The Fathers on Psalm 22

This post is part of an ongoing series offering translations of various early Church father’s commentaries on the Psalms.

Psalm 22

My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?

Why so far from my call for help,

from my cries of anguish?

My God, I call by day, but you do not answer;

by night, but I have no relief.

Athanasius: “Psalm 22 describes the nature of the death from the lips of the Savior himself…. When he speaks of hands and feet being pierced, what else is meant than the cross? After presenting all these things, the Psalter adds that the Lord suffers these things not for himself, but for our sake.”[1]

Diodore of Tarsus: For a start, therefore, some commentators thought the opening and the rest apply to the Lord, since the verse in the text O God my God, attend to me: why have you abandoned me? was spoken by the Lord; but it is not possible that the rest is recited on the part of the Lord. In fact, it goes on: Why art thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? David’s meaning is this: Lord, be reconciled to me and do not abandon me any further; instead, attend to me, even if my faults put me far from being saved by you (the phrase the words of my groaning meaning the failings themselves). Nevertheless, be faithful to yourself, do not case an eye on the magnitude of the sin but on the magnitude of your loving-kindness. Then the following even still more clearly applies to David than to the Lord—namely—O my God, I cry by day, but thou dost not answer; and by night, but find no rest. Cast your eye on this, Lord, that both by day and by night I cry aloud to you, and when not heard I am led to entertain foolish thoughts—not that I claim you have no providence for human affairs, knowing the reason why I am not heard, the cause being sin. How does this or the rest of the psalm apply to Christ?[2]

Pseudo-Athanasius: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? The psalm is sung by Christ as in the person of all humanity. It narrates what he endured from the Jews when he bore the cross for our sake. O my God, I cry by day, but thou dost not answer; and by night, but find no rest. He asks that the Father turn his face to us, and remove from us sin and the curse and teach us to be humble-minded, just as he was humbled for our sake.[3]


[1] Benjamin Wayman. Make the Words Your Own: An Early Christian Guide to the Psalms (Brewster, M.A.: Paraclete Press: 2014), 3.

[2] TLG 6. Εὐθὺς οὖν τὸ προοίμιον, ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τὴν λέξιν αὐτὴν εἴρηται καὶ παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου τὸ Ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου, πρόσχες μοι, ἱνατί ἐγκατέλιπές με  νομίζουσί τινες καὶ τὸ ἑξῆς ἁρμόζειν· οὐκέτι δὲ συγχωρεῖ λέγεσθαι ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου τὸ ἑξῆς. Ἐπάγει γάρ· Μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς σωτηρίας μου οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου. Ὃ γὰρ βούλεται εἰπεῖν ὁ Δαυεὶδ τοῦτό ἐστιν ὅτι δέσποτα, καταλλάγηθί μοι καὶ μὴ ἀποστρέφου με τοῦ λοιποῦ, ἀλλὰ πρόσχες μοι, εἰ καὶ μακράν με ποιεῖ τὰ πλημμελήματά μου τῆς παρὰ σοῦ σωτηρίας. Τὸ γὰρ «οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου» ἀντὶ τοῦ αὐτὰ τὰ παραπτώματα λέγει. Ἀλλ’ ὅμως, φησί, σὺ σαυτὸν μίμησαι, μὴ πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος ἀποβλέψας τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος τῆς σῆς φιλανθρωπίας. Εἶτα καὶ τὸ ἑξῆς ἔτι σαφέστερον ἁρμόζει τῷ Δαυεὶδ μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ κυρίῳ. Τί γάρ; θεός μου, κεκράξομαι ἡμέρας, καὶ οὐκ εἰσακούσῃ, καὶ νυκτός, καὶ οὐκ εἰς ἄνοιαν ἐμοί. Καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο γάρ, φησίν, ἀπόβλεψον, δέσποτα, ὅτι καὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἐν νυκτὶ ἐπιβοῶμαί σε καὶ μὴ ἀκουόμενος οὐκ εἰς ἀνοήτους ἐκφέρομαι λογισμούς, οὐδὲ λέγω μὴ προνοεῖν σε τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, ἀλλ’ οἶδα τὴν αἰτίαν δι’ ἣν οὐκ ἀκούομαι, τὴν τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑπόθεσιν. Τοῦτο δὲ ποῦ ἁρμόζει τῷ Χριστῷ ἢ τὸ ἑξῆς τοῦ ψαλμοῦ;

[3] Syriac CSCO 387, SYRI 168 V, pg 14-15. CX. PG 27: 131- for Latin and Greek.

Advertisements

Rules and Roles for Women

I’m excited to share that my article, “Rules and Roles for Women: Vocation and Order in the Apostolic Fathers,” was recently published in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. This research was originally undertaken as part of a doctoral seminar at St. Louis University led by Dr. Carolyn Osiek, and I presented my findings at the Evangelical Theological Society’s regional conference in 2017.

Click here to view a PDF of my article. And click here to view the contents of the entire journal.

Thanks to the SBJT for publishing the research!

A Protestant Thinks About the Blessed Virgin Mary

Talking about Mary can feel dangerous, especially if you are a Protestant who adheres to Protestant orthodoxy. Sure, we sing about Mary at Christmas, feel her pain on Good Friday, and maybe even read a little about her in the gospels. But for most American Protestants, almost any other interaction with Mary is borderline Catholic. So we don’t talk about Mary, we don’t engage with Mary, and we don’t think about Mary. Life seems easier that way. But in truth, this approach is historically and theologically problematic.

Some Protestants are aware that there is more to the story of Mary than American Protestantism often lets on. Some might know that the Protestant reformers, for example, held views on Mary different than most Protestant churches today. Martin Luther affirmed Mary’s divine motherhood, perpetual virginity, and immaculate conception. Likewise, John Calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity and espoused (with qualifications) a view of Mary as the “mother of God.” Although these Reformers did not advocate the same robust Marian theology that Rome and the East did in the 16th century, these perspectives are nonetheless quite different than those of their spiritual descendants.

To assume—as many Protestants do—that everything the Church has always believed about Mary should be excoriated as a “Catholic corruption” is simply an error. We must take seriously the biblical and historical insights on who Mary is—and how she is to be approached. Modern Protestants cannot simply be content to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Continue reading

Orthodoxy and Relevance

Christians have long talked about life as a journey, whether as runners or pilgrims or travelers or something else. Journeys tend to involve forks in the road, decisions to make, and obstacles to overcome. Sometimes, the decisions of this journey are between light and darkness, holiness and sin, redemption and backsliding. In these instances, the follower of Christ is called to choose the path of faithfulness. Other times, however, the decisions we make along the way do not seem to be inherently good or bad—it’s not immediately clear whether one path is better than the other.

Such an image of journey has been on my mind lately as I’ve wrestled with what seems to be an increasingly common trope for contemporary Christians: the ongoing debate between orthodoxy and relevance.

Per Merriam-Webster, orthodoxy means “right belief, sound doctrine” and relevance means “the quality or state of being closely connected or appropriate.” Based on those definitions, you wouldn’t expect contemporary Christians to believe that orthodoxy and relevance are at odds with one another. But if you talk to many Christians, you’d be wrong. Let me explain. Continue reading