Studies In The Psalms.
By The Rev. W. O. E. Oesterley,
D.D.
Honorary Secretary Of The Society Of Sacred Study
(London Diocese
Honorary Assistant Secretary Of The Church Reading
Union (London Diocese
London
John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1911
Dedicated To The Council And Members Of The Church
Reading Union
(London Diocese)
http://www.creationismonline.com/TSK/Immortality.html
PREFATORY NOTE
THE following
pages contain the elaboration of some lectures given to members of the Church
Reading Union in various London centres. There was not the remotest original intention
of publishing them, and this is now only done in deference to numerous requests
made from different quarters. If these lectures in their present, fuller, form
should be found to be of use to members of this admirable Union, the considerable
labour involved in preparing them will be amply repaid.
W. O. E. OESTERLEY.
LONDON, April 1911.
PREFATORY NOTE
INTRODUCTION
1. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD.
1. Preliminary Considerations
2. The First Stage of Belief
3. The Second Stage of Belief
5. The Final Stage of Belief
6. The Personality of God
7. The Relationship between God and man
8. Summary
2. THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
1. The Different Words for Sin used in the Psalms
2. Chattath ("Sin
")
3. Avon ("Iniquity")
4. Pesha ("Transgression")
5. Resha
("Wickedness"), etc.
3. THE ORIGIN OF SIN
1. Sin taken for granted
2. Sin originates in man
3. Sin originates with God, as the Creator of all
things
4. THE ESSENCE OF SIN
1. Enmity towards God
2. Wilful transgression of the divine commands
3. Enmity towards the godly
5. THE SENSE OF SIN
1. The universality of Sin
2. Confession of sins
6. THE SENSE OF INNOCENCE
1. The inner witness
2. The sense of innocence in the psalmists accounted
for
7. THE RESULTS OF SIN
1. Punishment in this life
2. Punishment in the world to come
8. THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN
1. Words used in the Psalms for the obliteration of
sins
(a) Nasa ("to lift up," "to bear
")
(b) Kissah (" to cover
")
(c) Kipper (" to cover ")
(d) Salach (" to
forgive ")
(e) Machah (" to blot
out ")
(f) Rapha (" to heal ")
(g) Kabas (" to wash
")
(h) Tahar ("to cleanse")
(i) Nagah
("to be clean ")
(j) Padah (" to ransom
")
2. The teaching on Forgiveness, comparatively
speaking, meagre; the reasons for this
3. Forgiveness to the godly is free and unconditional
4. A mediating agency in connection with Forgiveness
5. Summary
9. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FUTURE LIFE
1. Sheol, the abode of the departed
2. The Rephaim, the dwellers in Sheol
3. God and Sheol
4. The Posterity of the Righteous
5. The Final Development
6. Summary
THE Book of Psalms
has come down to us as one book; the Christian Church took it over in this form
from the Jewish Church. But nobody in these days would for that reason regard
it as a homogeneous work. Not much importance can be placed on the ascriptions
of authorship contained in many of the titles to the psalms found in the Hebrew
Bible, for these are confessedly elements belonging to a tradition subsequent
to the time of composition of such psalms. But those titles are in themselves a
witness to the belief among the Jews in pre-Christian times that the Psalter
was not a unity as regards author ship. The critical study of the Psalms has shown
not only that this book is of composite authorship, but that the different
psalms belong to different ages; how great a period of time is covered between
the earliest and latest psalms it would be difficult to say; scholars are much
divided in their opinions upon the subject. One thing, however, it may be
confidently asserted, is certain, and that is, that whatever that period is,
and whoever the authors may have been, many of the conceptions contained in the
Psalms reflect developments of thought among pious Israelites from a time long
anterior to the foundation of the Monarchy to a time which may be roughly
described as the Maccabaean period.
Of these
conceptions there are three sets to the consideration of which the following pages
are devoted: those concerning God, those concerning Sin, and those concerning the
Future Life. Those three subjects are closely inter-related. Both the
conception of Sin and the conception of the Future Life are conditioned by the
conception that man has concerning his God. If Sin is merely an offence against
God which can be made good by some prescribed form of payment, or its equivalent,
there can be nothing very serious about it; the conception of God which regards
Him as satisfied with such payment cannot be a high one. If it is believed
that, in the world of the Hereafter, God has no concern, it is, again, no high
conception of God which sees His activity restricted to this world. A deeper
sense of Sin can only come into being when the ethical purity and transcendent majesty
of Him Who is sinned against are more fully realized; the conception of the
Future Life can only become higher when the divine power and interest are
believed to extend be yond the confines of this world. Thus it will be seen at
once that these three subjects are closely inter-related; and, though they are to
be dealt with separately, it is clear that they form one connected whole, and
it is with this thought in our minds that we must approach the following
studies.
"With Thee is
the fountain of life." Ps. 36. 9.
Nothing can illustrate more pointedly how long
a period of thought-development is reflected in the Psalms than the various
conceptions of the Deity contained in them.
But here a word of explanation is necessary.
We must distinguish, in many cases, between the
outward form of certain psalms as we now have them, and the antique conceptions
embodied in them. There is abundant evidence to show that in their present form
none of the Psalms can be dated earlier than the time of the Second Temple;
that is to say, in structure — in their present structure — all the Psalms are
post-exilic. This does not, however, mean to say that in content they are all
of this late date; indeed, as we shall see presently, some quite late psalms
retain echoes of conceptions concerning the Deity which must have been in vogue
long before the monarchy was established.
Our purpose here is to try and follow out the development
of the conceptions concerning God in the Psalms; we need not, therefore, trouble
ourselves with the vexed question of the dates of particular psalms; what we
have to do is to show that some of these conceptions are ancient, while others
are developed.
It may be taken as a general rule that anthropomorphic
conceptions are of greater antiquity than spiritual conceptions; this, indeed,
is axiomatic. But, obvious as this is, it is by no means always taken into consideration
by students when studying their Old Testament; and this applies more especially
to the Psalms, because our great familiarity with the Prayer-Book Version, with
its strongly spiritualizing tendencies, has in numberless cases obscured the
point of what stands in the original. But there is a further and more
far-reaching reason why the obvious truth, referred to above, is left out of
sight; this is the natural tendency to interpret the Old Testament in
accordance with modern ideas. Nobody would deny that it is an exceedingly
difficult task to divest oneself of the
habit of thinking a la mode traditionnelle; our
modern way of envisaging things is so fundamentally different from that which
was in vogue two or three thousand years ago that it ought to stand to reason
that if we are to get into the '' way of thinking " proper to the ancient
Israelite, we must get out of the “way of thinking" proper to the
twentieth century modern. We must remember, too, that the Western mind is of an
utterly different mould from the Oriental; even at the present day, the
European will never get behind the mind of the Asiatic until he learns “to look
through the spectacles" of the latter. It is this want of the faculty of
placing oneself within the point of view of others that is the cause of much of
the truly fantastic exegesis of the Old Testament among students of the Bible.
But it is very important, and very necessary, to try to place ourselves within the
mental environment of the thinkers whose thoughts are portrayed in the various
psalms if we are to gain any real insight into, and trace out, the development
of the conception of God as reflected in the Psalter.
To trace out this development is a very difficult
task — how difficult is only realized when one begins to undertake it — for let
us remember this: On the one hand, there are admittedly some very antique
conceptions with regard to God in the Psalms; on the other hand, it is well
known how the Old Testament writings abound in figurative and metaphorical language.
But how is one going to decide whether a particular passage represents a
primitive ^ conception or a figurative expression; in other words, what are the
criteria which one must employ in seeking to distinguish between literalism and
metaphor?
The thoroughgoing anthropologist is tempted to
discern literalism everywhere, while the devout believer will see in every
anthropomorphism a metaphor. What is to be the deciding factor or factors which
shall proclaim either the one or the other right? That is the crucial question.
It will be well to take a concrete example or two. In 18. 8-10 (9-11 in Hebrew.)
we have the following:
There went up smoke in his
nostrils, And fire from his mouth devoured; Coals were kindled from him.
And he
bowed the heavens and came down, And thick darkness was under his feet; He rode
upon a cherub, yea he flew, And swooped down upon the wings of the wind.
The term is, of course, used relatively.
Does a passage like this reflect '' primitive
"
conceptions concerning Jehovah, or is the whole
a description, in figurative language, of the divine wrath? Now take another
passage, 36. 7-9 (8-10 in Hebrew.):
How precious is thy lovingkindness, God; And
the children of men take refuge under the shadow of thy wings. They are
refreshed (lit. '' watered ") with the blessings (lit. “fatness'') of thy
house, And thou makes them to drink of the river of thy delights. For with thee
is the fountain of life; In thy light shall we see light.
Is this passage figurative in its language, or
is it to be taken in a literal sense? One more example, 11. 6:
Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, Fire and
brimstone and burning wind shall be the portion of their cup.
Are these words to be interpreted literally or
metaphorically? Before attempting to offer a clue which may be of help in
answering these questions, we must emphasize this fact, — there is no sort of
doubt that to those who edited the Psalms in their present form, all passages
similar to those quoted were understood in a figurative sense. But if we are seeking
to trace out the development of the conceptions of God in the Psalms, we must go
behind the final editing of them to the antecedents. And let us say, further,
that it is a sound rule to regard all passages like those quoted as figurative,
or pictorial, or metaphorical, unless some clear grounds exist for believing
them to re-echo earlier conceptions.
Now, to know whether in a given passage there
are any indications that it reflects earlier thought requires a good deal of previous
study of the ancient religion of Israel, as well as of those religions, such as
the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Canaanite, which influenced Israelite belief; but
the generality of students have little or no knowledge of these religions, and
they have, therefore, to take on trust a good deal that they are told on these
subjects; while one entirely sympathizes with the student in his, or her,
feeling that this is unsatisfactory, the students must, on their part, remember
that it places the lecturer in a disadvantageous position; for sometimes
statements will be thought arbitrary and dogmatic, which those versed in
Semitic belief will know to be quite elementary truths. There is only one
remedy for this, and that is that the students should themselves pursue the
study of topics which are indispensable for an adequate understanding of the
theology of the Psalms. But to return; we have said that it is a sound rule to
regard passages like those just quoted as containing figurative language,
unless some clear grounds exist for believing them to re-echo earlier
conceptions. But here it will be objected: " Granted that a passage does re-echo
earlier conceptions, why should that fact make the language any the less
figurative? '' Here is a good example of the way in which a lecturer is placed
at a disadvantage, for if he bluntly replies, '' Because the earlier you go
back, the more materialistic are the conceptions,'' he will be thought dogmatic;
nevertheless, the student of Comparative Religion knows that the answer
contains a very elementary truth. So this answer must serve.
And we must now give one example, in which we
will try to show why in a given passage there are grounds for believing that it
re-echoes ancient belief, so that originally the conceptions it contains were
materialistic.
Our example shall be the first of the passages
quoted above, 18. 8-10 (9-11 in Hebrew.).
The first three clauses refer to
a theophany, in which Jehovah appears in fire; one has but to refer to some of
the earlier biblical passages in which Jehovah is mentioned in connection with
fire, in order to realize at once that there was a widely current belief that
Jehovah literally appeared in fire; we cannot quote all these passages here,
but they should be read, and therefore the references are given: Exod. 3. 2,
13. 21, 19. 16-25, 24. 17; Deut. 4. 11, 12, 33, 36, 5. 4, 32. 22, 33. 2; 2
Kings 2. 11, 6. 17; Ps. 1. 3, 83. 14, 15, 97. 2-5, 104. 32, 144. 5, 6; Isa. 30.
27, 28, 31. 9, 34. 8-10, 66. 15; Amos 1. 3; Mic. 1. 6, 7; Nah. 1. 6; Hab. 3. 4,
5; Zeph. 1. 18, 3. 8; Mai. 4. 1. If all these passages be carefully read and
thought over, the conclusion will certainly be arrived at that in early Israel it
was held that on certain special occasions Jehovah did, and would again, appear
in visible form, in fire; this being so, it is difficult to believe that the
conception contained in the passage before us was not originally understood
literally; but it is a naive conception, and witnesses to an undeveloped doctrine
of God. We may indeed wonder that such-like passages, of which there are a good
number in the Psalms, were not expunged when the final redaction took place, in
an age in which the doctrine of God had become far more spiritual; the reason
probably is that passages like the one under consideration are remnants of very
ancient songs which had been incorporated into the psalms in question because
they were hallowed by traditional use; it is well known how the essence of
popular songs is handed down from generation to generation long after the
original sense has been forgotten. [This is also true in a remarkable degree of
popular stories; for example, the fairy-tale “Snow-white."] If we turn to
the next two clauses in this passage, And he bowed the heavens and came down, And
thick darkness was under his feet, we shall see that here, again, there are
echoes of very old-world conceptions of God. On comparing these lines with
other and earlier passages of the Old Testament, it will be found difficult to
resist the conviction that, according to the old belief, this was intended to
be a description of things literal, and not a figurative representation. In his
comment on these words Prof. Briggs says: ' God, enthroned above the physical
heavens, the blue expanse, bends them when He would descend in theophany. He
comes down on them. So, Exod. 24. 10, the elders of Israel saw the God of Israel;
and there was under His feet, as it were, a work of bright sapphire and, as it
were, the very heaven for brightness.
The 'very heaven,' its
sapphire-blue expanse, was the base on which the feet of the theophanic God
stood. Here, however, under His feet was thick darkness, because the theophany was
in a storm of wrath; there it was in the bright sunshine of favour to establish
a covenant with His people. So Solomon, in the snatch of an ancient poem
preserved from the book of Yashar (according to the Septuagint), says, Yahweh
dwelt in thick darkness, 1 Kings 8. 12 = 2 Chron. 6. 1; cp. Ps. 97. 2, and the
cloud of the theophany at Horeb, Exod. 20. 18, Deut. 4. 11, 5. 22. [A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (International Critical
Commentary) 1. p. 143.] The words in Judg. 5. 4, 5, are also worth thinking of
in this connection:
Lord, when thou went forth out
of Seir, When thou marched forth out of the field of Edom,
The
earth trembled, the heavens also dropped, Yea, the clouds dropped water.
The mountains flowed down at the
presence of the Lord, Even yon Sinai at the presence of the Lord, the God of
Israel.
And then, lastly, in the passage from the Psalms
which we are considering, there are the words:
He rode upon a cherub, yea he flew, And
swooped down upon the wings of the wind.
Of what spiritual truth are these words a figurative
expression? Well may Prof. Briggs say that '' the conception of the psalm is a primitive
one "; for there is only one explanation of the words, and that is that
they originally expressed what was believed to be a literal fact. The final
redactor of this psalm, who most probably did not accept the words in a literal
sense, would have found it difficult to explain what their spiritual meaning
was; their presence is, indeed, only to be accounted for in the way already
hinted at, namely that, having been once incorporated, time-honoured use was
respected. When it is realized what the history of the conception of the
Cherubim is, it may be taken for granted that the words in the Te Deum, " To Thee Cherubin and Seraphin continually
do cry” are not now-days understood in a literal sense, as was probably the
case with our forefathers; nevertheless, we retain the words in our glorious Church
hymn; whatever they may originally have meant does not affect us when we use them
as a figurative expression of the truth that spiritual beings do worship God.
At any rate, it is on the lines briefly
indicated that one has to work in order to justify the assertion that certain
passages in the Psalms, however they may have been understood when the final
redaction took place, were originally believed to express literal truths; and
the fact that this was so, proves that in the Psalms we have indications that the
doctrine of God has passed through stages.
If, then, we are to study the doctrine of God as
reflected in the Psalms, these various stages must be taken into consideration.
What has been said will receive further emphasis
and illustration in this section, in which we shall consider a few instances of
ancient conceptions concerning God, and seek at the same time to indicate why,
in their origin, these must have been understood literally.
In 74. 12-15 occur the following words:
God is my King from of old, Working salvation
in the midst of the earth; Thou didst split in twain the Sea in thy strength, Thou
didst brake in pieces the heads of the dragons in the waters; Thou didst smash
the heads of Leviathan; Thou wilt give him for food, — for food to the denizens
of the waste; Thou didst cleave fountain and flood; Thou didst dry up ancient
rivers.
The
Hebrew of this clause is corrupt; the above rendering of it is based upon an
emended form, In many of the references to this event the Creation of the world
is spoken of, which leads to the supposition that the conflict was believed to
have taken place preparatory to the creation of man on the earth; see, in this psalm,
verses 16, 17.
The reference here is to something that
happened long ago. The words, which seem to be taken from some ancient poem,
tell of how Jehovah overcame a great monster for the sake of those who were to
live on the earth; this monster is represented as the Sea, personified, and he
is also called Leviathan. Strong expressions are used to express the vehemence
of the divine onslaught upon this mighty monster and his brood of dragons.
Although, as we shall see, this great conflict
is always spoken of as having taken place in the distant past, in one of the
clauses of the passages before us the future is used: Thou wilt give them for
food — for food to the denizens of the waste; that is to say, that the final destruction
of the monster will not take place until some future time. [In connection with
this, see Ezek. 29. 1-5, 32. 1-5.] This accords with what is said in some other
passages in which this conflict is referred to; for example, in Isa. 30. 7 the
monster is spoken of as '' silenced," in Ps. 89. 10 (11 in Hebrew.)
he is *' humbled " (see, further on this
passage, below), in Amos 9. 3 he is spoken of as still capable of harm; but
nowhere is the monster spoken of as being wholly annihilated, for this is only
to take place in the great '' Day of the Lord." It will be well, before proceeding,
to show that this great act of Jehovah's is often referred to elsewhere in the
Old Testament.
Isa. 27. 1:
In that day shall Jehovah punish with his terrible,
mighty, and powerful sword, Leviathan the coiling serpent, Leviathan the crooked
serpent, And he will slay the Dragon which is in the sea.
This passage speaks of the final destruction which
is to take place in the '' Day of the Lord." The primeval conflict is
spoken of in Isa. 51. 9, 10:
Rouse thee, rouse thee, put on strength, Arm
of Jehovah; Rouse thee as in days of old, as in ages long since past.
Art thou not (he) which clave in pieces Rahab,
which pierced the Dragon?
Art thou not (he) which dried up the Sea, the waters
of Tehom Rabbah?
Jehovah is here called upon to fight the enemies
of His people, just as, long ago, He fought the mighty Dragon; the drying up of
the Red Sea during the flight from Egypt is referred to as, in some sense, a
repetition of the primeval conflict. '' Rahab " is a synonym for '' Tehom Rabbah '' (the '' Great Deep "), as can be seen
by comparing the three passages from the book of Job and from Ps. 89 to be
quoted below. It means ** the insolent one," and is in several passages
applied to Egypt; so, for example, in Ps. 87. 4, Isa. 30. 7 (cp. Job 9. 12,
13), and especially Ezek. 29. 1-4, 32. 2.
Job 26. 12, 13:
With his might did he still the Sea, And with
his skill did he cleave in pieces Rahab.
Heaven's holts were terrified at him; He hath
dishonoured with his hand the coiling Serpent.
Job 7. 12:
Am I the Sea, or the Dragon, That thou sets a
watch over me?
Job 41. 1-34 (40. 25 — 41. 26 in Hebrew.).
This passage is too long to quote in full, but
the points of importance in it, in the present connection, are that Leviathan,
the Sea-monster, is too strong for anyone to overcome — Jehovah alone has the
power to do this; the minute account of Leviathan suggests the echo of a very
living tradition concerning it. This passage, when read in connection with the
others quoted or referred to, will be found to be full of significance.
All these passages — and there are others which
belong to the same category — throw light on the quotation from Ps. 74, and all
bear witness to a very ancient conception of God. Our next passage from the
Psalms is 89. 8-10 (9-11 in Hebrew.):
Lord, God of hosts, who is like unto thee, — Mighty
Yah?
And thy faithfulness is round about thee.
Thou rules the Sea when she rises up.
Thou stillest her waves when they roar (cp.
the Septuagint); Thou didst humble (cp. the Septuagint) Rahab, as one that is
dishonoured; With thy mighty arm hast thou scattered thine enemies.
It will be obvious at once that here we have a
reference to the same great conflict which Jehovah was believed to have waged
against the mighty monster long ago. It is not necessary to go into further
details.
See the
whole subject dealt with in the writer's The 'Evolution of the Messianic Idea.
It would be well worth the trouble to read the Babylonian account of this
primeval conflict, in which Merodach is the divine
champion, and Tiamat (= Tehom, " The Deep
") is the enemy. The text of this in an English translation can be seen in
Ball's Light from the East, pp. 2-11, or in Pinches' The Old Testament in the
Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia, pp. 1-68.
