Psalms 51:5 in Light of ROBI

I want to move along with the discussion and through the rules of biblical interpretation. If any still have a desire to post on the historical/cultural aspects of the verse in question, or if one disagrees with that that has been posted, feel free at any time to back the discussion back up to a former point.

1.) Different passages must be so interpreted, if they can be, as not to contradict each other.
(2.) Language is to be interpreted according to the subject matter of discourse.
(3.) Respect is always to be had to the general scope and design of the speaker or writer with attention to historical/cultural influences.
(4.) Texts that are consistent with either theory, prove neither.
(5.) Language is to be so interpreted, if it can be, as not to conflict with sound philosophy, matters of fact, the nature of things, or immutable justice.

Proceeding to Rule (2) In light of the evidence established in my post concerning rule #3, I will try and establish the subject matter of discourse. It would indeed appear to me that this is a Psalm of personal penitence. Having committed a sexual sin with Bathsheba, David showed true remorse for his actions. He acknowledges his sin and then enters into verse five(5) which is the verse the OP deals directly with. “ 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Many believe this establishes original sin, but does it?

The plain rendering of this verse places guilt on David’s mother for conceiving him in sin. He could have said, my mother conceived me in an act of sin, or I was formed as an act of sin by my mother, either one would be within the confines of a reasonable rendition of this text. The question arises, why would David be speaking of the sin of his mother if the context is his own guilt? I believe a reasonable response to this question is simply that David was expressing the fact that from his very conception, sin was at work influencing and setting an example that would in fact lend influence and example for him to follow and direct his own personal acts of sin by. I see David pouring out his heart by saying, certainly it is I alone that has done this wicked sin, yet I know that the sins of others have had a strong influence upon my life, even in my conception. While he focuses upon his own sin and guilt, in verse five he points not to the ‘cause’ of his sin, but rather to sinful examples and influences upon him by the acts of his very mother that indeed influenced his life and subsequent choices and actions.

 

HP: The point I tried to make in my last post was that it is not unusual or a violation of any rule concerning the main thrust of the passage for an author to inject influences that have been a factor, even though the ‘cause’ is nothing other than himself. Are you suggesting that if I speak in a paragraph concerning my own sin that I could not speak of influences and actions of others that have had an impact on my personal choice of sin? If so, what rule of speech or grammar or rule of biblical interpretation would prohibit such a reference from being made even in the same sentence or paragraph?

It is completely wrong to imply that if the passage is speaking of David’s personal sin that he could not have mentioned the sins of his mother in the act of his conception. That is precisely what he did and he did not violate any rules of biblical interpretation or grammar or anything else by doing so.

 

Let me make myself even clearer. Some on this list have stated that the context of the passage is David confessing his own sins therefore they conclude that verse 5 cannot be addressing any sins of his mother. I would like to hear those that have espoused that notion to tell us why or how they come to that conclusion. What rule of interpretation demands that the author cannot speak of influences upon his life or simply matters of fact unrelated to his personal sins, and the fact that the actual ‘cause’ of sin is none other than himself, in the same passage?

 

Is the truth of the matter that rules of interpretation are only necessary for honest examination of a text, and serves no apparent usefulness to those simply looking for a proof text to bolster an accept dogma such as original sin, as GE has clearly demonstrated?

Is there not one on the list that has used this text in support of original sin that will not give us their take of the verse utilizing sound rules of biblical interpretation as a means by which they establish their interpretation of it?

 

HP: I would entirely concur that this is a Psalm of repentance and David was not making excuses for his sin. Regardless of any and all influences, he had willfully disobeyed known commandments of God and for this was humbly asking fro forgiveness.

Possibly you have an explanation why David, a Jew, would be expressing a dogma that was unknown not only to the Jewish culture, but was unknown to the Church until the advent of Augustine?

What is amazing to me is that you emphasize repentance, yet you propose the the greatest excuse ever in your suggestion that he was born that way. He should have just pointed his finger at his Creator, and said “You formed me this way God. How could I have ever been anything other than what you made me to be? Do you expect me to be able to overcome necessitated fate, a feat even You cannot accomplish? “

Deacon, how about 'repentance?' Can one repent for the color of hair he is born with or the color of his skin? One can only repent for intents and actions that one is not under necessity to perform. One might feel sorry for one that could not do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances, but to place blame upon the individual for such necessitated notions is as absurd as it is unjust. You might as well blame man for being born with red hair and then sentence him to hell for eternity as to blame or punish man for failure to escape his necessitated fate.

Show us one definition of sin in Scripture that support the notion of a necessitated condition. Sin is a transgression of the law. To suggest as Augustinian original sin does, that it the necessitated malady of ones makeup, in which no man has any choice, is to suggest that one can violate moral law apart from willful intention. Scripture as well as reason refute such a notion as utterly absurd in light of any semblance of justice.

God places blame on the sinner for his formed intents of selfishness as opposed to benevolence, and calls on men to ‘turn from’ the formation of such intents. If sin was the necessitated results of ones birth, that would be again like commanding men to change their hair color or the color of their skin, and that from birth. Can leopard change his spots or a white man the color of his skin?

Original sin destroys every true possibility of justice for God placing blame upon man for being a sinner, and destroys every just notion that God could blame man for his necessitated condition, makes a mockery of God commanding men to repent for something they had absolutely no choice in becoming. It makes Gods commands to turn from their necessitated state absurd.

Sorry Deacon. Psalms 51: 5 nor any other text supports the Augustinian notion that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh. Sin is not a necessitated malady. Sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God as Scripture plainly tells us in so many ways. Sin lies in the will of man and is not nor can it be transmitted by physical generation. Sin is the result of willful disobedience to a known commandment of God, and Scripture tells us that every man will be held accountable for his own sins, and not that of another as original sin implies.

 

HP: Over all I like your post Rob. We agree that David was NOT blaming God or his mother for his sin. He was blaming himself. Just the same, consider this. If I were to honestly repent, why could I not bring into the picture influences, yes even those as a direct result of sin being involved in my conception as being an influence upon my life and an influence or an occasion that played a part in my own sin? The sins of our parents or others often do play a key role in our own sins. Yet that in no wise releases us from our own personal guilt, for those influences might have been formidable, but did not force or coerce us to sin.

You obviously understand my point concerning this verse in that it cannot be used to say ‘how that sin was brought forth’ and therefore I believe it is not a proof text for original sin in the least when we fairly examine it in light of reasonable rules of biblical interpretation.

Just curious. What is your take on my comments concerning the beliefs of the Jews, and the point made about the Jews having no place in their theology for original sin or constitutional depravity? Agree, disagree, or have you not made up your mind?