Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Psalms 22:1 - 22:31
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David
Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou nearest not;
And in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But thou art holy,
O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in thee:
They trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered:
They trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
6 But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised of the people.
7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn:
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him:
Let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb:
Thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts.
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb:
Thou art my God from my mother’s belly.
11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near;
For there is none to help.
12 Many bulls have compassed me:
Strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
13 They gaped upon me with their mouths,
As a ravening and a roaring lion.
14 I am poured out like water,
And all my bones are out of joint:
My heart is like wax;
It is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd;
And my tongue cleaveth to my jaws;
And thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16 For dogs have compassed me:
The assembly of the wicked have inclosed me;
They pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may tell all my bones:
They look and stare upon me.
18 They part my garments among them,
And cast lots upon my vesture.
19 But be not thou far from me, O Lord:
O my strength, haste thee to help me.
20 Deliver my soul from the sword;
My darling from the power of the dog.
21 Save me from the lion’s mouth:
For thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren:
In the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him;
All ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him;
And fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.
24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Neither hath he hid his face from him;
But when he cried unto him, he heard.
25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation:
I will pay my vows before them that fear him.
26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied:
They shall praise the Lord that seek him:
Your heart shall live forever.
27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord:
And all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
28 For the kingdom is the Lord’s:
And he is the governor among the nations.
29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship:
All they that go down to the dust shall bow before him:
And none can keep alive his own soul.
30 A seed shall serve him;
It shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness
Unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.
Its Messianic Character.—If now we ask to what person, and to whose circumstances, sentiments, and character, the words here spoken are entirely appropriate, the answer can only be, to king David for the most part, yet almost still more to Jesus which is Christ. This is so generally recognized that it is unnecessary to adduce the particular features which fully justify it. The more difficult question, however, is this, whether these are only analogies, which have naturally occasioned a comparison of the fate and words of Jesus with the present description, and rendered their application to Him possible, without doing violence to the text (Mat_27:35; Mat_27:43; Mat_27:46; Mar_15:34; Joh_19:23 sq.; Heb_2:11 sq.) He who merely grants this, will soon be convinced that he cannot stop here. For the relation between the Biblical David and David’s son consists not in mere particular resemblances, but in a thorough-going relationship, and is founded not in accidental criticisms, or in connections of one’s own choosing, which are then spun out further in scholastic forms; but in the government of God in history. In this connection the Psalm must at least be regarded as typical; and indeed we are not allowed to think either of the personification of the people of Israel by an unknown poet (De Wette, Olsh.), or to insert between Christ and David the ideal person of the righteous (Hengst.), for the references are entirely concrete and individual. But even this definition does not suffice. The question still remains to be answered, whether the Psalm is to be regarded as merely typical, or typical-prophetical, or merely prophetical, that is directly and immediately Messianic. In the first case David speaks not at all of the Messiah, but of himself and his own adventures—of the effects and consequences connected with them; and the typical reference of these words would be only subsequently in the congregation. This supposition is opposed by the circumstance, that in the life of David, whilst the time of the persecution by Saul might afford the historical foundation for such expressions (Calv., Venem., Thol., et al.), yet no circumstances known to us, not even 1Sa_23:25 sq. (von Hofmann), in themselves justify such complaints and such hopes as those here expressed. Moreover, the supposition of a poetical summary of his experience by the much tried king in the evening of his life, finds its refutation in the individual characteristics of the Psalm already repeatedly mentioned. The pure historical interpretation (Paulus, Eckermann, De Wette, Hupfeld, Hitzig, and in part Hofmann) which at most makes it a mere type, which according to Kurtz, was discovered only after its fulfilment by the writers of the New Testament, is entirely unsatisfactory. So likewise the merely prophetical or direct Messianic interpretation of the ancient synagogue, which regards the Hind of the morning directly as the name of the Shekinah, and as a symbol of the approaching redemption, so likewise the orthodoxy of the ancient church, which referred each and all literally and properly to Christ alone, excluding David. For that ancient interpretation that it is the Messiah Himself who speaks, is inconsistent with the character of the Psalm, which is throughout of the Old Testament and lyrical, and there is not a syllable to show that any other person is to be regarded as speaking in the place of the Psalmist. And the new phase of this interpretation, that the author has transported himself into the person of Christ, speaking from Him in the first person (J. D. Mich., Knapp, Clauss, et al.) is in part merely the inversion of the formula of this stand-point, partly a half-way attempt to reconcile the historical and Messianic interpretations. For a mere external union of both interpretations whereby some portions are referred to David, others to the Messiah, according as the individual features of the description suit the one or the other (Rudinger, Venema, Dathe) would not satisfy us any more than the acceptance of a double sense, a historical and a Messianic (Stier). The first mentioned attempt, namely, destroys the unity of the text and its references, but the last mentioned supposition destroys the unity of its meaning. It is necessary therefore to define the typical Messianic interpretation (Melancthon, Calvin, Grot., Cleric, Umbreit, Thol., Keil) more accurately as typical prophetical. Then there is not wrought into the text by the Holy Spirit a Messianic sense unknown to the Psalmist himself, in a form of words which has found its real fulfilment in the history of Jesus; but David in the Spirit, that is speaking as a prophet has regarded himself as a type of the Messiah and prophesies even on this account, because he speaks as such. But then the composition cannot fall into as early a period of David’s life as the time of the persecution by Saul, to which with a corresponding fundamental idea, even, Delitzsch and Böhl still refer. With much greater probability we might think of the time of the flight from Absalom to the wilderness (Rudinger), and the danger of losing throne and life connected therewith. I prefer, however, the circumstances to which Psalms 18 refer, with its conclusion which has a Messianic character. The prophetic character of this Psalm is expressly brought out in Joh_19:24, together with the prophetical character of the Psalmist. Mat_27:35. The typical character of the Psalm is moreover confirmed by the fact that Jesus on the cross speaks partly from the circumstances described in this Psalm (Joh_19:28; Joh_19:30), partly prays, lamenting in the words which begin this Psalm (Mat_27:46; Mar_15:34); yet not in words of exactly the same sound, but in the Aramaic dialect, accordingly not as a quotation, moreover not merely as applied to Himself, but as language entirely appropriated. Only on the ground of this actual appropriation could ver 22 of this Psalm be treated in Heb_2:11, as the words of Christ Himself. It is easy to understand, how Luther in interpreting this Psalm, remained three days and nights shut up on bread and salt, entirely inaccessible.
