Question: Both Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) use Psalms 22:2: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" as the last words spoken by Jesus from the cross. Why should Jesus have thought himself as separated from God at the very moment when, according to Christian theology, he was fulfilling God's plan?
Answer: It is certainly questionable why the Jesus of Christian theology should have expressed this sentiment. Luke and John omit this cry in their crucifixion accounts, and instead, imply that Jesus himself was in complete control of the event. According to Luke, the Final cry of Jesus was: "Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46), words taken from Psalms 31:46. John also views the crucifixion not as an abandonment by God, but as the conclusion of Jesus' divine mission, in which he peacefully surrenders his soul to God: "He bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (John 19:30).
Some Christian commentators explain Jesus' feeling of abandonment, as recorded by Matthew and Mark, by claiming that he had in mind, not only the despairing words of verse 2, but also the trusting words with which this psalm ends. But this is conjecture on their part. What matters is that Jesus made use only of the opening words of the psalm, expressing despair, and failed to continue with the concluding words of the psalm, which are expressive of hope and trust in God.
Are we to believe that Jesus, who is supposed to be God's equal, and His only begotten son, fell into deep depression and anguish because God refused to help him in his hour of need? Wasn't his death essential for the reason Jesus supposedly became incarnate? Why should he offer prayers to be saved from a fate that he is knowingly supposed to endure in order to redeem mankind from the power of sin? How could Jesus have entertained the thought that God forsook him? If Jesus is who Christianity claims him to be then he knew that by his death mankind was given the only means of attaining salvation. If, as the Gospels assume, Jesus knew and predicted long in advance the events surrounding his death, and if these events were neither a surprise nor a defeat, but a working out of a divinely designed plan, what sense does it make for Jesus to complain: "My god, my God, why have You forsaken me?"
Earlier, in Gethsemane, Jesus is alleged to have prayed that God should spare him from having to undergo his bitter fate. However, Jesus added that not his will, but God's will, should be done (Matthew 26:36-45, Mark 14:32-41, Luke 22:41-44). Why did Jesus give vent to feelings of despair and failure while supposedly knowing that he was really acting out a preordained cosmic plan? It is said that he knew what was to occur: "From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day" (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22); and "After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said: 'I am thirsty'" (John 19:28).
On the one hand, did Jesus have foreknowledge of events as the evangelists claim? On the other hand, in those last agonizing minutes on the cross, did he truly feel personally abandoned, his mission coming to grief as recorded by Matthew and Mark? If Jesus did feel abandoned, he could not be the Messiah that the New Testament authors believed him to be. If he were the Messiah, as envisioned by the New Testament, he would have known that the crucifixion was essential to his mission. Yet, if he knew this, he knew he wasn't abandoned, but was working out the divine plan. In that case, his words of despair were deceiving, something unbefitting the true Messiah.
Question: Why do the respective Jewish and Christian renderings of Psalms 22:17 (16 in some versions) differ in the translation of the Hebrew word ka-'ari?
Answer: Christians see in this verse an opportunity to make the claim that the psalmist foretold the piercing of Jesus' hands and feet as part of the crucifixion process. They maintain that the Hebrew word ka-'ari in verse 17 (16 in some versions) should be translated as "pierce." They render this verse as: "They pierced my hands and my feet." This follows the Septuagint version, used by the early Christians, whose error is repeated by the Vulgate and the Syriac. However, it should be noted that the Septuagint underwent textual revisions by Christian copyists in the early centuries of the Common Era; it is not known if the rendering "pierced" is one of those revisions.
In any case, this rendering contains two fallacies. First, assuming that the root of this Hebrew word is krh, "to dig," then the function of the 'aleph in the word ka- 'ari is inexplicable since it is not part of the root. Karah consists only of the Hebrew letters kaph, resh, and he, whereas the word in the Hebrew text, ka-'ari, consists of kaph, 'aleph, resh, and yod. Second, the verb krh, "to dig," does not have the meaning "to pierce." Karah generally refers to the digging of the soil, and is never applied in the Scriptures to the piercing of the flesh (cf. Genesis 26:25; Exodus 21:33; Numbers 21:18; Jeremiah 18:20, 22; Psalms 7:16, 57:7). There are a number of words that are used in Hebrew for piercing the body: rats'a, "to pierce," "to bore with an awl" (Exodus 21:6); dakar, "to pierce" (Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 13:15); nakar, "to pierce," "to bore," "to perforate" (2 Kings 18:21). This last word is used in a very significant sense in the last verse cited: "It [the reed] will go into his hand and pierce it." Any of these words would be far better suited for use in this passage than one that is generally used to denote digging the soil.
