Psalm 22 and Matthew 27:46

Not open for further replies.

MJ William Denman

Puritan Board Freshman
Spent some time on social media this morning and came upon a "Reverend" who stated the following :-

Jesus wasn't quoting Ps 22: 1 as Ps 22 is a prophecy about Jesus.
The Greek tense for, "It is finished ", is past tense whereas the death of Jesus was future tense as Jesus wasn't dead when He said it, or at the very least, His death was present tense, but it certainly wasn't past tense, and anyone who knows the Bible. Will know that salvation wasn't finished on the cross.

no Jesus didn't quote Ps 22. Ps 22 was a prophecy about Jesus. See
Lk 24: 44. in other words. Ps 22 was quoting Jesus.
He seemingly believes that it's an impossibility to both quote a text that refers directly to something you're saying, and speak those same words in the present moment?

I think he's Word of Faith, which might explain.


Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
First, we must be careful about "engaging" people who aren't on this board, and could not be part of this board for confessional reasons. It's fine to bring up a matter which is found elsewhere, but the replies here are replies to YOUR inquiries. We are responding to the theology or the expressions, and not the MAN.

So, it follows that couching reference to the person whose views are quoted as a (your scarequotes) "Reverend" is abusive ad hominem; and as much as many or all here might agree with the assessment (if only we knew who on earth we were writing about), we should not invite the criticism of ourselves: that we have fallen to mockery of those who disagree with us.

With regard to the actual thoughts expressed in the quote, which appear to deal with Ps.22:1 and Mk.15:34/Mt.27:46. There is some confusion of language, obviously; e.g. was it meant to be presented: "salvation wasn't finished on until the cross?" Has the writer mixed up one or another texts when he references Jn.19:30, "It is finished?" It can't be a direct reference to Ps.22:1 or another v (but possibly an indirect allusion to 22:31).

Then, in the second quote of the author, we have an expression which seems sincere, a philosophical or interpretive perspective (correlated to the ref. Lk.24:44) in which David is said to quote Jesus--as if he was looking into the future and seeing/hearing, and writing what he apprehended. Observations like this should remind us the internet is not a place we have come to expect the clearest of presentation or argumentation. It is paradoxically ephemeral and permanent, informal and indelible.

Analyzing what we have, it appears to me this person is coming at the text with the intent to affirm its inspiration, and the former passage's prophetic quality. He has an interpretive paradigm, which which we might not entirely agree (but perhaps partly), wherein what is predicted of Jesus in words or deeds is derived from a kind of "movie screen projection." Ours might be a more nuanced view, in which what David himself experiences, as a type of Christ and a prophet, has both a personal (typological) statement and a future (antitype) fulfillment.

We should also note that an OT prophet (Isaiah comes to mind) speaks sometimes with a mixture of tenses--Is.53 contains past, present, and future language; which is all predicated of the coming Servant/Messiah when Isaiah makes his utterance. I regard this as indicative of Isaiah's struggle to put into words his ineffable heavenly (i.e. eternal) vision. It is not possible, therefore, to allege simply from a prophet's chosen (or Holy Spirit given) verbal tense whether he is talking about something in his own past/present/future, or in the past/present/future of the subject of prophecy, or the readers of his work (who may live at any time between the prophet's moment and today).

Grant the man his primary assumptions, and his view neither risks heresy nor undermines supernatural inspiration or prophecy. I urge you to judge him charitably, and give him a chance to hear your view offered in a spirit of grace. You may win your brother that way, and enrich his understanding. Alternatively, he may be obtuse and actually accuse anyone who does not walk lockstep with him of being unfaithful to the Scriptures. It is not possible to determine from his words whether he was on the cocky offensive, or was reacting to a perceived attack on his ostensibly biblical views.

Maybe our best lesson to gather is how to be patient with people who are being difficult, and/or difficult to understand for reasons that are not specifically related to the faith they espouse.
Not open for further replies.