Common Grace in Psalm 136 Metrical Version?

[Afterthought]

"25 Who doth all flesh with food relieve:
for he hath mercy ever.
26 Thanks to the God of heaven give:
for his grace faileth never."

Does this translation lend validity to the idea of "common grace" being understood as God's goodness demonstrated to His creatures as creatures, rather than being tied to external church membership and "common operations of the Spirit"?

 

[Logan]

I think that is the case. I'm curious why you've specified the metrical psalms though: if it is so, wouldn't it be the case in our prose translations as well?

 

[timfost]

Psalm 145, esp. 7-9, 15-17.

 

[Jake]

I think that is the case. I'm curious why you've specified the metrical psalms though: if it is so, wouldn't it be the case in our prose translations as well?

I think it's because of translating חַסְדּֽוֹ׃ with "grace" in particular, which is not in the common prose translations. For example, out of about a score of prose translations here, only one translation uses grace in Psalm 136 (ISV with "gracious love"): http://biblehub.com/psalms/136-2.htm

 

[Afterthought]

I think it's because of translating חַסְדּֽוֹ׃ with "grace" in particular, which is not in the common prose translations. For example, out of about a score of prose translations here, only one translation uses grace in Psalm 136 (ISV with "gracious love"): http://biblehub.com/psalms/136-2.htm

Yes, this is why. It seems like other translations require further interpretation in order to understand the word as involving "grace."

Psalm 145, esp. 7-9, 15-17.

The question is not whether God shows goodness and mercy to all His creatures as creatures, and it is not whether there are common operations of the Spirit. The question is whether "common grace" refers only to the latter or to both. The question in this thread is then whether using the word "grace" in translating Psalm 136 gives validity to viewing God's goodness to all as "common grace."

 

[MW]

for his grace faileth never.

If "common grace" is interpreted as an ineffectual attempt of grace to reach all men in common, the metrical version is directly opposed to it. His grace lasteth ever; His grace faileth never. If, however, "common grace" is that providential and temporal goodness which is infallibly and efficaciously extended to all creation in common, the metrical version brings this out in a vivid way.

 

[Logan]

I think it's because of translating חַסְדּֽוֹ׃ with "grace" in particular, which is not in the common prose translations.

I'm sure you know the 1650 metrical version translates that line "for mercy hath he ever" and "for his grace faileth never" (alternating every other line). So basically you're saying that this translation makes the two term "grace" equivalent with "mercy", and it's only really clear in this translation? And from that understanding you then ask if it is teaching "common grace" (because it seems to teach "common mercy")?

 

[Jake]

I think it's because of translating חַסְדּֽוֹ׃ with "grace" in particular, which is not in the common prose translations.

I'm sure you know the 1650 metrical version translates that line "for mercy hath he ever" and "for his grace faileth never" (alternating every other line). So basically you're saying that this translation makes the two term "grace" equivalent with "mercy", and it's only really clear in this translation? And from that understanding you then ask if it is teaching "common grace" (because it seems to teach "common mercy")?

All I was getting at was that this translation of Chesed might suggest different as the word is generally not translated grace, which I think was Raymond's question. Yes, I know the SMV doesn't consistently translate it in the Psalm, which isn't a favorite of mine, even if the word can be translated different ways.

 

[Afterthought]

I'm sure you know the 1650 metrical version translates that line "for mercy hath he ever" and "for his grace faileth never" (alternating every other line). So basically you're saying that this translation makes the two term "grace" equivalent with "mercy", and it's only really clear in this translation? And from that understanding you then ask if it is teaching "common grace" (because it seems to teach "common mercy")?

I'll try to explain my chain of logic better. With this metrical version, I have heard that different translations within the version could occur when (1) the translators could not agree, in which case both translations would be made, (2) there were complementary shades of meaning in a word and the translators decided to draw them both out. Given the variety of translations of this word in various versions, (2) seemed to me to be the case here.

