Sermon Tone Analysis

Though you wash yourself [תְּכַבְּסִי] with lye

and use much soap

the stain of your guilt is still before me.

Thus the suppliant desires to be cleansed from sin with the thoroughness used in washing dirty clothes.

The third verb for forgiveness (טהר) is found in 4b (”and cleanse me from my sin”).

This verb is used of a physical cleansing: dross from metal (Mal 3:3); clouds from the heaven (Job 37:21); from disease (2 Kgs 5:10, 12–14); unclean things from the temple (2 Chr 29:15, 16; Ezek 31:45).

Apart from these references, however, the verb is used of cleansing or purity in a ritual sense (Lev 11:32; 12:7, 8; etc.).

The ritual associations are certainly in view here, but probably not to the extent supposed by Leslie when he translates, “And declare me clean of my sin” (399).

Dalglish (/Psalm Fifty-One/, 91, 94) notes that in the case of כבס the sense is not “wash sin from me” but “wash me.”

We should see the same emphasis in 4b: “Wash /me/ thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse /me/ from my sin,” or, as in the translations above, “Wash away /my/ waywardness.”

In the OT generally, uncleanness is essentially that which disqualifies from participation in ritual and excludes the worshiper from the presence of God.

However, no clear distinction can be made between purely ritual and moral cleanness or uncleanness, and none should be attempted here.

The three verbs for forgiveness are matched by three prime words for sin in vv 3–4.

The first of these is פֶּשַׁע, which has been defined in a theological sense as “willful, self-assertive defiance of God” (Dalglish, /Psalm Fifty-One/, 88).

L. Köhler (//OT/ Theology/, 170) declares that the word means “… rebellion.

It is the disobedience, παρακοή, of Rom 5:19.”

Numerous references demonstrate the idea of revolt carried by the verb (e.g., 1 Kgs 12:19; 2 Kgs 3:4–5; Hos 9:1; Isa 1:2; Amos 3:14).

However, R. Knierim (/Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament/, 178) thinks the most appropriate expression for the root idea is “to break with” or “to do wrong.”

The word represents a rather formalized overall concept of many-sided types of wrongdoing, which vary in different contexts.

Ronald Youngblood (“Three Old Testament Roots for ‘Sin,’ ” 201–5) argues that one nuance of פשׁע is that of “deviating” or “straying.”

He cites a number of OT references, including Amos 2:4, “For three transgressions [פשׁעי] of Judah, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment … their lies have led them astray [root תעה or טעה], after which their fathers walked.”

Also Isa 59:13a, 15b: “… transgressing [פְשׁע, and denying Yahweh, and turning away [root סוג] from following our God … and he who turns aside from evil makes himself a prey”; Hos 7:13a, “… they have strayed [root נדד] from me … they have rebelled [פשׁעו] against me!” (and parallel in 7:14d, “they rebel [root נסור] against me”).

The second word for sin in v 4 is עָוֹן, which is commonly assumed to derive from the root idea of bending or twisting.

However, S. R. Driver (/Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel/, 2nd ed. [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913], 170, n. 2) has argued that two roots, distinct in Arabic, have been confused in Hebrew (also Dalglish, /Psalm Fifty-One/, 91–92).

One root means “to bend” and the other “to err, go astray.”

Driver argues that עון in the OT is properly “error” or “deviation from the right track.”

He cites the versions of Isa 19:14 (where LXX has πνευ̂μα πλανήσεω, “spirit of error,” for MT רוח עועים) and Prov 12:8.

Youngblood (“Three OT Roots for ‘Sin,’ ” 204) thinks that “err from the road” is a primary meaning of עון and cites numerous passages in which it is found in the context with “way,” “turns to~/from,” “walks,” and “turn aside” or the like: e.g., Lam 3:9, “He has blocked my ways … he has made my paths crooked [עוה]”; 2 Sam 22:22a, 24b, “I have kept the ways of Yahweh.…

I have kept myself from iniquity [עון]; Jer 14:10, “They have loved to wander [נוע], they have not restrained their feet … he will remember their iniquity [עון] and punish their sins [חטאת].”

Thus the “waywardness” of the translation above cannot be far off the mark.

On the other hand, the idea of bending or twisting seems to appear in some contexts: e.g., Ps 38:7, “I am utterly bowed down [עוה] and prostrate”; Isa 21:3, “I am bowed down from hearing”; Isa 24:1, “and he will twist [עוה] its surface [that of the land or the earth] and scatter its inhabitants.”

Thus the word can be understood with either sense.

Actually, the idea of bending or twisting is not very different from the idea of deviation or error.

L. Köhler (OT /Theology/, 169) argues that עון “designates a sin that originates in wrong intention and contrasts with חטא and פשׁע.”