See also Driver's Genesis (in the Westminster Commentaries), pp. 26-31.
When we
find, therefore, in the Psalms that this time-honoured tradition has been
incorporated, we must regard it as reflecting an antique conception of Jehovah,
which the ancient Israelites accepted in a literal sense; for if the content of
all these passages did not narrate what was believed, at one time, to have
literally happened, what is the meaning of them, and to what do they refer, and
how are they now to be interpreted? It is better for us to acknowledge frankly
the fact, witnessed to in an infinite variety of ways, that revelation is progressive,
and that it is wholly in accordance with the divine method to bring men by slow
degrees to the fulness of the Truth.
What has been said reflects the earliest stage
in the history of the doctrine of God as contained in the Psalms.
A second stage in the Israelite conception of
God, as reflected in the Psalms, is that wherein the influence of earlier
conceptions is seen, but wherein there is a tendency to spiritualize them. It
is often very difficult, perhaps sometimes impossible, to determine whether, in
any given passage, the more primitive type of conception, or the spiritualizing
tendency predominates. We are not thinking here of the particular aspect of the
Deity with which we were concerned in the last section, but of certain ideas
regarding the personality and action of God, which, while being an advance upon
what had gone before, nevertheless fall far short of the sublime doctrine that
was to come. The consideration of a large number of passages, only a very few
of which can be dealt with here, leads, however, to the conviction that an intermediate
stage of thought must have supervened; a stage in which an ever-progressing
revelation necessitated, by degrees, a modification of the old ideas, while,
nevertheless, the tenacity with which time-honoured beliefs cling made men loth
to part from them altogether. That is a process which is often repeated in the
history of the development of religious thought.
We have spoken of a first and second stage of
belief, and we shall deal with a third one presently; by this is not meant, however,
that clear-cut periods of time can be indicated during which such and such beliefs
were held, and in which such and such developments took place; the steps in the
development of belief, especially in ancient times, are extremely gradual;
sometimes there is a long period during which it seems to be stationary;
sometimes, as it were, two steps forward and one step back may characterize the
halting advance; sometimes, indeed, there may be a wholly retrograde movement; but,
taken altogether, the development proceeds, and is not realized by the
generation until it has taken place. We look back upon the history of the
development of religious thought, and are able to see that between such and
such centuries there is a great change, but exactly when or how this took place
we cannot tell — at least not until, comparatively speaking, modern times. In
studying any doctrine of the Psalms we come across much which seems wholly
illogical or contradictory; it is very far from being so in reality; what we
have reflected in the Psalms is an extremely faithful witness of what is always
going on in the hearts of men — a conflict, in the highest sense of the word, between
old and new; the old is good, perhaps the new is better — perhaps not, always; but,
at any rate, the old is good, and must not be parted with hurriedly; will not
be parted with unless necessary, and then only with a pang; and its influence
will not cease all at once; and it is better so. But the new will come; that is
inevitable; and it is best so — ultimately. In the Psalms are reflected the
thoughts of many ages, and of periods distant from each other; we have said so
already, and it must be emphasized; for if this truth is lost sight of, one of
the great elements in the rationale of revelation, to which the Psalms bear
such abundant witness, will be lost sight of too; we refer to what is to many
the sheet-anchor of belief, namely, that the knowledge of God comes to men “ by
divers portions and in divers manners ''; if it were not so, many men would, in
spite of themselves, be tempted to say, “ There is no God."
Let us now consider one or two passages in the
Psalms which may fairly be instanced as witnessing to what we have ventured to call
an intermediate stage in the development of the doctrine of God, as reflected in
the Psalms. We will take first a passage which, at first sight, does not appear
to offer any grounds for placing it in this category; a moment's thought will,
however, show that there is justification for doing so.
The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness
thereof, The world, and they that dwell therein.
For he hath founded it upon the seas, And
established it upon the floods. [24. 1, 2]
Here we have, first, a conception of Jehovah which
is an advance upon pre-exilic belief; He is seen to be the universal God, and
the only God of the whole earth. This is very different from the earlier
conception which regarded Him as the God of Israel, much in the same way as Chemosh was the god of the Moabites, Ashtoreth of the Zidonians, and Milcom of the
Ammonites (see 2 Kings 23. 13), a conception which, as we shall see presently,
is also to be found in the Psalms.
But while in the first couplet before us there
is this more developed belief, in the second there appears the early, quaint
idea of Jehovah having founded the earth upon the seas, a belief which is echoed
elsewhere in the Psalms, for example in 136. 6,
To him that spread
forth the earth above the waters (cp. Isa. 42. 5, 44. 24), and which is
identical with that expressed in the Babylonian Cosmogony (cp. Driver, Genesis,
p. 29). In this same psalm, again, we have the following very familiar verses, 7,
8:
Lift up
your heads, ye gates; And he ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; And the King of
Glory shall come in.
Who is the King of Glory?
Jehovah, strong and mighty, Jehovah,
mighty in battle.
The expressions here used are only applicable to
a warrior. If it were only here that they were used in reference to Jehovah, it
might well be claimed that they were intended to be taken figuratively; that
they were so intended by the final editor of the Psalter may be regarded as
certain, but that they echo earlier thought is equally certain; see, for
example, Exod. 15. 3, 4, 6:
Jehovah is a man of war; Jehovah is his name.
Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into
the sea. . . .
Thy right hand, Lord, is glorious in power.
Thy right hand, Jehovah, dashed in pieces the
enemy.
But while this ancient conception of God thus
finds expression, other passages in this same psalm (24) witness to a far more exalted
belief, thus showing the old and the newer thought in close proximity.
The same is the case in 35; thus, in the two
first verses we again find Jehovah spoken of as a warrior:
Strive thou, Lord, with them that strive with me;
Fight thou against them that fight against me.
Take hold of shield and buckler.
And stand up for mine help.
Draw out spear and battle-axe, To encounter
him that pursued me; Say unto my soul: '' I am thy salvation. ''
On the
other hand, in verses 27, 28, there is a more exalted conception of God:
Let them shout for joy and be glad that
delight in my righteousness, And let them say continually: The Lord be magnified.
Which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.'^
And my tongue shall talk of thy righteousness, (And) of thy praise all the day.
We referred just now to the fact that in some
of the psalms Jehovah is spoken of as though He were not the One and only God; He
is the only God of Israel, but the belief that there were other gods in
existence, who were the tutelary deities of the nations, is held. This
henotheistic, as distinct from the later monotheistic, belief witnesses to a
lower conception of God than that which was subsequently held; it is reflected
in the Psalms, for example, in 86. 8:
There is none like unto thee among the gods, Lord;
Neither (are there any works) like unto thy works.
The '' gods “ here referred to are the
national deities of other peoples, who are believed to be actually in
existence, but are regarded as inferior to the God of Israel. In the two verses
which follow, the psalmist utters a universalistic note, and prophesies that a
time will come when the Gentiles will forsake their gods and worship Jehovah:
All nations whom thou hast made Shall come and
worship before thee, Lord, And they shall glorify thy Name.
For great art thou, and does wondrous things, Thou
art God alone.
With regard to this last clause
the rendering of the Septuagint is certainly to be preferred, Thou, God, alone
art great, for this accords better with the context.
According to the Hebrew, this is a
monotheistic note which does not agree with the recognition of the existence of
heathen gods expressed in the context; the Greek, on the other hand, sounds a
henotheistic note — God alone is great, but other lesser deities exist; this is
what has been implied in the context.
Another passage of importance in this connection
is 96. 4, 5:
For great is the Lord, and highly to be
praised, He is to be feared above all gods.
For all the gods of the peoples are worthless,
But the Lord made the heavens.
The point here is that while Jehovah has done
all things for His people (cp. the preceding verses), the gods of the peoples
have done nothing for them; the idea underlying the word “ worthless '' cannot
here, at any rate, mean '' non-existent," otherwise the clause, He is to be
feared above all gods, would be out of place. This can be further illustrated
by the words in 97. 7:
Let all those that serve graven images he
ashamed, (And) those that boast themselves of idols (lit. in worthless things); Worship him, all ye
gods.
And 44. 20, 21 (21, 22 in Hebrew.):
If we
have forgotten the name of our God, Or spread forth our hands to a strange god;
Shall not God search this out?
For he knows the secrets of the heart.
This last is very instructive, for in the same
breath, as it were, expression is given to the older conception that God is
only one (albeit the greatest) among many, as well as the highly spiritual
conception that He knows the secrets of the heart. See also, on the subject before
us, 81. 9, 135. 5, 136. 2, which it will not be necessary to quote. That the conception
here reflected was at one time the normal belief in Israel will be clear to anyone
who consults, among others, these passages:
Gen. 35. 2, 3; Exod. 15. 11, 18. 11, 20. 3,
23. 13, 34. 14; Josh. 24. 20, 23; 2 Kings 18. 33, 35, etc. It was, under God,
the great teachers who brought the reality of things before the people in such passages
as Isa. 44. 8-20, 46. 5-7; Ps. 115. 4-8 (135. 15-18), together with their
positive teaching concerning God, which finally eradicated the idea of a
plurality of gods from the minds of their hearers.
What has been said will, it is hoped, have illustrated
what may be regarded as an intermediate stage in the history of the conception of
God as reflected in the Psalms.
What is by far the most characteristic note in
the Psalms regarding the doctrine of God is the developed form of this which
predominates; and it is, unquestionably, this which, more than anything else,
makes the Psalms so precious to us.
We must divide this section into two parts.
In the first we shall deal with the character and
personality of God as taught by psalmists; while in the second we shall speak more
particularly about the personal relationship between God and men, though, of course,
it is not possible to keep these two wholly distinct.
1. The attributes of God are so abundantly expressed
in the Psalms, and we are so familiar with them from our knowledge of the
Psalms, that it will not be necessary to give more than one or two quotations
illustrative of each attribute; but that some reference should be made to this
part of our subject is demanded, because it is such an essential element of the
doctrine of God in the Psalms.
The Ethical Purity of God is taught, for example,
in 12. 6:
The words of the Lord are pure words; As
silver tried in a furnace on the earth, Purified seven times (cp. 19. 7-11).
The Holiness of God is nowhere more fittingly
expressed than in the whole of xcix.:
The Lord is great in Zion; And he is high
above all the peoples.
Let them praise thy great and terrible Name:
Holy is he!
32 THE DOCTRINE OF GOD This divine characteristic
is repeated as a kind of refrain at the close of each of the three sections
into which the psalm is divided.
The Righteousness of God is a subject of which
the psalmists are never tired of singing.
One of the most beautiful passages descriptive
of this, in which also other divine characteristics are sung of, is 85. 8-13
(9-14 in Hebrew.):
I will hear what the Lord God will speak, For
he will speak peace unto his people, and to his saints. . . .
Surely his salvation is nigh unto them that
fear him, That glory may dwell in our land.
Mercy and truth are met together.
Righteousness and peace kiss each other.
Truth springs out of the earth, And
righteousness hath looked down from heaven. . . .
Righteousness goes before him, And peace (is)
in the way of his footsteps.
It is
the characteristic of righteousness which impels the psalmists again and again
to proclaim God's Justice, especially in the conception of God as Judge of the
whole earth; for example, 9. 7, 8 (8, 9 in Hebrew.):
The Lord sits (as King) for ever, He hath set
up his throne for judgement; And he will judge the world in righteousness, And
will minister judgement to the peoples with equity (cp. 97. 2).
Again, in 96. 13:
For he cometh, For he cometh to judge the
earth; He shall judge the world with righteousness.
And the peoples in his faithfulness (cp. 98. 9).
In these, and other similar passages, it will be
noticed that a universalistic note is sounded; the whole world, not merely the Jewish
nation, is subject to the justice of God. This conception of God has an
important bearing on the rise of eschatological thought, which was coming more
and more to the fore during the period in which some of the later psalms were
written.
It will be both interesting and instructive to
illustrate the doctrine of the divine Judgeship in its relation to
eschatological thought by a few quotations from those portions of The Book of
Enoch which may be dated, respectively, about 170 B.C., 166-161 B.C., 134-95 B.C.,
and 94-64 B.C. Thus, in 18. 8, 9, the throne of God is referred to: But the
middle one [i.e. of the " seven mountains of magnificent stones "]
reached to heaven like the throne of God, of alabaster, and the summit of the
throne was of sapphire. And I saw a flaming fire, which was in all the
mountains. In a slightly later portion of the book we have the following
account of the Judgement, 90. 18-27 ' And I saw till the Lord of the sheep came
unto them, and took the staff of His wrath into His hand, and smote the earth
so that it was rent asunder, and all the beasts and the birds of the heaven fell
away from the sheep, and sank in the earth; and it closed over them. ... And I
saw till a throne was erected in the pleasant land, and the Lord of the sheep
sat Himself thereon; and that other took the sealed hooks, and opened them
before the Lord of the sheep. . . . And the judgement was held first over the stars;
and they were fudged, and found guilty, and went to the place of condemnation,
and they were cast into an abyss, full of fire and flaming, and full of pillars
of fire. And those seventy shepherds were found guilty, and likewise cast into
that fiery abyss.
And I saw how at that time a like abyss was
opened in the midst of the earth, full of fire; and those blinded sheep were
brought, and they were all judged, and found guilty, and were cast into that
fiery abyss, and they burned. . . . (Cp. St. Matt. 25. 31-46.)
This allegorical picture appears in a more
literal form in the later portion of the book, 91. 7-9:
And then, when unrighteousness and sin and
blasphemy and violence in all kinds of deeds will increase, and apostasy and
transgression and uncleanness increase, a great chastisement from heaven will
come upon them all, and the holy Lord will come forth with wrath and
chastisement to execute judgement on earth.
. . . And they [i.e. the heathen] will be cast
into the judgement of fire, and will perish in wrath, and in grievous eternal
judgement. Finally, one illustration from The Book of Similitudes, 69. 27, 28:
And he sat on the throne of his glory and the sum of judgement was committed
unto him, the Son of Man, and he ¦caused the sinners, and those who have led
the world astray, to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth.
With chains shall they be bound, and in their assemblage place of destruction
shall they be imprisoned, and all their works shall vanish from the face of the
earth) Cp. also The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi 4. 1, Benjamin 10.
8-1 1 (belonging to 109-106 B.C.).
There
can be no doubt that the thoughts here reflected represent a step between the doctrine
of the divine Judgeship, as gathered up in the Psalms, and the teaching of the New
Testament. It is very characteristic of the fulness with which the divine
characteristics are portrayed in the Psalms that the righteousness and justice
of God should be balanced by the abundant expression of His Mercy and
Lovingkindness; see, for example, lix. i6, 17 (17, 18 in Hebrew.):
But I will sing of thy strength, Yea, I will
sing aloud of thy mercy in the morning; For thou hast been a high tower to me, And
a refuge in the day when I was in trouble.
My Strength, unto thee will I sing.
For God is my strong tower, The God of my
mercy (cp. verse 10 [11 in Hebrew.]).
The reference here is to the mercy shown to a
particular individual on some specific occasion; elsewhere the divine quality
of mercy is described in its more general bearing; so in 103. 17:
But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting
to everlasting upon them that fear him, And his righteousness upon children's
children. . , .
Or, again, 25. 10:
All the paths of the Lord are lovingkindness and
truth, Unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
But the mercy of God is pre-eminently shown in
His free forgiveness of sins. We have already dealt with this subject, but one or
two further quotations may be given to illustrate it; 78. 38:
But he is merciful, he forgives iniquity, and destroys
not; And oft-times doth he turn away his anger, and stirs not up all his wrath)
This divine characteristic is perhaps best expressed in what is certainly one
of the most beautiful passages in the whole Psalter, viz. 103. 9-13:
'Not unceasingly doth he chide.
Not for ever doth he keep (his wrath); Not
according to our sins doth he deal with us, Not according to our iniquities
doth he reward us.
For as high as the heaven (is) above the
earth, So exalted is his mercy on them that fear him.
As far as the east (is) from the west, So far
hath he put from us our transgressions.
As a father hath compassion on his children, So
hath the Lord compassion on them that fear him (cp. also 79. 9).
Closely connected with the divine attribute of
mercy is the oft-expressed truth that God is the Helper of the helpless, and of
those in trouble; for example, 25. 5:
Guide me in thy truth, and teach me.
For thou art the God of my salvation; On thee
do I wait all the day.
The word '' Salvation '' in the Old Testament is
never used in the sense which it bears in the New Testament; in the former it
always means help or deliverance in a temporal sense.
It is true that in the Psalms, and once or
twice in Ezekiel (36. 29, 37. 23), an added spiritual idea is discernible, but
the primary sense is always that of
deliverance from physical evils. This is plainly seen, for example, in 27. 9,
10:
Hide not thy face from me, Put not away thy
servant in anger; Thou hast been my help; Cast me not off, and forsake me not, God
of my salvation.
When my father and mother have forsaken me, Then
will the Lord take me up (cp. 65. 5, 85. 4, 88. 1 ff. etc.).
Of the attribute of the Majesty of God we
shall speak presently.
It is only when these various divine characteristics
are thus gathered up together that one realizes how full and exalted is the
conception of God in its more developed form in the Psalms, In the prophetical
books we find, speaking generally, that some one divine
attribute is specially emphasized by each prophet. Amos, for example, lays main
stress in his teaching upon the justice of God; the whole trend of the book of
Hosea is to set forth the mercy of God; Isaiah teaches, as none other, the
majesty of God; one of the main objects of the book of Micah is to declare that
God is the Helper of the helpless; the essence of the book of Jonah is the
teaching of the universal Fatherhood of God; and so on. In the Psalms all these
divine attributes find abundant expression; in them there is a summing-up of
all that went before concerning the Personality of God; the thoughts of many
hearts are expressed, but a marvellous unity pervades all; the voices of many
ages swell out into a great harmonious chorus, each singing its appropriate
part.
2. We come now to speak more especially of the
relationship between God and men, though we shall be concerned a good deal with
two further attributes of God.
It has been not infrequently stated by Christian
theologians, and the statement is often resented by Jewish writers, that the Jewish
doctrine of God makes Him far-distant and withdrawn from the individual. There
is an element of truth in this so far as the later Judaism is concerned, for
here a tendency is observable which lays over-much stress on transcendentalism,
to the partial exclusion of the other side of the truth. This subject is, in
reality, one which bears so strongly on practical and devotional religion, it
is, moreover, one which, as we shall see, is of such importance when considered
in its contrast with the doctrine of God as contained in the Psalms, that a
short digression, in order to deal quite briefly with it, will be pardoned.
What is known as the '' hypostatizing tendency,”
i.e. the tendency to make abstract conceptions concerning the Deity “substantial
'' (in the technical sense), comes before us in a more or less stereotyped form
as early as the time of the Targums,
which certainly reflect the thought of earlier times. [The Aramaic
translations of the Old Testament which became necessary when Hebrew ceased to
be the common language of the Jews. In their earliest written form they were in
existence in the first century A.D.; but for a long time before this they had
been handed down orally.] With the fuller realization of the Personality of God,
and of His transcendent majesty, the Jewish teachers, prompted by reverential awe,
sought to screen the Almighty, as it were, from the presumptuous approach of insignificant,
earth-born man. That God Almighty should directly concern Himself with the
petty affairs of men seemed derogatory to His supreme majesty. Just as there
was a disinclination, on account of its transcendent holiness, to utter the
Name of God, and to substitute instead paraphrases for it, so there arose a
disinclination to ascribe divine action among men directly to God, because of
His inexpressible majesty and holiness. Therefore the doctrine was propounded
of the existence of semi-divine, super-human, spiritual beings through whose
agency God's will was performed on earth. They occupy an intermediate position,
according to the teaching of the Rabbis, between personalities and abstract
conceptions. While at one time they are represented as being so closely
connected with God as to appear as '' parts '' of Him, or attributes, at other
times they are spoken of as undertaking individual action in such a way as to
differentiate them from God. It must, of course, be remembered that a great
deal of what is written about these intermediate beings in Rabbinical
literature is to be understood figuratively; but, when every possible allowance
is made for this, there is still the underlying idea which gave birth to these
conceptions; and it is this which is important in the later Jewish doctrine of
God. There are four of these intermediate beings, and they all figure prominently
in the Targums, in Midrashic works, and in the Talmud; they are:
Metatron, i.e. he who occupies the next rank to
the Ruler; the Memra, or ‘Word' of God; the Holy
Spirit; and the Shekhinah, or "Glory" of
God.^ The danger which the Rabbis sought to counteract in framing their doctrine
of intermediate beings was that of conceiving of the Deity in a manner which
was wanting in reverence; an undue familiarity in addressing God, or in
speaking about Him, inevitably results in the lessening of spiritual religion.