Str. I. Psa_22:1. My God, etc.—The Sept. has read êlî êlaî = my God upon me, namely look. Then afterwards there came into the text of this Greek translation, which is followed by the Vulgate, the marginal gloss ὁ èåὸò as the first word. However, the citations of the New Testament and the other ancient translations show, that the reading of the Hebrew text is the correct one. The repetition shows the depths of the anxiety (1Ki_18:37; 2Ki_4:19; Jer_4:10) and the urgency of the inquiry, which is not to be regarded as an inquiry of impatience and of the flesh near to despair (Hupf.). nor indeed as an exact inquiry for the reasons, demanding information and account (Hengst.). Nor does it show that in the height of suffering the speaker has lost the recollection, why he thus suffers (Böhl), but it is an anxious inquiry of the soul, lamenting (Calvin) and troubled, which suffers more under the inconsistency, that a man who is internally dependent upon God can appear as externally separate from God and given up by Him, than by earthly and temporal affliction. There is no contradiction of Psa_16:10, here; for the abandonment is not asserted as an abiding fact, but is expressed as an experience of a momentary condition. Only in this sense could Jesus appropriate these words in the pain of His death upon the cross. That He alone has reason and right to them (Berl. Bib., Stier) is an exaggerated assertion. Luther correctly says: “All the sayings of this Psalm are not said to every one since all have not the same gifts and all have not the same sufferings.” Respecting lamáh as Oxytone vid. Hupf. on Psa_10:1.—Far from my help (are the) words of my cry!—That fact is expressed from which the preceding anxious question arose, and which is in contradiction to the previous history of Israel as the following verses show, namely, that the prayers of the pious man have not found a hearing. The enallage numeri is no more against this explanation, than the circumstance, that in Psa_22:11; Psa_22:19, and frequently elsewhere, mention is made of God’s being afar off. If we abandon this construction already followed by the ancient translations [A. V. likewise], then this construction offers itself as the most correct, which regards the words “far from my help,” as in apposition to the preceding “forsaken,” accordingly as part of the lamentation and question, whereupon it would then be stated with the independent clause “words of my cry,” that all that precedes constitutes the contents of the lamentation (Aben Ezra, Olshausen, Hupfeld). But such a statement in the form of narration has little agreement with the tone of the Psalm in other respects. Most recent interpreters after Isaki, Calv., Ruding., Cleric., supply the preposition min (=from) and regard the latter half of this line as in apposition to the former half. It is most natural then to regard both lines of the verse as a connected lamentation. For in interpreting the second line of the verse as an independent clause; far from my help, from the words of my lamentation, namely, art Thou (or more clearly putting that which is supplied at the beginning: Thou art, etc.), àַúָּä could hardly be missing. Should we, however, suppose an independent continuation of the inquiry (Kimchi, Rosenm., Böhl), then we ought to expect the repetition of the interrogative particle. The supposition of a new question: Art Thou perhaps afar off? (Venema), is still less suitable to the context. But against this entire construction, not to mention its modifications are the following principal reasons: 1). That in accepting it the most natural and almost unavoidable connection of words would lead to taking the expression “the words of my cry,” merely as an explanatory apposition to the words which immediately precede: “my help” which would give an entirely incorrect thought. 2). In order to avoid this interpretation, it is not sufficient merely to supply the preposition “from,” but either “far from” or “and from” must be required, especially in Hebrew where it is still more indispensable. Isaki indeed adds this, but it is not in the text. 3). Finally the thought, that God Himself is no longer reached by the words of him who cries out to Him in prayer, so great is His distance from Him, is entirely unbiblical, and cannot be explained over again by the thought of his prayers failing to be heard, which is the very thought that our explanation finds here. Hitzig on this account would change the reading here, because he accepts the continued influence of the preposition min, but very properly denies, that such unlike ideas as help and words could be regarded as being in the same line without a repetition of the min. He puts as the original reading îִùַּׁåְòָúִé = from my cry, which has been changed by a copyist, who had in mind Psa_20:5; Psa_21:1; Psa_21:5, into îִéùּׁåּòָúִé =from my help. Such an error in copying is possible, yet it is unnecessary here. This explanation likewise is in contradiction with the text: “with the words” (Stier) which would demand áְãִáְøֵé to which Kimchi adds the explanatory clause “although Thou hearest.” The mention of words, indicates that the cry was not inarticulate and is the more necessary, as the cry is designated with the Hebrew expression for the roaring of a lion (Psa_22:13; Isa_5:29; Job_4:10), which when used of human lamentation expresses the strength and violence of its utterance (Job_3:24; Psa_32:3; Psa_38:9). The translation of the Sept. and Vulgate, “transgressions” may be referred to an interchange of two letters ( à with â ) in the Hebrew word. The translation of the Syr., “folly” is connected with its false interpretation of the entire clause, since it finds in the foolish words of the sufferer the reason of the refusal of Divine help.
