PSALM 22: FROM TRIAL TO TRIUMPH

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2004 by Patterson, Richard D

I. INTRODUCTION

It has long been this writer's contention that the application of the Scriptures should be based upon careful exegetical procedures, which wherever possible consist in properly balanced grammatical, historical/cultural, literary, and theological data. Elsewhere I have termed this fourfold approach "the chair of (biblical) hermeneutics."1 Admittedly, not every biblical passage yields equal or sufficient information in all four categories. Thus prose texts most readily lend themselves to such a full-orbed approach, while the inherent qualities of poetry pose more of a challenge.2 Moreover, each literary genre exercises its own constraints.

Psalm 22 has received the attention of able Jewish and Christian expositors through the centuries.3 Yet few have considered the third "leg" of the "chair of hermeneutics." Nevertheless, the literary approach is an indispensable tool for exegesis. As Michael Travers points out, "Indeed, exegesis is incomplete without proper attention being paid to the literary features of the Biblical passage in question. . . . before a reader can judge a Biblical text authoritatively, he must pay adequate attention to matters of genre and form as well as matters of theology and history."4

Mindful of the above-mentioned difficulties, the following study shall undertake an examination of Psalm 22 in an effort to gather and use the available data for all four "legs" of the "hermeneutical chair" in order to gain the psalm's full impact. In so doing it is hoped that the result will prove to be a contribution to the ongoing study of this crucial psalm.

1. Historical context. The attempt to locate Psalm 22 in its historical context is difficult at best. Delitzsch suggests a possible but not exhaustive background in Saul's persecution of David in the Desert of Maon (1 Sam 23: 25-26).5 One might just as plausibly suggest the earlier days when David was alone and suffering incessantly at the hands of Saul (e.g. 1 Sam 20; 21:1-15) or the time of his flight from Absalom (2 Sam 15-17) or his observations in later years born of disillusion.6 One must acknowledge, however, that Cohen is probably correct in stating, "The language is not always agreeable to the hypothesis that David voices his personal distress under Saul's persecution."7

The difficulty of locating a precise occasion in David's life has led many scholars to postulate an entirely different Sitz im Leben for the psalm.8 Thus many propose that the writer is an ideal person suffering at the hands of others whose identity is unknown.9 Others suggest that the unknown person is someone who is suffering a grave illness. "If we are allowed a guess, the original cause of the distress may have been illness aggravated by the attitude of the Psalmist's fellow men, as well as by his own doubts and the spiritual dilemma."10 Because he accepted the psalm's title as a reference to Esther on the basis of the Talmud, the Hebrew scholar Kimchi "referred the Psalm to the period of Haman's plot of annihilation."11 Hitzig and Holladay compared the similarity of sentiment with the soliloquies of Jeremiah: "Hitzig persists in his view, that Jeremiah composed the first portion when cast into prison as an apostate, and the second portion in the court of the prison, when placed under milder restraint."12 Craigie views the setting of the psalm in connection with Israel's liturgy. "It is probable that a liturgy such as this was used for any person who was sick and threatened with death."13 Many are convinced that the psalm has its setting in the exilic or post-exilic periods, perhaps even as late as the Maccabean Era.14

Yet even setting aside the ascription of the psalm to David in the psalm's title, its internal features bear the marks of Davidic authority. Not only in its general reflection of David's stormy career but in the details of the psalm one can see a close resemblance to 2 Samuel 22 (cf. 2 Sam 22:4-7, 17-20, 49-50), whose narrative introduction clearly attests Davidic authorship. As well, the psalm's use by Jesus, the Messiah and Davidic heir par excellence, argues for the traditional view that the psalm was written by David. Although we cannot know the precise occasion of its writing, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, one can do little better than accept the traditional view that the psalm is David's.

2. Literary context. Our examination of the psalm's literary features will proceed in three areas: (1) its unity; (2) its structure and genre; and (3) its imagery.15

a. The unity of the psalm. Although some have viewed Psalm 22 as originating from two different poetic pieces, the vast majority of exegetes treat the psalm as a unified product of a single author (or editor).16 Our study will endorse the majority opinion.

b. The structure and genre of the psalm. Although many approaches to the psalm's structure and genre have been made, the psalm is most commonly treated in one of two ways. Scholars such as Anderson, Auffret, Kidner, Leupold, Perowne, Tostengard, and Westermann argue for a two-part structure of the psalm. This characteristically takes the form of lament or appeal for help (vv. 1-21) and thanksgiving/praise (vv. 22-31). Thus J. L. Mays observes, "The whole is composed of a full-scale prayer for help (verses 1-21) and a full-scale psalm of praise for help (verses 22-31)."17 Others such as Alexander, Cohen, Heinemann, and Schaefer prefer three equal parts (vv. 1-10, 11-21, 22-31). Heinemann's presentation is typical. Noting characteristic literary devices, he suggests the following arrangement: introductory address (vv. 1-10), petition (vv. 11-21), and praise (vv. 22-31).