I. “The author of the psalm.” This psalm is said to have been composed by David: “A Psalm of David;” compare the notes at the title of Psalms 3:1-8. It cannot be absolutely demonstrated that these titles to the psalms are all of them correct, as it cannot be supposed that they were affixed to them by the authors of the psalms themselves; and it is not absolutely known by whom they were prefixed. Of course there is no certain evidence that they were attached to the psalms by an inspired writer. Still they are to be presumed to be correct unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary. In this case there seems to be none. There is nothing in the psalm itself that is inconsistent with the supposition, and there are no historical evidences in the case which would make it necessary for us to set the title aside. The affixing of this title to the psalm undoubtedly implies that it wits the prevailing opinion, at the time when the collection of Psalms was made, that this was a psalm of David. Rosenmuller indeed doubts this; but he assigns no historical reasons for the doubt. Hitzig supposes that the author was Jeremiah, on the ground, as he says, that it is “in the broad and flowing style” of Jeremiah, but this is mere conjecture.
It is not necessary, however, to suppose that David, though he was the author of the psalm, refers to himself. If it be admitted that he was inspired, or even if “this” should be doubted, it would still be an open question to whom the psalm refers - whether to himself as an individual; - whether to an “imaginary” sufferer, designing to illustrate the feelings of piety in a time of sorrow; whether to the people of God, considered collectively; or whether to the Messiah. The mere fact of the “authorship” of the psalm determines none of these questions.
It is not known, and it cannot now be determined, on what occasion the psalm was written. It is expressive of the feelings of a pious sufferer, - of one who appears to be forsaken by God and by man. Perhaps there may have been occasions in the life of David to which the expressions in the psalm may have been applicable; but if so, it is impossible now to determine on which “one” of these trials of his life the psalm was composed. There is no one period in which, from the historical records of his life, we could be able to make out all the circumstances which are mentioned in the psalm. There are, however, expressions in it which in their intensity, as expressing wretchedness and woe, seem to go beyond anything that occurred in his experience, and which lead naturally to the question whether he did not refer to some other than himself.
II. “The contents of the psalm.” Various divisions of the psalm have been proposed, but there are no “marked” and “prominent” divisions in the psalm itself. Hengstenberg, and after him Prof. Alexander, divide it into three parts, or strophes,
(1) Psalms 22:1-10;
(2) Psalms 22:12-21;
(3) Psalms 22:22-31.
According to this, each strophe, as Hengstenberg remarks, would consist of ten verses - with an intermediate verse between the 10th and the 12th Psalms 22:11 connecting the first and second parts. Prof. Alexander supposes that Psalms 22:21 is a connecting link also between the second and third parts.
This division, however, seems fanciful and arbitrary; and it will present a more simple and clear view of the psalm to regard it as embracing two main things: I. The condition of the sufferer; and II. His consolations or supports in his travels.
I. The condition of the sufferer. This consists of two parts:
(1) His sufferings as derived from God, or as they spring from God;
(2) as they are derived from men, or as they spring from the treatment which he receives from men.
(1) As they are derived from God, Psalms 22:1-2.
(a) He is forsaken of God, Psalms 22:1.
(b) He cries to him day and night (or continually), and receives no answer,Psalms 22:2 Psalms 22:2.
His prayer seems not to be heard, and he is left to suffer apparently unpitied and alone.
(2) his sufferings as derived front men, as produced by the treatment which he received from men.
Here there are “five” specifications; “five” sources of his affliction and sorrow.
“First.” He was despised, reproached, derided by them in the midst of his other sufferings, Psalms 22:6-8; especially his piety, or confidence in God was ridiculed, for it now seemed as if God had abandoned him.
“Second.” His enemies were fierce and ravenous as strong bulls of Bashan, or as a ravening and roaring lion, Psalms 22:12-13.
“Third.” His sufferings were intense, so that his whole frame was relaxed and prostrated and crushed; he seemed to be poured out like water, and all his bones were out of joint; his heart was melted like wax; his strength was dried up like a potsherd; his tongue clave to his jaws, and he was brought into the dust of death, Psalms 22:14-15.
“Fourth.” His enemies pierced his hands and his feet, Psalms 22:16.
“Fifth.” They stripped him of his raiment, and parted his garments among themselves,Psalms 22:18 Psalms 22:18.
II. His consolations or supports in his trials. These are scattered through the psalm, and consist of the following things:
(l) His unshaken confidence in God as holy, Psalms 22:3.
(2) his faith in God as the hearer of prayer, and especially on the ground that he “had” heard prayer in times past, Psalms 22:4-5.