Psa_22:2. My God, I cry for whole days and Thou dost not answer, and through the night, and calmness I (have) not.—Hitzig finds in êlohaî an accusative of the object, “my God I call.” Of those who accept the usual interpretation of it as a vocative, some (Olsh., Hupf., Böhl,) regard it as the subject of the cry of prayer, but the majority as the direct invocation of God Himself which commences anew the sigh of prayer. To limit it to one day and one night of suffering, (Bade) is the more unnatural, since Heb_5:7, shows that not even the crying of Jesus is to be limited to that mentioned in Mat_27:46. The calmness is, according to the constant use of this Hebrew word, the silence of resignation in contrast with murmuring and complaining. Since the sufferer has thus far received neither help nor answer, this silence is not yet allotted to him. The explanation of it as: hushing up, quieting, stilling (Stier, Hupf., Delitzsch), has no sufficient warrant in language or in fact; still less the interpretation: rest through the cessation of sufferings (De Wette, Köster). The Chald. has correctly: silence. The Vulgate incorrectly after the Sept.: and not to my folly. The Syr. and Arab. are entirely different: and thou wilt not lay hold of me.
Str. II. Psa_22:3. Enthroned above the praises.—The translation “Inhabitant of the praises” (De Wette) [A. V. Thou that inhabitest,] is likewise possible according to the language. Then God the Holy One would be designated as the subject of the praises. The Sept. and Vulg. interpret it in a similar way, though they regard Him rather as the object of the praises, and their translation differs in other respects, thus: But Thou dwellest in the sanctuary, Thou praise of Israel. Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Flamin, et al. depending on the Hebrew text, translate: Enthroned as the praise (Aquil. ὔìíïò ), that is, as He who is praised in Israel’s songs of praise. The translation “The enthroned of the songs of praise” (Hengst.) [that is, upon the songs of praise] is related to the preceding, but explained otherwise, that is tehilloth is regarded not as a metonymy, not as in opposition to yôscheb, but as a genitive. The Syriac has the correct translation. This expression is parallel to and founded on the well-known predicate of God: throned above or upon the cherubim especially in Psa_80:1; Psa_99:1, in the present form. But we must not conclude either from this or from the circumstance that the songs of praise (Psalms 78, Exo_15:11; Isa_63:7,) usually resounded in the sanctuary (Isa_64:11), that we must here retain the reference to the temple, where Israel’s songs of praise ascended as the clouds of incense, and likewise formed a throne for God (Aben Ezra, Calv., Ruding, Gesen., Hupf., et al.). The following verses demand rather an interpretation broader and independent of the temple service. Moreover the cherubim, as is well known, are not confined to the temple. Still less, is the explanation incola laudentium Israelitarum, justified by this enlargement of the idea.
Str. III. Psa_22:6. Worm, as an indication of the most extreme degradation and helplessness with the secondary idea of contempt, so likewise Job_25:5, sq.; Isa_41:13, in which respect David compares himself, 1Sa_25:15, with a dead dog and a flea. With the following words [and no man] correspond the expression Isa_53:3, ceasing from men [A. V. rejected of men]; we must likewise compare Isa_49:7; Isa_52:14, with reference to the servant of Jehovah.
Psa_22:7. Opening wide the mouth is regarded as a sign of hostile contempt, as a gesture of insulting, sneering scorn (Psa_35:21; Job_16:10), here expressed as bursting open and gaping by means of the lips. This is weakened by the Sept. and Vulg. into a speaking with the lips, by Jerome inexactly restored, as letting the lips hang. The shaking of the head (Psa_44:14; Psa_109:25; 2Ki_19:21; Job_16:4; Lam_2:15), designates the situation of the sufferer as helpless (Mat_27:39), and is as a gesture of denial an expression of ironical pity, as likewise the shaking of the hand (Zep_2:15), is a gesture of scorn. It is unnecessary to suppose a consent to the sufferings, which is glad to injure, and to find here a nodding of the head as an expression of assent. (Gesen., Baihinger, Thol., De Wette).
