Psalms 51:5

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Psalm 51:5 always is at the forefront of every discussion concerning original sin, and original sin touches almost every other doctrine directly or indirectly. It deserves scrutiny on its own thread.

Much has been said, but have we really looked careful at the construction of the verse itself? Here is a short portion of the following article found at this link: http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/libraryoftheologycom/writings/originalsin/Psalms_Fifty_One_Five-WilliamMurray.pdf
Quote: “Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive
me." KJV
This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same
thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the
subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer
to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10
). TWOT, #623, 1:270.
The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at,
or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the `circumstances' of his
conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the
unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within
himself. (The NIV's version of this verse is an INTERPRETATION, not a translation:
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")”

I simply cannot find any fault with these statements. The subject indeed is indeed focusing on the circumstances surrounding his conception as opposed to what is commonly stated, i.e., some inherent sin nature.

Thoughts?

 

[Zenas]

There is every indication that David was born of parents who were married to each other. Are you saying this implies that s** between two married persons is sinful?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Zenas: There is every indication that David was born of parents who were married to each other. Are you saying this implies that s** between two married persons is sinful?

HP: The context is ancient Judaism. Would it have been lawful for a Jew to take a wife that was either married to a heathen king or served as his concubine?

 

[DHK]

hp: The context is ancient judaism. Would it have been lawful for a jew to take a wife that was either married to a heathen king or served as his concubine?

the context is not ancient judaism; it is repentance!!

 

[JSM17]

5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

This passage says nothing about David being born sinful or being born depraved, or being born with inherited sin.

The passage clearly indicates that David was brought forth in iniquity, not full of iniquity.

"...And in sin my mother conceived me."
This part of the passage indicates nothing about David being born in sin.

Whatever people might think it does say can be argued, but we can be sure of what it does NOT say, it says nothing about original sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, I was not speaking about the text itself but rather to the question Zenas asked when I invoked the word 'context.'

 

[DHK]

DHK, I was not speaking about the text itself but rather to the question Zenas asked when I invoked the word 'context.'

And you were wrong. Your answer had nothing to do with Zenas's question; absolutely nothing!

Zenas: There is every indication that David was born of parents who were married to each other. Are you saying this implies that s** between two married persons is sinful?

HP: The context is ancient Judaism. Would it have been lawful for a Jew to take a wife that was either married to a heathen king or served as his concubine?

Zenas is referring to Psalm 51--to David born of parents that were married to each other--he specifically says that.

You refer to ancient Judaism. It is not the context. David was not a heathen king. Jesse was not a heathen king. For you to suggest as much is mere idiocy. The context is David and his family. That is what Zenas asked about. Why the red herring? Are you unable to answer simple questions?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Zenas the point is that David in fact did have two half sisters by his mother and another father, the father not being Jesse. It appears as if though a foreign king was in fact the father, and the relationship of David's mother to him was either a wife or a concubine. Jesse married a woman that had been married or served as a concubine to that king. That would have made Jesse's marriage to David's mother a violation of Jewish law, hence the illegitimate sexual act between David's mother and father according to Jewish law. Regardless of the circumstance of David's birth, he clearly recognized his conception as an act of sin on the part of his parents.

 

[Amy.G]

Zenas the point is that David in fact did have two half sisters by his mother and another father, the father not being Jesse. It appears as if though a foreign king was in fact the father, and the relationship of David's mother to him was either a wife or a concubine. Jesse married a woman that had been married or served as a concubine to that king. That would have made Jesse's marriage to David's mother a violation of Jewish law, hence the illegitimate sexual act between David's mother and father according to Jewish law. Regardless of the circumstance of David's birth, he clearly recognized his conception as an act of sin on the part of his parents.

Can you point us to the scripture about David's half sisters and Jesse not being his father? According to the biblical genealogy of David, Jesse was his father.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy, no one stated or implied Jesse was not his biological father. Did you read the short article I linked? It has all the pertinent information in it. Here is the link again. http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/l...alsin/Psalms_Fifty_One_Five-WilliamMurray.pdf

 

[Johnv]

Are you saying this implies that s** between two married persons is sinful?