(3) The fact that he had been himself early devoted to God, and cast upon him as his Protector from very childhood, and trained up for him, Psalms 22:9-11.
(4) The anticipated cricket or result of what he was then suffering, or the things to be accomplished “by” his sufferings, Psalms 22:19-31. There are mainly “two” things implied here as to the anticipated result of his sufferings:
(a) The establishment of a great principle that would “encourage” the friends of God, or those whom the sufferer calls his “brethren,” Psalms 22:22-26.
(b) The world would be converted as the result of his sufferings, and the kingdom of God would be set up everywhere among men, Psalms 22:27-31,
These views of the psalm are apparent on its time, or are such as are suggested by the analysis without reference to the inquiry who was the author, or to whom it refers. The analysis of the psalm, however, necessarily leads:
III. To the inquiry “to whom the psalm refers:”
(1) It refers to a sufferer, and it is designed to describe his condition and his feelings, when apparently forsaken by God and man. At the same time, he is a “pious” sufferer, or one who has real trust in God, though God “appears” to have forsaken him.
(2) There seems to be no reason to suppose that the psalm refers to David himself, or that he means to describe his own feelings and condition. He was indeed a sufferer; and he often refers to his own sufferings in the Psalms. It is true, also, that there are expressions in this psalm which would be applicable to him, or which might refer to his condition. But there are none which can be regarded as “exclusively” applicable to him, and there are some which could “not” be applied to him. Of the latter class are the expressions, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” Psalms 22:16; “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture,” Psalms 22:18. We know of no circumstances in the life of David to which these expressions would be applicable; we have no reason to suppose that there were any in which what is here said would have been literally true of him. On the other hand, this language cannot with propriety be regarded as “figurative,” for we cannot conceive of any circumstances which would be described by such figures of speech. The whole east of the psalm, moreover, is different from those in which David refers to his own sufferings.
(3) The psalm refers to a case not then actually before the psalmist, but to some case that might or would occur, as an individual or as a representative case. So far as the mere “language” of the psalm is concerned, this might have been a case purely imaginary, and the design might have been to describe a pious sufferer who seemed to be forsaken both by God and man, or to illustrate the nature of true submission to God “in” such trials. In other words, it might have been a “supposed” case intended to show the nature of real religion under the severest forms of suffering; and, as a poet, the author of the psalm may have pictured to himself such an instance in order to show what the feelings of true piety would suggest in such circumstances, or what would be the effect of true religion then. It is true that this interpretation would not be quite obvious and natural, for we usually find such descriptions connected with real cases; but I am merely saying that “so far as the language of the psalm is concerned,” if we had no other way to ascertain its meaning, this interpretation would be allowable - and if we could not attach the psalm properly to any real person, this explanation would be admissible. But in this case such an interpretation is unnecessary, for there “is” a real person to whom the language is applicable, and one to whom we may properly suppose an inspired writer would refer in the language which is used here.
(4) The psalm refers, therefore, I apprehend, originally and exclusively, to the Messiah. The proof of this is to be found in such circumstances as the following:
(a) Portions of it are expressly applied to him in the New Testament. The cry in Psalms 22:1, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” is the very one used by the Redeemer when on the cross, Matthew 27:46. The language Psalms 22:8, “He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him; let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him,” is the taunt which his enemies used as they passed by the cross, Matthew 27:43. The language Psalms 22:18, “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture,” is more than once expressly applied to him; and, in one instance, with the unequivocal statement that it was done “that the Scripture might be fulfilled,” John 19:24. Compare Luke 23:34.
(b) We have evidence derived from the early Jewish interpreters. The modern Jews, indeed, affirm that it has no reference to the Messiah, for they reject the idea of a suffering Messiah altogether. Some of them suppose that it refers to David, and endeavor to find a fulfillment of it in his persecutions and trials. Others, as Kimchi and Jarchi, suppose that the psalm is applicable to the suffering Jewish people, and apply it to them in their trials and dispersions, as if “they” were forsaken of God. Some have supposed that it refers to the condition of the Jews in Babylon. But this was not the prevailing interpretation among the ancient Jewish interpreters. See Jo. H. Michaelis, Com. in Ps., p. 138; and Schottgen de Messia, pp. 232ff. It is true that the opinion of the ancient Jews does not “demonstrate” that the psalm refers to the Messiah; but the fact that they “held” that opinion is an important circumstance in showing what is its fair and obvious interpretation, for there was everything to induce “them” to reject this explanation. In general, the Jews who lived in the times referred to here were opposed to the idea of a suffering Messiah; and the fact that they admitted the applicability of the psalm to the Messiah must have embarrassed them not a little in their early controversies with Christians, for the early Christians with one voice maintained that it referred to the Messiah, and that it was fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. The correspondence between the psalm and his sufferings was one of the arguments on which they relied in proving that he was the Christ; and if the Jews admitted that the psalm had reference to the Messiah, they would find it hard to meet the force of this argument. Their admission, therefore, under these circumstances, that it referred to the Messiah, could have arisen only from the fair and obvious interpretation of the psalm which it was not easy to set aside.