Psa_22:8. Roll upon Jehovah, [A. V. He trusted on the Lord.]—Similar words follow the gestures of scorn. But it has nothing to do with religious scorn (De Wette), but with scoffing at the sufferer, who is regarded as irredeemably lost and as forsaken by God. His assurance that God is well pleased with him is regarded by his opponents as idle pretense and despicable boasting, for which they may scoff at him, on this very account that he is abandoned by God. It is not necessary to suppose a saying of the sufferer which is called out to him in irony (Hengst). The Sept. and the Syr. have taken the first word as a finite verb, the former in the signification: he has hoped, the latter: he has trusted [so A. V.]. Jerome likewise translates, confugit ad. The verb is then taken as reflexive=roll one-self, that is yield one-self, give one-self over to or trust on some one. The perfect, which Stier et al. regard as necessary on account of Mat_27:42 sq., is then either so regarded that âֹì is taken as infin. constr. and this for the infin. absol., which then might be put instead of the finite verb (De Wette after more ancient interps.); or the reading is taken at once as âַì (Ewald), J. D. Mich. (Orient. Bibl. 11:208) even âָּì from âִּéì=âּåּì lætatus est. But the parallel passages Psa_37:5; Pro_16:3, decide that the reading of the text must be regarded as the imperative without its object (Psa_55:22). This is ironical counsel, (Cleric.) from which there is a sudden change to the third person (Hupfeld) with a malicious side glance (Delitzseh), whilst at the same time with these words the back is turned to the sufferer (Böhl). It is thus not necessary to think of the infin. absol. used for the imperative (Hitzig).—The subject of the last clause of this verse is not the sufferer (The Rabbins, Rosenm., Baihing., Tholuck) but God (Calvin and moat interps.); for the Hebrew expression occurs only of the dealings of God with man and not conversely. In Psa_91:14, cited by Rosenm. in favor of his view, a different word is used. The scorn is still further sharpened (Geier) by the conjunction “because” [A. V. seeing]. In Mat_27:43, “if” is used, it is true, but not as a citation. To translate by “if” in this passage likewise with the Syr., is not justified by the remarks of Hitzig at least, that the speakers neither knew that He would save the sufferer, nor indeed that He had pleasure in him. The words are scoffing it is true, yet such that they judge themselves, because they pervert and distort the earnestness of the fact, that there has been between God and this sufferer at all times a relation of love, which showed itself on the one part as protection and help in life, on the other part as resignation and trust. Hence the connection with the following verse by the affirmative ëִּé . This is not in contradiction with the fact that at the close of Psa_22:15 God Himself is addressed as the one who lays the sufferer in the dust of death. God is not thereby placed alongside of the enemies, but this feature serves very particularly to make noticeable the typical character of this Psalm. It belongs to the sufferings of the servant of Jehovah that notwithstanding his innocence, his sufferings are represented as belonging to his calling and not as merely caused by his enemies but likewise as brought about by God.
Str. IV. Psa_22:9. [Perowne: “Faith turns the mockery of his enemies into an argument of deliverance. They mock my trust in Thee—yea I do trust in Thee; for Thou art He,” etc.—C. A. B.].—Made me careless on the breast of my mother.—I have chosen this expression because the hiphil of áèç can mean “make to lie securely” as well as “to make trustful,” and there is no reason to accept exclusively the former (Venema, Rosenm., De Wette, Gesen., Hupf.), which would render prominent the secure and comfortable condition of the suckling under the protection of God on the mother’s breast; or the latter (Chald. and most interpreters), which emphasizes the early time of the trust wrought by God in the suckling. A trust to the mother’s breast (Hitzig), however, is not said nor meant, but on the mother’s breast to God, and it is psychologically the less assailable, as Jewish mothers were accustomed to suckle their children until their third year. Too much, however, is sought in the expressions, if it is found noteworthy, that the sufferer speaks only of his mother and at the same time hints at the beginning of his life as in poverty (Delitzsch) or if an allusion is found to the taking up of the regenerate in the bosom of the Father as a sign of recognition and adoption (Gen_16:2; Gen_50:23; Job_3:12), with reference to the thought, that God treats him as a Father (Cleric., J. H. Mich., Hengst.).
Str. V. Psa_22:12. Bashan designates, in ‘the narrower geographical sense, originally the northern part of the land on the other side of the Jordan, the basaltic table land between Hermon and Jarmuk, which contains only pasture land; in the wider original political sense (Deu_3:13; Jos_12:4), which then had become geographical (Hupf.), at the same time the northern Gilead even to the Jabbok (the present ‘Aglûn) with mountains of many peaks (Psa_68:16), embracing dense oak forests (Isa_2:13 Eze_27:6; Zec_11:2) and fat pastures (Mic_5:14; Jer_5:19). Comp. Burckhardt, Reisen in Syrien, p. 396 sq., 419.—The rams and bulls of Bashan serve at times as figures of the people of Israel and especially of its distinguished men (Deu_32:14; Eze_39:18; Amo_4:1; comp. Psa_6:1), who have become luxurious, proud and godless by their prosperity. Moreover, the bulls, and especially the buffalos (instead of which Luther, after the Sept., Vulg., et al., incorrectly puts unicorns), are likewise partly figures of the full feeling of power (Num_23:22; Psa_29:6; Isa_34:7) and victorious strength (Deu_33:17; Job_39:12), partly figures of rage and ill nature (Robinson, Bib. Researches, II. 412 [Tristram, Natural History of the Bible, p. 146.—C. A. B.]), and hence a designation of mighty enemies, with the prophetical secondary idea of ungodly enemies of Jehovah (Hupfeld). In Psa_22:21, their horns are particularly mentioned as fearful weapons, whilst their gaping is, in Psa_22:13, the sign of their voracity. This forms the transition to the comparison with lions, introduced by an apposition merely (comp. the examples by Kimchi), which roar when they behold their prey before falling upon it (Psa_104:21; Amo_3:4).
[Str. VI. Psa_22:14. I am poured out like water.—Barnes: “The sufferer now turns from his enemies, and describes the effect of all these outward persecutions and trials on himself. The meaning in this expression is, that all his strength was gone. It is remarkable that we have a similar expression, which is not easily accounted for, when we say of ourselves that we are as weak as water.” An expression similar to this occurs in Jos_7:5 : “The hearts of the people melted, and became as water, Lam_2:19; Psa_58:7.”—My bones are out of joint.—Perowne: “Have separated themselves, as of a man stretched upon the rack.”—Wax.—The heart, which melts away under the consuming power of his distress, is compared to wax. So the mountains at the appearing of God, Psa_97:5, and the ungodly before the Divine presence, Psa_68:2.
