The Son of Man Must Suffer Many Things

[TK]

Thanks SteveF- in fact i think i saw that last year. i watch quite a bit of the history channel. my library probably does have it- i'll need to check it out.

I'll probably watch "The Passion of the Christ" at some point before Easter. It's tough to watch. It makes you wonder if it really could have been THAT brutal. As you know, that film makes the scourging out to be almost worse than the crucifixion. Perhaps it was.

TK

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
Psalm 22:14-18 seems to suggest crucifixion.

Meh. I recycle here:

(a) As you may be aware, there is a textual issue here. Most Hebrew manuscripts do not feature the "pierced" verb in this verse. But the majority text here is obscure in meaning, to the point that many would consider there to have been corruption in the transmission of the text. The "pierced" verb is one attempt at mending the text, and it has support from minority textual sources. However, it is not certain whether these minority sources are preserving an earlier, uncorrupted form of the text, or whether they merely attempted to mend the text in the same way. And it is possible that the majority text, though obscure to later readers, would have fit an idiom or an allusion in its original context.

Then again, if one is going to attempt to mend the majority text, there are other options besides the one involving the "pierced" verb. By one means or another, one might arrive at the verb "bound" instead, as is found in ancient translations by Symmachus, Theodotion, and Aquila.

(b) Beyond this - when looking at the variant verb that is rendered "pierced" by some parties, it is almost universally indicative of "digging" in both the Hebrew and the Septuagintal Greek (as in digging a well, a pit, or a tomb). Even if we were to consider this verb to be the proper reading for the text, the construal of "piercing" is not to be taken for granted. One could construe it as laceration; the ISV renders it as "gouged."

Or then again, in light of poetic flexibility in syntax and in parallel with other syntactical forms in the psalm, one might construe the stub of the verse as indicating that the psalmist's hands and feet have dug - perhaps attempting to claw out a hiding place or a way of escape, and/or digging his own grave.

(c) Finally, even if one were to construe the verse so that the psalmist's hands and feet were "pierced" - it is presumptuous to correlate the piercing with crucifixion. The Ancient Near East was a violent place. The Philistines are said to have gouged Samson's eyes out; the Assyrians are portrayed as piercing their captives' faces and leading them thereby, and at least one Assyrian commander claimed to have cut off captives' hands. This sort of harm might have been generic violence or even conventional in some way.

[Jason]

steve wrote:
Psalm 22:14-18 seems to suggest crucifixion.

kaufmannphillips wrote:

Meh. I recycle here:

I partially agree with your objection here since portions of this verse are quoted in the NT as fulfilling events that took place at the crucifixion, but not the latter part of verse 16 which is in dispute here. From my study notes, it appears to be an awkward phrase that's hard to translate.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
Psalm 22:14-18 seems to suggest crucifixion.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Meh. I recycle here: ...

Jason wrote:
I partially agree with your objection here since portions of this verse are quoted in the NT as fulfilling events that took place at the crucifixion, but not the latter part of verse 16 which is in dispute here. From my study notes, it appears to be an awkward phrase that's hard to translate.

It is one thing to say that the NT tacks back to Psalm 22 in its treatment of the crucifixion. It is another thing to say that the psalm itself suggests crucifixion.

[steve7150]

) Finally, even if one were to construe the verse so that the psalmist's hands and feet were "pierced" - it is presumptuous to correlate the piercing with crucifixion. The Ancient Near East was a violent place. The Philistines are said to have gouged Samson's eyes out; the Assyrians are portrayed as piercing their captives' faces and leading them thereby, and at least one Assyrian commander claimed to have cut off captives' hands. This sort of harm might have been generic violence or even conventional in some way.




In Lev 17.11 it says without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins therefore "piercing" in this context would mean that if the New Covenant is true, blood would have to be shed. The NT writers probably interpreted "piercing" from the Septuagent for both Psalm 22 and Isiah 53.
As far as why Jesus had to suffer according to the Tanach by Stone it says "but we regarded him as diseased , stricken by God and afflicted." Isa 53.4 "He was pained for our rebellious sins and oppressed through our inequities, the chastisement upon him was for our benefit, and through his wounds we are healed." 53.5

Although we may not be able to explain it , it appears that our sins are so grievous that the spiritual and physical price to pay for the sins of man required everything Jesus went through otherwise why would the bible say "it pleased God to have him crushed"? The benefit must have been worth the price paid and the word crushed sounds like even more then a crucifixtion.

[steve7150]

Why did Jesus have to suffer so many things? I know why he had to be killed and rise again, and for this I give thanks eternally, but why did it have to be so gruesome, so full of suffering?





Also i want to mention his greatest suffering was probably his spiritual separation from his Father "My God, my God why have you forsaken me" which may be why he sweated drops of blood in the garden.
It does sound very much to me , that he actually was our substitute and experienced everything we deserve both spiritually and physically for our collective sins. It's never said, why it was necessary but apparently it's a law of justice that God won't or can't ignore and apparentely it can be paid by Christ for us because of who he is.