|
Post by Josh on Mar 16, 2008 19:51:27 GMT -8
Psalm 51:4
Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge.
Robin brought this verse up in relation to the discussion on confession today. We are told that David wrote this Psalm on the occasion of his sin of adultery with Bathsheba and his subsequently successful plotting to have her husband Uriah killed (2 Samuel 11 and 12). The problem here is that clearly, in the story, if there ever was a sin directly against another human being, this was it.
Is it really fair or accurate of David to state that his sin was against God alone?
I think if we read this passage to mean that David didn't sin against Uriah, we are working our way into dangerous and contradictory waters.
I think, rather, we should see here that David is using hyperbole to stress the point that no matter who we sin against, ultimately it is a sin against God. And when we approach God with unrepentant sin in our hearts- sins against others- it is impossible for us to pretend that God isn't somehow the cheif victim of our sin. David couldn't go to God and somehow expect God to be "straight" with him with this horrendous sin against Uriah hanging about him. David's sin, which involved others, was ultimately a sin against God, which I think David emphasized by the hyperbole "against you only".
Does anyone see this another way? Any further thoughts on this Robin?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 16, 2008 20:44:32 GMT -8
I view this the same as you do. All sin is against God, even when it seems like it's only against others, and David seemed to be acutely aware of this.
Some other verses that come to mind:
'Omissive' sins against others:
Matt 25:45-46 45 "Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' NKJV
Sins actively committed against others:
Acts 9:4-5 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. NKJV
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 17, 2008 8:31:47 GMT -8
I don't know how much more I could add to what you and Chris have already said because I tend to agree with you here. His actions resulted in breaking 3 of the 10 commandments at once (6,7, and 10), therefore being a direct assault on Gods laws. And who knows, there may have been some unrecorded overtures made to the family of Uriah in order to make restitution. However, in the end I think all sin is against God.
Robin
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2008 9:00:45 GMT -8
The problem with this verse, IMO, is that it seems to be saying that sin is only against God. The only way of reconciling the difficulty, IMO, is to say that the author is using hyperbole to isolate the highest truth.
In other words, you can't use this text to argue that David didn't sin against Uriah.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 5, 2008 19:50:26 GMT -8
Chris, regarding verse 5, here's the NIV:
1 Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge.
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
6 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
8 Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
9 Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity.
10 Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
You prefer the NKJ/ NRSV:
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
But it seems to me that the NIV translation makes the most sense out of the context. The context throughout this Psalm is David's sins, not his mothers. And:
I think it is the same. It's a way of saying I was born steeped in sin. I don't think David is just trying to dog on his mother. In fact, we have no good reason to think his mom's conception was a sinful act. What other option do we have? That sex is sinful? It seems we are left with a sentiment similar to how the NIV translated it.
If you think David is saying something other than that he was born sinful, what do you think he is saying here?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 5, 2008 22:03:11 GMT -8
Sorry, my fault. I apparently miscommunicated what I meant to say. Although I do think it's entirely possible for the verse to be referring to the sinfulness of his mother, I actually agree with your assessment of the context speaking of David's own sinfulness. However, let me rephrase it a little to demonstrate what I am trying to say about the NIV translators bias. 5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. NIV Ps 51:5 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. NKJV Ps 51:5 5 I fully acknowledge that I was born under the curse of sin, even since my mom became pregnant with me. CUHV (Chris's uninspired heretical version) (Back to the crack baby analogy:) 5 I was born a crack addict, the junk was in me since the day my mom turned up prego. CBAV (Crack baby analogy version). Does that help clear up what I'm saying at all? David doesn't have to be admitting to being guilty of sin as an infant, he could just as well (and more likely IMO) be saying that, under the curse, he was born with the near uncontrollable tendency to sin and he's begging God to fix it in the verses that follow. There's a huge difference there. I hope you can see it. There has to be some appeal to reason here, and not just a handful of isolated proof texts. I hold that it is just not reasonable for someone to be accountable for sin they didn't commit. That's simple common sense that needs no scholarly translation IMO.
|
|