Psa_22:15. My strength is dried up like a potsherd.—Barnes: “The meaning here is, that his strength was not vigorous like a green tree that was growing and that was full of sap, but it was like a brittle piece of earthenware, so dry and fragile that it could be easily crumbled to pieces.”—And my tongue cleaveth to my jaws.—Barnes: “The meaning here is, that his mouth was dry, and he could not speak. His tongue adhered to the roof of his mouth so that he could not use it—another description of the effects of intense thirst. Comp. Joh_19:28.”—And Thou layest me in the dust of death (A. V., Thou hast brought me).—Hupfeld, Ewald, Perowne and Alexander: Thou wilt bring me or lay me. Moll and Delitzsch and Hitzig: Thou stretchest me, or Thou layest me to bed in. Perowne: “Death must be the end, and it is Thy doing, Thou slayest me. So does the soul turn from seeing only the instruments of God’s punishments to God who employs these instruments. Even in the extremity of its forsakenness it still sees God above all. We are reminded of Peter’s words, ‘Him, being delivered according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and with wicked hands have crucified and slain.’ ”—C. A. B.]
Str. VII. Psa_22:16. [For dogs have compassed me.—Barnes: “Men who resemble dogs; harsh, snarling, fierce, ferocious.”—The assembly of the wicked have inclosed me.—Barnes: “That is, they have surrounded me; they have come around me on all sides so that I might not escape. So they surrounded the Redeemer in the garden of Gethsemane when they arrested Him and bound Him; so they surrounded Him when on His trial before the Sanhedrin and before Pilate; and so they surrounded Him on the cross.”—C. A. B.].—Piercing through my hands and my feet.—This does not refer directly to the experience of Jesus upon the cross (Reinke with many of the more ancient interpreters). Moreover the remark of Gesenius, that the body of enemies is indeed pierced through, but not their hands and feet, does not suit. For the expression refers primarily and directly to the dogs (Böhl), which have been just mentioned as figurative of the band of the wicked which surround the sufferer, as they in other passages likewise are symbols of fierceness and impudence with the subordinate idea of impurity, which, however, does not lead to external heathen enemies (De Wette). These are here regarded by some (Symmach., Theodoret) as at once the pack of hounds of the hunter. In the Orient the dogs, which are half wild, and usually rove about in troops, are especially wicked and dangerous. They not only devour corpses (2Ki_9:35; Jer_15:3), but likewise attack travellers. In Persia even the sick and aged were set out to be devoured by dogs (Strabo). It is characteristic that they are accustomed at first to gnaw off the flesh of the hands and feet and head (Œdmann vermischte Samml. V. 23, sq.). If now the much disputed word ëָּàֲøִé is regarded after Pococke (notæ miscell. after Maimonidis porta Mosis) as an abbreviated plural of the participle of ëּàø , related to ëּåּø (vid. more in detail Stier, Reinke, Böhl), which even Winer, De Wette, Gesen. (in Lehrgeb. p. 526) grant as possible, it is not necessary to change the reading itself in order to gain this sense which agrees entirely with the context, whose typical prophetical meaning is the less to be overlooked as the servant of Jehovah is said to be pierced in Isa_53:5 likewise, yes Jehovah in him (Zec_12:10), and it is easy for the original simple meaning of the word, “dig, bore,” as in the Arabic and Greek, to pass over into the special meaning, or if it is here to be entirely vindicated, it corresponds likewise with the nearest historical connection (to the teeth and claws of the dogs) as the prophetical reference. It is therefore unnecessary to suppose a boring fast (or indeed to make spell-bound, which the Midrash even regards as with magical characters), whereby David would be given in the hands of his enemies weaponless and without power of escape (Delitzsch), which sense others (at last Ewald, at first Aquila in the second edition of his translation, and then Symmach. and Jerome) find in the signification, “bind, fetter,” which is given to the word and which can be proved in the Arabic and Syriac. In the first edition Aquila had: “they soiled,” or likewise, “they marred,” that is, by bloody wounds. But the signification of digging and boring through has been found in the word not only by the Vulgate and Pesch., but likewise by the Septuagint before Christ. The ancient translations, however, all have a finite verb. Possibly they have merely resolved the Hebrew participle, which though accepted by many, by Rosenm., Hengst., Hupf., et al., after the example of Verbrugge (Observ Phil., 1730), is yet hotly contested, for it is at the farthest merely necessary to change the vowel points of the present text, which in the ancient MSS. indeed are altogether missing, and instead of ëָּàֲøִé read ëָּàøֵé , in order to set aside the objections to our interpretation which are most worthy of consideration. But they have perhaps really had the reading ëָּàֲøåּ before them, which still occurs in two unsuspected Codd. and is no more to be derived from Christian influence (Hupf.), than the received reading from Jewish (Calmet). On the other hand the form ëּøåּ is found only in a late Cod., as a marginal gloss only afterwards added. Of especial importance is the remark of the little Masora, that ëָּàֲøִé in the two passages (Psa_22:16; Isa_38:13) in which this form occurs, is in two different meanings. In the passage in Isaiah, however, the meaning “as the lion” is undoubted. The view, which in recent times has become the most prevailing, that this translation is to be applied to our passage likewise, has accordingly, no ancient authority for it, neither Christian, nor Jewish. For the Chald. originates not only from a relatively later period (Jahn, Einleitung I.), but inserts the word “biting” as explanatory and as a paraphrase. Thereby the verb which is lacking