 

[Logan]

But you also have them translating it as both a positive (last forever) and a negative (faileth never), and it is perfectly alternated, suggesting to me a little poetic license to break up the pattern a bit.

 

[Afterthought]

But you also have them translating it as both a positive (last forever) and a negative (faileth never), and it is perfectly alternated, suggesting to me a little poetic license to break up the pattern a bit.

Maybe, maybe not. This too could be understood as bringing out shades of meaning by alternately translating a particular phrase. Admittedly, it is hard to understand on this view why for a few repetitions of the phrase in the middle of the psalm they translate the phrases a little differently and then return to the way they were translating them at the beginning afterwards. However, it probably isn't a good idea to speculate over whether they were trying to break up a pattern or not (whether by alternating "grace/never" and "mercy/ever" or by changing the phrase in the middle of the psalm) unless there is evidence that they might think of doing so.

 

[Logan]

I'm really trying not to be a pest here, but they don't translate it differently in the middle and then return.

Every odd occurrence is "mercy/ever"
Every even occurrence is "grace/never".

This strongly suggests to me that there is no particular reason for one landing in one place or the other: it was chosen as a roughly equivalent meaning (perhaps to give a different shade as you say) to be poetic.

 

[Afterthought]

I'm really trying not to be a pest here, but they don't translate it differently in the middle and then return.

Sorry for the confusion; I wasn't referring to "mercy" or "grace" but to the refrain itself. Compare:

" 1 Give thanks to God, for good is he:
for mercy hath he ever.
2 Thanks to the God of gods give ye:
for his grace faileth never."

Versus

"17 To him great kings who overthrew:
for he hath mercy ever.
18 Yea, famous kings in battle slew:
for his grace faileth never."

The first part of the refrain has been rearranged. And the first part of the refrain is put in parentheses in another instance. (Edit: Sorry, my memory failed me. Once the phrase changes, it stays that way except for the one instance that is in parentheses.)

This strongly suggests to me that there is no particular reason for one landing in one place or the other: it was chosen as a roughly equivalent meaning (perhaps to give a different shade as you say)

Yes, I agree up to here. Whether the primary intention was to be poetic, I am not sure, although it is more likely than hypothesizing specifically that they were trying to break up repetitions. It could come from the constraints of the meter preventing a more full word from being used (e.g., "lovingkindess," although they likely would not have used that particular word and this whole suggestion of mine is also quite speculative). If that is what is meant by poetic (since the translation clearly insists on keeping the refrain on one line), then sure. It could also simply be as I said before: bringing out two different shades of meaning in the Hebrew to further the understanding of the singer.

 

[MW]

I don't see the issue. The variation seems to be required in the interests of rhyme. If the same words were repeated it would not rhyme. At the same time, the Hebrew word has a broad semantic range throughout the Psalms, so the variety is in the interests of bringing out the fuller meaning.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

"25 Who doth all flesh with food relieve:
for he hath mercy ever.
26 Thanks to the God of heaven give:
for his grace faileth never."

Does this translation lend validity to the idea of "common grace" being understood as God's goodness demonstrated to His creatures as creatures, rather than being tied to external church membership and "common operations of the Spirit"?

I did my Hebrew exegesis paper on Psalm 136 for a seminary class as well as for a presbytery exam, and then later preached its sermon outline for our church. In both the paper and the sermon, I concluded that these verses speak only of a specific covenant grace and love for God’s chosen people. In fact, verse 1 says to “Give thanks unto the LORD”, that is, to “Yahweh”, the specific covenant name of Israel’s God that denotes His special relations to them (that of hesed, or “covenant mercy”).

The “context is king” and analogy of faith hermeneutics are important to remember while considering verses 25-26 of Psalm 136. Broadly, the whole Psalm is part of the whole Psalter that God wrote for His chosen people to sing about Him as their covenant God and His particular redemptive work for them as His peculiar people in the context of the fallen creation backdrop that He yet graciously and providentially maintains specifically for their own good and advancement in the midst of His tabernacle/temple worship relationship. More specifically, and primarily, Psalm 136 talks about historic episodes of redemptive history wherein God saved His people out of the hands of pagan nations who were clearly not objects of His gracious mercy. Very specifically, just before verse 25 reads verse 24: And hath redeemed us from our enemies: for his mercy endureth for ever.

