# Detailed Exegesis of Psalm 51



## reformedcop (Jul 29, 2008)

Can somebody please help me with a detailed exegesis of Psalm 51. Specifically verse 5 

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. 

Recently, I have come accross some people that hold to a Pelagian understanding of theology and deny original sin. I want to be careful not to misrepresent their position, but generally, they would argue that David's mother was a fornicator (he had half brothers) and that supports that it was her personal sin that he was referred to in this passage. Furthermore, David says he was fearfully and wonderfully made.

Does this interpretation stand up upon the detailed exegesis of this passage?


----------



## Gloria (Jul 29, 2008)

Great question. I've never really heard the Pelagian view of that verse. I'm eager to read the responses to this one.


----------



## Wannabee (Jul 29, 2008)

At verse 4 then David confesses he has broken God’s covenant which was intended to include his children, and declares that God’s judgment is blameless. Then next he recognizes the reality of original sin. Not that the sex act is sinful. Far from it. Sex is God’s good idea. For by means of it, and with God involved in it, a man and a woman together can do what God does, viz. create (see Gen. 4:1). Now, the word for God’s mercy in verse 1 derives from the noun for “womb”. So in giving birth to a child Eve would experience what we must call “mother-love”. This is a special love only a woman can know for the child of her body. Eve, womankind, knows mother-love; God knows mother-love. So how could sex and human birth ever be considered sinful? Rather, what David is saying is that he was born of a sinful father and a sinful mother, and they in their turn of sinful parents, for all men and women are sinners. God’s judgment upon both David and his parents is thus perfectly justified and blameless.

George Angus Fulton Knight, Psalms : Volume 1, The Daily study Bible series (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001, c1982), 243.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 29, 2008)

That is a horrible interpretation. Bastards were left out of the public life of Israel. Deu 23:2 "A *bastard *shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

From JFB Commentary: "“To enter into the congregation of the Lord” means either admission to public honors and offices in the Church and State of Israel, or, in the case of foreigners, incorporation with that nation by marriage."

NO BASTARD COULD BE KING OF ISRAEL.

What... are we supposed to assume that the alleged "fact" of David's illegitimate birth was just conveniently overlooked by the nation? No... better, David hid the fact so he could be king, no wait ... here it comes ... David never knew it, but then God inspired him with the truth! Please.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 29, 2008)

Calvin's exegesis:



> 5 Behold, I was born in iniquity, etc He now proceeds further than the mere
> acknowledgement of one or of many sins, confessing that he brought nothing
> but sin with him into the world, and that his nature was entirely depraved.
> He is thus led by the consideration of one offense of peculiar atrocity to
> ...



from here


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 29, 2008)

To allege that the David is referring to his mother's sin of adultery is not merely an argument from silence, but contradicts Scripture.

From Matthew Henry: "He elsewhere speaks of the piety of his mother, that she was God's handmaid, and he pleads his relation to her (Ps. 116:16, 86:16), and yet here he says _she conceived him in sin_; for though she was, by grace, a child of God, she was, by nature, a daughter of Eve, and not excepted from the common character."

See also John Gill: "Moreover, it is beside his scope and design to expose the sins of others, much less his own parents, while he is confessing and lamenting his own iniquities: and to what purpose should he mention theirs, especially if he himself was not affected by them, and did not derive a corrupt nature from them?"


----------



## reformedcop (Jul 29, 2008)

Very good. If David, as an inspired writer of the Psalms penned this in repentance ... What reason would there be for him to bring up someone elses sin when lamenting over his own other than to display his total corruption?

I think they would attempt to explain this away by saying that he had the example of sinful parents even from his youth.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 29, 2008)

Speaking of original sin as taught in Psalm 51.5, George Estey notes:



> _conceived_...Not that bed companie betweene his Father and Mother, and bed beneuolence (as fome fondly haue thought) was fin: but that euen from thence hee was infected.
> ...
> ...naming his _Mother_ and _conception_, hee fheweth that it [original sin] came from the firft Mother to all following children.
> ...
> ...



Also, I recommend the meditation on original sin grounded in this verse as found in James Morgan's _The Penitent: An Exposition of the Fifty-First Psalm_, which is very rich.


----------



## reformedcop (Jul 29, 2008)

> Also, I recommend the meditation on original sin grounded in this verse as found in James Morgan's _The Penitent: An Exposition of the Fifty-First Psalm_, which is very rich.



Thanks Andrew ... This looks great! I also plan on checking out Spurgeon's _Treasury of David_ tonight as well.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 29, 2008)

reformedcop said:


> > Also, I recommend the meditation on original sin grounded in this verse as found in James Morgan's _The Penitent: An Exposition of the Fifty-First Psalm_, which is very rich.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Andrew ... This looks great! I also plan on checking out Spurgeon's _Treasury of David_ tonight as well.