in the translation “as the lion,” is gained, and the entire inappropriateness of the comparison, when the verb “inclose” is taken from the preceding clause or supplied, is to some extent lost sight of. For it is well known that it is the habit of the lion to cast himself upon his prey with a spring, and with one blow to dash it down or pull it to the ground, but not to encompass its “hands and feet,” which does not take place with the tail even, with which it is said to make a circle (Kimchi). And it is very evident that the appeal to the fact that at times hands and feet mean the whole body or the person (Gesen., Hupf.) does not explain anything, but only puts the difficulty in stronger light. But even the interpolation of the Chald. is partly entirely arbitrary and unjustified, partly more adapted to conceal for the moment than to really set aside the objectionableness and inappropriateness of the comparison. Since the definite article is used, the inappropriateness of the comparison in the translation, “the band of the wicked enclosed me, as the lion, at my hands and at my feet,” is just as striking as the fact which is especially emphasized (Luther, Calv. et al., likewise De Wette and Olsh.), that it is just as vain as it is an unjustifiable attempt to wish to do away with the objection by putting the point of comparison merely in the rage (Hengst.), or in the unsparing and fierce haste (Hitzig) of the lion-like enemies, and to find by an explanation which displaces the words, the meaning that the sufferer is so entirely surrounded by the crowd of his enemies, who are fierce as the lion and strong, or is so clasped on his hands and feet (Köster), that he can neither defend himself with his hands nor flee away with his feet (many since Aben Ezra, likewise Hengst. and Hupf., which last prefer the acceptance of a double accusative to the repetition of the verb). The same objections apply to the other verbs which have been supplied: to crush (Saadia), and: they threaten (Gesen.). But that the enemies are not described as like the lion at the hands and feet (Hengst., previous interpretation, but since taken back), is just as evident as the impossibility of taking the disputed word as an accusative (Paul. in his Clavis), which would suddenly compare the sufferer, who was lying as a worm in the dust, to a lion beset round about with dogs. From the inflexible feeling of the untenableness of all these interpretations arises likewise the proposal to close the clause with “lion,” but to regard hands and feet as objects of “count” (Mendelssohn), an interpretation which can be explained only as a desperate expedient. If now the lion is indeed called àֲøִé (Num_24:9; Isa_38:13; Eze_22:25; Amo_5:19), yet the reasons, as has been shown, which have been given by many interpreters for finding it in this disputed word are still less convincing, especially as in this Psalm the lion is mentioned twice (Psa_22:13; Psa_22:21) under the only name which is used elsewhere in the Psalms, àַøְéֵä .
Psa_22:17. I can tell all my bones.—[Perowne: “Before ‘all my bones are out of joint.’ Hence it would seem that the body was racked by some violent torture; not merely emaciated by starvation and suffering. And thus in his utter misery he is a gazing-stock to them that hate him; ‘they look upon me,’ i.e., with malicious satisfaction at my sufferings,” vid., Isa_52:14; Isa_53:2-3.—C. A. B.] In ancient psalters the counting of the members is treated as an act of the enemies in accordance with the Sept. and Vulgate.
Psa_22:18. They part my garments.—His death seems so much the more unavoidable, that his garments are treated as belonging to one already dead, as possessions without an owner (v. Hofmann). The outer garments consisting of many pieces were divided, the under garment which was the immediate covering of the body was divided by lot. So Joh_19:23 sq. This language is not of mere design (Rosenm., Jahn) but of fact, to which the entire description leads (Hengst.). If we cannot point to anything of the kind in the life of David, that does not alter the fact or justify us in explaining the clothing in the sense of property (Hupf.). The prophetical element comes out with the more prominence from the type.
Str. VIII. Psa_22:19. My strength.—God is designated by the nomen. abstr. of àéָì as the essence and source of the strength of life (Psa_38:4). The Sept. and Vulgate (the Syr. likewise) with a different division of the members of the verse, translate. Thou wilt not remove Thy help from me.
Psa_22:20. From the sword. from the power of the dog.—It does not follow from the remarks upon Psa_22:16 that we must translate, “paw of the dog.” This would correspond only with the figures which immediately precede and follow (Delitzsch) and is not opposed by the fact that this paw (Lev_11:27) is called ëּó . For in 1Sa_17:37, éã is used of lions and bears. But since this last word is used elsewhere in the general meaning of power (Geier), yes, since the hand of the flame (Isa_47:14) and the hands of the sword (Job_5:20) are spoken of, as Isa_1:20, the mouth of the sword; this general interpretation is to be preferred, the more as in the first member of the verse the sword is likewise not figurative, as Luk_2:15, of heart-piercing woe (Sachs), but yet likewise not literal, but is to be taken in the general sense as indicating violent death, as Job_27:14; Jer_43:11.
My solitary one.—The soul as life is, according to some interpreters, designated as the only one (Exo_20:2; Exo_20:12; Jdg_11:34; Psa_35:17), that is, as that which is not present as double, and therefore is irreparable (Gesen., Hitzig, Delitzsch, et al.), yet without the secondary idea of valuable, dear, and beloved, which is improperly brought in, in the strongest way in the English Bible [“my darling,” both here and in Psa_35:17.—C. A. B.] Others (Jerome, Luther, Calvin, Geier, Stier, Hupfeld [Alexander]) prefer the idea of solitary, forsaken, with reference to Psa_25:16; Psa_68:6; comp. Psa_142:4; Joh_16:23.
