Psalm 22:18 to Mark 15:24; Matt. 27:35; Luke 22:34; John 19:24
Psalm 22:27 to Rev. 11:15
Psalm 22:14, 29 to Problem?
HERMENEUTIC LESSON – CONSIDER CULTURE
We discussed the “double vision” of Old Testament prophecies that point to both immediate and future events, as in Isaiah 7. Yet, there are others should be kept in mind. One of these is cultural interpretation.
As we study, it’s important to delineate the difference between our culture, the culture of others (we minister to/live with) and the culture of the text we’re studying. Some argue culture should dominate one’s interpretation of scripture, but this is often done to dismiss the inherent nature of scripture. Humans remain humans across time. Despite lies told us in popular media, we are not getting smarter and smarter, nor our modern cultures inherent better than all cultures before them. Some argue the opposite – the more “natural” a culture is the better (more innocent, etc.). What is true is that God’s values and communications transcend time and culture.
So, what should a student of the Bible do about culture? There are some things you’ll need to decide for yourself. However, you can establish some sound practices. First, consider matters that are transcendent as unencumbered by culture. For example, John 3:16 doesn’t require a cultural analysis. This statement from God transcends time and culture. Second, work to unwrap issues that are transcendent but are wrapped in some cultural element. For example, why are pronoun references in Hebrew, Greek, and English normally male only. This is a common cultural paradigm, but it can distract modern, Western audiences. Likewise, scripture often refers to males when it comes to inheritance. Why? Because inheritance went through the male line. Often oldest sons would take the place of their fathers. Thus, the context drove the use of son rather than daughters, even though scripture allowed for some female inheritance. Finally, some things are wholly cultural. Consider the mention of baptizing the dead in 1 Cor. 15:29 or in introductions or farewells in the epistles, such as “Greet one another with a holy kiss” in II Cor. 13:12.
Failure to understand the difference leads to confused interpretation. For example, I’ve seen feminist interpretation of scripture as inherently sexist and misogynistic because of the emphasis on male pronoun use, male inheritance references, and references to submission. Often, the result was the discarding of scriptural truths. For example, angry diatribes against submission of wives to husbands in Ephesians missed the point that the entire book is an extended treatise on believers submitting – to God, to others, to employers, in families, etc. Likewise, some use culture to discard transcendent understanding that wouldn’t be evident to the human author. For example, liberal scholars use such techniques to discount the possibility of Psalms 22 being prophetic.
Here's an example of how this is done in Psalm 22 from a critical scholar’s perspective, though few are honest enough to share these.
1. Assumptions
a. If there is a god, it would work outside of our experience, but God as described by the Bible as commonly interpreted does not exist.
b. Since God does not exist, we must apply logic to make it a suitable document for learning.
c. Logic dictates that if there is no God/god, then there are no miracles. If there are no miracles, there cannot be prophecy that foretells the future. Thus, any appearance of prophecy must be explained logically – meaning within the bounds of human understanding.
d. Given the impossibility of prophecy and the possibility of outside sources altering what we read, we must view the text as a primitive, Iron Age tribal chieftain would have viewed it.
2. Analysis
a. Any interpretations that suggest a supernatural source or miraculous results point to the need for humans to be comforted in time of trials.
i. David may have existed, and if so, could have suffered great strain.
ii. He may have used his own creativity or borrowed from others’ work (now lost) to develop the statements found here. Further, these have been added to by others at times unknown
1. Those modifying the text may have been those who took creative license for their own gain.
2. Those modifying the text may have been later Christians desperate to make the Old Testament match their worldview.
b. David would likely have written a very different text that focused more on his immediate circumstances without any effort to have more far-reaching meaning. Anything beyond this must be treated as improperly translated or altered later by others. Thus, this text can only provide tangential benefit to modern humans looking for comfort, but they cannot provide evidence of a god at work in orchestrating the affairs of humans.
NOTICE ANY PROBLEMS?
Cultural interpretation is related to understanding the context. To understand the context, we consider history, culture, geography, political, language, and other factors. However, it’s a tool that must be used carefully without imposing our own biases and culture upon the passage. To do that, we need to understand our own worldview before we start carelessly applying it to those thousands of years before us.
ASSIGNMENT #2 – What About Critics?
It may seem odd that there are theologians dedicated to dismissing the Bible as the word of God. Yet, that’s the reality of our world. Some believe they’re demythologizing scripture to get the inherent truth. Some literally hate Christ, Christians, and Christianity. Regardless, they’re many ways used to undercut reliance in scripture. Some of them are legitimate tools used incorrectly. Some are wrong from the start. Legitimate tools may include language studies, but when removed from the context of the writing it can go awry. Language analysis and other tools are often improperly used based on the assumptions one uses. For example, you’ll find many liberal scholars use a circular reasoning that works like this – Assumption: God may exist but doesn’t do miracles, because miracles violate natural laws.