You're very welcome. I love Spurgeon's _Treasury of David_; it is a gold mine. You can read that selection online here. 

One another meditation on this Psalm by Richard Baker which is worth reading is found here:

Links and Downloads Manager - Old Testament - Meditations and disquisitions upon the first psalm; the penitential psalms; and seven consolatory psalms -- Richard Baker - The PuritanBoard


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 29, 2008)

This may be information overload but here are a couple more resources. 

First, Francis Turretin's proof of original sin based on Psalm 51.5 as found in the _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, Vol. 1, pp. 632-633:



> *From Ps. 51:5*
> 
> X. Fourth, from Ps. 51:5 -- "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." David, by ascending from the consideration of actual sin committed by him to the first taint of evil, confesses before God that he was corrupt even from the womb and inclined to sin. Hence an invincible argument flows for original sin. One conceived in iniquity and nourished in sin cannot be without original sin. Nor does what Volkelius urges here with his associates (to escape the force of this passage) avail: either that David does not speak here of men in general, but only of himself; nor simply, but in reference to his fall. We answer that although he speaks of himself, why can it not be extended to others in the same condition who are in a similar manner conceived and born (as his birth was common to him with others, so also his native corruption)? Yea (from the greater) if David, a man after God's heart, was conceived in sin, how much more others? Or he speaks not of his own original sin, but of the actual sin, either of his parents in common or principally of his mother in particular. We answer that it is certain that David makes confession of his own sin (whose pardon he seeks for himself, not of another's sin) as the whole connection clearly demonstrates (which would be entirely destroyed, if a leap was made to another's sin). Besides that, it is falsely supposed that his parents sinned in his generation (as if he were born in unlawful wedlock). Nor can the words be so distorted. The verb _chvllthy_ ("I was conceived") cannot be referred to the parents' act of begetting, but to the formation of the begotten body in the womb. _Ychmthy_ does not signify "to beget" or "to conceive" (which belongs to both parents), but "to be made warm" and "to be cherished" (which refers to the fetus already formed and warmed in sin).



Then also, see David Clarkson's exposition of the doctrine of original sin based on Psalm 51.5 as found in Volume 1 of his works starting at p. 3:

Links and Downloads Manager - Educational Links - The Practical Works of David Clarkson Online - The PuritanBoard


----------



## reformedcop (Jul 29, 2008)

No way ... The more the better. 

I was reading the Turretin that you quoted from his Institutes last night (one of my better purchases ). It's very helpful to kick these things around with the saints as well. Thanks again.


----------



## reformedcop (Jul 30, 2008)

Not to , but can someone more familiar with Hebrew then me help me with this portion of Turretin's proof:



> Nor can the words be so distorted. The verb _chvllthy_ ("I was conceived") cannot be referred to the parents' act of begetting, but to the formation of the begotten body in the womb. _Ychmthy_ does not signify "to beget" or "to conceive" (which belongs to both parents), but "to be made warm" and "to be cherished" (which refers to the fetus already formed and warmed in sin).



Is _chvllthy_ Strong's 2342 and is _Ychmthy_ Strong's 3179? 

2342
Meaning: to whirl, dance, writhe

3179 ~x;y" yacham {yaw-kham'} 
Meaning: 1) to be hot, conceive 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to be hot, become hot 1a2) to mate (of animals) 1a3) to be or become hot (fig. of anger) 1b) (Piel) 1b1) to conceive (sexually) 1b2) to be in heat (of animals) 

Is there something about the construction here that I am missing? Why can't this be referring to the act of begetting?

Thanks


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 30, 2008)

I think the author's point is, that "conception" isn't really focused on sexual activity, but on the product of it. Mothers conceive children. Parents together conceive. Fathers, alone?... not exactly.

Make sense?


----------



## reformedcop (Jul 30, 2008)

Yes, this makes sense. 

So, since the text does _not_ say, "In sin did my mother _and father_ conceive me" ... The text is probably speaking of an already formed fetus?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 30, 2008)

The question for us is what is David thinking of. He's just not thinking about two parents making a baby, per se. Therefore, these Pelagians don't even have any kind of leg to stand on. David is thinking of the mystery of that new person, in the womb, at any stage of its conception or development (conception has a beginning, but the whole process to separation and birth is all conception).

He comes forth from him mother in iniquity, that is his character to begin with. And the makings of that sinful child was not at the moment of birth, perhaps an instant product of the new environment. No, but even in the womb (at whatever point) he was a sinner.


----------



## reformedcop (Jul 30, 2008)

Thanks for your time Rev. Buchanan.


----------