Like eating chocolate, only if it's done right. :wavey:

 

[DHK]

Zenas the point is that David in fact did have two half sisters by his mother and another father, the father not being Jesse. It appears as if though a foreign king was in fact the father, and the relationship of David's mother to him was either a wife or a concubine. Jesse married a woman that had been married or served as a concubine to that king. That would have made Jesse's marriage to David's mother a violation of Jewish law, hence the illegitimate sexual act between David's mother and father according to Jewish law. Regardless of the circumstance of David's birth, he clearly recognized his conception as an act of sin on the part of his parents.

Before anyone accepts your opinion you will have to clearly demonstrate it through Scripture beyond any shadow of doubt.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, no one stated or implied Jesse was not his biological father. Did you read the short article I linked? It has all the pertinent information in it. Here is the link again. http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/l...alsin/Psalms_Fifty_One_Five-WilliamMurray.pdf

Sorry. I read your post wrong.

I still don't see that David was illegitimate. I think that is just opinion.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I can tell you one thing that is plainly written according to the Word of God, and that is David's mother conceived David in an act obviously considered sinful. That is the Word of the Lord all opinions aside.

 

[DHK]

I can tell you one thing that is plainly written according to the Word of God, and that is David's mother conceived David in an act obviously considered sinful. That is the Word of the Lord all opinions aside.

That is an obvious opinion since it can't be substantiated by the Word of God, only your stubborn refusal to accept the proper interpretation of Psalm 51:5. It is a case of: "It doesn't mean what I wan't it to mean, therefore I will make the Scriptures mean something else."
That is borderline heresy, and here is what Peter says about it:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Beware how you treat the Scriptures.
If you can't substantiate your claims than don't make things up.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Beware how you treat the Scriptures DHK.

 

[DHK]

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Beware how you treat the Scriptures DHK.

I am quite aware. That is why I ask for Scripture and not opinion. Simple opinion in the place of Scripture is wresting the Scriptures. You make it say what you want it to say by inserting your opinion with no Biblical backup.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You make it say what you want it to say by inserting your opinion with no Biblical backup.

HP: Like Psalms 51: 5, or Psalms 58, or the numerous other clear passages I have presented and discussed. DHK, your comments make a mockery of the truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: the context……. is repentance!!

HP: What is so difficult to understand about those that claiming Psalms 51:5 supports original sin is when they beat the pulpit so loudly about it being about repentance. Reason with me for a moment. They claim it CANNOT be speaking about the sins of David’s mother in any way shape or form, because David was confessing his OWN sin.


While in one breath they pound on the pulpit loudly proclaiming Psalms 51:5 absolutely, positively, in NO EARTHLY WAY, can be speaking of the sins of his mother due to the their belief that David is confessing HIS SINS AND HIS SINS ONLY not that of another, they then turn an absolute 180 and claim the verse supports the notion that David is born in original sin. ARE WE THINKING YET?

What is the notion of original sin but placing the blame for ones sins on another????? Would not reason say that IF in fact no ones sins are being addressed but his own, that neither could he be speaking of original sin lest he be seen as placing the blame on Adam and his posterity before him, including his own father and mother for passing this sin onto himself??? What utter hypocrisy is exuded in so many comments that seem almost to go unchecked and unchallenged. If the psalm is ONLY about his own sins and not that of another, that automatically excludes the verse from speaking concerning original sin for that is nothing short of placing the blame of Adam and Eve, is it not?

HELLO!! So David can blame Adam or he can blame Eve, or he can blame his father. or his father's father, all due to original sin, BUT HE CANNOT BE PLACING ANY BLAME, OR EVEN MENTION THE SINS OF HIS MOTHER LEST HE BE SHOWN TO BE SPEAKING OF SOMEONE ELSES SIN BUT HIS OWN!!

Hmm.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

 

[billwald]

hyperbole

David is using hyperbole to make a point.

hy⋅per⋅bo⋅le  [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
Use hyperbole in a Sentence
See images of hyperbole
–noun Rhetoric.
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
Compare litotes.

Origin:
1520–30; < Gk hyperbol excess, exaggeration, throwing beyond, equiv. to hyper- hyper- + bol throw

Synonyms:
2. overstatement.

Antonyms:
2. understatement.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.