Psa_22:21. Save me from the jaws of the lion.—Some, without sufficient reason, find in the singular, “of the lion,” a reference to the devil, the arch enemy who stands behind all the assaults upon the servants and children of God (Theodoret, Stier).—And from the horns of the buffålo, (yes) Thou answerest me.—The Sept., Syr., Arab., do not regard the closing word as a verb, but as a noun = my lowliness. But already the Chald. and Jerome refer the word as a verb to his being heard. The form of the preterite and its position at the close make the transition to the following section; and include the assurance that the prayer will be heard (Geier), yet not necessarily in the deliverance which had already taken place, or had often been experienced at previous times (Kimchi), especially as the verb has the fundamental meaning of answering. Since now in Psa_20:6 a similar construction designates God’s answer from heaven, the prevailing interpretation of the closing clause of this verse: “Hear me against the horns of the buffalo,” or “save me from the horns of the buffalo by hearing me,” with the supposition of a pregnant construction, as Isa_38:17; Jer_15:2; Psa_30:4; Psa_68:19; Psa_118:5, appears the more objectionable, the more difficult it would be in this very connection of the words in question, and the less properly the fact that the preterite in connection with the imperative can be taken in an optative sense is to be vindicated here, where the preterite stands at the close of a clause of urgent supplication, whilst the following clause expresses thankfulness and vows on the basis of the hearing of the prayer, and then describes the grand consequences resulting therefrom. But it does not follow from this that the åְ is either to be taken as adversative, or the clause must be regarded as relative, so that the experience of previous help from great dangers, figuratively represented by the horns of the buffalo, served as motive of the prayer (Kimchi, Hupfeld). The supposition of a sudden break in the construction is much easier (Stier, Hengst.), by which would be expressed the contrast to the lamentation, Psa_22:2, and the turn of thought which is now made, which is to be marked by a dash and an inserted yes, since it is not advisable, contrary to the received text, to wish to take the word as the grammatical antecedent (Venema) of the following verse, although it certainly is presupposed by it (Hupfeld) [“Perowne: “Before it had been, ‘Thou answerest not,’—now at the most critical moment Faith asserts her victory, ‘Thou hast answered.’ See the same sudden transition, the same quick assurance that prayer has been heard, Psa_6:9; Psa_20:7; Psa_26:12; Psa_28:6; Psa_31:22. The vows and thanksgiving which follow are a consequence of this assurance.”—C. A. B.]
Str. IX. Psa_22:22-23. [Perowne: “So or therefore will I tell. (Obs. the form with ä paragog. as marking a consequence from what precedes) ‘My brethren = the congregation = ye that fear Jehovah;’ Psa_22:23, i.e., the whole nation of Israel, as follows. In Psa_22:23 the singer calls upon the Church ( ÷ָäָì = ἐêêëçóßá ) to praise God. In Psa_22:24 he gives the reason for this exhortation; the experience, viz., of God’s mercy, and truth, and condescension, chiefly to himself, though not to the exclusion of others. For God is not like the proud ones of the earth. He does not despise the afflicted.”—C. A. B.]
Str. X. Psa_22:24. The affliction of the afflicted.—This nomen. abstr., owing to a false derivation, is rendered by the Sept., Vulg., Peschitò, Chald., as prayer, or cry, and by Jerome as modestia. [Perowne: “The same word is used with Messianic reference, Isa_53:4; Isa_53:7; Zec_9:9.—He hath not hid (comp. Psa_10:1; Psa_13:1). … When he cried He heard. What a contrast between Psa_22:1-2! Very remarkable is this confident acknowledgment of God’s goodness in hearing prayer.”—C. A. B.]
Str. XI. Psa_22:25. From Theo (comes) my praise in the great congregation.—The song of praise has as its subject the deliverance by God, and on this account takes its departure, or its origin from God, who naturally, at the same time, remains as the object of the praise (Psa_22:22). [So Perowne: “From Thee, not (as A. V.) of Thee, as if God were the object only of his praise. It is God Himself who has put this great subject of praise into his heart; and into his mouth. The will and the power to praise as well as the deliverance comes from Him. Comp. Psa_118:23, where the construction is precisely the same ‘from Jehovah is this.’ ”—C. A. B.]—My vows will I pay.—It follows from the following verse, “they shall eat,” that the reference is to bringing, after the deliverance, the thank-offering, which was vowed during the trouble (Lev_7:16). This was partaken of as a sacrificial meal with the legal assistance of the Levites (Lev. 12:18; 14:26) and in company with invited friends (Pro_7:14, Josephus’ Jewish War, Psa_6:9; Psa_6:3), after that the sprinkling of the blood and the presentation of the fat pieces had taken place at the altar. Since now in reference to the tithes, Deu_14:29; Deu_26:12, and at the harvest feast, Deu_16:11, an invitation of widows, orphans, and the poor, to participate in the meal, was prescribed, the reference to the wretched can so much the less appear strange in connection with the typical prophetical character of the Psalm; since even in sacrificial meals the participation of others than those legally invited was not excluded (Deu_33:19; 1Sa_9:13; 1Sa_9:22). From the earliest times, therefore, most Christian interpreters have referred this passage to the Lord’s Supper, often directly and exclusively, which is indeed improper. Others have gone to the contrary extreme (Cleric., Venema, Rosenm., v. Hofmann, Hupf.), partly by denying and partly by effacing the reference to the Shelamim offering, and have taken the eating, and becoming satisfied as merely a usual formula of prosperity and refreshment, and interpreted the thank-offering in the spiritual sense = songs of thanksgiving. Others suppose a merely spiritual participation under the figure of a meal (Umbreit, Tholuck, Hengst., Böhl, Bade). This much may be said, however, that the sensuous partaking and the material advantages were not the chief things in the sacrificial meals themselves, and that all offerings in the meaning of the law should be fulfilled with a disposition corresponding to them; that on this account the expression of thanks should excite a pious joy, and nourish and strengthen the spiritual life; and that in consequence of this even the song of thanksgiving itself can be designated as a sacrifice (Heb_13:15), and many expressions in the Old Testament, as in this Psalm, so likewise in Psa_50:14; Psa_50:23; Psa_61:5; Psa_61:8; Psa_69:30-32, and frequently are in a transition state from the narrower to the wider meaning, and from the proper to the figurative sense, as then the vow likewise not only refers to sacrifice (Psa_54:7; Psa_116:14) but likewise to the confession of Jehovah as deliverer (Jon_2:10). Moreover, independent of the reference to sacrifice, the general preservation and strengthening of the life against hostile attacks are designated as a feeding by Jehovah (Psa_23:5), and this, again applied to the spiritual life, regarded as eating the word of God (Jer_15:16; comp. Eze_3:1-3), and referred to the refreshment and satisfaction of men in the kingdom of God, is described as a meal prepared by God (Isa_25:6 sq.)