This approach is reflected also in S. Terrien (/The Psalms/, 171), who writes that “ ‘iniquity’ designates a state of distortion, bending, or twisting, which vitiates the whole outlook and therefore the subsequent behavior.…

It is the disintegration of heart and volition.”

But one can argue on the basis of OT contexts that חטאת and פשׁע also carry the ideas of guilt and “state of distortion”—the “disintegration of heart and volition” is characteristic of sin generally, regardless of the word used.

In the case of עון, it is especially important to observe that regardless of the root idea adopted, the word refers to deliberate action rather than to innate or accidental wrongdoing.

The third word for sin is חַטָּאת, commonly translated as “sin.”

This form of חטא occurs some 155 times in the OT and, along with other forms, is part of the most used complex of words for sin (over 400 times).

The root idea of “missing the mark” is often cited, especially using Judg 20:16b, “everyone could sling a stone at a hair, and not miss [חטא]” (also Prov 8:36; 19:2; Job 5:24).

The idea of failure is frequently attached to the word.

However, it is important to remember that the failure involved is the result of choice or of a clear act of will (A.

A. Anderson, 393), although the verb and noun do appear in a few references to unwilling sins, primarily of a cultic nature (e.g., Lev 4:2–3; 5:15–16; Num 15:27–28).

Köhler qualifies his treatment of חטא as “failure” by arguing that it is concerned with the violation of commands and prohibitions (OT /Theology/, 169).

He pushes his analysis so far as to contend that פשׁע is less concerned with the violation of “objective commands” than חטא, being essentially concerned with the “revolt of the human will against the divine will” (170).

He calls פשׁע “the OT’s most profound word for sin” (also S. J. De Vries, /IDB/, 4, 361).

But numerous uses of חטא occur without any explicit reference to commandments or instruction, as is the case with the much less frequently used פשׁע.

At least in Hos 8:1 and Ezek 18:22, 28, 30, 31, פשׁע appears where instruction and commandments are clearly in the context.

/Any attempt to find greater profundity in one of these three major words for sin than in another seems to be poorly/ /supported/.

After extensive discussion of the root ideas of פשׁע, עון, and חטא, Dalglish (/Psalm Fifty-One/, 93) concludes that “although their conceptual motif may differ, there is no great difference of any importance in the use.…”

(See also the excursus by Knierim (/Die Hauptbegriffe/, 229–35) on the connection of פשׁע, עון, and חטא).

Youngblood (“Three OT Roots for ‘Sin,’ ” 205) refers to the interpretation of the various roots and concludes that “sin is comprehensively viewed in the Old Testament as the deliberate act of veering off the road that God wants us to travel.”

/Confession of sin/ (51:5–6b).

The confession begins with a forthright statement of personal knowledge in 5a.

The force of the “I know” is increased by the addition of the separate personal pronoun.

The “I know” should be understood in a personal sense of knowing rather than in the sense of “I acknowledge” or “I confess.”

The parallel in 5b is equally strong: “my sin [/or/, sinfulness] is ever before me.”

This expression certainly conveys a sense of continual awareness rather than an occasional consciousness and most probably also the idea of continuing tension because of fear and shame (cf.

32:3–5; 38:18).

The “courage to deal impartially” with oneself is a necessary characteristic for true confession.

The heart of the confession is found in 6a: “Against you, you only, I have sinned.”

Some commentators (see the summaries in Perowne, 415; Gunkel, 222) have noted the absence of any confession of sin against other human beings and have assumed that such awareness is missing from the confession.

But other OT passages make it clear that from an early time in Israel sins against persons were believed to be sins against God (Kraus, 543); see 2 Sam 12:9, 10, 13; Gen 39:9; Prov 14:31; 17:5.

Violation of the commandments of God is construed as sin against God himself (Kraus, 544; Weiser, 403).

The parallel statement in 6b is also emphatic: “And I have done evil in your sight.”

The expression “evil in your [or his] sight” is the opposite of “what is right [יָשָׁר] or good [טוֹב] in the eyes of Yahweh” (e.g., Deut 6:18; 12:8, 25, 28).

Basically, רַע, “evil,” refers to whatever is bad, disagreeable, or unpleasant and may or may not have a specific ethical sense (e.g., worthless or corrupt: 2 Kgs 2:19; Prov 20:14; 25:19; Jer 24:2; Matt 6:23; 7:17; displeasing, ugly, or sad: Gen 21:11–12; 28:8; 41:19–20; Neh 2:3; Eccl 7:3; painful or injurious: Gen 26:29; 31:7; Deut 26:6; 28:35; 2 Sam 12:18; Prov 11:15; Rev 16:21).

/The rightness of divine judgment/ (51:6cd).

The לְמַעַן] of v 6c has stimulated a great deal of somewhat perplexed discussion because it most often expresses “in order that” rather than result (“so that”).

