Through Pslam 22 we are given the immeasurable blessing of knowing Christ's thoughts on the cross. The full Psalm shows his perfect trust in the Father despite the fraility of the human body, His immense love for Israel and all mankind, and His certainty of the victory His passion would accomplish. And it ends with: "Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!"
He spoke those words for us.... That we might never have to say those terrible words.... Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:18-21 NASB)
Let's talk. Back in the day the Bible didn't have chapter or verse numbers. When a rabbi wanted to reference a Psalm he would quote the first line of it. Next, Jesus knew exactly who He was and is, and what He was going to do. Mark 8:31 Finally, if Jesus is referencing a Psalm at the moment of coming into His kingdom, we should very well know what that psalm says. Psalm 22 uses a literary tool much like Mark Anyony's speech in Act III of Shakespeare's Julius Cesare. Only, Psalm 22 got there way before Shakespeare. The similarities are striking, and none of us get confused on whether Antony liked Ceasare. Going on..., in verse 6 the psalmist describes himself as a worm, but not any worm. The worm used is a toalah. This was a creature which would climb up on a tree to die by it's own choice, and whose body was crushed to make to crimson dye that would be used in the sanctification of the priesthood. Moving on..., in 12 and 16 the psalmist describes being surround by bulls, then by dogs. Well, which is it? The answer is both. The standard of the Roman army was a rampant bull. Their execution squads had the nickname "the dogs." Jesus was simultaneously surrounded by bulls and dogs. 17, Jesus had no broken bones. Usually, bones were broken in the legs to speed up crucifixion. But, Jesus was already dead, so a confirming deathblow with a spear was used to make sure, like what might be delivered on a battlefield to make sure there are no surprises. 18, they cast lots for his cloak. The following roughly half of the Psalm speaks of deliverance and praise for deliverance. It makes no sense that one who knows the content of this psalm then references from the cross, after telling followers exactly what would happen, without realizing what this moment means. Did Jesus feel despair, likely yes. We can't know precisely what He felt because we aren't feeling His feelings at that moment. The opening of Psalm 22 makes it clear how it looks to those who do not have His perspective, much like Mark Antony's perspective, of what is happening. And, it also leads us to believe the intense anguish of the moment might present that temptation. But, He approached the same situation with trust in the Father, full of the Holy Spirit, in the moment when His lifelong mission which was laid before him from the moment of the fall was finally enacted. With His death Jesus had just grounds to demand all humanity as his reward now that humanity had used our sovereignty to unjustly impose death, the penalty for sin, which Jesus had not done, upon an innocent man. And in doing so, all humanity could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and the sovereignty given us at creation was once again able to be submitted wholly to our King.
Wright is very knowledgeable but I doubt this answers many questions that someone may have who is curious about this verse. If that describes you, I want you to know three things. 1) As others have pointed out, referencing what we would call the first verse of Psalm 22 would undoubtedly evoke the entirety of the Psalm to first-century Jews. So all 31 verses are on Christ's mind when He says this. 2) So what does the rest of the psalm entail? In short, victory! All nations will bow down before the Lord. And people of coming generations (that's us) will hear of the Lord's sacrifice and declare His righteousness and because of Jesus ("those who seek Him") we will eat, be satisfied, and be prosperous! Read it for yourself. 3) I'm sure you went researching this verse because it can seem odd to hear Jesus say something that seems different than what we've been taught about God being His father. Well, one of the many things that separated the ancient Israelites from their pagan neighbors throughout history as the Bible was coming together is their authenticity. They were honest about their struggles both physically and spiritually. So a very common theme throughout the scriptures is an initial struggle almost like they've given up on their faith (because it conveys the real emotions that they are going through (recalling Mark 9:24)) before God's righteousness and mercy prevails in the end. All that to say, read your bible! Don't allow yourself to get mucked up by one verse completely out of context. Let the scripture wash over you. You will have questions that you can research AFTER you finish.
Thanks for offering your reflections on this. If you're interested in discussing or engaging with others, you may wish to check out our new online learning platform, Admirato, which hosts our N.T. Wright Online courses. We've got an online community called 'Free Study Hall' that is part of our free 'Read' bundle: www.admirato.org/bundles/read
With all due respect to brother N.T. Wright, I believe he is wrong on how he interprets the Cry of Dereliction and Jesus' use of Psalms 22 in Mark. Basically, Wright takes the emotional turmoil of Jesus in his Cry...and directly takes *that* as being some actual "division" between the Father and the Son, felt by both as such. As Tom Belt has written time and again, this is simply NOT the way to read the Cry. More than this, what brother Wright doesnt seem to understand is that by affirming some actual division between the Father and Son on the Cross, he ends up endangering the very unbreakble unity that grounds OUR OWN divine filiation/adoption as Children of God *IN* Christ's unbreakble Sonship of God. He doesnt seem to see this at all. Anyways, again, respectfully...I strongly believe that brother Wright's take on the Cry of Dereliction as some actual experienced "division" between the Father and Son is exegetically unnecessary and theologically dangerous. And I say that with LOVE for the Body of Christ, not accusation or disdain for Wright personally or professionally.