Psa_22:26. The afflicted shall eat.—The afflicted are not those who are poor in this world’s goods in a general sense, but the pious who are oppressed in the world. These are now called aniyim, now anavim. In the former word the external affliction is more prominent, in the latter the internal affliction. The servant of Jehovah belongs among these sufferers first of all (Isa_53:4; Isa_53:7; Zec_9:9).
Str. XII. Psa_22:27. Shall remember and turn unto Jehovah.—An important passage to characterize the heathen in their relation to God, whom they have forgotten (Psa_9:17), but to whom they will turn again, because Jehovah will vindicate His royal right to all nations (Gen_18:25; Psa_96:10; Psa_99:1; Zec_14:9), when the proclamation of the Divine deliverance by Him who suffered as no other one suffered, comes to them. “The conversion of the nations by that preaching will be thus the realization of the kingdom of God.” (Delitzsch). The promises to the patriarchs (Gen_12:3; Gen_28:14; comp. Psa_18:18; Psa_22:18; Psa_26:4) form the foundation of this view. Here likewise the prophetical moment in the type is very manifest, and even in its expressions the discourse assumes the character of prophecy. The connection with the previous clause is so exceedingly loose that v. Hofmann denies the connection of thought that has been given, and finds merely the reference to this thought, what He is, a God who has heard the prayer, namely, the Ruler of the world to whom the worship of all nations is due. But Hupfeld, besides, leaves room for doubt, whether this conclusion belonged originally to this Psalm, because such an effect of the deliverance of the poet, and its proclamation upon the minds of the heathen, would have been too much to expect, and too fantastic. The ancient interpreters have, on this account, referred all to Christ, only they do not do justice to the intermediate members of the thought. Some interpreters (Hengstenberg, Reinke), have sought to restore the close connection of the clauses, which is missing, by translating “consider” = take to heart, instead of “remember” or “think of.” This is just as unsatisfactory as unnecessary, like the proposal to take the verbs as jussive (Böhl) as directly connected with the preceding wish. Psa_22:19 even is sufficient to show the connection.
Psa_22:29. They ate, and all the fat ones of the earth shall prostrate themselves, and before his face all those shall bend the knee who have fallen in the dust, and whosoever cannot keep his soul alive.—The preterite in close connection with the following imperfects (futures) states the participation in the meal as presupposed and as the foundation of their worship and homage of God and the preservation of their own lives, but puts the whole in the time of the reception of the heathen into the communion of the people of God, which is surely to be expected.—In this relation the external position in life and characteristics make no difference. It is for those who in the fat of the earth abound in worldly prosperity and for those who have fallen down in the dust. It is an unfounded assertion, that the last expression must mean the dust of the grave and that therefore either a contrast is expressed of the living and dead, over whom the rule of God extends, in like manner as in Php_2:10 (Muscul., Stier, v. Hofmann, Hupf.), or only a designation of the human race in general as mortals (Flamin., Cleric.). For if it is generally granted that the expression, “sitting or dwelling in the dust,” is a symbol of filth and thence of lowliness, sorrow, affliction, it cannot be doubted that those who have descended from the height of prosperity into such lowliness may be contrasted as those who have fallen in the dust, namely of the earth, with those who are above in the fat of the earth, especially as constantly elsewhere it is made perceptible, as in Psa_22:15, that the reference is to the dust of death or of going down into the pit, death, Sheol (Psa_28:1; Psa_30:3; Psa_88:4; Job_8:9; Job_33:24). Only we must not take the contrast too narrowly, as is usually done, as that of the rich and poor, or of the strong in life and the frail, with which at times the entirely misleading reference is mixed, that the latter by affliction and destitution have been almost bowed down to the grave (Rosenm., De Wette). In the third clause of the verse, moreover, the reference is not to the danger of perishing from hunger, but the definite thought steps forth from the veil of the figure, that it has to do with the preservation of life for every one in the most comprehensive sense. With this interpretation the clause is not a repetition of the previous clause with a change in the turn of expression (most interpreters). No more is it necessary, in order to get an independent thought, to change the divisions of the verse and attach this clause to the following verse as antecedent (Hupf.) in the sense: If one has not remained alive himself, his seed will, etc. But this would give at least a clear idea and could find a support in the text. On the other hand the interpretation which follows is untenable according to its sense and does not correspond with the words. Thus, it is said, there is only one class of persons spoken of in the entire passage, men of