I translated the Hebrew word for mercy, hesed, as “covenant mercy” to get at its full sense, which in context is a specific redemptive commitment of covenant loyalty to God’s chosen people and not some general love over all creation. The Scottish Psalter exchanging “grace” and “mercy” as synonyms isn’t that significant as these two words are two sides of the same coin: the distinction to be noted for our understanding regarding the question above is the identification of the recipient of God’s “hesed” as being Israel in her covenant context which is emphasized throughout the Psalm and in very specific detail against other un-chosen nations defeated by God on behalf of His chosen nation, not for anything in them, but for His covenant love for and faithfulness to them (hesed) – and all this despite their own unfaithful history to Him in return.

Following are some edited excerpts from the exegesis paper of Psalm 136 that deal with the verses considered in this post along with an explanation of the Hebrew word for mercy (hesed) and the context of the Psalm to put its parts in their proper place and perspective, which can be found here in full: http://dumbsheep.org/Papers/Hebrew Exegesis Psalm 136.pdf (The sermon based on this paper, though not as exhaustive on the present topic, can be heard here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=92710113394).

On verse 25:
… There appears to be an inclusion connected to the opening verses developing here and into the last verse of a general sense of God being the only true God. Not so much with hesed (covenant mercy) toward general creation or people in view, but that Israel’s God is the only true God over all things (while the gods of other nations are false ones, as alluded to by reference to the Exodus in verses 10-15). Thus, the fact that He shows eternal hesed to His chosen people throughout their history, and always, is reason for exultation and thanksgiving. So the Psalm closes with the same call for His people to give thanks to the only God from Whom all creation is sustained by His power, and Who has chosen and sustains them to worship Him. The Psalmist frames Israel’s redemptive history in the bookends of creation and providence.

On Verse 26:
It is another common refrain throughout the Scriptures to extol the God of heaven, maker of heaven and earth, over against the false gods whom are credited with power over pieces of creation by pagans. Israel’s God is the God of gods over all of creation, as His throne is in the heaven … What wonderfully arises as the focus of Psalm 136 is God’s unceasing covenant mercy throughout the nation’s history, as exhibited by such a refrain at the end of every one of its twenty-six verses (which itself is a unique feature of the Psalm). This unusual “antiphonal” structure, along with the opening and closing verses calling God’s people to thank or praise Him for His unending covenant mercy which are illustrated through several highlighted sections of redemptive-historical events, has led to Psalm 136 being referred to as the Great Hallel. The Psalmist calls us to give thanks to the only God Who rules over the universe through His wondrous acts of creation and general providence, and in particular, Who personally involves Himself with Israel’s history of national deliverance, provision, conquest, and redemption, all because of His good and unceasing covenant mercy to them.

On “Mercy” [Hebrew, hesed] as best understood more explicitly as “Covenant Mercy”:
Glueck argues that “... hesed can be practiced only between persons who share an ethically binding relationship ... [it] constitutes the essence of a covenant.” “Hesed is the premise and effect of a [berith, Hebrew for “covenant”]; it constitutes the very essence of a [berith] ... there can be no [berith] without hesed ... Hesed was the content of every [berith] as well as every covenantal relationship ... Hesed is contained in [berith].” [Nelson Glueck, Hesed in the Bible, trans. Alfred Gottschalk (New York: Ktav Pub. House, 1975) , 37, 54, 68, 73-74]. Holladay notes that hesed is “obligation to the community” in filial and economic relations, and highlights “loyalty” and “faithfulness” in such relations, as well as that “a [berith] is initiated by ceremony, hesed results [from] closer relation [between] parties, but the obligations are largely the same.” [William L. Holladay, ed., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) , 111].

