comments:

“The 5x in Isa 29:1-2, 7 seem to involve a wordplay where, at least in one instance (29:2b, “Yet I will besiege Ariel; she will mourn and lament, she will be to me like an altar hearth”, NIV), the translation “altar hearth” once again seems appropriate in the context. Some suggest that this rendering is appropriate in all five of its occurrences in Isa 29 because of the festival context (v.1b; see Oswalt,526, the rendering of the term ’r ’l as the “altar” in line 12 of the Mesha Inscription according to KAI 2:169,175, and other references in Dijkstra, 29 n.28)”.[31]

Whittaker envisages several possibilities for ‘Ariel’ in Isaiah 29 with the first being a reference to the altar, the second to destruction by fire (hearth of God cf. Ezek 11:3; Jer. 1:13) or, thirdly “lion of God” in a negative (hostile) sense. His fourth proposal is interesting,

“Ariel can also mean “I will provide a ram”, as happened at the intended sacrifice of Isaac (Gen.22:14). The implied idea is, then, one of rescue when all seems hopeless. Compare also David’s provision of sacrifice at the same place, staving off disaster in Jerusalem when the angel of destruction went forth (2 Sam. 24:16, 25).”[32]

Whittaker is incorrect, although ’ărī ’ēl, does work as a word-play on ayil, the Hebrew for ram. While it is true that the ’ărī ’ēl of Isaiah 29 is not the same as the ka’ari of MT Ps 22:16, a thematic connection can be found with the word ‘encompass/around/circle’ (@qn):

Ps 22:16 MT	Isa 29:1
ka’ari (like a lion)	’ărī ’ēl (lion of God/ altar /hearth)
victim	sacrifice
dogs circling/surrounding (@qn)	feasts circling /cycling (@qn)

In Isaiah 29, the people are ironically encouraged to fulfil the sacrificial feast cycle (round and round, year after year), ignorant of the fact that the “lion of God” (Jerusalem) will actually become an altar (the hearth of God) with themselves as the sacrificial victims (while the enemy goes “round and round” besieging them like a pack of wild dogs).[33] One wonders if there was some kind of cross-fertilization (at the least thematically) between the lion themes of Ps 22:16 and Isa 29:1?

Finally, my preferred reading for 22:16 is “tied or bound” rather than “pierced” because even though “pierced” has a distribution advantage (Miller); “tied or bound” does better justice to the underlying Isaac typology. The LXX translators obviously had Hebrew texts in front of them which they believed (interpreted) as “pierced”. Aquila of Sinope, a 2nd-century AD Greek convert to Christianity and later to Judaism, undertook two translations of the Psalms from Hebrew to Greek. In the first, he renders the verse “they disfigured my hands and feet”; in the second he revised this to “they have bound my hands and feet”. Both his interpretations were obviously biased by his religious beliefs (first Christian then Jewish). In the last instance, it doesn’t really matter. Whether directly or indirectly all translational choices of the disputed word in Ps 22:16 point to Christ either directly or indirectly (through typology). So, God is able to preserve his word against the malignant tendentiousness of men, for the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men.

Conclusion

Psalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm recited by Jesus on the cross. It is replete with Isaac typology because it is based on the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22. It is also couched in Davidic language appropriated from the Psalms of David, but ultimately Psalm 22 tells the story of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. We would classify it as a ‘Hezekiah Psalm’ made “for David”, or done “in the style of David”. Interestingly, Isaac also acts as a type for Hezekiah[34] (who in turn types Christ). Therefore, the Psalm is polyvalent, complex and extremely poignant. It tells the story not only of David’s distress at rebellion and persecution, but also of the betrayal and Passover deliverance of King Hezekiah and as such is the perfect messianic psalm, with Abraham, Isaac, David and Hezekiah pointing in a direct line of promise (concentrating in the Davidic line) to the fulfilment of the covenants in Christ.