The Rabbis were undoubtedly right; only it was necessary to guard against
running into another extreme, that, namely, of conceiving God to be so distant
from men as to take practically no personal interest in them. One may say,
indeed, that the danger of men falling into one or other of these extremes is
ever present; there is a way of speaking about God and of holy things
generally, and of addressing God in prayer in an all too familiar strain, which
betokens a lack of the realization of the immeasurable distance between God and
men, and which obscures the truth of the unapproachable majesty of God; on the
other hand, it is possible to exaggerate the distance between God and man in
such a way as to lose sight of the Fatherhood of God, and therefore of His
closeness to men.
Now in the doctrine of God as taught in the
Psalms it is in the highest degree striking to see what a wonderful balance is
preserved between these two truths; on the one hand, the majesty of God is
taught and emphasized in such a way that it is only equalled by some of the
most sublime passages in the prophetical books; while, on the other hand, the closeness
of God to His children, and the intimate relationship that exists between Him and
them, is there portrayed in such a manner that we instinctively turn to the
Psalms for comfort in trouble, for guidance in perplexity, and for spiritual
peace. The doctrine of God, in its fullest development, in the Psalms is such
that, in the light of Christian revelation, we realize to some extent the
awe-inspiring divinity of the Godhead, while the Father's intense sympathy for
human need and suffering seems to adumbrate the great and holy mystery of God
made man.
Let us illustrate this. In Ps. 29. 1, 2, we
have an illustration of the conception of God's sublime majesty which is
largely, if not wholly, obscured in the English Versions; the point of the
passage is that the heavenly beings are called upon to worship Jehovah; it is
not sufficient for men to fall down in adoration before the ineffable majesty of
God, but the heavenly hosts are bidden to put on holy array, just as God's priests
when ministering before Him in the Temple put on their holy garments, and to give
Him the glory due to His Name:
Ascribe unto the Lord, ye sons of gods; Ascribe
unto the Lord glory and strengths. Ascribe unto the Lord the glory due unto His
Name; Worship the Lord in holy array.
The term " sons of gods " is used in
reference to the angels, to express that they are divine beings; we have the
same expression in Ps. 89. 5, 6 (6, 7 in Hebrew.):
And the heavens praise Thy wonders, Lord; And
Thy faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones.
For who in the sky can he compared unto the
Lord?
Who among the sons of gods is like unto the
Lord?
In both these passages the Hebrew for "
gods " is Elim; but the term " sons of gods " probably means the
same as " sons of God " (Elohim), which occurs, for example, in Job
38. 7:
When the morning stars sang together, And all
the sons of God shouted for joy.
See also Gen. 6. 2, 4, Exod. 15. 11, Job. 1. 6,
2. 1.
In the verses which follow (in
Ps. 29.)
the phrase '' the voice of the Lord '' is
repeated seven times/ the holy number, to express the might of God in operation;
He has but to utter His voice, and it is done. The fact that the Israelites
believed that the thunder was actually God's voice in no way detracts from the
underlying conception of the divine majesty; no one can read this psalm without
feeling the spirit which animates it.
Another passage, very different from that just
referred to, but embodying the same conception of God's majesty and might, is
33. 4-9:
For the word of the Lord (is) upright, And all
his work (is done) in faithfulness; He loveth righteousness and judgement, The
earth is full of the lovingkindness of the Lord.
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made,
And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
He gathered the waters of the sea in a bottle,
He puts the deeps in treasure-houses.
Let all the earth he in fear of the Lord, Let
all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
So almost all the Versions, which are to be
preferred here because they offer a much better parallelism than the Hebrew “as
an heap." Cp. Job 38. 7 Who can pour out the bottles (lit.
-'water-skins") of heaven? Cp. Job 38. 8-1 1. The reference is to Gen. 1. 6-9.
God is glorified as the Creator of the universe.
Here,
again, some old-world traits appear, and we have the anthropomorphic expression
the breath of his mouth; but this only reveals the extent of human limitation
in seeking to realize the Deity, it does not detract from the whole-hearted
worship of the Creator of all things which breathes through the whole passage.
Only one other example, out of a great number,
for it so truly expresses the feelings of men in every age when they think of
God; it is 40. 5 (6 in Hebrew.):
Many things hast thou done, Lord my God, Thy
wonders and thy thoughts concerning us — there is no setting of them in order;
If I would declare and speak of them, They would be more than could be
numbered.
These few examples must suffice to illustrate one
side of the more fully developed doctrine of God in the Psalms — His creative
power, omnipotence, and majesty.
The addition of the Hebrew of “
unto thee," which is omitted in the Septuagint, is unnecessary, and in all
probability not original.
In contrast to this, another
psalmist, in awe and humility, cries:
When I behold thy heavens, the
work of thy fingers, The moon and stars which thou hast prepared, — What is man
that thou should he mindful of him?
Or the son of man that should visit him? (8.
3, 4 [4, 5 in Hebrew.]).
The insignificance of man is thus placed in telling
contrast to God's glory and creative power. When we turn to the other side of the
truth, it must be felt that the Psalms present us with a conception of God in
relationship to man which ran only be fully paralleled by the Gospel account of
our Blessed Lord's attitude towards men. When, for example, we think of the
familiar words of Ps. 23., beginning, The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not
want, how can we fail to be struck by the confiding, child-like trust there
expressed? What a living realization of the nearness of God, and of His gentle
guidance does that psalm reveal!
Such a conception brings Him very close to man,
in spite of His transcendent majesty and might so often expressed elsewhere in
the Psalms. It is this beautiful blending of the sublime glory of God and His
omnipotence, with His intimate personal relationship to individual men, which
constitutes one of the most striking characteristics of the doctrine of God in
the Psalter. The truth that God is at once the Creator of the whole world, and
that He is yet the Father and Friend of every individual on earth — this is the
predominating note in the doctrine of God in the Psalms in its fuller and more
developed form.
See how this is brought out in the following passage,
36. 5-7 (6-8 in Hebrew.):
Thy lovingkindness, Lord, is in the heavens, Thy
faithfulness (reaches) unto the skies.
Thy righteousness is like the mountains of God;
Thy judgements (are) a great deep, — then follow, immediately after this
expression of God's transcendent greatness, these words:
Man and beast thou preserves, Lord.
How precious is thy lovingkindness, God; And
the children of men take refuge in the shadow of thy wings.
The same thought comes out even more pointedly
in 113. 4-6:
High above all nations is the Lord, Above the
heavens is his glory.
Who is like the Lord our God, That hath his
seat on high; And yet who humbled himself to behold Things in heaven and in
earth?
Here again we have the “proportion of faith” held
in true balance. It is not necessary to illustrate this further; all lovers of
the Psalms will know how frequently we meet in them the two sides of this truth
blended in harmonious accord. And it is here, as all will be agreed, that we
reach the perfection of teaching concerning God in the Psalms.
There seem thus, broadly speaking, to be three
stages of belief in the Psalter regarding the Doctrine of God; the passages
quoted being, in each case, merely typical of a much larger number which should
be studied if the subject here touched upon is to be thoroughly and adequately
grasped. The three stages reflected are:
1. The very early conception which echoes the
belief in Jehovah as One Who was a supernatural mighty warrior; in this stage materialistic
ideas predominated.
2. The intermediate stage in which the progress
of revelation necessitated a more spiritual conception of Jehovah; but wherein,
nevertheless, the tenacious grasp of traditional thought continued to assert
its power.
3. The third, and final stage, which
represents the highest pre-Christian conception of God; and wherein the truth
of God's transcendent majesty and power is not permitted to obscure the
complementary truth of His infinitely condescending Fatherhood.
In the two latter stages the divine attributes
of ethical purity, holiness, righteousness, justice, mercy, and lovingkindness,
receive ever greater emphasis.
It was necessary to deal with the two earlier stages,
both because they formed part of our subject — being reflected in the Psalms —
and because they are, in truth, of high importance as witnessing to the truth
that revelation is progressive. But it is the third stage which, after all, is
most characteristic of the Psalms; it is here that we realize, perhaps as
nowhere else, that the God of Israel is our God; it is the conception here
portrayed which helps us to the Apostle's experience that God is very near to
each one of us — that guides us to that sublime faith which makes us become as
little children:
The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want.
“They draw near unto the gates
of death." Ps. 107. 18.
In studying the doctrine of Sin in the Psalms,
it is essential that, as a preliminary, a brief examination should be made of
the different terms used to denote Sin in its different aspects. The meanings
of these various terms have undergone a certain amount of modification, an
inevitable consequence of the progress of ideas; but it is particularly
interesting to note that in the Psalms we find that the words used for
''sin," "iniquity," ''transgression," etc., are used
sometimes in their earlier sense, at others in a more developed sense; this is precisely
what we should expect in a collection of literary pieces which reflect the
variations of thought during a long period of time. As we have already seen in
the case of the doctrine of God, the Psalms contain conceptions belonging to
periods sometimes widely separated from each other; it is the same with the doctrine
of Sin. In deciding whether a particular term is to be understood in an earlier,
or more developed, sense, one must be guided by the thought contained in the context.
This is not the place to enter upon a discussion of the general subject of Sin
in the Old Testament; but the following brief examination of terms will, it may
be hoped, give some idea as to the early conception of Sin among the
Israelites.
1. The most usual word for Sin is Chatt'ath; the noun occurs in four forms; that just mentioned
is the one most frequently used, e.g. 59.3; The mighty gather themselves together
against me, not for my transgression, nor for my sin, Lord. Another form of the
word is Chdta'ah; this is only twice used in the
Psalms (32. 1, 109. 7); but the form is used for '' sin-offering " in 40.6:
Burnt offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. In three passages the
form chef appears — 51. 11, 7, 103. 10; in the last of these it refers rather
to a condition of guilt:
Behold, I was shaped in iniquity, and in sin
did my mother conceive me. Lastly, the word Chatta'
is used of a “sinner " (50. 1, 5, synonymous with '' the wicked ";
25. 8, 26. 9, 51. 13, 104. 35). The verb occurs very often, being the normal
one for “ to sin."
The original meaning of the root from which
all these words come has nothing to do with Sin in the modern sense. This is
proved by the force attaching to the word in cognate languages; but it is also
seen from some passages in the Old Testament, in which the root-meaning is
still preserved; in Judg. 20. 16, e.g., it is said: Among all this people there
were seven hundred chosen men that were left-handed; everyone could sling
stones at an hair-breadth, and not miss; the last word here comes from the same
root as the word used for ''to sin." Again, in Job 5. 24, we have the
following: And thou shall know that thy tent is in peace; and thou shall visit thy
fold (or dwelling-place), and shall miss nothing; here, again, the word for ''
miss " comes from the root we are considering.
So that, without going into further detail, one
may say that the idea underlying the word was originally that of something that
was lacking, or something that missed the mark.
This quite corresponds, therefore, to the frequently
used word for '' to sin " in the New Testament.
It will not be without interest to refer, in a
few words, here to the subject of what is called the Sin-offering (Chatt'ath), for it throws some light upon the ancient
conception of sin. The central point of the " Sin-offering " was the
smearing of the blood of the sacrificed animal on the horns of the altar, see,
e.g., Exod. 30. lo: And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it [i.e.
of the altar] once in the year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement
once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations;
it is most holy unto the Lord. The decisive act is this bringing of the blood
upon the horns of the altar; this was believed to be the first step in
establishing a right relationship between the worshipper and God; and this was
accomplished by means of the blood of the offering. It is supremely important
always to bear in mind, in this connection, the significance there was in blood
to the ancient Hebrew, on account of its containing the life, or soul (see Lev.
17. 11, 14).
In the case of the Chatt'ath,
or " Sin-offering," the blood first of all consecrated the altar
afresh, while the offering itself was the means of re-establishing normal
relations between God and the worshipper; it was that which made
reconciliation. But when it is asked what was supposed to be the cause of the
relationship having been disturbed, the answer is, some ritual offence,
something which had impaired the " consecrated state " of a man, i.e.
the normal state in which a man should be in the sight of God. The result of a
disturbed relationship between God and man was twofold: a state of uncleanness,
and a consequent estrangement between God and him who had " missed the
(ritual) mark," or " made a mistake." Therefore, to re-establish
normal relations, a twofold action became necessary: first, the becoming
"clean," that is, in a fit state to enable reconciliation to take
place, and then the actual ceremony of reconciliation.
Consecration and reconciliation are thus quite
distinct; the obliteration of the " sin " does not, per se, bring
about reconciliation with God, it only makes man in a fit state to be reconciled;
the forgiveness of the sin is only the first step in the process of
reconciliation.
In this Chattath, or
" Sin-offering," there was, therefore, originally only the idea of
making good something that had been left undone, or erroneously accomplished —
the ritual " mark " had been missed; it was a later development when
its more positive character was seen, in that it became also the means of
putting a man into a state of consecration, or sanctification. This was a later
development, because it implied more advanced conceptions, and also because it
had no real connection with the name Chatt'ath. In
the form in which Chattath appears in the Old
Testament, the translation Sin-offering is misleading; as will be clear from
what has been said, it should be translated Reconciliation-offering, or, taking
into account its later developed positive character, it might not incorrectly
be translated " Consecration-offering."
Finally — and this, too, is a point of
importance—it must be remembered that the Chatt'ath
was not an offering which was sacrificed on account of conscious offences
against the ritual laws, much less does any idea of moral offence come into
consideration in connection with it. (See further, the present writer's The
Jewish Doctrine of Mediation, pp. 22-27.)
2. Almost as frequent as the word just considered
is 'Avon, translated '' iniquity ''; in 51. 5 (7 in Hebrew.), e.g., Behold, I
was shaped in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, a passage which suggests
the meaning “guilt” rather than “iniquity"; and this is a rendering
supported by the sense of many other passages in the Old Testament in which it
occurs. The root-meaning of this word is to turn i.e. from the right way; the
cognate Arabic root has the same meaning.
This is
well illustrated in 38. 6 (7 in Hebrew.): I am bent and bowed down greatly,
where the reference is to disease. From this root-meaning arose later on the
sense which the word now usually has in the Old Testament, namely, a
''perversion,'' a turning
from the right
way, i.e. God's way, and therefore displeasing to Him; perhaps the best
illustration of this is in 25. 10, 11:
All
the paths of the Lord are lovingkindness and truth, Unto such as keep his
covenant and his testimonies;
For thy name's
sake, Lord, Pardon mine iniquity, for it is great.
Here it
is clear that the '' iniquity consisted in not keeping God's covenant and testimonies,
and this constituted a turning from '' the paths of the Lord."
In three passages this word almost acquires the
extended meaning of the consequence, or punishment, of guilt, 69. 27 (28 in Hebrew.):
Add iniquity to their iniquity, and let them
not come into thy righteousness; cp. 31. 10 (11 in Hebrew.), 106. 43.
In the vast majority of cases one or other of
the two words just considered is used in the Psalms whenever Sin is referred to;
not infrequently they occur together in parallel clauses; as, for example, in
38. 18 (19 in Hebrew.):
I avow mine iniquity ('avon), I am worried because of my sin (chattath).
The different ideas contained in the two words
may, perhaps, be expressed thus:
Chattath connotes
the idea of an act of sin, the ''missing of the mark''; while 'Avon implies
rather the state of sin, the result of turning out of the right way, and
walking in the wrong way.
3. A word of much less frequent occurrence is Pesha translated "transgression"; this is only
used fourteen times in the Psalms. In 36. 1 (2 in Hebrew.) transgression is
personified: Transgression saith to the wicked in the midst of his heart. The
root-idea of this word is clear from the use of the verb, which always means ''
to rebel," so, e.g., in Isa. 1. 2, and often elsewhere. The underlying
idea of the word is, therefore, the act of setting oneself in opposition to God;
it is more directly positive in its meaning than either Chattath
or Avon. The meaning is well brought out in 5. 10 (11 in Hebrew.):
Thrust them out in the multitude of their
transgressions, For they have rebelled against thee.
4. Besides the terms already referred to there
are a few others which only occur
SIN 63 rarely; these may be briefly
enumerated.
Resha' (“Wickedness")
is used six times, 5. 4, 10. 15; in 45. 7, it occurs as the direct opposite of “righteousness";
and there are also the phrases: '' tents of wickedness " (84. 10), ''
sceptre of wickedness” (125. 3), and “deeds of wickedness” (141. 4). The verb
is only found four times in the Psalms. Once we have Ra' (“Badness"),
occurring in this sense, only in 28. 44. The word 'Asham’
(' offence," or "guilt ") occurs twice, in 68. 21 (22 in Hebrew.)
and 69. 5 (6 in Hebrew.); the verbal forms, “to declare guilty'' (5. 10 [11 in Hebrew.]),
and ''to be held guilty" (34. 21, 22 [22, 23 in Hebrew.]) are also used.
Lastly, there is the word Shegiah (to be read,
probably, Shegigah, but the meaning is the same in either
case), which occurs once, in 19. 12 (13 in Hebrew.), and means ''error,"
but an error inadvertently committed; this is also the meaning of the verb from
the same root, which in the Psalms is found only in 119. 10, 21, 67, 118; as a
reference to Lev. 5. 18, Num. 15. 28, will show, the meaning is “to err in
ignorance."
These details are, no doubt, somewhat dry
reading; but they will, nevertheless, it is hoped, be not without some use as
references for those who desire to make a somewhat more careful study of the
subject. At any rate, this preliminary investigation will have shown that the
general conception of Sin is expressed in manifold form in the Psalms.
We proceed now to study the subject of Sin
itself, as contained in the Psalms; and it will conduce to clearness if we
divide up our matter under various headings.
It may well be thought, at first sight, that it
is futile to seek for any teaching concerning the origin of Sin in the Psalms;
direct teaching on the point will, it is true, be sought in vain; but, in view
of the later Jewish teaching on the subject, there are some passages which
certainly deserve some consideration.
In the two centuries which preceded the beginning
of the Christian era much speculation arose concerning the Future Life, and the
condition of the departed in the world to come; it was obvious here that the
question should have arisen as to the difference of the state of the righteous
and the wicked in the Hereafter; this, again, necessitated the contemplation of
the fact, and existence, of Sin in this world, together with speculations concerning
the nature and origin of Sin.
We find, therefore, in post-Biblical Jewish literature
a large amount of material in which theories are propounded as to how Sin first
came into existence; these theories all had their points of attachment in Old Testament
passages, from which they developed. Some of these passages are to be found in
the Psalms, if, indeed, one or two of the passages do not themselves reflect the
later mental processes. We shall come to these presently.
§ 1. It is, however, necessary first of all to
lay stress on the fact that, in general, the existence of Sin is taken for
granted, without any attempt to account for it. The apparent incongruity
between the prosperity of the wicked and the misfortunes of the righteous
caused heart-searchings; but there was the fact; and it was recognized as being
one of the inevitable factors of life in this world.
The psalmists again and again call upon God to
destroy the sinners; comfort is taken in the thought that their time is short;
exultation is expressed at their downfall; but through it all, with a few
exceptions, Sin and sinners are regarded as among the things that always have
been, and always are. This is all so obvious that there will be no need to emphasize
it further by quoting passages; it will suffice to refer, e.g., to 14. 1-6,
which offers a good illustration of what has been said.
§ 2. But from a few passages it is evident that
the belief was held that Sin originated in man quite apart from the action of
any extraneous influence. This seems to be implied in 58. 3 (4 in Hebrew.):
The wicked are estranged [i.e. from what is good]
from the womb, They go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
The reference is to Sin which is innate in man,
as belonging to his nature. The correctness of this interpretation is, indeed,
disputed by some modern commentators; thus, Briggs, in writing on the passage/
says: “This does not refer, as older interpreters thought, to the impulses of
original sin or innate depravity; but specifically to the wicked in antithesis
to the 'righteous,' 5. 12. They begin the practice of their wickedness in their
earliest youth." By '' original sin '* Professor Briggs does not, of
course, mean what the theological term '' Original Sin '* connotes; that is
unknown to the Old Testament, as well as to later Judaism. It may, however, be
questioned whether there is not something to be said for the view of the ''
older interpreters "; it is certainly worth observing that the verse which
immediately follows runs:
Their poison is like the poison of a serpent, They
are like the adder that is deaf, and stops his ear.
The analogy between the poison of the serpent and
the poison of the wicked would imply that the latter was innate, like the
former.
But this interpretation would not be pressed were
it not for the teaching on Sin of later Judaism, which is always, in the first instance,
based on Biblical passages, and which is always, likewise, the development of Biblical
teaching; in addition to this, there is the fact, generally recognized at the
present day, that numberless passages in the Old Testament have been adapted to
the more developed beliefs of later ages; this has probably been the case with
the Psalms more than with any other of the Old Testament books, owing to their
having been adapted for liturgical use. It is in the light of post-Biblical
Jewish teaching that a passage like the one before us should be examined.