Interpretation: Passage X discusses what appears to be a miracle. Miracles don’t happen. Thus, passage X is erroneous, added later, corrupted, etc.
Here’s a common attack on the prophetic nature of Psalm 22.
In the Bible you’re using, you have a serious, misleading mistranslation — “They pierced my hands and my feet ...” The text should read: “Like a lion (Hebrew KeAri), they are at my hands and feet.”
The fundamentalists Christian interpreters actually changed the spelling of the word from KeAri (like a lion) to Kari. If one then totally ignores Hebrew grammar, one can twist this to mean “He gouged me,” then, as in the King James Version, they make it read: “They pierced my hands and feet” (Jackson, 2020).
So, here we have a “thoughtful” liberal who’s trying to demonstrate the error of our ways. How do I know it’s a targeted attack rather than an honest question? Note the name calling – “fundamentalists Christian interpreters.” What are they doing? These people are making the Bible read a specific way that doesn’t fit. Why? Because, the language tells us so. But, does it? Reading this, one might assume Hebrew scriptures are so obviously fixed on the use of lion that there is a problem with Christian interpretation.
However, one should never take an argument at face value. Often, stated “truths” are actually opinions stated as absolute, indisputable truths. One should consider a number of factors before accepting such “truths”. Does evidence exist to support it? Do historical, cultural, and other contextual facts support it? Do documents support the stated predominance on the use of this term and the intentional manipulation of later versions? Here’s an analytical model used this form of analysis. Notably, it was popularized by a liberal, Biblical interpreter of the 19th century – Friedrich Schleiermacher. Ironically, it’s often manipulated or rejected by modern liberals as being overly likely to support conservative exegesis.
(Diwato, 2001)
Is it true that lion can be used here? Yes. Is it true all Hebrew text use lion? No. Is there evidence of widespread manipulation by Christian scholars? No. So, where did the use “pierced” instead of “lion” become dominant? Before Jesus was born! This was the interpretation used in the most important translation of Hebrew scriptures in the ancient world – The Septuagint. This, combined with the cultural, historical, and other facts, moved Christians to use this version as the basis for later versions of the text.
The Masoretic Hebrew text of Psalm 22:16 doesn't say pierced, it says "as a lion." Yet the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament - long before the Christian era - renders the Hebrew text as saying pierced. While the Masoretic text shouldn't be casually disregarded, there is good reason to side with the Septuagint and almost every other translation here. "It may even suggest that the Masoretic text was deliberately pointed in the way it was by later Jewish scholars to avoid what otherwise would be a nearly inescapable prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion." (Boice) (Jackson, 2010).
Consider this related discussion from an Israeli convert from Judaism.
Originally, this verse was written as: “Ka’aru My hands and my feet” “Ka’aru”, and not “Ka’ari”. Ka’aru in biblical Hebrew means “to make a hole” while Ka’ari means “like a lion”. The rabbis shortened the last Hebrew letter of the word, and by doing so, changed the word from “Ka’aru”=“they have pierced” to the word “ka’ari” = “like a lion”.
Originally the verse read like this: “For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet.” Meaning, they made holes in my hands and my feet.
Do you understand? This entire description sounds too much like Jesus crucified on the cross, after he was rejected and tortured. This of course, didn’t suit the rabbis, so they decided, about 1,000 years ago, to change that one Hebrew letter.
Do you think we just invented all of this? In the Dead Sea Scrolls, scrolls from over 2,200 ago, that contain Psalm 22 among other scriptures, we can see that in this chapter, in verse 16, it says “Ka’aru” (they have pierced), and not “Ka’ari” (like a lion). These scrolls were written long before the time of Jesus (Bar, 2019).
FOLLOW-UP
Learning the word is good but application makes that truth real. Remember, Pharisees & demons know God’s truth but don’t apply it as God desires (James 1:22).
· How does the truth revealed here affect my relationship with God?
· How does the truth here affect my relationship with others?
· How does the truth here affect me personally?
· How does the truth here affect my response to the enemy?
SOUP & SCRIPTURE PSALM 22 (Day 3)
ASSIGNMENT #1 – Prophetic Fulfillment
HERMENEUTIC LESSON – CONSIDER CULTURE
We discussed the “double vision” of Old Testament prophecies that point to both immediate and future events, as in Isaiah 7. Yet, there are others should be kept in mind. One of these is cultural interpretation.