"Jesus’ Cry of Dereliction is shorthand for the entirety of Ps 22 for which it is the opening line. Psalm 22 is a scapegoat psalm about an innocent servant abandoned and persecuted by his contemporaries but not abandoned by God. For Christ to reference this particular psalm on the Cross is for him to say quite the opposite of what many take his cry, divorced from its context, to mean. Many see here evidence that the Son is in fact abandoned by the Father, that the crowds are right in believing God to have abandoned and forsaken him. For these, this abandonment of sacred scapegoating defines God to the nitty-gritty of triniarian deity itself, that God’s own experience of himself, his own trinitarian oneness, was shattered as God forsook God. Nothing in God was not defined by this separation. This is theological madness, of course. Seen in its proper context (see Rikk Watts on the use of the Psalms in Mark’s gospel), Jesus’s cry says just the opposite. By calling upon Psalm 22, quite literally Jesus is declaring: “I am not forsaken by God - as you all think! I have not been abandoned by God - as you all suppose. God will vindicate me, just like he did the innocent servant of Psalm 22! Wait and see.” All Jesus needs to say in order to declare this is what he actually says, Psalm 22’s opening line. Resurrection proved Jesus right, of course. God is not on the side of the scapegoating crowd abandoning Jesus. That’s not the what the Cry is about. Where is the Father while Jesus is on the Cross? He is right where Jesus said he would be - “…with me.” (John 16.31-33)." anopenorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/not-what-you-suppose/
"Like Ps 22, this is the heart-cry of an innocent person victimized by the crowd. You can hear the crowd hurling insults, asking “Where is your God?” Even the psalmist asks God, “Why have you forgotten me?” Ps 22 all over again. But this can hardly mean the author believes God to have turned his back on him. On the contrary, everything about the psalm presumes the author’s conviction of God’s presence. Indeed, no one who believes God has forsaken him takes the time to complain to God, for to lament or complain to God is to address him in the belief that he hears. The language of the heart in its outcry offers the pain it has, but this is not to despair in believing oneself abandoned by God. The psalmist addresses himself, speaks to his soul, even edits his own complaint. “By day God commands his love and at night his song is with me” (v. 8) is followed immediately (v. 9) by “I say to God, my rock, ‘Why have you forgotten me?’” only to conclude “Why are you downcast O my soul? Hope in God!” Thus the author occupies a place, a perspective, that has not itself fallen under the spell of the lie of godforsakenness, a perspective from which he addresses himself, “Why are you downcast? Why do you feel forsaken?” What must we be to be able thus to address ourselves in such a manner? This is the person as a window open upon and within the transcendent, given by God, not constructed by us from resources provided by anything in this world. This is our givenness as such, and the Cross reveals it authoritatively, finally. Jesus on the Cross could have as easily quoted from Ps 42 as from Ps 22. They are identical frames of reference, both written from the Void." anopenorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2019/05/29/editing-yourself/
Cannot accept the trinity, it is total confusion for the truth seeker. My Savior was a man born of a woman and realized His Father wrote a book about and for Him (Jesus) and He by the freedom of His human will chose to carry out God’s will to the end of being crucified, to the further end of being your Savior and mine. Psalms says , Gods Word is so simple even a child need not err therein. God has always been the Almighty El Shaddai , who had a plan for the redemption of man. He took Eve out of Adam’s rib and so constructed her to have a womb so as down the road a child could be born to a woman who would believe (Mary) to deliver him. Jesus now sits at God’s right hand and when all authority is consummated He Himelf will be subject, and give an account to His Father who gave Him (Jesus) a job to do. How do I relate to Jesus ? In all points as a person was tempted and never sinned. He renewed His mind to God’s Word. If He was God, it would have been easy for Him to be our Savior. Hebrews 2:14, Jesus came in the flesh, the blood always comes from the male side. (God’s ). Point I am making is Jesus was never God and never will be, thank you Father for allowing me to see the simplicity and beauty of your Word in the name of Jesus Christ!