In his comment on this verse, Dean Kirkpatrick
pointedly refers to Gen. 8. 21:
The imagination of man's heart is evil from his
youth; the word translated *' imagination '' here, namely, Yetzer, has played a
great part in later Jewish theology; but, whatever the exact meaning of the
word as used in this Genesis passage, it at any rate refers to evil as being
something which is innate in the heart of man, and, in so far, confirms what
seems to be the teaching in the verse from the Psalms which we are considering;
that is to say, the verse is one of those which teach that the origin of Sin is
to be found in man. That this was one of the theories as to the origin of Sin
in post-Biblical Jewish literature can be seen from the following quotations:
In Ecclus. 15. 14-18, according to the recently
found Hebrew, it is written:
God created man from the beginning, And placed
(lit. '' gave ") him in the hand of his Yetzer. If thou (so) desires, thou
canst keep the commandment, And (it is) wisdom to do his good pleasure.
Poured out before thee (are) fire and water.
Stretch out thine hand unto that which thou desires.
Life and Death (are) before man.
That which he desires shall be given to him.
It is true, that here Sin is, from one point of
view, represented as being extraneous to man — Life and Death (are) before man
— but the origin of Sin in man is clearly taught by the words And placed him in
the hand of his Yetzer. If thou (so) desires, thou canst keep the commandment.
In The Book of Enoch, 98. 4, the origin of Sin in man is quite definitely
stated in the words: Sin hath not been sent upon the earth, but man himself
hath created it. It is not necessary to illustrate this further, though plenty
of other quotations from this class of literature could be given. The later
Rabbinical speculations concerning the Yetzer witness abundantly to the
conviction that Sin is inherent in humanity, though, as will be seen presently,
the Rabbis did not always hold that the origin of Sin was to be sought in man.^
While, therefore, it must be granted that the passage from the Psalms which we
are considering is ambiguous as to the underlying idea contained in it, it may
be claimed that, in the light of later teaching, it seems to contain the germ
of the doctrine that Sin originates with man. In any case, it is nowhere taught
in the Psalms that the temptation to commit sin comes from the devil. In
connection with what has been said, a reference must be made to 7. 14:
Behold he travailed with iniquity, He hath
conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood.
Here again, the analogy suggests the bringing forth
of something that existed previously within. There is one other passage which must
be briefly considered under this heading, 51. 5 (7 in Hebrew.):
Behold, I was born in iniquity ('avon), And in sin did my mother conceive me.
The innate evil in man is the truth which is clearly
expressed here; it may, or may not, be that the psalmist intends to plead this in
extenuation of his sinning against God — commentators differ in their opinion
as to this — but the fact that Sin is in man seems unquestionably to be what
the passage teaches. Briggs maintains that the reference is not to " the
iniquity of the parent, or to an iniquitous condition of the infant when
brought forth "; but contends that “the poet here alludes to the historic
origin of the nation in their patriarchal ancestors, as in Isa. 43. 27 (Thy
first father sinned, and thine interpreters [i.e. false prophets] have transgressed
against me); their first father committed sin, and all his posterity since his
day have followed him in transgression.” It must be confessed that the reasoning is somewhat
difficult to follow here; it seems more in accordance with the meaning of the
verse as it stands, to recognize frankly, with Gunkel, that '' we must see in
passages like these the preparation for the New Testament doctrine of Original
Sin”; and he goes on to say: “Ancient Israel does not believe in an absolute
corruption of Human Nature, but it postulates only a tendency towards
sinning." But, as he says elsewhere, “Sinning cleaves to him by
nature."
The teaching of the passages so far
considered, therefore, is that, when man sins, it is from, and of, himself that
he does so; the origin of his evil-doing is in himself, and this both as
regards source and action. In so far as evil is part of his nature, man is a
helpless and passive victim, and in so far as he obeys its baneful influence,
he is its active agent; but the fons et origo is in man.' § 3. There is one passage which, at any rate,
adumbrates teaching, which was at one time vigorously combated, but which in later
times was accepted by the exponents of official Judaism — the teaching, namely,
that evil originates with God. The passage is 141. 4:
Incline not my heart to any evil thing, To he occupied in deeds of wickedness.
The converse of this is found in 119. 36, where
the same word for '' incline " is used, (and where, in the second clause
of the verse, a similar thought to the above is found):
Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, And not
to covetousness.
In these two passages the ''inclination” is
thought of as being caused by God; but there are other passages in the Old
Testament where the same word for “to incline" is used, and in which man
is represented as causing the '' inclination "; so that there is no ambiguity
in the meaning of the word in the two passages from the Psalms before us. Both the
psalms in question are generally acknowledged to be of late date, belonging
perhaps to the Greek, or even to the Maccabean period, so that we are justified
in taking into account the thought-tendencies of the time, or of times slightly
later, as reflected in other books. From these books it is perfectly clear that
sharp differences of opinion existed as to whether, or not, God was to be
regarded as the original Creator of Sin. In Ecclesiasticus we have, in 15. 11-15,
a polemic against the contention that God is the author of Sin:
Say not: " From God is my transgression” For
that which he hates he made not.
Say not: " (It is) he that made me to
stumble” For there is no need of evil men.
Evil and abomination doth the Lord hate, And
he doth not let it come nigh to them that fear him.
Cf.
Jas. 1. 13, 14: Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God
cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no man; but each man is
tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.] This shows that
there were those who held the contrary view. On the other hand, in Ecclus. 33. 15,
occurs the following:
Good is set against evil, and life against
death; So is the godly against the sinner.
Thus look upon all the works of the Most High;
There are two and two, one against another. That these antitheses are all
spoken of as “the works of the Most High," seems to imply the belief that
evil was created by God; it is, at any rate, certain that at a, comparatively
speaking, early period, the teaching must have been put forth which became crystallized
in Midrashic and Talmudic writings; for in these we find it often definitely stated
that God, as the Creator of all things, created evil. This is said in the
Midrash Bereshith Rahba, 27.,
while in the Yalkiit Shimeoni
Beresh, 44., God is represented as saying: “I grieve
that I created man of earthly substance; for had I created him of heavenly
substance he would not have rebelled against me”; or, again, in the Babylonian
Talmud, Kiddushin 30, it is said:
“I created an evil tendency (Yetzer)
I created for him (i.e. for man, in order to counteract the evil tendency) the
Law as a means of healing. If ye occupy yourselves with the Law, ye will not
fall into the power of it (i.e. of the evil tendency).” There are many other
passages to the same effect.
We must, therefore, at the
least, reckon with the possibility that in the two passages from the Psalms
under consideration the thought is contained that the bias towards evil comes
from God.
In the Psalms, then, while the
existence of Sin is taken for granted, there is very little speculation as to
its origin. The fault of sinning is always ascribed to man, so much so that in
some passages the belief seems to be implied that its origin is to be found in
man.
In a very few instances the teaching that the original
tendency to sin comes from God seems to be implicitly implied.
That which, in the Psalms, constitutes the essence
of Sin is, first and foremost, the conscious and wilful setting-up of oneself
against God. This takes a variety of forms.
§ 1. First, there is that of personal insult
to God. This, in its worst aspect, takes the form of denying that God is the
champion of right and righteousness; in 10. 4, it is said:
The wicked, in the pride of his countenance, (saith),
'' He will not require it ''; All his thoughts are, " There is no God,'' The
words, " There is no God," do not mean that God is non-existent; it
is not an atheistic position which is here described; the words express, though
in a very different spirit, the same thought as that uttered in the first verse
of the psalm:
Why stand thou afar off, Lord?
Why hide thou thyself in times of trouble?
Whereas the godly man, in perplexity, wonders
why God permits the persecution of the helpless — though his profession of
faith is contained in verse 5 — the wicked maintain, in effect, that God does
not intervene, “is not there,” for the simple reason that the triumph of
wickedness does not matter to Him. The same thought is present in 14. 1 (cp.
53.1):
The fool hath said in his heart, “There is no God.''
The verse goes on to describe the doings of the wicked, which are accomplished
with impunity; and it is for this reason that the fool (better,
''impudent" man) supposes that his doings are indifferent to God; he denies,
in effect, the ethical purity of God.
A good commentary on the attitude here
portrayed is contained in 50. 21:
These things hast thou done, and I kept
silence; Thou thought that I was altogether such an one as thyself (But) I will
convict thee and set (the matter) before thine eyes.
Another passage which graphically describes the
essential wickedness of the ungodly is 10. 11-13:
He saith in his heart, " God hath
forgotten, He hides his face, he will never see if . . .
Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God, And say
in his heart, “Thou wilt not require it?'' Cp. also 139. 20.
These passages express clearly what is the most
serious aspect of Sin — the attitude of mind which regards God as acquiescing
in what is wrong, and thus virtually imputes sin to Him; this can only be
paralleled by the similar spirit spoken of by our Lord in Mark 3. 29, 30: . . .
But whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness,
but is guilty of an eternal sin; because they said. He hath an unclean spirit, §
2. Secondly, there is the wilful transgression of God's testimonies and
commandments.
This constitutes, though in a less degree, a personal
insult to God, because it is a deliberate contempt for what He requires. For example,
in 12. 4 (5 in Hebrew.), the ungodly are represented as saying:
To our tongue will we give strength, Our lips
are our own; who is lord over us?
How transgression against the divine precepts
is seen to be truly affecting the very Personality of God is expressed in a
somewhat anthropomorphic, but very realistic, way in 14. 2, 3 (cp. 53. 2, 3):
The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children
of men, To see if there were any that would deal wisely, That did seek after
God. (But) they are all gone aside; they are altogether become filthy, There is
none that doeth good, no, not one.
Again, transgression is described as taking the
place of divine inspiration in the heart of the wicked, and thus banishing from
it the recognition of God; 36. 1:
An oracle of Transgression [revealed itself]
to the wicked in the midst of his heart, (So that) there is no fear of God
before his eyes.
The distance between God and the wicked is
such that even the semblance of an acknowledgement of Him by them is rebuked; Sin
creates such a gulf between God and those who practise it that there cannot be
the faintest communion between them; see, e.g., 1. 16 ff.:
But unto the wicked God saith, '' What hast
thou to do to declare my statutes, And that thou hast taken my covenant in thy mouth?
Seeing thou hates correction, And casts my words behind thee.” This thought of
the distance between God and the followers of Sin, together with the inevitable
punishment of these, is brought out again in 73. 27:
For, lo, they that are far from thee shall
perish; Thou hast destroyed all them that go a-whoring from thee.
In more abstract form the antagonism that
exists between God and Sin is seen in the words of 94. 20:
Can the throne of wickedness have fellowship with
thee.
Which frames mischief by statute.
These and other similar passages teach that
the transgression of God's commands involves an insult to Him, it constitutes
an act which touches the honour of God.
§ 3. In the next place, sin against the godly,
as belonging to God, is scarcely less sinful than the direct insulting of God
Himself; see, e.g., 14. 4-6:
Have they no knowledge, all the workers of iniquity?
Who eat up my people, as they eat bread) There
were they in great fear, For God is in the generation of the righteous.
Ye put to shame the counsel of the poor, Because
the Lord (is) his refuge.
The psalmist feels justified in calling upon God
to punish the wicked who oppress the afflicted, because the harm done to these is
sin against God; this is brought out in 10. 12-15:
Arise, Lord; God lift up thine hand, Forget
not the meek.
Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God, And say
in his heart, '' Thou wilt not require (it)? "
Thou
hast seen travail and grief, thou behold (it) to requite it with thy hand; Upon
thee the helpless leaves it [i.e. the requiting], And (as for) the fatherless,
thou hast been his helper) Break thou the arm of the wicked.
And (as for) the evil man, seek out his
wickedness, till thou find none.
What man calls upon God to do here is elsewhere
represented as, in any case, His intention; 12. 5 (6 in Hebrew.):
For the spoiling of the poor, for the sighing
of the needy.
Now will I arise,'' saith the Lord, I will
place him in the safety he pants for.'' The identification, which is frequently
implied, between the enemies of the godly and the enemies of God, should be
borne in mind when reading the so-called *' imprecatory " psalms; it may,
to some extent, be urged in extenuation of the cruel spirit displayed in these.
That it is not always personal vengeance which is sought, but, at any rate, in
some cases the expression of a real zeal for God's honour, can be seen from the
psalmist's words in 139. 21, 22:
Do not I hate them, Lord, that hate thee?
And do not I loathe them that rise up against
thee?
I hate them with a perfect hatred; I count
them mine (own) enemies.
It is this identification between the enemies of
God and the enemies of the godly which, in some measure, must account for an
element in the doctrine of Sin in the Psalms which, indeed, is characteristic
of the Old Testament as a whole; namely, that there is no differentiation
between Sin and sinners. Sin does not exist apart from its exhibition in the
sinner; there is no principle of evil; what constitutes Sin are sinful acts,
individual acts of rebellion against God, and against those who love Him; and
therefore if these acts are refrained from, and the positive precepts of God
are observed, the possibility is by no means excluded of the servants of God
being all that He can require; see, for example, such a passage as the
following, in which what has been said is well illustrated, both as regards the
non-differentiation be tween Sin and sinners, and the
(implied) perfection of the godly man, 5. 4-7:
For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness,
The evil man shall not sojourn with thee, The arrogant shall not stand in thy
sight; Thou hates all workers of iniquity.
Thou shall destroy them that speak lies; The
Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.
But as for me, in the multitude of thy
lovingkindness, will I come into thy house:
In fear will I worship toward thy holy temple.
From what has been said, it will be clear that
by the essence of Sin in the Psalms something very different is taught from
what the New Testament teaches on the subject.
While Sin involves separation from God, and
the sinner is debarred from fellowship with Him, the godly can, by his
observance of the Law and of the commandments of God, secure for himself a
state of perfect justification in the sight of God; so much so that he regards
himself as belonging to an entirely different category from that of the
sinners. This, indeed, is what must strike every careful reader of the Psalms, namely,
the fundamental differentiation between the godly and the sinners therein portrayed.^
We shall have to return to this in § 4.; in the meantime it is well to bear in
mind that in this respect the doctrine of Sin in the Psalms shows a marked
difference from the fuller recognition of the universality of Sin, that is to
say, the deeper apprehension of Sinfulness which is taught in the Christian
Church; the words of St.
Paul in Rom. 3. 20-24, are well worth pondering
in this connection:
Because by the works of the law
shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the
knowledge of sin. But now, apart from the law, a righteousness of God hath been
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness
of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is
no distinction; for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being
justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
It may be confidently asserted that in no literature
that the world has ever known is the expression of the sense of Sin more touchingly
or more whole-heartedly set forth than in some of the psalms of the Hebrews I and
this in spite of the fact that the realization of the essence of Sin falls
short of what the fuller revelation of God, as proclaimed in the New Testament,
has taught men concerning the '' exceeding sinfulness of Sin “ (cp. Rom. 7. 13).
It has been sometimes claimed that the
penitential psalms of the Babylonians offer a parallel to those of the Old
Testament; this parallel is purely superficial; and, as far as real devotional
feeling is concerned, comparison between the two is out of the question. Even
for those who, like the present writer, are unable to read these Babylonian penitential
psalms in the original form, it is possible to gain a clear idea of the spirit
permeating them from the excellent translations which have been published; ^
the perusal of a large number of these convinces one of the truth contained in
the words of one of the foremost living Assyriologists, when he says: "
From the examples here offered in this department of Babylonian-Assyrian literature,
the conclusion is gained that there can be no question of a direct influence of
Babylonian-Assyrian prayers of plaint and penitence (" Klageund
Bussgebete ") upon the like products of the Bible.
The penitential spirit, though emphasized in a striking manner in some of these
prayers, is not the essential feature; this is to be sought rather in the
plaint itself. A secondary feature which comes into consideration is the prayer
that the divine wrath may cease; while the element of penitence itself only
appears in the third place.
On the other hand, in those Biblical psalms
which are reckoned among the penitential ones, the main stress is laid upon
humility and penitence in the sight of the righteous Creator of the universe.
Moreover, the whole conception of penitence
is, in the Biblical psalms, of an entirely different character; for the
penitent, in giving vent to his religious emotions, starts from the conviction
that the Deity Who points to a righteous manner of life as the supreme object
of religion, is Himself filled with the feeling of absolute righteousness.
According to the prophetic-monotheistic conception of the world, which
constitutes the basis of the Biblical psalms, the Creator can only act in
accordance with the law of righteousness. In view of such ideas there can be no
question of divine arbitrariness. Even when one takes the question of ritual
offences into consideration, it is still the fact that the transgressions,
which in the Psalms call forth the sense of sin, are, generally speaking, in
the domain of morals; while, in the Babylonian-Assyrian psalms the conditions
are exactly reversed, for in them Sin, whether conscious or not, consists, in
the main, in errors of ceremonial in the sight of the gods. It is only the
exception where reference is made to moral offences."
Let us now turn to some passages
in the Psalms, and see how the Sense of Sin is there portrayed.
§ 1. It is well to note, first of all, that in
some exceptional cases the universality of Sin is taught; this is not, as we
have seen, the normal teaching of the Psalms; but in dealing with the subject
of the Sense of Sin, this exceptional teaching must be taken into account,
otherwise we should be ignoring a striking element in it.
In 143. 2, the psalmist sings:
Enter not into judgement with thy servant, For
in thy sight shall no man living he justified.
It is not surprising that this verse should have
been chosen as one of the " Sentences from Scripture " with which the
Church's Daily Services commence, for it anticipates, and essentially accords
with. Christian teaching.
The same truth, though in a modified form, is,
in some sense, implied in the recognition of the sins of the forefathers, the
results of which were seen to be entailed upon their descendants; so, for
example, in 79. 8:
Remember not
against us the iniquities of our forefathers; Lei thy tender mercies speedily
prevent us, For we are brought very low.
The community of sinfulness between the forefathers
and the descendants is very pointedly brought out in 106. 6, 7:
We have sinned with our fathers, We have
committed iniquity, we have done wickedly.
Our fathers understood not thy wonders in Egypt,
They remembered not the multitude of thy mercies, But were rebellious at the
sea, even the Red Sea.
Not only is Sin
thus acknowledged to be widespread, but it is realized that God sees all
iniquity:
Thou hast set our iniquities before thee.
Our secret sins in the light of thy
countenance (90. 8, cp. 44. 21).
So that the penitent sinner must perforce cry:
Who can discern his errors?
Absolve me from hidden (faults) (19. 12 [13 in
Hebrew.]).
§ 2. This leads us on to the
more specific confession of sins in the sight of God, which is of the essence
of the Sense of Sin. Pregnant with meaning are the words in 38. 4 (5 in Hebrew.):
For mine iniquities have gone over my head, As
an heavy burden they are too heavy for me.
The psalmist, in the outpouring of his heart,
cares little how he piles up his metaphors so long as he can disburden himself
of the horrible weight upon him, through the acknowledgement of his guilt. He
first likens his iniquities to an overflowing flood which threatens to engulf
him; this metaphor, for expressing the overwhelming nature of Sin, is used
elsewhere in the Psalms; in 18. 4, for example, it says:
The floods of ungodliness made me afraid.
The same thought is elaborated in 69. 1, 2, where
the context (verse 5) shows that the reference is to Sin:
Save me, God; For the waters are come in unto
my soul. I sink in the deep mire, where there is no standing, I am come into
deep waters, where the floods overflow me.
The psalmist, then (in 38. 4), abruptly changes
the metaphor, and compares his sins to a burden too heavy for him to bear; the
metaphor is a significant one, for it implies the recognition of the need of
one who is stronger than he to lift the load from off him. In the same psalm
the penitent realizes that, with confession, repentance must go hand in hand:
For I am ready to halt, And my sorrow is
continually before me; For I will declare mine iniquity; I will he sorry for my
sin (verses 17, 18).
In another psalm, in which, however, the psalmist
is speaking in the name of his nation, the manifold sins of the people are likened
to a countless multitude, 40.12 (13 in Hebrew):
For wickedness surrounded me until (they were)
without number.
Mine iniquities took hold of me, so that I was
not able to see.
More numerous were they than the hairs of my head,
and my strength (lit. '' my heart ") hath forsaken me.
Of a more individual character, and important
from another point of view, is 41. 4 (5 in Hebrew.):
I said, Lord, have mercy upon me; Heal my
soul, for I have sinned against thee.
