A number of early
manuscripts lack the prayer/citation, hence it is often bracketed off in
English translations, indicative of its being a later addition to the Lucan
account. However, aside from whether it is ‘original’ or not, its feel remains
quintessentially ‘Lucan’; there are parallels appeals to human ignorance later
on in Acts (3.17; 13.27), and Stephen appropriates similar language in his prayer
for his oppressors (Acts 7.60). either way, though, the forgiving demeanour
fits ill with Psalm 22’s depiction of the righteous sufferer, whose intent
towards his opponents is generally critical and negative (e.g., 22.12-13, 16,
21) rather than forgiving or merciful. This cautions against moving too quickly
to apply the full gamut of Psalm 22 to the Lucan Passion scene; that is, Luke
can use Psalm 22 for mockery purposes and for the splitting of clothes, but
does so selectively and without utilizing the full ‘claim’ of the psalm. This likewise
cautions, then, for the treatment of Mark, and the automatic assumption that
the whole of the psalm is used; Luke would seem to evidence an instance where
the gospel writer is selective about which parts are ‘appropriate’ and which
are not.
Instead, Luke 23.3a, genuine
or otherwise, may be understood as an allusion to Leviticus 5.17-18 and the
implications that even sins committed in ignorance necessitate some form of
atoning function. As such, it is possible that Isaiah 53.11-12, and its
vicarious elements, continues to be in Luke’s mind here, and/or it might also
perhaps pick up on the forgiveness of sins aspect of the Last Supper and the
new covenant imagery therein. More pertinent, though, is the correlation of
Luke 23.34a with the ethos and flavour of Psalm 31.5, cited by Luke’s Jesus as
his last words (23.46), and exhibiting a different tenor or feel from Psalm
22.1. Both texts are addressed to God as ‘Father’ and pertain to a righteous—or
dikaios—figure, but Luke 23.34a presents more the ethos of Psalm 31.
Indeed, Psalm 31 is, like
the previously encountered Psalm 22 and 69, another example of the righteous sufferer
tradition. The sufferer is scorned by his/her adversaries (31.11) but
faithfully endures (31.14-15), calls out for help from God (31.16-18) and is
vindicated accordingly (31.21-22). Such righteous suffering is akin to that of
Psalm 22 but with one significant difference, namely that the psalmist of Psalm
31 does not experience abandonment by God. God is privy to and cognizant of the
suffering endured (31.6-8), and the psalmist is confident in the divine vindication
of the righteous one (31.1-3). Luke’s citation of the psalm is therefore in
tandem with and contributory to the overall tenor of the Lucan Passion
Narrative—it is ‘the culmination of Jesus’s trust in his Father and his determination
to do his will.’ It is the very association of Jesus as God’s righteous one
that shapes Luke’s Passion narration, and thereby his choice of OT citation; a
Palm 22.1-type cry of dereliction would have militated against that, as Luke’s
Jesus is not abandoned (as we have seen, there has been no citation of Zech.
13.7). Instead placing Psalm 31.5 on Jesus’s lips ‘intensifies the second part
of the Gethsemane prayer: but not my will but yours’. The lack of the
cry of dereliction also means there is no confusion with Elijah (cf. Mark
15.35-36), and therefore that Passion Narrative element is missing from Luke’s
account. (David Allen, According to the Scriptures: The Death of Christ in
the Old Testament and the New [Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2025], 84-85)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