Through Pslam 22 we are given the immeasurable blessing of knowing Christ's thoughts on the cross. The full Psalm shows his perfect trust in the Father despite the fraility of the human body, His immense love for Israel and all mankind, and His certainty of the victory His passion would accomplish. And it ends with:
"Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!"
Your reflections are so encouraging. Rejoicing with you in what our Lord has done!
He spoke those words for us.... That we might never have to say those terrible words....
Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(2 Corinthians 5:18-21 NASB)
Let's talk.
Back in the day the Bible didn't have chapter or verse numbers. When a rabbi wanted to reference a Psalm he would quote the first line of it.
Next, Jesus knew exactly who He was and is, and what He was going to do. Mark 8:31
Finally, if Jesus is referencing a Psalm at the moment of coming into His kingdom, we should very well know what that psalm says.
Psalm 22 uses a literary tool much like Mark Anyony's speech in Act III of Shakespeare's Julius Cesare. Only, Psalm 22 got there way before Shakespeare. The similarities are striking, and none of us get confused on whether Antony liked Ceasare.
Going on..., in verse 6 the psalmist describes himself as a worm, but not any worm. The worm used is a toalah. This was a creature which would climb up on a tree to die by it's own choice, and whose body was crushed to make to crimson dye that would be used in the sanctification of the priesthood.
Moving on..., in 12 and 16 the psalmist describes being surround by bulls, then by dogs. Well, which is it? The answer is both. The standard of the Roman army was a rampant bull. Their execution squads had the nickname "the dogs." Jesus was simultaneously surrounded by bulls and dogs.
17, Jesus had no broken bones. Usually, bones were broken in the legs to speed up crucifixion. But, Jesus was already dead, so a confirming deathblow with a spear was used to make sure, like what might be delivered on a battlefield to make sure there are no surprises.
18, they cast lots for his cloak.
The following roughly half of the Psalm speaks of deliverance and praise for deliverance. It makes no sense that one who knows the content of this psalm then references from the cross, after telling followers exactly what would happen, without realizing what this moment means.
Did Jesus feel despair, likely yes. We can't know precisely what He felt because we aren't feeling His feelings at that moment. The opening of Psalm 22 makes it clear how it looks to those who do not have His perspective, much like Mark Antony's perspective, of what is happening. And, it also leads us to believe the intense anguish of the moment might present that temptation. But, He approached the same situation with trust in the Father, full of the Holy Spirit, in the moment when His lifelong mission which was laid before him from the moment of the fall was finally enacted. With His death Jesus had just grounds to demand all humanity as his reward now that humanity had used our sovereignty to unjustly impose death, the penalty for sin, which Jesus had not done, upon an innocent man. And in doing so, all humanity could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and the sovereignty given us at creation was once again able to be submitted wholly to our King.
Wright is very knowledgeable but I doubt this answers many questions that someone may have who is curious about this verse. If that describes you, I want you to know three things.
1) As others have pointed out, referencing what we would call the first verse of Psalm 22 would undoubtedly evoke the entirety of the Psalm to first-century Jews. So all 31 verses are on Christ's mind when He says this.
2) So what does the rest of the psalm entail? In short, victory! All nations will bow down before the Lord. And people of coming generations (that's us) will hear of the Lord's sacrifice and declare His righteousness and because of Jesus ("those who seek Him") we will eat, be satisfied, and be prosperous! Read it for yourself.
3) I'm sure you went researching this verse because it can seem odd to hear Jesus say something that seems different than what we've been taught about God being His father. Well, one of the many things that separated the ancient Israelites from their pagan neighbors throughout history as the Bible was coming together is their authenticity. They were honest about their struggles both physically and spiritually. So a very common theme throughout the scriptures is an initial struggle almost like they've given up on their faith (because it conveys the real emotions that they are going through (recalling Mark 9:24)) before God's righteousness and mercy prevails in the end.
All that to say, read your bible! Don't allow yourself to get mucked up by one verse completely out of context. Let the scripture wash over you. You will have questions that you can research AFTER you finish.
Thanks for offering your reflections on this.
If you're interested in discussing or engaging with others, you may wish to check out our new online learning platform, Admirato, which hosts our N.T. Wright Online courses. We've got an online community called 'Free Study Hall' that is part of our free 'Read' bundle:
www.admirato.org/bundles/read
With all due respect to brother N.T. Wright, I believe he is wrong on how he interprets the Cry of Dereliction and Jesus' use of Psalms 22 in Mark. Basically, Wright takes the emotional turmoil of Jesus in his Cry...and directly takes *that* as being some actual "division" between the Father and the Son, felt by both as such. As Tom Belt has written time and again, this is simply NOT the way to read the Cry. More than this, what brother Wright doesnt seem to understand is that by affirming some actual division between the Father and Son on the Cross, he ends up endangering the very unbreakble unity that grounds OUR OWN divine filiation/adoption as Children of God *IN* Christ's unbreakble Sonship of God. He doesnt seem to see this at all.