Sin is here represented as a disease; this is
clear from the use of the word " heal " (rapha'),
which is the regular word for healing ordinary sickness; in Gen. 1. 2, for
example, the participle is used, and means “ a physician "; it is,
however, frequently used metaphorically in the sense of forgiveness, so in Ps.
30. 2:
Lord, my God, I cried unto thee, and thou hast
healed me (cp. 107. 20).
Closely connected with this is the belief, to
which we shall have to refer again later on, that the consequences of Sin
entail disease on the sinner, a disease which God alone can cure; this is
brought out with great clearness in 103. 2-4:
Bless the Lord, my soul, And forget not all
his benefits; Who forgives all thine iniquities, Who heals all thy diseases; Who
redeems thy life from the Pit, Who crowns thee with lovingkindness and tender
mercies.
In every case the desire for '' healing '' is an
implicit confession of sinfulness. But the most pointed example of the Sense of
Sin, in which the recognition of sinfulness, the acknowledgement and confession
of sins, as well as the yearning for divine forgiveness, are all expressed, is,
of course, 51. 1-4 (3-6 in Hebrew.):
Be gracious unto me, God, according to thy lovingkindness,
According to the multitude of thy mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, And
cleanse me from my sin. For I am conscious of my transgression, And my sin is
continually confronting me. Against thee, against thee only, have I sinned, And
committed the wickedness, — in thy sight.
It is noteworthy here that the penitent recognizes
his sinfulness in the sight of God to partake of a threefold nature — ''
iniquity " ('avon), a turning out of the right
way, and thus consisting of a course of unrighteousness; '' sin " (chattath), a missing of the mark which should be the aim of
right living in God's sight; and '' transgression " (pesha'),
the act of rebellion against God. And just as the deep realization of his sin
causes the psalmist to describe it in its fulness, from every point of view, so
also is the depth of his yearning that the sin might be taken away, and he uses
three words to express the obliteration of sin. “Blot out '' (machah; the word occurs again in verse 9 [11 in Hebrew.]); this
word is used to express two things, though they are allied in meaning; in Isa.
25. 8, it occurs in the sense of "wiping away” tears from the face (cp.
also 2 Kings 21. 13, Prov. 30. 20); in the passage before us it refers, more
probably, to the '' effacing '' of the sinner's record in the book of God; in
Exod. 32. 32, 33, Moses says: . . .
and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy
hook which thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath
sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. The same idea occurs in the
New Testament, Col. 2. 14: . . . having
blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us (cp. Acts 3. 19);
still more pointed in Rev. 3. 5: And I will in no wise blot his name out of the
book of life.
The second word used is '' wash " (kabas); this root occurs in Lev. 13. 55, of a plague being
'' washed out "; also in Lev. 14., frequently, of washing the person after
recovery from leprosy; so that we have here again the idea of Sin being a
disease. And lastly “cleanse" (tahar), which,
like the preceding word, is a term largely used in the Levitical ritual, e.g.
Lev. 13. 6, 34, and elsewhere, in reference to the cleansing from leprosy.
It will be instructive to refer briefly here
to the general idea of "washing" or "cleansing," according
to the Levitical Ritual, for it will show (by way of contrast) to what an
advance in spiritual conception the Psalms bear witness. Two passages come
mainly into consideration:
Num. 8. 7, 8: Before the Levites were fit to enter
upon their duties, there were certain ceremonies to be gone through, which were
believed to have the effect of cleansing them from their sins.
They had first to be sprinkled with the "
waters of expiation " (lit. " waters of sin "); then they had to
shave and wash; after that they had to offer up a " sin-offering,"
i.e. an offering which took away sin. There can be little doubt that we have here
an instance of duplication to make certainty doubly sure. The water took away
the sin, but to make certain, in such special cases as the sanctification of
the Levites to their holy office, a sin-offering also was offered. The two were
analogous rites, as their name implies; viz. "waters of sin" means water
that takes away sin, " sin-offering " means an offering that takes
away sin.
Lev. 14. 1-32: Without going into details, it will
be found, on reading this passage, that the recovered leper had, among other
things, to wash in ''living" water, and to offer a sin-offering.
This, in the case of a leper, was of still
greater significance than in the example just given, inasmuch as leprosy was
par excellence the symbol of Sin, and, like other chastisements, regarded as the
result of Sin. The recovered leper, according to this passage, had a long
series of purifications to go through before the taint of sin could be removed.
This passage is especially instructive,
because it is not the leprosy itself from which the man was being cleansed, for
in verses 3 and 4 the directions given are: . . . and the priest shall look,
and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper, then shall the
priest command . . .; that is to say, the actual physical disease had departed before
this cleansing process was undertaken. It would seem that the invisible taint
of sin (as distinct from its visible manifestation), on account of which the
divine visitation, in the shape of leprosy, had overtaken the man, was that
which the cleansing process was intended to purify, for the man could not enter
into God's presence for worship until he had washed, etc. (Cp. Oesterley and Box, Op. cit., chap. 13.).
In Psalm 51. the old technical terms are used,
but their meaning has become wholly spiritualized.
It is characteristic of the deep sincerity which
pervades the psalmist's words that he realizes the fact that, although he
himself has only now come to be conscious of the real nature of his sinfulness,
he nevertheless recognizes that God has known it all along; this becomes clear
when one notices that the cry to God for forgiveness comes first, and then the
words “ For I," expressed in the emphatic way in the original, “am conscious
(lit. ' know ') of my transgression."
It is also significant that, although the sin which
has been committed was against a man, as is clear from verse 14 (16 in Hebrew.),
this is yet so emphatically described as having been against God; this
witnesses to an intense realization of Sin; transgression against the second
commandment of the Law, which is, ''like unto" the first (cp. Matt. 22.
36-40) is, in reality, the breaking of the first.
Further, the psalmist lays stress on another element
in the true Sense of Sin; confession of guilt leads the way to the knowledge of
the mind of God; the realization of individual sinfulness gives a deeper
insight into the awful chasm which separates between the sinner, and the
purity, and holiness, and majesty of God; then the void in the heart of the
penitent becomes a sense of horror, and it comes upon him like a flash what is really
wanted, what only can fill that void:
Behold, thou desires truth in the inward
parts.
No man can have the knowledge of God unless
the truth of God is in his heart; therefore the psalmist continues:
And in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know
wisdom; by wisdom is meant '' the fear of the Lord "
(see 111. 10). But the truth, and knowledge, and
fear of God can only be properly apprehended by the heart made clean by God, so
the psalmist continues:
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall he clean; Wash
me, and I shall he whiter than snow (verse 7 [9 in Hebrew.]).
The language is again
figurative, and borrowed from Lev. 14, where the ceremonial for the cleansing
of the leper is described; hyssop was a small plant which grew out of the wall,
according to 1 Kings 4. 33, (v. 13 in Hebrew.), where it is contrasted with the
cedar that is in Lebanon; a bunch of this was used as a sprinkler. According to
Exod. 12. 22, the blood was sprinkled on the doorposts with a bunch of hyssop.
The use of the term here is, therefore, full of significance, for the psalmist
calls upon God to bring about the inward and spiritual cleansing which the
priest in the Levitical ritual could only do outwardly.
A final
stage in the upward path of the penitent is the desire for, and resolve of,
permanent amendment of life; but, again, this is unattainable by human effort,
however strenuous it may be; God alone can incline the heart and bend the
stubborn spirit to sustained striving; so the psalmist prays:
Create for me a
clean heart, God; And renew a steadfast spirit within me; Cast me not away from
thy presence, And take not thy holy spirit from me (verses 10, 11, [12, 13 in Hebrew.]).
To
abide in the presence of God, and to be upheld by His Spirit, this alone can
save the sinner from spiritual death (cp. 19. 13, 119. 176).
This
wonderful psalm, revealing as it does the innermost recesses of the penitent's
heart, demands far more minute and careful study than we have space for here;
besides, it would take us too far afield, as our object is only to point out
the chief elements of the doctrine of Sin in the Psalms.
One final passage must be quoted
under this heading, both because it refers to confession of sin, and also
because it witnesses to one other element in the Sense of Sin, namely, the fear
which the true penitent feels lest his sin should be the means of harming
others, 69. 5, 6 (6, 7 in Hebrew.):
God, thou knows my
foolishness, And my guiltiness are not hid from thee, Let not them that wait on
thee he ashamed through
me, Lord God of
hosts. Let not them that seek thee he brought to dishonour through me, God of
Israel.
It must
strike one at first sight as incongruous to find that while, on the one hand,
the expression of the Sense of Sin is so pronounced, there should, on the
other, be many passages in which assertions of innocence are equally strongly
expressed. Let us begin by giving some examples, and then seek to account for
this attitude.
§ 1. In
7. 3-5, there are some words which seem to amount to a challenge to God to
deliver the speaker to his enemies if any wickedness is found in him:
Lord my God, if I
have done this; If there he any iniquity in my hands; If I have rewarded evil
into him that was at peace with me . . . (Then) let the enemy pursue my soul,
and overtake it; Yea, let him tread my life down to the earth, And lay my glory
in the dust.
In
verse 8 (9 in Hebrew.) of the same psalm, the psalmist contrasts the divine
judging of the Gentiles with that which will be accorded to him:
The Lord ministered
judgement to the peoples; Judge me, Lord, according to my righteousness, and to
mine integrity within (lit. upon) me (cp. 26. 1, 2; 43. 1).
In
another passage God is called upon to witness that He has found nothing amiss
in His servant after having examined his heart, 17. 3:
Thou hast proved
my heart, thou hast visited me in the night, Thou hast tried me, and finds no
evil purpose in me; My mouth shall not transgress.
In a
number of other passages this sense of innocence is expressed in even more
emphatic terms; but, as in these there is also contained one, at all events, of
the main reasons for this attitude, we can consider them in connection with our
attempt to account for such a feeling of self-righteousness.
§ 2. To
the psalmist the reward which has been accorded to him by God is a proof that
he has acted in accordance with the divine will; the knowledge of this brings
home to him the conviction that he must be righteous. Duty well fulfilled
naturally and rightly arouses in the heart the feeling of satisfaction; the joy
of right-doing is part of its reward. The consciousness of acting as we believe
God would have us act proclaims a man to be a righteous man; he cannot hide it
from himself; consequently he glories in the sense of righteousness. This is
clearly the mental attitude of the writer when he says, in 18. 20-24 (21-25 in Hebrew.):
The Lord reward me
according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands doth he
recompense me. Because I have observed the ways of the Lord, And have not done
wickedly (in departing) from my God. For all his judgements are before me, And
(as for) his statutes, I do not depart from them; Yea, I was perfect (in my
dealings) with him, And kept myself from mine iniquity.
The
words '' judgements and “statutes " refer, as always, to the precepts of
the Law; to fulfil these resulted in becoming perfect in the sight of God. It
is here, therefore, that we find one line of explanation of what often strikes
us now-a-days as an unwarrantable assertion of righteousness. For us, this assertion
would undoubtedly be unwarrantable, for a reason to be given presently; but to
impute to the psalmists in those days a spirit of unjustifiable self
-righteousness is an entire misapprehension of the religious conditions of the
times. Twofold action, one positive and one negative (though this latter is
really involved in the former), constituted the whole duty of man; the positive
action was that expressed in the last quotation, namely, the fulfilment of the
precepts of the Law; the other is referred to in the following words, 44. 20,
21:
If we have forgotten the name of our God, Or
spread forth our hands to a strange god, Shall not God search this out?
For he knows the secrets of the heart.
To be instant in carrying out the Law of God,
to turn the back on idolatry, this was righteousness; he who did this did all
that even God Himself could expect, and the reward could be demanded as of
right. This position is perfectly consistent and logical, as far as it goes;
what we have to remember is that in those days this constituted the whole of
the position. We do not tolerate a spirit of self-righteousness now-a-days, for
two reasons — at least these ultimately lie at the base of whatever reasons we
give utterance to — first, because we realize far more the part that divine grace
plays in all human action, and secondly because we, in consequence, do not
assign undue power to the human will; and there is a third reason which is
expressed in these words: When ye shall have done all the things that are
commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it
was our duty to do; nothing more than that.
§ 3. There is another line of explanation to be
given in reference to the Sense of Innocence which figures in some of the
psalms. This is expressed in a clear way in 26. 1-5, where the psalmist first
protests his innocence, and then, in verses 4 and 5, gives what is, at any
rate, a contributory reason, for this:
Judge me, Lord, for I have walked in mine integrity,
I have trusted also in the Lord without wavering.
Examine me, Lord, and prove me; Try my reins
and my heart.
For thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes; And
I have walked in thy truth.
I have not sat with vain persons, Neither will
I go in with dissemblers.
I hate the congregation of evil-doers.
And will not sit with the wicked (cp. ci.
3-8).
Here it will be seen at once
that there enters in, implicitly, a comparison between the psalmist and the
ungodly. This attitude is, obviously, a very dangerous one; but there was no
sort of doubt that when the psalmist contrasted the evil life of the wicked with
the whole-hearted desire to serve God, and the strenuous observance of the Law,
of which he was conscious within himself, the difference was very great; the
result was a conviction of innocence which was inevitable, and, to be frank, it
was very natural.
The religious standard of the times, and the
fact of the enormous difference between the devout psalmist and the ungodly men
he saw about him — these are two considerations which must be given their due
weight when reading passages in the Psalms in which the Sense of Innocence is
expressed.
In the Psalms the punishment of the wicked, as
the result of their sins, is very frequently emphasized. But this punishment is
of a twofold character. At one time it is temporal adversity, in varying forms,
which is to overtake the wicked; at another, the full punishment does not come
until after death. This latter, we shall have to refer to again in Lecture 3.
There can be no doubt that these two
conceptions of punishment for Sin reflect the ideas of different ages. The
earlier belief, which regarded sickness and adversity as the visible
manifestation of divine wrath for sin (cp. Isa. 53. 4), was seen to be not always
in accordance with fact, since the wicked were often in prosperity, while the righteous
were no less often afflicted; it was a later development of belief when it became
realized that punishment hereafter awaited the enemies of God.
Let us illustrate these two stages in the teaching
concerning the results of Sin by a few quotations out of a large number that could
be given.
§ 1. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the
teaching that bodily sickness is one form of punishment for sin than the words
in 38. 3 ff. (4 ff. in Hebrew.):
There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine
indignation, There is no rest in my hones because of my sins; For mine
iniquities have gone over my head, As an heavy burden they are too heavy for
me. My wounds stink and are corrupt, Because
of my foolishness. . . . (Cp. 31. 10, 69. 22-25.)
The same thought is expressed as clearly in 39.
11 (12 in Hebrew.):
With rebukes dost thou chasten man because of
iniquity.
Adversity, as well as sickness, is one of the
results of Sin, e.g. 25. 17, 18:
The troubles of my heart are enlarged; O bring
me out of my distresses. Consider my affliction and my travail; And forgive all
my sins (cp. 67. 6; 89. 30-32; 103. 3; 107. 17, 34; 146. 9).
These, and many similar passages, refer to the
results of Sin as experienced in this world.
In the next place, punishment is meted out to
the wicked in that they are cut off from the enjoyments of life, so, for
example, in 34. 16:
The face of the Lord is against them that do
evil, To cut off the remembrance of them from the earth (37. 12, 13, 38).
These passages reflect the normal teaching both
of the Psalms, and of the Old Testament generally, concerning the punishment of
the wicked.
§ 2. But there are a certain number of passages
in which a more developed teaching is found; in these the punishment of Sin is
not restricted to this life; thus, in 4. 23, punishment consists not only in
the cutting off of the wicked in the midst of life, but also in further
punishment hereafter:
But thou, God, shalt bring them down into the
Pit of destruction; Bloodthirsty and deceitful men shall not live out half
their days.
Still more pointed is 69. 28 (29 in Hebrew.):
Let them he blotted out of the hook of the
living, And not he written with the righteous.
Cp. the words in Dan. 12. 1: And at that time
thy people shall he delivered, every one that shall he found written in the
hook. See further, on the Hereafter as a time of punishment for the wicked,
Lecture 3.
§ 1. It will not be unprofitable to enumerate briefly
the various words used in connection with the obliteration of Sin, for this
will give us some clear insight into the general Old Testament idea of
Forgiveness.
(a) Nasa. This root means literally “to lift
up," and also ''to bear "; in the former sense the word occurs in
Isa. 5. 26: And he will lift up an ensign to the nations front far.
Then it is used in the sense of lifting
something up in order to carry it away; e.g. in 2 Sam. 4. 4, it is said of
Jonathan's son: . . . and his nurse took him up and fled (cp. Gen. 21. 18, Amos
6. 10). Here, therefore, we have the idea of the obliteration of Sin being
brought about by its being lifted off the sinner; Sin is, as in 38. 4, a burden
weighing a man down. In the case of the second meaning, the idea is that of the
Sin being carried by someone else; in this sense the word is used in Isa. 53.
12, . . . yet he bare the sin of many, and also in Lev. 16. 22, of the
scapegoat: . . . and the goat shall hear upon him all their iniquities unto a
solitary land. These two meanings are very closely connected.
This is probably the earliest word used for the
taking away, i.e. the forgiving, of sins.
It occurs in the Psalms in 25. 18, 32. 1, 5, 85.
2 (3 in Hebrew.), 99. 8, in the sense of '' to forgive."
(b) Kissah. This
word means, in the first place, simply '' to cover,'' in the ordinary sense of
the word (e.g. Gen. 9. 23, 38. 15, in reference to the body and the face); it also
occurs frequently in the somewhat extended meaning of covering something for
the purpose of concealing it; so in Gen. 37.
26: And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit
is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood?
(cp. Job. 16. 18). It is in this sense in which it is used in reference to the forgiving
of sin; God covers over the sin so that He does not see it; in its origin the conception
is a quaint one according to modern ideas. But in the Psalms, where it occurs
in 32. 1, 5, 85. 3 (cp. Job. 31. 33, Prov. 10. 12), the thought is simply that
of free forgiveness.
(c)
Kipper. This word, like that just considered, was adapted, as a technical term,
from the language of the Levitical ritual. It is possible that, in meaning,
there is a connection between the two, as this root also means '' to cover '';
but there are differences of opinion regarding the root-signification.
According to some, the word comes from the Arabic, and the meaning is ''to
cover over '' in the sense that a gift or an offering has the effect of
covering over the eyes so that a cause of offence may not be seen; this meaning
is illustrated, for example, in Gen. 20. 16:
Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces
of silver; behold, it is for thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with
thee; and in respect of all thou art righted. But still more pointed, on
account of the use of the actual word under consideration, is Gen. 32. 20 (21
in Hebrew.): “I will appease his face (lit., I will cover his face) with the
present that goes in front of me; and afterwards I will see his face,
peradventure he will receive me. If this derivation is correct, the meaning ''
to cover over " implies that an offering blinds the eyes of God to an
offence which has been committed; the offering is the means whereby God is
induced not to regard the offence.
On the
other hand, others believe that the word denotes that that which is '' covered over
'' is not the face of God, but the cause of offence, so that it is not seen by
God; by this means the sin would be regarded as non-existent. According to the
former meaning, the making of an atonement would be accomplished by a gift to the
Deity; according to the latter, the sin would be, as it were, obliterated by
means of covering it over through the offering of atonement; for this latter,
Lev. 17. 11 is instructive:
It is the blood that makes atonement (or “covers
over ") by reason of the life (it is said in the first part of this verse
that the life of the flesh is in the blood). A third opinion is that the root-meaning
of the word is ''to wipe off,” or " to wipe clean ''; this is the meaning of
the cognate Syriac stem, and there are other Semitic analogies which can be
urged in favour of this meaning. This word is used in 65. 3 (4 in Hebrew.), 78.
38, 79. 9.
(d) Salach. The
ordinary word for " to forgive," used always of God; it occurs in the
Psalms in 25. 11; 36. 1, 5; 103. 3; 139. 4 (in this last the noun is used).
Besides these there are several
other words which may be briefly referred to:
(e) Machah; ''to blot out ''; see above, p. 94. See 51. 1, 9,
(3, 11, in Hebrew.), 109. 14.
(f) Rapha'; ''to heal "; see above, p.
92. See 41. 4 (5 in Hebrew.); cp. 103. 3, 107. 20.
(g) Kabas; "to
wash "; see above, p. 95. See 51. 2, 7, (9 in Hebrew.).
(h) Tahar; "to cleanse ''; see above, p.
95. The cognate Arabic root is explained as meaning " to put afar,'' because
he who was ritually clean " separated '' himself from all that might make
him unclean. See 51. 2, 7 (4, 9 in Hebrew.).