The idea of purpose results in the translation “in order that you may be in the right [/or/, justified] when you speak and blameless when you judge.”

Such a translation produces an extraordinary tension between 6ab and 6c: “I have sinned against you … in order that you may be justified.…”

Some interpreters have accepted this tension and chosen to understand the verse in the sense of “I sinned to the glory of God,” especially in a Pauline sense (e.g., Perowne, Kirkpatrick, Weiser, Dalglish [/Psalm Fifty-One/, 109–13], Goldingay [/Songs/, 158]).

Weiser cites Rom 11:32–33, “God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all,” though he also argues that “these thoughts on God’s ultimate purpose being made manifest by sin” (405) do not alleviate man’s responsibility or the seriousness of sin (cf.

Rom 6:15).

Appeal is also made to Rom 3:3–5 where Paul quotes 6c (in its Greek form) and says “But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say?” Kirkpartick (290) sums up this approach: “Probably … we are meant to understand that man’s sin brings out into a clearer light the justice and holiness of God, who pronounces sentence upon it.”

Another approach to 6c is to assume that the reference goes back to v 5, with v 6ab treated as a parenthesis, or else to conjecture that something like “I confess this so that …” has dropped out (so Dalglish, A. A. Anderson, etc.).

This interpretation lends itself to the treatment of 6c as an element borrowed from the so-called “doxology of judgment,” in which the sinner acknowledges the rightness of divine punishment and glorifies the acts of God’s judgment (see Kraus, 544; G. von Rad, /Old Testament Theology/, tr.

D. M. G. Stalker [New York: Harper, 1962] 1:357–59).

The best example is Joshua’s counsel to Achan, “My son, give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and render praise to him; and tell me now what you have done” (Josh 7:19).

In the “doxology of judgment” the guilty persons confess and praise God by confirming the rightness of a divine judgment.

These difficult explanations are avoided by reading למען as an expression of consequence or result (so Buttenwieser, 193; Kissane, 227; Eerdmans, 273; Dahood, II, 4; N. H. Ridderbos, “Psalm 51:5–6,” 307–9).

Actually, examples of the use of למען for consequence or result are fairly numerous.

For example, Perowne cites 30:12; Exod 11:9; Deut 29:18; Isa 44:9; Hos 8:4; Dahood cites Ps 68:23 and Prov 2:20.

Some of the examples are moot, but the number can be increased: 1 Kgs 8:41; 2 Kgs 13:23; 22:17; Amos 2:7; Joel 3:6; Ezek 21:15, 28 (see H. A. Brongers, “Die Partikel לְמַעַן in der biblisch-hebraischen Sprache,” /Oudtestamentische Studiën/ 18 (1973) 88–89).

This approach avoids the theologizing required by the purpose clause and still allows v 6c to reflect an element of the “doxology of judgment.”

Rom 3:4 follows the LXX and takes the זכה, “blameless,” in v 6d as “to be victorious~/prevail” in accord with its Aramaic sense.

However, the limited usage of the word in the MT (only eight times) points toward the ideas of acquittal or favorable judgment, and seems to reflect legal usage (Dalglish, /Psalm Fifty-One/, 112–13; Dahood II, 4: “No one can bring a legitimate claim against you”).

If the idea of “prevail” is adopted, it should be understood as “prevailing in judgment,” and thus “blameless.”

/Confession of sinfulness/ (51:7–8).

The counterpart of v 6 is formed by v 7 and extends the acute present sense of sin into the past.

The suppliant’s sinful condition is not merely of recent vintage.

The whole of life is involved in the confession of sin: “Indeed I was born in waywardness, and my mother conceived me in sin.”

Thus the sin confessed in the present extends back to the very beginnings of the speaker’s life.

This verse has been especially popular with Christian expositors, who have used it in connection with the doctrine of original sin (see Dalglish, /Psalm Fifty-One/, 118–23; Zink, /VT/ 17 [1967] 354–61).

Some interpreters have understood the sin involved as that of sexual passion or sexual intercourse, and perhaps even adultery on the part of the mother.

Attention is focused on יחם, “to be hot~/rut~/conceive.”

Delitzsch (157) flirts with the attraction of this view when he says that the verb “hints at the beast-like element in the act of coition,” though he does not adopt it.

This interpretation is augmented by the widespread interpretation of the “knowledge of good and evil” in Gen 3 as sexual intercourse and by references that declare sexual acts, bodily discharges, and birth to be ritually unclean (Exod 21:9; Lev 12; 15; etc.).

A modern Jewish scholar, Y. Kaufmann (/The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile/, tr.

M. Greenberg [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969], 293–94), illustrates this approach when he argues that sexual desire is the archetypical sin in Gen 3, “the characteristic mark of the evil impulse.”