Anyways, again, respectfully...I strongly believe that brother Wright's take on the Cry of Dereliction as some actual experienced "division" between the Father and Son is exegetically unnecessary and theologically dangerous. And I say that with LOVE for the Body of Christ, not accusation or disdain for Wright personally or professionally.
"Jesus’ Cry of Dereliction is shorthand for the entirety of Ps 22 for which it is the opening line. Psalm 22 is a scapegoat psalm about an innocent servant abandoned and persecuted by his contemporaries but not abandoned by God. For Christ to reference this particular psalm on the Cross is for him to say quite the opposite of what many take his cry, divorced from its context, to mean. Many see here evidence that the Son is in fact abandoned by the Father, that the crowds are right in believing God to have abandoned and forsaken him. For these, this abandonment of sacred scapegoating defines God to the nitty-gritty of triniarian deity itself, that God’s own experience of himself, his own trinitarian oneness, was shattered as God forsook God. Nothing in God was not defined by this separation.
This is theological madness, of course. Seen in its proper context (see Rikk Watts on the use of the Psalms in Mark’s gospel), Jesus’s cry says just the opposite. By calling upon Psalm 22, quite literally Jesus is declaring:
“I am not forsaken by God - as you all think! I have not been abandoned by God - as you all suppose. God will vindicate me, just like he did the innocent servant of Psalm 22! Wait and see.”
All Jesus needs to say in order to declare this is what he actually says, Psalm 22’s opening line. Resurrection proved Jesus right, of course. God is not on the side of the scapegoating crowd abandoning Jesus. That’s not the what the Cry is about. Where is the Father while Jesus is on the Cross? He is right where Jesus said he would be - “…with me.” (John 16.31-33)."
anopenorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/not-what-you-suppose/
"Like Ps 22, this is the heart-cry of an innocent person victimized by the crowd. You can hear the crowd hurling insults, asking “Where is your God?” Even the psalmist asks God, “Why have you forgotten me?” Ps 22 all over again. But this can hardly mean the author believes God to have turned his back on him.
On the contrary, everything about the psalm presumes the author’s conviction of God’s presence. Indeed, no one who believes God has forsaken him takes the time to complain to God, for to lament or complain to God is to address him in the belief that he hears. The language of the heart in its outcry offers the pain it has, but this is not to despair in believing oneself abandoned by God.
The psalmist addresses himself, speaks to his soul, even edits his own complaint. “By day God commands his love and at night his song is with me” (v. 8) is followed immediately (v. 9) by “I say to God, my rock, ‘Why have you forgotten me?’” only to conclude “Why are you downcast O my soul? Hope in God!” Thus the author occupies a place, a perspective, that has not itself fallen under the spell of the lie of godforsakenness, a perspective from which he addresses himself, “Why are you downcast? Why do you feel forsaken?” What must we be to be able thus to address ourselves in such a manner? This is the person as a window open upon and within the transcendent, given by God, not constructed by us from resources provided by anything in this world. This is our givenness as such, and the Cross reveals it authoritatively, finally. Jesus on the Cross could have as easily quoted from Ps 42 as from Ps 22. They are identical frames of reference, both written from the Void."
anopenorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2019/05/29/editing-yourself/
Algorithm
Cannot accept the trinity, it is total confusion for the truth seeker. My Savior was a man born of a woman and realized His Father wrote a book about and for Him (Jesus) and He by the freedom of His human will chose to carry out God’s will to the end of being crucified, to the further end of being your Savior and mine. Psalms says , Gods Word is so simple even a child need not err therein. God has always been the Almighty El Shaddai , who had a plan for the redemption of man. He took Eve out of Adam’s rib and so constructed her to have a womb so as down the road a child could be born to a woman who would believe (Mary) to deliver him. Jesus now sits at God’s right hand and when all authority is consummated He Himelf will be subject, and give an account to His Father who gave Him (Jesus) a job to do. How do I relate to Jesus ? In all points as a person was tempted and never sinned. He renewed His mind to God’s Word. If He was God, it would have been easy for Him to be our Savior. Hebrews 2:14, Jesus came in the flesh, the blood always comes from the male side. (God’s ). Point I am making is Jesus was never God and never will be, thank you Father for allowing me to see the simplicity and beauty of your Word in the name of Jesus Christ!
Don't manifest budy deal with the new testament Greek grammar and context of the second temple Jewish beliefs about the nature of God...