"Tender mercies over all his works..." "Common grace?"

[Afterthought]

I've heard it argued that the "works" whom God has "tender mercies" over in Psalm 145 are only God's elect, since the "works" praise God (both before and after verse 9), and by the parallelism of the next verse also suggests these are God's "saints." Hence, God being "good to all" also does not refer to everyone; hence, one needs a different verse to show that God is indeed good to all. There may have been more to the argument too, but I'm sure someone here has heard it before. Is this a good interpretation of the psalm? Why/why not? On the surface, it certainly does seem like that the "works" are God's "saints;" I'm not sure how one of the wicked would be praising God in the manner suggested before and after verse 9.

 

[a mere housewife]

Does this apply only to the elect?

15 The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season.

16 Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.

[Edit: I love the echo of that in texts like Acts 14:17]

 

[Afterthought]

In the context of the passage, it very well may (with an allowance for animal creatures too, of course), according to the view propounded above. Of course, such doesn't mean it isn't true in general (e.g., as you pointed out with Acts 14:17); only that in this particular passage, it isn't referring to that general sort of care. I believe it would be said that it's impossible for the wicked to "wait upon" God for food; that it cannot apply universally anyway, since plenty have died of starvation or lack of other physical needs (which seems to be what the "desire" here is that is mentioned); and that the context of the passage is that of God's spiritual kingdom anyway, e.g., the holding up all those that fall, the preserving of those that love God and destruction of the wicked.

As for myself, if I were defending the view, I might allow for a change in what is included in the "all" throughout the psalm, and it may be possible to allow the "all" here to be more general, while keeping the "all" more particular in verse 9, given the context of verse 9 (since the wicked won't praise God).

 

[a mere housewife]

Raymond, I hope it is okay if I share some of what is especially precious to me about the Psalm. I won't argue the point further.

We confess that all things were made to praise God, and do (bless the Lord all His works, in all places of His dominion, Psalm 103). And what do they praise but His goodness? God upholds even the fallen in existence (and even the ungodly experience the riches of his sustaining goodness and longsuffering, Romans 2:4): whether consciously or unconsciously, we wait upon God for every benefit of life. There is nowhere else from which we receive anything.

I have read this Psalm in this light: that the tender mercies spoken of are outlined in the rest of the Psalm, which addresses all creation in various ways. The redeemed have eyes to see and confess the praise all creation yields to the goodness of the Lord. It aggravates the guilt of the wicked that they turn away from the source of their very being and every instant of its continuance, every aspect of its upholding. As in Romans, the argument made is not along the lines of: 'the unrighteous need to come to know God in Christ before they can experience any good' but rather -- 'they turn away from gratitude for the good they have received': a hollow charge if they have been the recipients of none of the tender mercies of God spoken of in this Psalm.

Being itself is a good we none of us deserve -- a good which is upheld in the great goodness He Is, and is to everything He has made. This may seem like a statement of faith and not of sight at many times in our experience of a fallen world; but it is what we confess about our Creator. Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.

 

[py3ak]

Raymond, that interpretation you suggest is not how David Dickson took it. He takes verses 8-20 as providing 10 reasons for the praise of God. Speaking of v.9 he says:

The second reason of God's praise, is his bounty generally unto all his creatures, and that for mans sake. Whence learn,
1. The Lord is good and kinde to all men, even the wicked not excepted: The Lord is good to all.
2. God's mercy may be seen toward man, in the continuation of the whole course of the creatures, which being defiled by man's sinne, he might in justice have abolished, or made them either useless to man, or else instruments of his grief: His tender mercies are over all his workes.

 

[Afterthought]

Raymond, I hope it is okay if I share some of what is especially precious to me about the Psalm. I won't argue the point further.

Thank you for those excellent thoughts! That would be my first inclination in how the Psalm is intended to be understood too, though I probably wouldn't have been able to word it as well as you did. (As an aside, I had never considered that "being" is actually something good until someone posted that thread on God's love toward the wicked in hell.)

2. God's mercy may be seen toward man, in the continuation of the whole course of the creatures, which being defiled by man's sinne, he might in justice have abolished, or made them either useless to man, or else instruments of his grief: His tender mercies are over all his workes.

Ahh, that would make a lot of sense of the verses. The works that praise God are the "mute" works that nevertheless declare God's glory, Psalm 19. These works are the things that God's tender mercies are over, which mercies extend to all because the "course of the creatures" is continued out of mercy to man. These mercies to the Creation that extend to mercy towards men are then a support of God's being good to all: both the saints and the wicked. This interpretation also creates an interesting...well, I don't remember the technical term, but we get that A God is good to all (referring to persons), B His tender mercies are over all His works, B which works then praise Him, but only A His saints are said to bless Him.

I've certainly got to get a hold of David Dickson's commentary one of these days.


So then, besides the consistency and attractiveness of this interpretation, how do we decide that this is the proper interpretation of the verse, and not the other, which makes the "works" to be the "saints" of verse 9?

 

[py3ak]

Dickson's commentary is certainly one of the more valuable books to have on hand.

There are a number of lines of argument which collectively add up to an overwhelming conviction.
1. It is a consistent reading of the text;
2. It is a contextual reading of the text;
3. It fits with the usage of words and concepts in the Psalms;
4. It fits with the analogy of Scripture

The other reading, while perhaps theoretically possible, seems like a textbook example of fitting a grid over the text, rather than of using the particular context and the broader Biblical patterns to understand the appropriate categories within which to interpret the Psalm. Such interpretations are often clever and ingenious; they are rarely natural.

 

[Afterthought]

Thank you. Those are some weighty reasons. Of course, the other view sees Dickson's view as being a grid fit over the text. Such is the way things are, I suppose. Perhaps I need to look into such things more, so I can spot them better. Dickson's view does indeed seem more natural.

 

[py3ak]

Two opposing sides will indeed often lay the identical charge against the other; but the fact that both will say something does not mean that they are equally plausible. One side says, "We maintain the validity of an unusual interpretation of 'works' in v.9, because it doesn't fit with a theory we already believe; here's how the context supports that interpretation."

The other side says, "This is the flow of thought in the Psalm; this is the pattern of usage in the Psalms; this is consistent with the rest of Scripture." I don't think the approaches are equivalent.

There are passages of Scripture that are harder to interpret than others, so I don't wish to be taken absolutely; but approaching a text as possibly being a problem text for the position you already hold increases the likelihood of misinterpretation. Sometimes it's inevitable, because sometimes our first impression of a text is a misimpression, and sometimes the position we already hold is flawed; but when we do, we have to be doubly careful that we are seeking the meaning of the text, not seeking to see how it can be fit into our theory. It is not a lump of playdough to be twisted, but an authoritative deliverance from which to learn. Most of the time, the key is found in a closer attention to the context; sometimes, in abandoning a faulty presupposition (e.g., James Denney ties himself in knots trying to interpret Romans 9:5 in a way that does not make it a testimony to the deity of Christ because of the prejudice that Paul simply could not have called Christ 'God over all').

 

[Afterthought]

Thank you for clearing those things up!

 

[py3ak]

I'm glad to have been of some help. It's always a pleasure to read your intriguing questions and comments, and a delight to interact with someone so patient and gracious.