While God’s people are responsible and bound to Him because of His covenant mercy, His hesed is unconditional because it flows from His eternality and infinite goodness [vss. 1-3, 25-26]. God is personally involved with His chosen people in acting out His hesed for them in the wonders of creation and providence, which set the stage for redemptive history and the unfolding of the plan of salvation. Since God’s hesed is toward His chosen people in every generation, we should respond as the Psalmist commands in giving thanks to our covenant LORD always. And when we worry about whether we could lose our salvation at times when we fall into the most grievous of sins as persons and a people, our hearts most definitely should overflow with joyful praise at the assurance that we have in God’s hesed the certainty of being unconditionally elected, particularly atoned for, irresistibly grace-given people and that thus we will together persevere as His “saints” [the “hasadim” based on the same root for “hesed”] unto the end with the security of our eternal salvation. It is through Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 17:14), and the Covenant of Grace that God’s mercy endures forever to us, His Church.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

If "common grace" is interpreted as an ineffectual attempt of grace to reach all men in common, the metrical version is directly opposed to it. His grace lasteth ever; His grace faileth never. If, however, "common grace" is that providential and temporal goodness which is infallibly and efficaciously extended to all creation in common, the metrical version brings this out in a vivid way.

Matthew,


Out of curiosity, how do you interpret Rom. 2:4 which explicitly teaches what you are denying?

"Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?"​

The meaning of 'leads you to repentance" is "in order to lead you to repentance"; it is a purpose clause in both the Greek and English.

The verse, as cannot be got around in the context, is speaking of reprobates heaping up judgment to themselves in this life, who will be condemned on the Last Day, and the riches of God's grace ("goodness" can be translated as such) is for the purpose of leading them to repentance, which revealed purpose is ineffectual, which is about the universal puritan interpretation of the passage.

I am very much aware of the gymnastic eisegesis that many use to get around what this verse says, and destroy the context and flow of the passage, but I am interested in how you read it.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks. I had forgotten that a word cannot rhyme with itself.

@Grant Van Leuven: If this mercy is only towards Israel, then how is God's goodness and love towards his creatures (as creatures) given as a reason and evidence that God's mercy lasts forever? It sounds like you want to say God is good to all in Creation and Providence only for his people's sake (?). But the text just simply gives these as reasons and evidences that God's mercy lasts forever, suggesting that this mercy is in some way directed towards his Creation?

 

[MW]

Out of curiosity, how do you interpret Rom. 2:4 which explicitly teaches what you are denying?

Do you think I would deliberately understand it in a way that is contrary to its explicit teaching? If not, why ask such a loaded question? I obviously deny your understanding of the passage if you "think" it explicitly teaches what I am denying. I do not oppose what the passage itself teaches.

Try to exegete the passage on its own terms, apart from the doctrinal axe you are seeking to grind. See what it says and then apply what it says to the particular doctrine in question. Especially note the particular persons the apostle was addressing and the reason why he said what he did.

As I have recently posted to a thread on this particular verse I don't think it is necessary to go over it again, especially when it is not the subject of this thread. Suffice to say, the passage says nothing about reprobates. It is the moral basis of divine judgment which is established in Romans 2, the basis on which every individual is to be judged.

The tendency to make every passage of Scripture speak to election-reprobation is not healthy. The word of God addresses sinners as sinners. One must sometimes consider an "indefinite" audience in order to understand what the word is saying. Super-imposing the eternal decree only serves to undermine the historical contingencies by which the decree is brought to pass in time.