(c) The internal character of the psalm shows that it refers to the Messiah. This will appear more conclusively in the course of the exposition, in the entire correspondence as will be seen there between the psalm and the sufferings of the Redeemer. It will be found that really of the expressions in the psalm are as applicable to him as they would be if they were “history” instead of “prophecy;” if they had been penned “after,” instead of having been penned “before” his sufferings occurred. It is sufficient here to refer to the expressions in Psalms 22:1, note; Psalms 22:7-8, note; Psalms 22:16, note; and Psalms 22:18, note.
(d) There is no improbability in supposing that David here refers to the Messiah. It cannot be denied that there is, in the Old Testament, from some cause, a frequent reference to a personage who was expected to appear in future time, and who was called “the Messiah.” And it cannot be denied that he is often represented as a sufferer, and that his humiliation and sufferings are often described. “Somehow,” beyond all question, the Jewish writers had formed the conception of such a personage, and they exhaust the powers of their native tongue in their description of his person and his work. He was, in fact, their “hero;” he to whom they always looked, and on whom their descriptions usually terminated, wherever they began. Compare Isaiah 53:1-12, notes; and Daniel 9, notes. Now, if it be admitted that the Jewish writers were “inspired,” and that this view of the Messiah had been furnished by the Spirit of inspiration, nothing is more natural than to expect to find such descriptions of the Messiah as occur in this psalm; and if it should be said that they were “not” inspired, and that this anticipation was wholly a poetic fiction - a matter of national vanity, - a mere favorite “idea” of the nation - nothing would even then be more natural than that there should be a frequent reference to this imaginary person in their writings; and nothing would be more probable than that we should find frequent reference to him in the writings of one who was so deeply imbued with the national spirit, and who occupied so high a position among the poets of the nation, as David. Inspired or uninspired, then, there is the strongest probability that there would be in their poetic writings such allusions to the Messiah as we have in this psalm.
An examination of the objections to the interpretation which refers the psalm to the Messiah, may be found in Hengstenberg’s Christology, vol. i, pp. 145-147.
The title of the psalm is, “To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar.” On the meaning of the expression “chief Musician,” see the notes at the title to Psalms 4:1-8. The expression “Aijeleth Shahar” is rendered in the margin, “the hind of the morning.” The word “Aijeleth” - אילת 'ayĕlĕth - means a “hind,” and is used as a term of endearment toward a female, Proverbs 5:19. It is found in Genesis 49:21, “Naphtali is a “hind” let loose.” Also in 2 Samuel 22:34; Job 39:1; Psalms 18:33; Song of Solomon 2:7; Song of Solomon 3:5; Habakkuk 3:19; in each of which places it is rendered in the singular “hind,” and in the plural “hinds.” The word “Shahar” - שׁחר shachar - means “the aurora, the dawn, the morning.” “The phrase ‘hind of the dawn’ probably stands for the morning sun scattering his first rays upon the earth, as the Arabian poets call the rising sun “the gazelle,” comparing his rays with the horns of that animal.”
Gesenius, Lexicon - The image is one of gladness, “as if” the rays of the sun leaped and bounded over the hills with joyousness as the hart or hind does. But why such a title is given to this psalm can be only a matter of conjecture. It would seem most probable that these words were the beginning of some other psalm or hymn that was sung to a set piece of music, and that the design was, as indicated by this title, that this psalm was to be sung to the same tune. A tune might not improbably be known then, as it is in fact sometimes now, by the first or opening words of the piece which was commonly sung in that measure. Thus we have hynms so constantly sung to certain tunes that the mention of the first line would be a sufficient suggestion of the strain of music in which it was to be sung. It would be, for example, sufficient to say that it was to be sung to the same tune as “From Greenland’s icy mountains;” or, “All hail the power of Jesus’ name;” or, “I would not live alway.” Other views of the meaning of the phrase may be seen in Rosenmuller, “Com. in loc.” Rosenmuller himself adopts the views here expressed, and sustains his opinion by the authority of Bochart.