As we study, it’s important to delineate the difference between our culture, the culture of others (we minister to/live with) and the culture of the text we’re studying. Some argue culture should dominate one’s interpretation of scripture, but this is often done to dismiss the inherent nature of scripture. Humans remain humans across time. Despite lies told us in popular media, we are not getting smarter and smarter, nor our modern cultures inherent better than all cultures before them. Some argue the opposite – the more “natural” a culture is the better (more innocent, etc.). What is true is that God’s values and communications transcend time and culture.
So, what should a student of the Bible do about culture? There are some things you’ll need to decide for yourself. However, you can establish some sound practices. First, consider matters that are transcendent as unencumbered by culture. For example, John 3:16 doesn’t require a cultural analysis. This statement from God transcends time and culture. Second, work to unwrap issues that are transcendent but are wrapped in some cultural element. For example, why are pronoun references in Hebrew, Greek, and English normally male only. This is a common cultural paradigm, but it can distract modern, Western audiences. Likewise, scripture often refers to males when it comes to inheritance. Why? Because inheritance went through the male line. Often oldest sons would take the place of their fathers. Thus, the context drove the use of son rather than daughters, even though scripture allowed for some female inheritance. Finally, some things are wholly cultural. Consider the mention of baptizing the dead in 1 Cor. 15:29 or in introductions or farewells in the epistles, such as “Greet one another with a holy kiss” in II Cor. 13:12.
Failure to understand the difference leads to confused interpretation. For example, I’ve seen feminist interpretation of scripture as inherently sexist and misogynistic because of the emphasis on male pronoun use, male inheritance references, and references to submission. Often, the result was the discarding of scriptural truths. For example, angry diatribes against submission of wives to husbands in Ephesians missed the point that the entire book is an extended treatise on believers submitting – to God, to others, to employers, in families, etc. Likewise, some use culture to discard transcendent understanding that wouldn’t be evident to the human author. For example, liberal scholars use such techniques to discount the possibility of Psalms 22 being prophetic.
Here's an example of how this is done in Psalm 22 from a critical scholar’s perspective, though few are honest enough to share these.
1. Assumptions
a. If there is a god, it would work outside of our experience, but God as described by the Bible as commonly interpreted does not exist.
b. Since God does not exist, we must apply logic to make it a suitable document for learning.
c. Logic dictates that if there is no God/god, then there are no miracles. If there are no miracles, there cannot be prophecy that foretells the future. Thus, any appearance of prophecy must be explained logically – meaning within the bounds of human understanding.
d. Given the impossibility of prophecy and the possibility of outside sources altering what we read, we must view the text as a primitive, Iron Age tribal chieftain would have viewed it.
2. Analysis
a. Any interpretations that suggest a supernatural source or miraculous results point to the need for humans to be comforted in time of trials.
i. David may have existed, and if so, could have suffered great strain.
ii. He may have used his own creativity or borrowed from others’ work (now lost) to develop the statements found here. Further, these have been added to by others at times unknown
1. Those modifying the text may have been those who took creative license for their own gain.
2. Those modifying the text may have been later Christians desperate to make the Old Testament match their worldview.
b. David would likely have written a very different text that focused more on his immediate circumstances without any effort to have more far-reaching meaning. Anything beyond this must be treated as improperly translated or altered later by others. Thus, this text can only provide tangential benefit to modern humans looking for comfort, but they cannot provide evidence of a god at work in orchestrating the affairs of humans.
NOTICE ANY PROBLEMS?
Cultural interpretation is related to understanding the context. To understand the context, we consider history, culture, geography, political, language, and other factors. However, it’s a tool that must be used carefully without imposing our own biases and culture upon the passage. To do that, we need to understand our own worldview before we start carelessly applying it to those thousands of years before us.
ASSIGNMENT #2 – What About Critics?
It may seem odd that there are theologians dedicated to dismissing the Bible as the word of God. Yet, that’s the reality of our world. Some believe they’re demythologizing scripture to get the inherent truth. Some literally hate Christ, Christians, and Christianity. Regardless, they’re many ways used to undercut reliance in scripture. Some of them are legitimate tools used incorrectly. Some are wrong from the start. Legitimate tools may include language studies, but when removed from the context of the writing it can go awry. Language analysis and other tools are often improperly used based on the assumptions one uses. For example, you’ll find many liberal scholars use a circular reasoning that works like this – Assumption: God may exist but doesn’t do miracles, because miracles violate natural laws.
Interpretation: Passage X discusses what appears to be a miracle. Miracles don’t happen. Thus, passage X is erroneous, added later, corrupted, etc.