(i) Nagah. The literal sense of this word is probably (though
this is uncertain) " to be empty,'' or "to empty out," and thus to
be clean. In 19. 12 (13 in Hebrew.) it has the sense of regarding as innocent, and
can thus be rendered " acquit," or absolve; this is the only passage
in the Psalms where the word is used in this sense.
(j) Padah; " to
ransom," or " to redeem."
This word contains the underlying idea of payment;
and it is generally used of releasing from an enemy by means of a ransom (cp.
Exod. 13. 13, 14; Deut. 7. 8, 13. 6).
An instructive passage for the meaning of the
word is Ps. 69. 18 (19 in Hebrew.), but here the word translated '' redeem
" in the Revised Version is ga'al, which is
never used in reference to redemption from Sin; in the second clause of the
verse the word rendered '' ransom “ is the one before us.
In the Psalms the word is only once used in
connection with redemption from Sin, 130. 8, and here it is probably used
rather of redeeming from the power of iniquity, than of forgiveness for actual
sins committed.
§ 2. It must strike one, at first, as somewhat
strange that, in spite of the abundance of expressions used in reference to the
obliteration of Sin, there should be, comparatively speaking, so few passages
in the Psalms in which the forgiveness, or taking away, of sin is spoken of;
yet so it is; in the whole of the Psalter there are not much more than twenty
passages in which this subject is dealt with. This is the more remarkable in
that the expression of the Sense of Sin, as we have seen, is here so
pronounced. The explanation of this is of a three-fold character.
In the first place, a large proportion of the Psalms
is concerned with subjects with which the thought of the forgiveness of sins is
of necessity absent; songs of praise and thanksgiving, meditations, and
historical odes, of which there are many in the Psalter, do not, from their
very nature, touch upon the subject. Secondly, it is frequently the case that
when Sin is referred to, the sinners are thought of as either unworthy to be
reckoned among the congregation of Israel, or else they are Gentiles; both
categories are regarded as outside the pale of divine forgiveness.
Such an attitude may be thought incongruous in
a truly religious psalmist, but one has to reckon with the spirit of the age.
And thirdly, many psalms deal with the state of
the afflicted and the oppressed; here, again it would be unreasonable to expect
the subject of forgiveness to be dealt with. Finally, it must also be
remembered that the psalmists were par excellence the saints of the Lord, in
whom the Sense of Innocence was strong for that very reason; and, even when not
explicitly expressed, that Sense of Innocence was mentally present.
§ 3. In proceeding now to examine the passages
in which the forgiveness of sins is referred to, we shall see that the teaching
on the subject is quite plain and straightforward.
Divine forgiveness is, to the godly, free and unconditional;
this practically sums up the question, though one or two other elements force
themselves into consideration, as we shall see. The recognition of divine
forgiveness is expressed, for example, in 86. 5:
For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to
forgive, And plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee.
The mere fact of '' calling upon” God is sufficient
to obtain forgiveness. The same free forgiveness is seen in 103. 3:
Who forgives all thine iniquities; Who healed
all thy diseases.
More distinctly still is this brought out in 45.
2, 3 (3, 4, in Hebrew.):
O thou that hears prayer, Unto
thee shall all flesh come.
Iniquities prevail against me, (But)
as for our transgressions, thou shall purge them away.
An interesting passage is 130. 3, 4, where the
idea is expressed that forgiveness of iniquities consists simply in their not
being '' marked” or '' observed," by God:
If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, Lord,
who shall stand? But there is
forgiveness with thee, That thou may he feared (or '' revered '').
Of
course, this is brought about by the mercy of God, implicitly thought of. This
real source of forgiveness is more explicitly expressed in other passages, 103.
3, just quoted, and 41. 4:
I said, Lord, have mercy upon me; Real my
soul, for I have sinned against thee.
See
also the beautiful passage 103. 10-13; cp. 25. 7, 78. 38, 39, 79. 8. Sometimes
forgiveness is asked for the sake of the divine name, for example, 25. 11:
For thy name's sake, Lord, Pardon mine
iniquity, for it is great.
Or, again, 79. 9:
Help us, God of our salvation, for the glory of
thy name; And deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name's sake.
§ 4. This leads us on naturally
to the question whether there are any indications in the Psalms as to any
mediatorial agency being the means of forgiveness. One must recognize two
opposing attitudes here. It is a very striking thing that the efficacy of sacrifices,
which were otherwise regarded as essentially the means of the obliteration of
sin, should in a few notable cases be pointedly minimized; thus, in 40.6-8 (7-9
in Hebrew.), the observance of the precepts of the Law is regarded as far more
important than offering sacrifices:
Sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight
in, Mine ears hast thou opened. Burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not asked
for. Then said I, Behold I am come. In the roll of the hook it is prescribed
for me. I delight to do thy will, God, Yea, thy Law is within my heart.
Again, in 11. 13-15, 23, the '' sacrifice of thanksgiving
'' and the paying of vows is seen to be far more important than the ordinary
sacrifices:
Will I
eat the flesh of bulls, Or drink the blood of goats! Offer unto God the sacrifice
of thanksgiving, And pay thy vows unto the Most High. Whoso offered the
sacrifice of thanksgiving glorified me. And there are also the well-known words
of 51. 16, 17 (18, 19 in Hebrews.):
For thou delights not in sacrifice (else would
I give it) Thou hast no pleasure in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a
broken spirit, A contrite heart, God, thou wilt not despise.
And, lastly, 69. 30, 31 (31, 32 in Hebrew.):
I will praise the name of God
with a song, And will magnify him with thanksgiving; And it shall please the
Lord better than an ox, (Or) a bullock that hath horns and hoofs (cp. 4. 5, 27.
6, 107. 22, 116. 17, 119. 108.).
These passages tell strongly against any idea of
mediation in connection with forgiveness, and this accords with what we have
already seen to be the general teaching on the subject in the Psalms.
Nevertheless, there are some other passages which witness to another aspect of
the question. The sacrificial system constituted per se a recognition of the
principle of mediation, since sacrifices were the means whereby sins were
obliterated; in so far, therefore, as the sacrificial system is recognized in
the Psalms, these may be said to teach that forgiveness is not immediate.
The following are some examples of a belief in
the efficacy of sacrifices:
. . . Remember all thy meal-offerings, And
accept thy burnt sacrifices (20. 3 [4 in Hebrew.]).
The joyous participation of the psalmist in the
public sacrifices is witnessed to in 54. 6 (8 in Hebrews.):
With whole-heartedness will I sacrifice unto thee,
I will praise thy name, Lord, for it is good.
The psalmist calls upon others to do the same in
96. 8:
Ascribe unto the Lord the glory of his name.
Bring a meal-offering, and enter into his courts.
Again, in 141. 2, it is said:
My
prayer is prepared as (the offering of) the incense before thee, The lifting-up
of my hands as the evening oblation (see Exod. 29. 38-42).
The passage 118. 27, which would be very
appropriate here, according to the rendering of the Revised Version, is not
really to the point, as there is no reference to sacrifice in the original; the
Hebrew text is corrupt. Originally the passage probably referred to the
procession of the worshippers on the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles;
they carried palm-branches [Lulah) to which were
bound willow-branches and twigs of myrtle; seven circuits were made round the
altar.
§ 5. Besides these passages there are two or
three others in which reference is made to mediatorial agency in connection
with the forgiveness of sins. The first is 99. 6-9; here Moses and Aaron, as priests,
and Samuel, are celebrated in the psalm because they called on the name of the
Lord. '' It is evident," says Prof. Briggs, “that this calling on the name
of Yahweh is conceived as that of priestly mediation”; and in reference to the
words in verse 8, Thou answered them, Lord our God; Thou was a God that forgave
them, he says, further, that “this doubtless refers to the intercession of
Moses, Aaron, and Samuel in behalf of the people of Israel in times of sin and
divine punishment." Once more, in 106. 23, occur the words:
Therefore he said that he would destroy them, Had
not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach, To turn away his wrath,
lest he should destroy (them); and in verse 30 of the same psalm:
Then stood up Phinehas, and interposed, And so
the plague was stayed.
As Prof. Briggs truly remarks, the rendering
of the Authorised, as well as the Revised, Version (''executed judgement")
''substitutes the result for the act expressed by the verb, and overlooks the
mediatorial significance of his act." These passages, therefore, must be
taken into consideration when dealing with the subject of the forgiveness of
sins; in each case the sin is forgiven because of intercession, this
witnessing, as far as these passages are concerned, to the belief in a
mediatorial agency in connection with forgiveness.
Summary.
For the proper understanding of the Doctrine
of Sin in the Psalms one must examine the various terms, and their
root-meaning, which are employed; this we have attempted to do as a
preliminary. Turning then to the subject proper, we sought for indications in the
Psalms as to any ideas regarding the origin of Sin; and we saw that, generally speaking,
the existence of Sin is taken for granted without any attempt to account for it.
But certain passages point to a belief that Sin originates in man; and in this
connection attention was drawn to the later idea of the Yetzer or '' Bias,''
which, in accordance with the exercise of man's free-will, is turned either to
good or to bad. A few other passages, however, lend
colour to the belief, which in later times was definitely taught in Rabbinical
literature, that, as the Creator of all things in existence, God originated
Sin.
There is no sort of doubt that this theory of the
origin of Sin was vehemently combated (and therefore held), and quotations have
been given showing this. But in the Psalms this theory is never explicitly
taught, though in some passages, as we have seen, it seems to be implied.
As to what constitutes the essence of Sin,
according to the teaching of the Psalms this consists in the denial of God,
wilful transgression of His commands, and contempt for His requirements.
Closely connected with this is enmity towards the godly, which is regarded as
implying enmity towards God Himself. Sin thus involves separation from God Who
is Life; and therefore Sin brings death. At the same time, we have seen that
the doctrine of Sin in the Psalms falls far short of that of the New Testament because,
according to the former, justification can be attained by man through his own efforts;
moreover, the universality of Sin, though occasionally recognized, is not
realized in the sense in which this is taught in the Christian doctrine of Sin.
Nevertheless, there are a few passages which, in a modified sense, teach the
universality of Sin, and this constitutes one of the most striking elements of the
sense of Sin as taught in the Psalms. Not less important an element in the
teaching concerning the sense of Sin is the frequent stress laid upon the
confession of sins; this is of great significance. The yearning for cleansing
from Sin is also of great importance as witnessing to the deep sense of Sin
which so frequently finds expression in the Psalms.
We turned then to what appears, at first sight,
to be a direct negation of anything like the sense of Sin, namely, the sense of
Innocence, which is often strongly asserted in the Psalms; but reasons were
given showing that these assertions of innocence, as expressed by the
psalmists, did not necessarily preclude a sense of Sin as experienced by the
seekers after righteousness in those days; the religious standard of the times,
and the fact of the great difference between the godly and the wicked,
differentiated as these so often were by being respectively worshippers of God
and worshippers of idols — these were factors which had to be allowed due
weight in considering the subject of the sense of Innocence.
The results of Sin were seen to be of a
two-fold character; temporal adversity, ending in being cut off prematurely
from the land of the living; and, in the more developed belief, continuation of
punishment in the world to come; '' the wages of Sin is death '' may,
therefore, be said to have had a two-fold meaning, not only to the Apostle who
wrote these words, but also to some of the later psalmists.
Lastly, we dealt with the teaching in the
Psalms concerning the Forgiveness of Sin, and we pointed out that, in spite of
the abundance of expressions used for the taking away of Sin, forgiveness finds
but, comparatively speaking, a small place in the thoughts of the psalmists; a
twofold explanation of this was offered; firstly, that a large proportion of
the psalms dealt with subjects with which the thought of the forgiveness of
sins was naturally not concerned; and, secondly, that very often in those
psalms in which Sin is mentioned, the sinners are thought of as unworthy of forgiveness,
or else that they were, as Gentiles, outside the pale of God's mercy. In those passages,
however, in which this subject is referred to, we saw that, in some, it is
taught that the divine forgiveness is free and unconditional, while in others a
mediatorial element is believed in.
Thou guides me by Thy counsel. And afterward
Thou wilt take me to glory. Ps. 73. 24.
There are, at the least, some sixty passages in
the Psalms from which some insight is to be gained regarding conceptions about
the Hereafter. In general, the belief concerning this is the same in the Psalms
as in the Old Testament as a whole, so that our investigation on the subject
will include, to some extent, this larger range, though our main concern will
be with the Psalms. But, as we shall see, the teaching in the Psalms reaches, ultimately,
a development which is far in advance of the rest of the Old Testament.
As a preliminary it is essential that we should
make clear to ourselves what is meant by the term Sheol, i.e. the abode of the
departed, and the various ideas connected with it.
Regarding the derivation of the word, there
are differences of opinion among scholars; some hold that it comes from a root
meaning " to ask," and that 'the word thus means " the place of
inquiry."
As an illustration of this, reference may be
made to 1 Sam. 28. 6-18, where we have the description of how Saul went to
inquire of the departed spirit of Samuel concerning the issue of the battle with
the Philistines. It is improbable, though this is held by some, that the idea
of " the place of inquiry " referred to the place of judgement, in which
the soul was subjected to a scrutiny regarding its moral life while on earth;
it is true that in the later Egyptian belief the soul of the dead man, after
having gone through various vicissitudes, at last reached the judgement hall of
Osiris, where he underwent an examination concerning his manner of life while
on earth, and where finally his heart was weighed in the balance of the goddess
of justice; but this idea is obviously a developed one; the early Israelite
belief was of a much simpler character, and there is no differentiation, until
much later times, between the good and the bad in the Hereafter.
Another theory as to the derivation of the
word is that it comes from a root meaning " to be hollow," in
reference to Sheol being a " hollow place," a hole (= " hell
"; cp. the German Holle).
The conceptions concern! ag Sheol found in the
Old Testament are diverse, and naturally so when one remembers that they
represent the speculations of a variety of thinkers.
One can understand the objection to this
statement that may be felt by some who will urge that if we believe in the
inspiration of the Bible it is unfitting to apply the term " speculative
" to the thoughts there expressed. But let it not be forgotten that the
divine action is only one element in inspiration, immeasurably the more important
element, but requiring human action to bring it to fruition; and that human
action must often be in the nature of speculation, otherwise we should have to
regard man as little more than an automatic receiver.
Sheol is sometimes conceived of as a city with
gates; the actual phrase '' gates of Sheol " does not, it is true, occur
anywhere in the Psalms, but in Isa. 38. 10, in the Psalm of Hezekiah, are the
words:
I said:
In the noontide of my days I shall go into the gates of Sheol; and its '' bars
'' are spoken of in Job. 17. 16, where Job says of his hope:
It shall go down to the bars of Sheol.
On the
other hand, the expression '' gates of death " occurs in Ps. 9. 13:
Thou
that lifts me up from the gates of death; and in Ps. 107. 18:
They draw near unto the gates of death
(cp. Job. 38. 17).
'' Death” and “Sheol '' are thus synonymous
terms. The idea of Sheol being a “city'' would naturally have arisen, because it
was in the cities that many people were gathered together; and that Sheol was
conceived of as a place in which crowds were gathered together is clear from
Job. 30. 23:
For I know that thou wilt bring me to death, To
the house of assembly for all living (cp. Job. 17. 13); and from Ps. 49. 14 (15
in Hebrew.):
As a flock they are put in Sheol, Death shall
be their shepherd and their ruler. (cp. Job. 21. 16).
Then,
again, as in the case of Death, we have the expression '' snares of Sheol '' in
the English Versions this word is rendered “cords'' which is a literal
rendering of the Hebrew; the idea is that Sheol has the power of ensnaring men,
and thus dragging them down; see, for example, Ps. 18. 4, 5 (5, 6 in Hebrew.):
The cords of Death compassed me, And the
floods of ungodliness made me afraid; The cords of Sheol were round about me, The
snares of Death came upon me (cp. cxvi. 3).
This leads to the further idea which imputed personality
to Sheol; in Isa. 28. 18, for instance, it is said:
And your covenant with Death shall be
disannulled, And your agreement with Sheol shall not stand.
Death and Sheol are again used synonymously.
In Ps. 89. 47, the “power of Sheol” is spoken
of; and in Isa. 5. 14, it is described as an all-devouring monster:
Therefore Sheol hath enlarged her desire, And
opened her mouth without measure (cp. Hab. 2. 5).
This is paralleled by what is said in Ps. 69.15
Let not the Pit shut her mouth upon me.
Such personification is, however, purely figurative;
Sheol is a place, not a person.
Further, Sheol is conceived of as being situated
deep down under the earth; it is in the '' lower parts of the earth." An
expression used in Ps. 86. 13, is '' Sheol beneath "; the same is said of
the '' Pit," which is also used synonymously with Sheol (but see below) in
Ps. 88. 6. This thought of Sheol being deep down under the earth is further
graphically illustrated in Ps. 149. 17:
For when he dies he shall carry nothing away; His
glory shall not descend after him (cp. 63. 9).
It was, presumably, owing to the belief of Sheol
being situated under the earth that such expressions arose as '' the dust of
death '' (Ps. 22. 15), and '' lying down in the dust” (Job. 21. 26); and we are
reminded of the words in Ps. 30. 9:
Shall the dust praise thee? Shall it declare thy
truth?
Though here the thought is
probably that contained in Gen. 3. 19: Dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou
return.
Further, Sheol is a place of darkness; in Job
10. 22, it is called '' the land of darkness”; and the phrase '' the shadow of
death " is due to this conception (cp. Ps. 23. 4; 44. 19; 107. 10, 14); in
Ps. 143. 3, the psalmist's enemy is spoken of as one who Hath made me dwell in
dark places, As those that have been long dead (cp. 88. 6, 12; Job 10. 21, 22;
Again, in Sheol silence reigns supreme; thus
in Ps. 115. 17, it is said:
The dead praise not thee, Lord, Neither they
that go down into silence (cp. 94. 17).
Once more, Sheol is the land of
forgetting; in Ps. 88. 12, it is said:
Shall thy wonders he known in the dark? And
thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness? (cp. Eccles. 9. 5, 6, 10). The
same belief, though differently expressed, occurs in Ps. 146. 4:
His breath goes forth, he returns to his earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.
And finally, it is the land whence there is no
return; see Job 10. 21; Before I go whence I shall not return, To the land of
darkness and shadow of death.
And again, in Job 7. 10:
As the cloud is consumed, and vanishes away, So
he that goes down to Sheol shall come up no more.
It is certainly striking that these
conceptions regarding Sheol are identical with those of Babylonian belief
concerning the underworld; for in the epic of “The Descent of Ishtar," for
example, we read that in the place of the departed '' dust is on door and bolt
"; it is called '' the dark house "; they who go there " sit in
darkness ''; it is the land without return, and it is also spoken of as *' the
house from which he who enters never comes forth.” Another word used for the
place of the departed is the “Pit" (Bor in
Hebrew); in this sense it occurs only in Ps. 28. 1, 30. 3 (4 in Hebrew.), 4. 23
(24 in Hebrew.), 69. 15 (16 in Hebrew.), 88. 4, 6, (5, 7 in Hebrew.), 143. 7.
Ordinarily it means a '' well " (pronounced, however, Be'er),
or, more rarely a '' pit '' dug out (e.g. Ps. 7. 16, 40.2).
It is not easy to see on what
principle the revisers worked in their renderings of this word, as the few
following examples will show; it is translated "the pit," without
marginal note, in Ps. 30. 9, Job 33. 22, 24, 28, 30, Isa. 38. 17; “corruption,"
with “the pit" in the margin, in Ps. 16. 10, 49. 10, Job 17. 4; “destruction,"
with " the pit " in the margin, in Ps. 104. 4; “destruction,"
without marginal note, in Ps. 55.23.
Synonymous with this is the Hebrew word Shachath (from a root meaning " to sink down ") —
it is translated variously in the Revised Version; this word, like Bor, is also used, primarily, in the ordinary sense of a ''
pit," or '' hole." As to the conception contained in the '' Pit
" in reference to the underworld, see the next section. Then, finally,
mention must be made of the word Abaddon; this occurs, for example, in Ps. 88. 11
(12 in Hebrew; the only place in the Psalter), and a few times in Job (five times),
and in Proverbs (twice); it is translated by '' Destruction " in the
Revised Version, but this is inexact, for, as a synonym of Sheol and the “Pit,"
it does not connote an abstract idea; it would be better to render it '' the
place of Destruction," or else, as the Revised Version does elsewhere, (e.g.
Job 26. 6), it should be transliterated Abaddon. It occurs only in the Wisdom Literature,
and is, therefore, a late expression; we must certainly see in it a development
of belief concerning the condition of the departed hereafter; etymologically it
means “destruction," and this, when spoken of in connection with the dead,
clearly means something more than is implied by Sheol, which, as a rule, is
merely the place where the shades of the departed lead a silent, aimless
existence in darkness and forgetfulness. But this leads us to consider more carefully
the ideas concerning the condition of the departed in Sheol.