 

[timfost]

Hi all,

In keeping with the OP, I would like to give a defence for the term "common grace" in relation to Psalm 136. (If someone with a better knowledge of Greek and Hebrew would like to add/correct, please feel free.) If we consider the Septuagint (LXX) as a comparative tool between Hebrew and Greek, it should be noted that hesed is translated twice as grace (χάρις in Esther 2:9 and Prov. 3:3). This proves at least that in Greek thought, hesed contains the idea of grace, otherwise there would be no justification for χάρις for hesed. The more prominent LXX usage of χάρις is for the Hebrew word hen which carries the idea of superior/inferior relationship. This is the more normal usage of grace in the NT, since we are never said to be gracious to God (which would presuppose human superiority). A related passage to "common grace" along this vein is Isaiah 26:10, which uses a variant of hen to speak about God's relationship to the wicked:

Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the LORD. (AV)

Notice the NKJV translation:

Let grace be shown to the wicked, yet he will not learn righteousness...

Therefore, it seems permissible to both see the biblical connection between hesed and grace as well as understanding that sometimes grace in the OT does not equate with God's saving purpose (e.g. Isaiah 26:10).

There is also no doubt that hesed is covenantal. However, I believe that Psalm 136 contains proofs for common grace. Certainly there is judgment on the unrighteous (verses 10-15, 17-21), but in God's providence he also gives their sustenance, since He "gives food to all flesh" (vs. 25-- also see hesed in Psalm 145:8 in relation to the providential care of creation). If this only applies to the Israelites, does this exclude their animals? Does this exclude all living things? Does it include Israel and all living things except Gentiles? If so, who feeds the Gentiles? I think while we understand the people of Israel to receive the fullest covenantal blessings under the covenant of grace, God is in covenant with all of creation under the Noahic covenant (Gen. 8:20-9:17).

For this reason, I think it is problematic to say that the mercy (hesed) in Psalm 136 has no reference to "common grace" since He has demonstrated providential grace to all of creation, though in the end there is a termination of mercy to the impenitent-- those outside of the eternal blessings promised under the covenant of grace.

The doctrine of common grace has been abused for sure, but I don't want to throw it out. It is certainly not a failed attempt of God at trying to save all of mankind. However, Haldane beautifully explains the following in his commentary on Rom. 2:3-4 (as I quoted recently):

But with respect to the greater number, it remained unaccompanied with that spirit, and consequently continued to be merely an external calling, without any saving effect. The Apostle, in the following verse, declares that the Jews by their impenitence drew down upon themselves the just anger of God. From this it evidently follows that God externally calls many to whom He has not purposed to give the grace of conversion. It also follows that it cannot be said that when God thus externally calls persons on whom it is not His purpose to bestow grace, His object is only to render them inexcusable. For if that were the case, the Apostle would not have spoken of the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, --terms which would not be applicable, if, by such a call, it was intended merely to render man inexcusable.

I'm sure some of us could disagree for a while on exactly how to apply the doctrine of common grace as it relates to the free offer of the gospel, but that would be broader than the scope of this thread, not to mention these issues have been debated before.

 

[MW]

Thankyou, Tim, for attempting to bring out some semantic issues. I note the two examples are relational between men; and the example from Isaiah is speaking of something "shown" in general.

Calling God's goodness in temporal things a kind of "grace" seems to me to be more a theological analogy than an exegetical necessity. It is a reflection on the undeserving nature of it. At the same time, "the life is more than meat," and goodness can be abused to the treasuring up of wrath. So we must be careful to place categorical limitations on our use of "grace" in this way. In some ways the analogy must break down because this "grace" does not lead to eternal life; and the Scripture is explicit when it proclaims that grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. "Common grace," then, must be carefully guarded so as not to diminish the true nature of saving grace.

Concerning Ps. 136, it should be noted that judgment on the Egyptians and other nations was an expression of the "grace" which is being extolled in the Psalm. Like the father of a home, love and loyalty to the family requires protection from all that is harmful and the use of necessary force to disarm and repel attackers. It is proper to divine grace to punish evildoers as an expression of faithful care of the covenant family.

"God is good and doeth good." Any conception which alters this basic confession is a detraction of God's goodness. Inexcusability arises because of the claims of justice. In and of itself goodness does good.

 

[timfost]

Also, Luther translated hesed as gnade, the German word for grace...

