Ps 3*21 (20). According to Jn 19»6 tiie legs of Jesus were not broken, in order that tiie scripture inigiit be fulfilled, 'A bone of liim sliall not be broken.' In the psalm the verse is intended to express tiie general care whicii Jeiiovah exercises over tiie righteous, and therefore it could iiardly be re- garded as an apt citation in connexion witii tiie crucifixion of Jesus ; but more probably it is in- tended to be, primarily, a reminiscence of Ex 12^", Nu 9'2, which prescribe tiiat tiie bones of the Paschal lamb shall not be broken. In tliat case tiie quotation would convey to a Jewisli ear tlie subtle reminder that Jesus was tiie true Paschal lanil).
Ps 40. In He lO'-' part of tiiis psalm (vv.7-« («-«)) is quoted, and interpreted as a prayer of Christ on coming into the world ; and here, again, a large part of the argument turns upon tlie faulty text of the LXX. Tiie author is arguing tiiat tlie con- tinual sacrifices of tiie OT dispensation have been for ever abolished by the one sacrifice of Clirist. In the bodif wliicii God prepared for Him, He per- fectly fulfilled tiie Divine will by the sacrifice of Himself. But tiie words ' a body didst thou prepare for me,' whicii tiie author adopts from tiie LXX, do not represent tlie Heb. of 40''i''', wliicii reads, 'earn hast tliou digged for me.' Fortunately the origin of the mistake is not far to seek. Tiie word for 'ears' is OTIA, and for ' ijody ' S^MA. The S
at tiie end of Hfc)EAPIi;AS was apparently dupli- cated, and tiien tiie following OTIA was easily transformed into QMA ; so tiiat out of an originally correct translation, 'ears,' a new word arose, which uniiappily lent itself to a dogmatic interpretation almost tiie opposite of tiiat intended by the Psalmist. His point is that God demands not sacrifice but obedience — tiie ready ear to iiear ; tiie point in tiie Epistle is, not the ever-recurring sacrifice, but tiie one sacrifice of Clirist's body. As, however, tlie etliical worth, in one of its aspects, of Clirist's sacrifice was the perfect obedience whicii it illus- trated, we may say tliat liere, as in the case of Ps 16, the conclusion is essentially sound, thougli the argument is fallacious, at least in so far as it rests upon a mistranslation. Historically considered, tiie psalm appears to be a prayer expressing the mingled feelings of the people after tlieir return from exile. It is one of the three great psalms (cf. 50. 51) whicii emi>liatically assert the superiority of obedience and contrition over sacrifice.
Ps 411" (9). In the Gospel of John, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is a strong tendency towards the Messianic interpretation of passages in which, to say the least, that interpretation is not necessary. According to Jn 13'* the treachery of Judas is said to have taken place in accordance with tlie scripture, whicii must be fulfilled, ' He that eatetli my bread lifted up his iieel against me.' In other words, Ps 4P°(^)is supposed to have Clirist for its theme. That this is impossible, however, is clearly shown by the very verse of the psalm wliicii follows tiie quotation, ' Tliou, Jehovah, have mercy upon me, and raise me up, that I may requite tiiem.' It is much more probable that Jesus simply used the words wliicli St. Mark records of Him, — words, no doubt, suggested by tlie psalm, ' One of you shall betray me, even he tiiat eateth witli me.' He may have cited the words of tlie psalm as apposite rather tlian proplietic.
Ps 45. For long Ps 45 lias enjoyed among Chris- tian expositors the reputation of celebrating the love of Christ for His Church. But a glance at the psalm is enough to show that it, like others, has its roots in liistory ; the pointed and definite refer- ence to ' tlie daughter of Tyre ' renders any otiier interpretation extremely improbable. It is appar- ently a song in celebration of the marriage of some king of Israel or Judah witii a foreign princess. YyTf. (6f.) — I fpi^y throne, O God, is for ever and ever,' etc. — are cited in He F^- and interpreted as refer- ring to tlie Son. Considering that shortly before, V.-, and immediately after, v.'", tiie autlior of the Epistle touches upon tlie pre-existence of Christ, tiie direct naming of the royal subject of the psalm as ' God ' would be peculiarly welcome. Witli wiiat admirable cogency could the psalm thus be interpreted of Clirist, and iiow little could it be fairly referred to any one else ! P'or the passages wiiicli some have adduced to prove that dmSx could stand for 'judges' (cf. Ex 22"-) — thougli tiiey do not really prove as much — would in any case be insufficient to siiow that an ordinary iiuinan king could be addressed in tiie word Elohun ; the king of tiie psalm must tiierefore be Divine. It has been conjectured, iiowever, witii great acuteness and prol)al)iiity, tiiat instead of d'hSn 'God,' tiie original reading was n-T 'shall lie' ('Tn;). Tiiis may have been carelessly read as nin', and tlien altered by the Eiohistic redactors of Pss 42-83 to dm'^x. In tiiat case the important dogmatic text, ' Tiiy tiirone, 0 God, is for ever and ever,' becomes tlie innocent assertion tiiat ' thy tiirone shrtll be for ever and ever,' .and witli the change in tiie text, tiie Messianic interpretation v.anislies, especially as tiie next verse speaks of liis companions. Of .a iiuman Icing this is intelligible, but who would tiie companions of the Messiah be ?