In Ps. 88. 11, mention is made of the Rephaim,
the equivalent term in the parallel clause being “the dead” Wilt thou do
wonders among the dead? Shall the
Rephaim arise and praise thee?
This is the only occurrence of the word in the
Psalms, but inasmuch as it is the technical term used in the Old Testament for the
inhabitants of Sheol, and seeing that the normal teaching in the Psalms
regarding all that has to do with the Hereafter coincides with the Old
Testament generally on the subject, it will be well to see what ideas the Hebrews
had concerning the departed. Let us, however, approach the subject from a wider
standpoint; it will be seen that this is worth doing.
All races, even those in a state of
undeveloped culture, recognize that man is made up of two parts, body and soul,
or spirit; they believe that inside a man there is a small counterpart, which,
excepting that it is much smaller, is exactly similar to the man proper; this ''
little man '* is the soul; and the similarity continues after death. They
believe, further, that all man's activities are to be explained by the presence
of the soul; if, therefore, the man falls asleep, and is inactive, the presumption
is that the soul is absent. This belief was strengthened — if, indeed, it did not
originate in this way — by dreams and trances; what happened in dreams was explained
as the actual experiences of the soul, which had taken temporary leave of the
body; when the soul had finished its wanderings, it returned to the body, and enabled
the man to wake up. But, just as sleep was explained as a temporary absence of
the soul from the body, so death was explained as being due to its permanent
absence therefrom. That there was, even after death, a continued relationship
between the soul and the body was not doubted; but the nature of this
relationship was left undefined.
A concrete example of this may be given; we quote
from Frazer, Op. cit. 1. 249: " The ancient Egyptians believed that every
man has a soul (ka) which is his exact counterpart or double, with the same
features, the same gait, even the same dress as the man himself. Many of the
monuments dating from the eighteenth century onwards represent various kings
appearing before divinities, while behind the king stands his soul or double,
portrayed as a little man with the king's features. Some of the reliefs in the
temple at Luxor illustrate the birth of King Amenophis
3. While the queen mother is being tended by two goddesses acting as midwives,
two other goddesses are bringing away two figures of new-born children, only
one of which is supposed to be a child of flesh and blood; the inscriptions
engraved above their heads show that, while the first is Amenophis,
the second is his soul or double. And, as with kings or queens, so it is with
common men or women. Whenever a child was born, there was born with him a
double who followed him through the various stages of life; young while he was young,
it grew to maturity and declined along with him. ... So thin and subtle was the
stuff, so fine and delicate the texture of these doubles that they made no
impression on ordinary eyes. ... So exact is the resemblance of the mannikin to
the man, in other words of the soul to the body, that, as there are fat bodies
and thin bodies, so there are fat souls and thin souls; as there are heavy
bodies and light bodies, long bodies and short bodies, so there are heavy souls
and light souls, long souls and short souls."
What has been said can, to some extent, be illustrated
from the Old Testament. Four points have been referred to regarding the beliefs
generally held among uncivilized races/ and which are found among a people of
such, relatively, high culture as the ancient Egyptians; they are:
(a) That man is made up of a body and a soul,
or spirit.
(b) That there is exact similarity between
these, excepting that the soul is much smaller than the body; and that this
similarity continues after death.
(c) That the soul has the faculty of leaving
the body temporarily, which occasions sleep, or permanently, which results in
death.
(d) That an undefined relationship exists between
the soul and the body even after death.
(a) As regards the first of these; that this coincides
with the teaching of the Old Testament is so obvious as not to require detailed
proof. It will suffice to say that what we call the material part of man is, in
the Old Testament, known as hasar ('' flesh ");
what we call the '' spirit ''is in Hebrew the ruach, which,
however, is not a spiritual thing in our sense of the word; it means ''
wind,"
and in its origin (though later on it assumed a
more restricted meaning) had practically the same meaning as neshamah, “breath"; the breathing-in of this ruach became the neshamah, or “breath"
of life; and when the basar, or “flesh,"'
received this, it became a “living soul"; the Hebrew word for “soul"
is nephesh. Cp. the following passages:
Gen. 2. 7: And the Lord God formed man of the
dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (neshamah) of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh).
Gen. 7. 22: . . . All in whose nostrils was the
breath (neshamah) of the spirit (ruach)
of life.
Job. 34. 14, 15.:
If he set his heart upon man, If
he gather unto himself his spirit (ruach) and his
breath (neshamah), All flesh (hasar)
shall perish together, And man shall turn again unto dust (cp. Prov. 20. 27).
The soul (nephesh) is identified with the
blood in the body, as is clear from Lev. 17. 11, 14:
For the '' soul '' of the flesh is in the
blood . . . for it is the blood that make atonement by reason of the '' soul
"; verse 14: For the soul of all flesh is its blood (cp. Deut. 12. 23, 24,
Jer. 2. 34). It is owing to this conception that blood is said to cry out; see
Gen. 4. 10: ...
The voice of thy brother's blood cries unto me from the ground.
The
inconsistencies, which a moment's thought will reveal, in these conceptions is
to be accounted for by the existence, side by side, of different sets of ideas;
to separate them, and to set them forth here would take us too far from our
present subject. Our main point at present is that the Hebrews differentiated,
in the clearest possible manner, between the body of man, and his soul, or
spirit; but that, with regard to the two latter, there is no clear distinction
of thought, for each is spoken of as what in modern speech would be described
as the non-material part of man; nephesh connotes at one time something “spiritual”
at another something material and ruach is spoken of
as something that occupies space in the body of man.
(b) In
the Old Testament the idea of similarity between soul, or at all events the
disembodied spirit, and body after death is expressed in striking ways; but it
is, at the same time, important to remember that the actual terms '' soul and
'' spirit " are never used in reference to the inhabitants of Sheol.
In I Sam. 28. 8 ff. we have the account of Saul's
interview with the witch of Endor; when Samuel appears, Saul knows who it is by
the description given by the witch; in verse 14 it says: And he said unto her,
What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with
a robe. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel. This recognition is clearly due
to the fact that the appearance of Samuel in the disembodied state is conceived
to be the same as that in which Saul had known him when on earth. In Isa. 14.
10, 16, is the account of the king of Babylon in Sheol, where he is recognized
by those already there: All they shall
answer and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like
unto us? . . . They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, they shall
consider thee, (saying), Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that
did shake kingdoms . . . Though it may, and rightly, be urged that this account
is not intended to be taken in a literal sense, it must be remembered that it was
prompted by conceptions which were held at the time; and, therefore, for our
present purpose of illustration, it is a propos. In
the same chapter it is explicitly stated that the very status occupied on earth
is continued in Sheol, for in verse 9 it is said:
Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming; it stirred up the
Rephaim for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from
their thrones all the kings of the nations. Again, in Ezek. 32. reference is
made to the mighty on earth, who are still the mighty in Sheol, (verse 21); the
uncircumcised on earth are still the uncircumcised in Sheol (verses 24, 27);
they that had weapons of war and swords on earth still possess them in Sheol (verse
27); Pharaoh on earth is still Pharaoh in Sheol (verses 31, 32). The whole
chapter is very striking in the ideas expressed regarding the condition of the
departed; it is an extraordinary commentary upon what is elsewhere expressed in
the words:
Where the tree falls, there shall it be
(Eccles. 11. 3).
It is true enough that the conceptions
embodied in the passages cited range over long periods of time; but what an
interesting illustration they afford of the way in which antique thought
develops into living truth — or, shall we say, of the germs of living truth
being adumbrated in antique thought!
(c) It must be confessed that direct evidence
in the Old Testament for the belief that the soul leaves the body temporarily during
sleep or a trance is not forthcoming, though there are, in the accounts of
dreams, things that suggest it; such as when Pharaoh, in his dream, stands upon
the brink of a river (Gen. 41. 1, 17), and in other cases, in which the
dreamer's experiences take place at a distance from the spot where his body is
lying (Gen. 31. 10, 37. 6 ff., 40.11, Judges 7. 13, Isa. 29. 8, etc.). There
is, however, one passage which certainly seems to be a reminiscence of this, at
one time, worldwide belief; it is 1 Sam. 25. 29; here Abigail says to David:
And though man be risen up to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul, yet the soul
of my lord shall he hound in the bundle [properly '' bag "] of life in the
care of^ the Lord thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling
out, as from the hollow of a sling. The idea of God having a bag in which He
keeps souls is very quaint, and though the language here is most probably symbolic,
meaning that the life of David is precious in the sight of God, yet the very quaintness
of the thought leads one to conjecture that some primitive conception lies behind
it. Although Semitic examples of the belief of the external soul in its crude form
appear to be exceeding^ rare, the conception that a man's life can be wrapped
up in some external object on the safety of which his immunity depends, is one
that readily lends itself to development and refinement.
Thus David's soul is bound up with (i.e. in the
care and custody of) Yah we (1 Sam. 25. 29); and, according to 2 Sam. 21. 17,
the life of the nation is wrapped up in David, since the extinction of the '
lamp of Israel ' seems to entail that of the people." The passage Gen. 35. 18, should also be
considered in this connection.
(d) The last point in this digression is the belief
that a certain relationship exists between the soul and the body after death.
The first thing that suggests itself is, of course,
the care of the dead; this opens out a large subject which we do not intend to touch
upon here; it must suffice to say that the burial customs among the Hebrews did
not, any more than among all other peoples, have reference to the mourners
alone. A consideration of another kind is contained in the passage already
alluded to in another connection, which speaks of Abel's blood crying out from
the ground (Gen. 4. 10); see what was said above about the soul being identified
with blood.
This digression has carried us some way from
the immediate subject in hand; but it is not irrelevant, for it has touched
upon some elements which are essential in considering the Old Testament belief
regarding the state of the departed.
We turn now to what we are definitely told
about the Rephaim. The name is identical with that of an early race of giants
who are said to have once been the inhabitants of Palestine (cp. Deut. 2. 10, 11,
20), though presumably they were still in existence within historical times
(see Gen. 14. 5); there was also a valley of this name (Josh. 15. 8, 18. 16, 2
Sam. 5. 22). We cannot here concern ourselves with the question as to whether
any connection existed in the minds of the ancient Israelites between this
early race of giants and the inhabitants of Sheol) The meaning of the name, as
applied to the departed, is '' the weak ones " (from a root raphah)) in Isa. 14. 10, the inhabitants of Sheol are
represented as saying to the king of Babylon:
Art thou also become weak as we?
Art thou become like unto us?
So that it is probably best to translate Rephaim
as the '' Shades/' though, as we shall see, the Old Testament conception sees
in them something much more material than what we should understand by this
word.* That the Rephaim were believed to have emotions is clear from the
following passages; in I Sam. 28. 15, when Samuel has been '' brought up "
from Sheol by the witch of Endor, Samuel's first words to Saul are:
Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up?
In Job. 26. 5, it is said that the Rephaim tremble;
in Ezek. 32. 31, Pharaoh is comforted in Sheol by the sight of his enemies who
are also there. Further, the status of the Rephaim in Sheol continues to be
what it was on earth — see Is. 14. 9, Ezek. 32. (the whole chapter); and, as we
have already seen, the Rephaim recognize one another in Sheol.
We have now gained, it may be hoped, some definite
ideas upon the general teaching of the Old Testament concerning the Departed.
We turn again to the Psalms, and we come to
the question: Is there, according to the teaching of the Psalms, any differentiation
in Sheol between the Shades of the wicked and those of the righteous? The
answer is that, speaking generally, and with some exceptions to be noted later
on, there is no differentiation between them; in this all men are alike, that
they all go down to Sheol, and that they are all in the same condition there;
for example, 49. 10 (11 in Hebrews.):
For he sees that wise men die, The fool and
the brutish together. And whenever the righteous and the wicked are spoken of
as going down to Sheol, there is no hint that when they are there, there will
be any difference in their condition. It is true that there are certain
passages which seem at first sight to imply that Sheol is more especially a
place for the wicked; for example, 9. 17 (18 in Hebrew.):
The wicked shall turn hack into Sheol, (Even)
all the nations that forget God.
Or 31. 17 (18 in Hebrew.):
Let me not he ashamed, Lord, for I have called
upon thee, (But) let the wicked he ashamed, let them be silent in Sheol.
But it is probable that what is really meant in
passages like these is what is expressed in 4. 15 (16 in Hebrew.):
Let death come suddenly upon them, Let them go
down alive into Sheol; the thought is the unexpected cutting-off of the wicked,
a sudden going-down to Sheol, as with Korah and his company (Num. 16. 31-33).
So that what the passages referred to teach is, not that Sheol is a place more
especially for the wicked, but that the wicked go down to it sooner than the
righteous, and thus enjoy life and its pleasures for a shorter time than the
righteous. This was a theory which the facts of life proved to be untenable, and
this other psalmists realized, as we shall see later on. In the meantime, it is
worth pointing out here that in many of those passages in which the word “Pit''
is used instead of Sheol, it is quite likely that the former is not intended to
be entirely synonymous with the latter, but that the “Pit " refers to ''
the extreme depths of the cavernous underworld "; if this is so, it
implies that the " Pit " is, in some sense, a worse place than the
other parts of Sheol, which, again, would imply a belief in a difference in the
condition of those who are in Sheol. This would be a development. Cp. Ezek. 31.
i8, where it is implied that “the uncircumcised " and those who are
"slain by the sword " occupy a worse place in the “nether parts of
the earth" than others; see also 32. 19, 23.
We come next to a consideration of great importance;
one which, it may well be believed, gives the key to the reason why (with a few
exceptions to be dealt with presently) in the Psalms generally the conceptions
concerning the Hereafter are so inadequate and unsatisfactory. It is this: that
God plays no part in the world to come. A truth, which in itself may be obvious
enough, requires repeated emphasis in the present connection, namely, that
conceptions concerning the Hereafter run parallel to, and are conditioned by,
conceptions concerning God. Although in its more developed form, as we have
already seen, the doctrine of God in the Psalms is sublime, it must be remembered
that the point of view of the psalmists is, mostly, restricted to their own
land, and to temporal affairs. It is possible to have exalted ideas about God,
and yet that those ideas should be very circumscribed; that is, with a few
exceptions, characteristic of the Psalms. A true and worthy conception of God
can really only be attained when His power, and interest, and activity, are
seen not only to extend beyond the limits of a particular country or people,
but (which is far more important) that His power, and interest, and activity
are not restricted by time or space; in other words, that divine action is at
least as great in the world of spirit as in the visible world of every day.
Now, as just remarked, in the Psalms the conceptions
concerning God, even when most exalted, are, as a rule, circumscribed in their scope;
and in harmony with this is the frequently implied belief, which is also here and
there more than implied, that God plays no part in the life and land of the
Hereafter.
Let us illustrate this: Ps. 6. 5 (6 in Hebrew.):
For in death there is no
remembrance of thee, In Sheol who shall give thee thanks?
Ps. 30.
9 (lo in Hebrew.):
What profit is there in my blood when I go down
to the Pit? Shall the dust praise thee, shall it declare thy faithfulness?
And, once more, 28. 1:
Unto thee, Lord, do I call; My Rock, he not
deaf unto me; Lest, if thou he silent unto me, I he compared with them that go
down into the pit (cp. 143. 7).
It may be objected that in passages like these
the reference is only to man, who has not the power to worship when in Sheol, and
that they do not, therefore, necessarily imply any restriction as far as God is
concerned; but this would mean that God had the power of making His presence
felt by the spirits of the dead, but did not use that power; such a thought
cannot be entertained when one thinks of the righteous dead. But, apart from
that, what is to be said of such a passage as this, 88. 4, 5, (5, 6 in Hebrew.):
I am
counted with them that go down into the Pit; I am become as a man without help;
Cast off among the dead, Like the slain that lie in the grave, Whom thou remembers
no more, For they are cut off from thy hand.
The whole psalm should be read in this connection.
Here there can be no shadow of doubt that God is believed to play no part among
men in the land of the Hereafter. This is an important element in the doctrine
of the Future Life as normally taught in the Psalms.
Not unconnected with this is the further question
as to the way in which men contemplated death. Sometimes, as in 13. 3, (4 in Hebrew.),
death is spoken of as a sleep, and which in itself, therefore, is not regarded with
fear; at other times it is thought of as something terrible, because it means
that an enemy has prevailed; this is graphically brought out, for example, in
Iv., where the voice of the enemy and the oppression of the wicked are spoken
of, and in consequence of which it is said in verses 4, 5, (5, 6, in Hebrew.):
My heart trembled within me. And the terrors
[of death] are fallen upon me, Fear and trembling are come upon me.
And horror hath overwhelmed me.
But, speaking generally, it is
probably correct to say that the righteous regarded death with horror, mainly
because it cut them off from worship, and thus from communion with God; while
the wicked regarded death with horror, because it put an end to the enjoyments
of life. The latter point is obvious; the former is illustrated by such
passages as these:
120. 17, 18:
The dead praise not the Lord, Nor they that go
down to silence; But we will bless the Lord, From this time forth, and for
evermore.
146. 2:
I will praise the Lord while I live, I will
sing unto the Lord while I have my being (cp. 104. 33).
And one is reminded of the striking words in
another psalm, not incorporated in the Psalter, in which this truth is vividly
illustrated, Isa. 38. 18, 19:
For Sheol doth not give thee thanks. Death doth
not praise thee; They that go down to the Pit hope not for thy faithfulness; He
that lives, he that lives, he (it is) that praise thee, as I do this day.
The words are from Hezekiah's
psalm of praise and thanksgiving for his recovery from sickness.
There is a thought that frequently finds expression
both in the Psalms and in the Old Testament generally, which demands some
consideration, for it may well have been one of the factors which, under divine
guidance, led men to a more exalted conception of the Hereafter than that which
had obtained in the past. And what is particularly interesting here is that the
thought about to be considered is itself the development of an extremely
antique conception. The matter can, perhaps, best be put in this way:
Why was it, originally, that men placed great
importance upon having a “seed after them "? To attempt to answer this question,
so far as the origin of the idea is concerned, would be out of place here, nor
is it necessary for present purposes; it suffices to say that the original
reason which prompted the desire to have a '' seed," from the religious
standpoint, was in accordance with primitive conceptions. Whatever that original
reason was, does not matter now; the point is, that in later times the same desire
'' to possess a seed” continued to exist, but the reason for that desire became
different. In later times the reason was that which often finds expression in
the Psalms, as well as elsewhere in the Old Testament, namely, that the
righteous are to be rewarded after their death because their memory will live
on after them in their seed. A few examples may be given. As a reward for the
man who fears the Lord, it is said in Ps. 25. 13:
His soul shall dwell at ease [referring to
this life], And his seed shall inherit the land.
Ps. 69. 36:
The seed also of his [i.e. God's] servants
shall inherit it [i.e. Zion], And they that love his name shall dwell therein.
Ps. 102. 28:
The children of thy servants shall continue, And
their seed shall he established for ever.
There are a number of other passages to the
same effect; the great object of the continuance of this posterity of the
righteous is that thereby their memory can be preserved; see the whole of 112.
1-6, especially verse 6:
The righteous shall be had in everlasting
remembrance.
A further striking illustration is that given in
132. 1-12, where David and his posterity are spoken of; the whole passage
should be read. On the other hand, the punishment of the wicked is expressed in
the opposite sense; see, for example, 37. 28:
For the Lord loveth judgement, And forsakes
not his saints, They are preserved for ever; But the seed of the wicked shall
be cut off.
In 109. 13-15 this thought is very vividly portrayed;
in reference to the wicked it is said:
Let his posterity be cut off, In one
generation let his name be blotted out) Let the iniquity of his fathers be
remembered, And let not the sin of his
mother be blotted out, Let them he before the Lord continually, And let his
memory he cut off from the earth.
It is
worthwhile to quote in this connection some verses from Ecclesiasticus, where
the thoughts which we are considering find still more pointed expression; this
is especially profitable, for the bulk of the book Ecclesiasticus is
contemporary with some of the later portions of the Psalter. There are various appropriate
passages from this book which might be quoted, but the most important is 41. 6-13;
the following free translation is from the recently found Hebrew text, which differs
very markedly from the Greek Versions of which our English Authorized and
Revised Versions are translations:
6. From the son of the ungodly power shall he taken
away, And want shall continually abide with his seed, 7. An ungodly father do
the children curse, For because of him do they suffer reproach, 11. Nothingness
is the body of man. But the name of the pious shall not be cut off, 12. Have a
care for thy name, for that abides longer for thee Than thousands of sparkling
treasures. 13. Life's goods last for limited days, But the reward of a name for
days beyond count (see also the important passage, Isa. 56. 3-5).