The correct interpretation of the verse must be based on the elliptical style of this particular psalm. The text should read, in effect: "Like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and my feet." Ellipsis (the omission of words) is an apt rhetorical device for a composition in which suffering and agony is described. A person in agony does not usually express his feelings in complete round sentences. Such a person is capable of exclaiming only the most critical words of his thoughts and feelings. In this case: "Like a lion . . . my hands and my feet!" Similarly, in verse 1 we find broken phrases rather than whole sentences: "Far from helping me . . . the words of my roaring."
Examining Psalm 22, we find that verses 17, 21, and 22 express parallel thoughts. In verse 17, the psalmist speaks of "dogs" and "a lion," which are metaphoric representations of his enemies, and in verses 21 and 22 respectively, he beseeches the Almighty to save him "from a dog's paw" and "from a lion's mouth." Thus, in verse 17, where he complains of the lion, the missing words are understood, and it is to be read: "Like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and my feet." This is the most plausible interpretation of the text. Rashi's interpretation of the verse--"As if crushed by the mouth of a lion are my hands and my feet"--is similar in thought to the one we have offered though differently stated. While these interpretations fit with the diction of the entire psalm, the Christian translation--"They pierced my hands and my feet"--does not.
Grammatical proof of the correctness of the Masoretic text is seen by the use of the qamatz under the kaph in ka-'ari, which is the result of an assimilated definite article. Thus, the literal translation would be "Like the lion. . . ." While in English, a noun used in a general sense is recognized by having no article, either definite or indefinite, in Hebrew, as well as in many other languages, such nouns take the definite article. For example, "Work is good for man" in Hebrew would be "The work is good for man." (Cf. Amos 5:19 with the English translation.)
The metaphorical terminology used by the psalmist to express in physical terms his mental anguish is comparable to similar usage found in Jeremiah 23:9. There the prophet exclaims: "My heart within me is broken, all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine has overcome."
As a result of a careful study of this verse, we see that the Christian claim that Psalms 22:17 (16 in some versions) foretells that Jesus' hands and feet would be pierced has no truth to it.
Question: Did the Roman soldiers divide up Jesus' clothing in fulfillment of Psalms 22:19 (18 in some versions)?
Answer: Psalms 22:19 (18 in some versions) reads: "They divide my clothes among them, and for my garment they cast lots." A misunderstanding by the author of the Gospel of John influenced the way he applied this verse to his version of the division-of-the-clothing incident (John 19:24; cf. Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34).
The author of John misinterpreted the Hebrew parallelism as referring to two separate acts. In biblical poetry, which is based on parallel structure, the repetition of an idea does not indicate its duplication in reality (cf. Zechariah 9:9). Seeking to harmonize this crucifixion story with the psalm, John states that the soldiers divided Jesus' garments among themselves, but that they could not divide the inner garment, which was seamless, so they cast lots for it. "They said therefore to one another: 'Let us not tear it, but let us decide by lot whose it will be'" that the Scripture might be fulfilled: 'They divided my outer garment among themselves, and for my apparel they cast lots'" (John 19:24). Evidently, John created this legendary casting of lots to meet what he believed to be a messianic requirement of Psalm 22. In this way, the crucifixion tradition was rounded out to agree with what John thought was the prophetic message of this psalm.
But, what is the truth of the New Testament claims? If Jesus was scourged as part of the crucifixion process and then his clothes were once again placed on his wounded bloody body (Matthew 27:26, 31; Mark 15:15, 20, John 19:1) why would the soldiers want to divide up these blood soaked garments? Indeed, if the scourging continued along the route to the crucifixion, Jesus' clothing would be nothing but bloody rags of no value to the soldiers. For that matter, it is questionable if the soldiers would have placed a purple robe on the scourged body of Jesus. Purpled dyed material was extremely expensive and reserved for royalty.
It is probably for this reason that the story arose that he was wrapped in a purple robe, the color symbolic of royalty. The truth is that there is no truth to the New Testament claims.
Kind Regards