Here’s a common attack on the prophetic nature of Psalm 22.
In the Bible you’re using, you have a serious, misleading mistranslation — “They pierced my hands and my feet ...” The text should read: “Like a lion (Hebrew KeAri), they are at my hands and feet.”
The fundamentalists Christian interpreters actually changed the spelling of the word from KeAri (like a lion) to Kari. If one then totally ignores Hebrew grammar, one can twist this to mean “He gouged me,” then, as in the King James Version, they make it read: “They pierced my hands and feet” (Jackson, 2020).
So, here we have a “thoughtful” liberal who’s trying to demonstrate the error of our ways. How do I know it’s a targeted attack rather than an honest question? Note the name calling – “fundamentalists Christian interpreters.” What are they doing? These people are making the Bible read a specific way that doesn’t fit. Why? Because, the language tells us so. But, does it? Reading this, one might assume Hebrew scriptures are so obviously fixed on the use of lion that there is a problem with Christian interpretation.
However, one should never take an argument at face value. Often, stated “truths” are actually opinions stated as absolute, indisputable truths. One should consider a number of factors before accepting such “truths”. Does evidence exist to support it? Do historical, cultural, and other contextual facts support it? Do documents support the stated predominance on the use of this term and the intentional manipulation of later versions? Here’s an analytical model used this form of analysis. Notably, it was popularized by a liberal, Biblical interpreter of the 19th century – Friedrich Schleiermacher. Ironically, it’s often manipulated or rejected by modern liberals as being overly likely to support conservative exegesis.
(Diwato, 2001)
Is it true that lion can be used here? Yes. Is it true all Hebrew text use lion? No. Is there evidence of widespread manipulation by Christian scholars? No. So, where did the use “pierced” instead of “lion” become dominant? Before Jesus was born! This was the interpretation used in the most important translation of Hebrew scriptures in the ancient world – The Septuagint. This, combined with the cultural, historical, and other facts, moved Christians to use this version as the basis for later versions of the text.
The Masoretic Hebrew text of Psalm 22:16 doesn't say pierced, it says "as a lion." Yet the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament - long before the Christian era - renders the Hebrew text as saying pierced. While the Masoretic text shouldn't be casually disregarded, there is good reason to side with the Septuagint and almost every other translation here. "It may even suggest that the Masoretic text was deliberately pointed in the way it was by later Jewish scholars to avoid what otherwise would be a nearly inescapable prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion." (Boice) (Jackson, 2010).
Consider this related discussion from an Israeli convert from Judaism.
Originally, this verse was written as: “Ka’aru My hands and my feet” “Ka’aru”, and not “Ka’ari”. Ka’aru in biblical Hebrew means “to make a hole” while Ka’ari means “like a lion”. The rabbis shortened the last Hebrew letter of the word, and by doing so, changed the word from “Ka’aru”=“they have pierced” to the word “ka’ari” = “like a lion”.
Originally the verse read like this: “For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet.” Meaning, they made holes in my hands and my feet.
Do you understand? This entire description sounds too much like Jesus crucified on the cross, after he was rejected and tortured. This of course, didn’t suit the rabbis, so they decided, about 1,000 years ago, to change that one Hebrew letter.
Do you think we just invented all of this? In the Dead Sea Scrolls, scrolls from over 2,200 ago, that contain Psalm 22 among other scriptures, we can see that in this chapter, in verse 16, it says “Ka’aru” (they have pierced), and not “Ka’ari” (like a lion). These scrolls were written long before the time of Jesus (Bar, 2019).
FOLLOW-UP
Learning the word is good but application makes that truth real. Remember, Pharisees & demons know God’s truth but don’t apply it as God desires (James 1:22).
· How does the truth revealed here affect my relationship with God?
· How does the truth here affect my relationship with others?
· How does the truth here affect me personally?
· How does the truth here affect my response to the enemy?
· How do I apply this truth?
· Is there a memory verse or verses for you here?
· Is there something to share with others?
REFERENCES
Demeterio, F.P.A. 2001. “The Romanticist hermeneutics of Schleiermacher and Dilthey.” Diwatao (Vol 1. No. 1). Accessed at http://www.geocities.ws/philodept/diwatao/romaticist_hermeneutics.html.
Guzik, David. 2011. “The servant of God forsaken, rescued, and triumphant.” BlueLetterBible.org. Accessed at https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/archives/guzik_david/StudyGuide_Psa/Psa_22.cfm.
Jackson, Wayne. 2020. "Does Psalm 22 prophesy the crucifixion of Christ?" ChristianCourier.com. Accessed at https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/441-does-psalm-22-prophesy-the-crucifixion-of-christ.