Note especially verses 11-13.
Now from passages like those just quoted from
the Psalms, on which this Ecclesiasticus passage is an interesting commentary,
it will be acknowledged that there must have existed the underlying idea (if,
indeed, it was not something more) of a man living on, as it were, in his seed
after he was dead.
Granted that it was only the memory which was
meant, still the name of the righteous departed continued to be a living thing,
while at the same time the belief was present in the continuance of the
existence, in however nebulous a form, of those whose memories were held in
veneration. If one takes these two parallel thoughts, and contemplates them, is
it not in the nature of things that, taken together, they should have formed
one step upwards, at all events, in the development of the conceptions
concerning the Hereafter? Whether it is in the nature of things or not,
however, the fact is that during the second century B.C., and indeed during the
early part of it, we find an extraordinary development taking place in the conceptions
concerning the Future Life, and there are indications in some of the post
Biblical Jewish works of this period that the thought of which we have been
speaking was not altogether unconnected with this development. At any rate,
passages of which the few following are examples are worth thinking of in
connection with what has been said:
In the Book of Enoch, 22. 5-7, it is told of how
Enoch saw the spirits of the children of men who were dead, and their voice
penetrated to heaven and complained. Enoch then asks the angel Raphael: Whose
spirit is that one yonder whose voice thus penetrates (to heaven) and complains?
And the angel answers:
This is the spirit which went forth from Abel,
whom his brother Cain slew, and he keeps complaining of him till his seed is
destroyed from the face of the earth, and his seed disappears from amongst the
seed of men. The memorial of the righteous which, in the Psalms, is spoken of
as being preserved by their seed, was a thought which developed into that of their
memorial being preserved by God; cp. the Book of Enoch, 103. 4: And your spirits
— (the spirits) of you who die in righteousness, will live and rejoice and he
glad; and their spirits will not perish, hut their memorial will he before the
face of the Great One unto all generations of the world (cp. 104. 13, Test, of the
12 Patriarchs, Naph. 8. 5). See also, on the other
hand, with regard to the wicked, the Book of Enoch, 96. 4-8: Woe unto you, ye sinners,
for your riches make you appear like the righteous, hut your hearts convict you
of being sinners, and this word will be a testimony against you, for a memorial
of your wickedness. . . . (cp. also 98. 13, 91. 11, for the cutting off of the
root of the sinners). These passages are not without some bearing on the
subject before us.
It is not, may one add, maintained that in
itself the thought of the memory of the righteous departed being preserved by
their seed is to be regarded as a development in the conceptions about the
Future Life; not that; — what is contended is that the thought was one which
could not long remain stationary in view of the fact that a personal identity of
some sort was believed in regarding the souls of the departed. That memory
involved, sooner or later, the question as to differentiation between the
righteous and the sinners in the next world; when once that point was reached,
further development of thought was inevitable; this is proved by the few
quotations from extra-canonical books just given, and, as we shall see, by some
passages in the Psalms themselves.
This, therefore, as one of the elements — indirect
in its bearing, it may be — in the doctrine of the Future Life in the Psalms, claimed
a passing attention.
So far we have dealt with what may fairly be
regarded as the normal doctrine of the Future Life as taught in the Psalms. But
there are a certain number of passages which not only adumbrate, but actually
present a highly developed conception regarding this subject. In these we shall
see the thoughts of the psalmists expanding and soaring upwards in a wonderful
manner, and realizing that the Future Life is something glorious and happy. And
what is so striking and significant about this is that it is the deeper knowledge
of God and a fuller apprehension of His divine goodness and power which brought
these thinkers to see that life beyond the grave is better than this life.
Let us first take a passage which assumes the
direct contrary to what has just been said, Ps. 88. 10-12 (11-13 in Hebrew.):
Wilt thou do wonders among the dead? Shall the
Rephaim arise and praise thee?
Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave?
Thy faithfulness in Abaddon?
Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? And
thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?
In the mind of the psalmist the answer to all
these questions is: '' No!” But one can see at once that only one thing was
wanted to change each answer into: “Yes! " And that one thing was — the
fuller realization of God. Now let us turn to another passage, not a great deal
later, but certainly later, than that just quoted, 139. 7-12:
Whither can I go from thy spirit? And whither
can I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there, And
if I make my bed in Sheol, behold thou art there! If I lift up my wings towards
the dawn, If I dwell in the furthest sea, Even there thy hand will take hold of
me. And thy right hand will grasp me. And I said: ''Surely darkness will fence me
about, And night will be the light around me," Even the darkness hides not
from thee, And the night shineth as the day; Darkness is as light (to thee).
These two passages
bring out in a wonderfully clear manner the two notes of despair and hope,
regarding the Future Life, which belong respectively to the inadequate, and the
fuller, realization of the Personality of God.
We have already seen, in dealing with the doctrine
of God in the Psalms, that even when a development of conception has taken
place, the influence of earlier thought is not shaken off at once, so that more
spiritual ideas are found interlaced with material ones; this is what we
ventured to call an intermediate stage in the development of the doctrine.
A similar process, as we should naturally expect,
is to be observed in the doctrine of the Future Life; though it must be said that,
in this latter case, the development of thought seems to have travelled
quicker. An example of this is furnished in the psalm which we have just been
considering (139).
After the psalmist has shown, through his fuller
realization of God, that in the Future Life the divine presence will not be
wanting, he goes on to speak of what he conceives to be the nature of the ''
resurrection " body; it is here that, while giving expression to a most
extraordinary idea, he shows that his conceptions are still tinged with
materialism.
The passage to be considered is 139. 13-18; all
commentators are agreed that this is one of the most difficult passages in the whole
of the Psalter; the text is not above suspicion, and the thought is intricate
and obscure. It must, therefore, be frankly confessed that the interpretation
of it to be offered here does not claim to be anything more than tentative; on
the other hand, it has not been lightly adopted; and if it has its difficulties
it does not differ in this from every other interpretation which has been
given.
First of all, there is one very important point
about the whole of passage, verses 7-18, concerning which there is absolutely
no doubt, and that is that the psalmist is speaking about the Future Life. In
the next place, there is also no sort of doubt as to what is referred to in
verses 13, 14:
For thou didst form my inward parts, Thou
didst cover me in my mother's womb. I thank thee for thy marvellous [lit. ''
awe-inspiring "] works; Thou art wonderful, (and) thy works are wonderful:
And my soul knows (it) right well.
Here there is a clear and unambiguous
reference to the formation of the material body preparatory to its appearance
on earth; this is declared to be the creative act of God; the passage closes
with an acknowledgement of the wondrousness of this act.
But now, in the next four verses there is a further
reference to the formation of the body; only this time the body is not spoken of
as being formed in the womb, but in the “lowest parts of the earth” i.e. in
Sheol, and the component parts of the unformed substance are written down in
God's book; the passage closes with the psalmist's affirmation that, when he
awakes from the sleep of death, he will find himself in the presence of God.
Before discussing this passage further, let us quote it in full:
My frame was not hidden from thee, When I was
made in secret, And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth; Thine
eyes did see mine unformed substance, And in thy book hath it all been written.
Days were ordained. When as yet there was none of them. How precious to me are
thy thoughts, God, How great is the sum of them! Should I count them, they
would be more in number than the (^grains of) sand, When I shall have awakened,
I shall still be with thee.
While it is willingly granted in this passage (verses
7-18) there may be glosses inserted by later thinkers, it is suggested that in
its present form, embodying as it does more developed ideas concerning the
Future Life, it is intended to teach that, just as God prepares the body in the
womb for life on this earth, so does He also prepare another body in an
intermediate state for the Future Life that is to be. The psalmist, it is true,
conceives of this ''risen*' body as material, but that does affect the main
thought. As already said, this interpretation is offered tentatively; but there
are ideas found in other books, both of approximately the same period as this
psalm in its latest form, and of somewhat later times, which make it not wholly
improbable that this interpretation may have something in it. It is, of course,
not claimed that the following passages do more than throw some indirect
side-lights on our passage, but they are worth thinking over in the present
connection:
In the Book of Enoch, 108. 10-15, after it has
been described how the blessings which the righteous have received are
recounted in ''the books,” and that God has assigned them their recompense, it
continues, in verses 11 ff.: And now I will summon the spirits of the good who belong
to the generation of light, and I will transform those who were horn in
darkness, who sought not honour in the flesh as their faithfulness deserved.
And I will bring forth, clad in shining light, those who have loved my holy
name, and I will set each on the throne of his honour. And they will he
resplendent for times without number; for righteousness is the judgement of God;
for to the faithful He will give faithfulness in the habitation of upright
paths. And they will see how those who were born in darkness will be cast into
darkness, while the righteous will be resplendent. And the sinners will cry
aloud, and see them as they shine, and they indeed will go where days and
seasons are prescribed for them (cp. 103. 2 ff.).
In connection with the words, '' I will
transform those who were born in darkness . . . and I will bring forth, clad in
shining light, those who have loved my holy name,'' the following should be
thought of. Book of Enoch, 62. 15, 16: And the righteous and the elect will
have risen from the earth, and ceased to be of downcast countenance, and will
have been clothed with garments of glory, and these shall be your garments,
garments of life before the Lord of Spirits; and your garments will not grow
old, and your glory will not pass away before the Lord of Spirits. In a work
belonging to the first century A.D. (but embodying earlier ideas), this thought
is further developed, namely in the Ascension of Isaiah, 4. 16: But the saints
will come with the Lord with their garments which are (now) stored up on high
in the seventh heaven; with the Lord they will come, whose spirits are clothed
they will descend and he present in the world, and He will strengthen those who
have been found in the body, together with the saints, in the garments of the
saints. In the same work, 8. 14, 15, it is said: When from the body by the will
of God thou hast ascended hither, then wilt thou receive the garment . . . and
thou wilt become equal to the angels of the seventh heaven. Again, in 9. 7 ff.
we read: And there I saw all the righteous stripped of the garments of the
flesh, and I saw them in their garments of the upper world. In yet another
work, belonging also to the first century A.D., namely 2 (4)
Esdras 2. 44, 45, occurs the following: So I
asked the angel, and said: “What are these, my lord?'' He answered and said
unto me:
'' These be they that have put off the mortal clothing,
and put on the immortal.'' Finally, we must turn to a few passages in the New Testament;
2. Cor. 5. 1-4: For we know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle [i.e. “bodily
frame,'' see R.V. marg.] he dissolved we have a building from God, a house not
made with hands, eternal, in the heavens. For verily, in this we groan, longing
to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven; if so he that being
clothed we shall not he found naked. For indeed we that are in this tabernacle
[see above] do groan, being burdened; not for that we would he unclothed, hut
that we would he clothed upon, that what is mortal may he swallowed up of life.
Rev. 3. 5: He that over Cometh shall thus he arrayed in white garments; and I will
in no wise blot his name out of the hook of life (see also 4. 4, 6. 11, 7. 9-17).
Now, when one reads these passages — and a
great many more of like import could be given — it is not difficult to see that
they represent three stages of thought. First, the idea of a material body
which will belong to man at the Resurrection; then that this body will be
clothed in shining garments; and, lastly, that the '' shining garments,'' or “white
garment," or ''garment of life," is a synonym for the Resurrection
body. So that when these various developments of thought are taken into consideration,
the possibility must be granted that in Ps. 139.
13-18, the psalmist had in mind the idea, materialistic
it is true, of a body which God formed in Sheol in preparation for the
Resurrection life, just as He prepared in the womb a body for the life on this
earth. One has to bear in mind here the old-world idea of a "framework of
bone” which has to be '' clothed upon." But materialistic as the psalmist's
conception is, it witnesses, nevertheless, to a great development of thought; one
has only got to think of how the existence in Sheol was conceived of in earlier
times to realize what a stupendous advance is contained in the belief in a
living body in the world to come, and in the conviction that in that day man
will have uninterrupted communion with God. Nor must it be overlooked that
there is implied in this belief a new conception of Sheol, which is no more the
final abode of the Rephaim, or “Shades," but the place where God prepares men
for the glorious consummation which is to come. The psalmist, in the passage we
have been considering, was thinking only of one who was righteous; concerning
the wicked there was another fate, as we shall see.
The effect of this fuller conception of the Future
Life upon the pious in Israel must have been very great; for not only did it fill
him with hope as regards the future, but also, as concerning the present time,
it solved that tremendous mystery of how the facts of the prosperity of the
wicked and the adversity of the righteous in this world could be reconciled
with the belief in the existence of a God Who was just and righteous.
Perplexity is often expressed in the Psalms as to why it is that the wicked do
not come into misfortune, while the righteous suffer, and attempts are made to
account for the incongruity; but there is no real explanation until it is
realized that this world is not the end of all things; when once this truth is apprehended,
however, then the psalmist can sing, as in 71. 20:
Thou hast caused me to see many troubles, * (But)
thou wilt quicken me again, And wilt bring me up again from the lowest parts of
the earth.
In this last clause the idea of rising from the
dead ('' the lowest parts of the earth " — Sheol) is clearly present, even
if, as some commentators hold, the expression is here used figuratively. But
the classical passage for illustrating what has been said is Ps. 73, in which
is contained almost the highest, if indeed it be not itself the highest, point
in the Psalms concerning the doctrine of the Future Life. This psalm is,
moreover, of particular interest in this connection, because it first states
the difficulty just referred to in detailed form and in very graphic language, and
then proceeds to solve it. It is a long psalm, and cannot, therefore, be quoted
in full, but we will give the salient passages.
In conscious innocence, the psalmist says, in
verse 2:
And, as for me, my feet were
almost gone, My steps had well nigh slipped; and then
he goes on to contrast this with the lot of the wicked, verses 3-5:
For I was envious at the
arrogant.
When I saw the prosperity of the
wicked; For they have no worries, ^ But perfect and settled ^ is their strength;
They are not in trouble as (other) men.
Neither are they plagued like
(other) men.
The wicked and their ways are
described up to the end of verse ii, and then the psalmist goes on in verse 12:
Behold, these are the wicked, And, being
always at ease, they increase in riches.
And now there follows a
hypothetical statement; for the purpose of his argument the Psalmist assumes
the position which would have been taken up in earlier days, and says, in
verses 13, 14:
Surely in vain have I cleansed my heart, And
washed my hands in innocence!
For all day long have I been plagued, And
chastened every morning.
But then come the striking words which show
that this has only been said hypothetically, for he continues in verse 15:
If I had said, I will speak thus.
Behold I should have dealt treacherously (i.e.
dishonestly)
With the generation of thy children.
And he then goes on to describe the utter destruction
of the wicked at their latter end, that is, beyond the grave; while, in contrast
to this, he says in regard to himself, as representing the godly, these words,
in verses 23-25:
Nevertheless, I am continually with thee, Thou
holds me by my right hand; Thou guides me by thy counsel, And afterward You wilt take me to glory. Whom nave I in heaven (but thee)?
And having thee [lit. " being with thee ''], I desire nought else on
earth.
Here, then, we reach a beautiful height in the
conception of the Future Life; and this passage is the more striking in that the
thought-development manifests itself in three directions. First, regarding the doctrine
of God; for it will have been noticed at once that God is apprehended in a far fuller
way than is the case in most of the psalms; it is realized that His power and activity
are not restricted to this earth, and that in His mercy He suffers man to partake
of the glory which is to be revealed hereafter. Then, as to the belief
concerning the Future Life, the passage witnesses to the conviction that it is
glorious, and that in the Hereafter God is man's portion for ever. And,
finally, the psalmist sees the solution of the perplexities, and what seemed to
be the inconsistencies, of life, in the reward laid up for the righteous in the
world to come.
In connection with this latter point, it will
be instructive to read the following quotation from the Book of Enoch (102. 4-103.
4):
Fear ye not, ye souls of the righteous, and he
hopeful, ye that die in righteousness. And grieve not if your soul descends in
grief into Sheol, and that in your life your body has not fared as your
goodness deserved, but, truly, as on a day on which you became like the sinners,
and on a day of cursing and chastisement.
And when ye die, the sinners speak over you
(on this wise): " As we die, so die the
righteous, and what benefit do they reap from their
deeds? Behold, even as we, so do they die in grief and darkness; and what advantage
have they over us? From henceforth we are equal. And what will they receive,
and what will they see for ever? For, behold, they too have died, and from henceforth
for ever they will see no light.” I tell you, ye sinners, ye are content to eat
and drink, and strip men naked, and rob, and sin, and acquire wealth, and see
good days. Have ye seen the righteous, how their end
falls out? For no manner of violence is found in them till the day of their
death, Nevertheless [say the sinners) they perished, and
became as though they had not been, and their
souls descended into Sheol in tribulation.'' Now, therefore, I swear to you,
the righteous, by the glory of Him that is great, and honoured, and mighty in
dominion, and by His greatness I swear to you; I know this mystery, and have
read it in the heavenly tables, and have seen the book of the holy ones, and
have found written therein, and inscribed, regarding them: that all goodness,
and joy, and glory, are prepared for them, and are written down for the spirits
of those who have died in righteousness; and that manifold good will he given
to you in recompense for your labours, and that your lot is abundantly beyond
the lot of the living.
And your spirits — (the spirits) of you who
die in righteousness, will live and rejoice and be glad, and their spirits will
not perish, but their memorial will be before the face of the Great One unto
all the generations of the world. The same subject is pursued throughout chaps,
103, 104, the lot of the wicked in the next world being also described.
The fuller doctrine of the Future Life may be
further illustrated from Ps. 16. 8-11:
I have set the Lord always
before me, Because he is at my right hand I shall not he moved.
Therefore my heart is glad, and
my glory rejoice, My flesh also shall dwell in safety.
For thou wilt not leave my soul
to Sheol, Neither wilt thou suffer thy beloved to see the Pit.
Thou wilt show me the path of
life; In thy presence is fulness of joy, At thy right hand there is loveliness
for ever.
It is noticeable here, that while the psalmist
realizes that he will have to go to Sheol (though he will not be left there),
he knows that, as one of God's beloved, he will not see the Pit. Here,
therefore, there is a clear reference to the belief in a differentiation between
the good and the evil in the next world. The conviction that the righteous will
hereafter abide in the presence of God, which is so clearly expressed here, is
also the thought in the two following passages, 17. 15:
As for me, in righteousness let me behold thy face,
Let me satisfied he, when I awake, with thy form.
The context shows that the awakening here is
from the sleep of death. And finally, 49. 15 (16 in Hebrew.):
God will redeem my life from Sheol, For he
will take me.
Here again the thought of the psalmist finds an
echo in the Book of Enoch, 51. 1, 2:
And in those days will the earth also give hack
those who are treasured up within it; and Sheol also will give back that which
it has received, and Hell will give hack that which it owes. And He will choose
the righteous and holy from among them; for the day of their redemption hath
drawn nigh.
Our examination of the doctrine of the Future
Life in the Psalms shows once more that different stages of belief are
represented here. A necessary preliminary in the study of this subject was, as
we have seen, an investigation into the Old Testament conceptions regarding
Sheol, the abode of the departed; not less necessary was the acquisition of
some clear ideas as to what the Old Testament teaching is about the Rephaim, or
'' Shades,'' the inhabitants of Sheol. Both these subjects we have dealt with.
Further, we examined the Old Testament teaching concerning body, soul, and
spirit, in the light of beliefs regarding these held by races other than the
Hebrew. We then dealt more specifically with the teaching in the Psalms; and
here we saw, in the first place, that according to the normal doctrine there
was no differentiation in Sheol in the relative conditions between the
righteous and the wicked. A very important fact to which attention was then
drawn was that, with some notable exceptions in the more developed doctrine,
God was not concerned with Sheol or its inhabitants; this, at any rate, is the
general teaching in the Psalms.
A fact which was not without its influence in
the development of higher conceptions concerning the Hereafter was seen to have
been that of the desire for a seed, in order that the memory of the righteous
might be preserved by their posterity; this was illustrated by quotations from
Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Enoch.
Finally, we dealt with the doctrine in its more
developed form, and here we saw that, although the passages in which this is
represented in the Psalms are not many in number, yet very exalted conceptions
are reflected there. All depends upon the doctrine of God; this we illustrated
by quotations from the Psalms. Nevertheless, we showed that one must bear in
mind that for long periods older, materialistic, conceptions ran side by side
with more spiritual ones.
With the fuller and more developed belief concerning
the Hereafter came the solution of the great problem as to how the justice and
love of God could be reconciled with the everyday facts of the prosperity of
the wicked, and the adversity of the righteous, namely, that for the latter
alone was reserved a blissful Immortality.