 

[timfost]

Calling God's goodness in temporal things a kind of "grace" seems to me to be more a theological analogy than an exegetical necessity.

Sure, I would not want to insist that common grace is necessary vocabulary for Christians. If it proved to be a distraction, I would use another term to speak to the same doctrine (perhaps "common mercy"?). I'm simply trying to give a defence for using the word "grace" apart from the adjective "special." If grace is always special grace, Isaiah 26:10 wouldn't make any sense, since special grace does teach righteousness, even the righteousness of Christ! In many ways, it seems similar to the biblical doctrine of calling. Scripture certainly speaks to effectual calling (Rom. 8:28, 30) and general calling (Matt. 22:14), though we have added the adjectives for clarity's sake.

"God is good and doeth good." Any conception which alters this basic confession is a detraction of God's goodness. Inexcusability arises because of the claims of justice. In and of itself goodness does good.

I agree. I think it's a shame when we reduce God's dealing with His creation to either mercy or justice. God demonstrates both of these attributes on His creation, though certainly in different measures. This is why I believe that even though the enemies of Israel are being judged in Psalm 136, this does not disprove that they also received the hesed of God, even in the immediate context.

I also think it's overly simplistic when people interpret God's dealing with creation as only a means to the preservation of the elect. As you said, "God is good and doeth good." We should expect that as the longsuffering of God does preserve the elect (think Noahic covenant), this is not the only purpose. Rather, it is a demonstration to all of creation of who God is (Matt. 5:43-48). If only for the preservation of the elect, than we would also have to conclude that God is most glorified in redemption and less glorified in judgment. There is no biblical precept to justify such a conclusion.

 

[MW]

I also think it's overly simplistic when people interpret God's dealing with creation as only a means to the preservation of the elect. As you said, "God is good and doeth good." We should expect that as the longsuffering of God does preserve the elect (think Noahic covenant), this is not the only purpose. Rather, it is a demonstration to all of creation of who God is (Matt. 5:43-48). If only for the preservation of the elect, than we would also have to conclude that God is most glorified in redemption and less glorified in judgment. There is no biblical precept to justify such a conclusion.

Yes, there is historical contingency involved in these administrations of Providence. God's goodness may lead the individual to repentance, at which point he will have shown he was not reprobate but elect. Indeed, we can only speak of goodness leading a sinner to repentance because God has an election of grace. So it would be better if the words "elect" and "reprobate" were omitted when speaking of those things which are commonly enjoyed by men as a result of God's goodness. We should speak indefinitely where Scripture speaks indefinitely. If anything is "common" in the administration of Providence it is given to all men indiscriminately, be they good or evil. The "elect" and "reprobate" do not come into it.

 

[timfost]

Yes, there is historical contingency involved in these administrations of Providence. God's goodness may lead the individual to repentance, at which point he will have shown he was not reprobate but elect. Indeed, we can only speak of goodness leading a sinner to repentance because God has an election of grace. So it would be better if the words "elect" and "reprobate" were omitted when speaking of those things which are commonly enjoyed by men as a result of God's goodness. We should speak indefinitely where Scripture speaks indefinitely. If anything is "common" in the administration of Providence it is given to all men indiscriminately, be they good or evil. The "elect" and "reprobate" do not come into it.

Well, I think there is much that we would agree on in terms of the common blessings than mankind receives from God as the fountain of all good. As you know, we would not agree on the specific application of aspects of this doctrine in relation to the sincere offer of the gospel. I think your usage of "indefinite" is a bit unholistic and creates unnecessary categories which allow for your particular understanding of God's will in relation to the salvation of man.

Again, I respect your position on this matter and am not looking for a debate.

Thanks for discussing!

 

[MW]

I think your usage of "indefinite" is a bit unholistic

This is not my usage as if it were unique to me; it is what has traditionally been used by reformed theologians. But I am sorry to see that you have yet more misgivings about the reformed faith.

 

[timfost]

If you would like to discuss further, feel free to PM me.

Thanks!