The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Psalm 66:3 -- enemies give feigned obedience?

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

This topic came up in another thread recently, so I figured I’d open it for better discussion here. It’s a Psalm I haven’t done a study on yet, so the statement at verse 3 caught me by surprise.

Here are my exegetical notes so far. I want to get some more information before posting an Exegetical Compilation entry, thus the thread. :slight_smile:

Obviously, the question would be whether to interpret this Psalm according to other statements about God bringing all sinners to loyally fidelity, or vice versa, and on what grounds; and I’m going to appeal to the ground that God the righteous Truth Himself would not forever accept hypocritical fidelity and feigned righteousness, the worship of mere power, which would not only be a major theological contradiction but also would contradict numerous scriptures undisputed between Kaths and non-Kaths (i.e. not counting the ones in dispute between Kaths and non-Kaths, on whether they prophesy eventual total evangelical success.)

However, I also want to look into the question of the Qal form, specifically whether the differences in verb form are only signified by vowel pointing. If so, then since the original written word lacked vowel markers, the question of how to translate into what verb form would be indicated by context not by something intrinsic to the written form – and since there is no context in this Psalm to decide the translation either way (as far as I can tell), we’re back to extended contexts, and a potentially broader set (i.e. the term could plausibly refer to the previously gluttonous becoming lean through chastening discipline.)

However, if the verb form is (at least for this word) designated by consonant variances, then that would indicate insincere cringing to mere power, which narrows the argument from extended context. Not that would leave the final issue in doubt, since I think any non-Kath is going to have trouble stumbling over the idea of God accepting permanent infidelity as proper for His glory, once the issue is spelled out in detail; but I want to be accurate as to what the Psalm is actually saying, and that result would lock down the proper translation at the immediate linguistic level.

Anyone who wants to help by offering pre-emptive study information on the point at hand is certainly welcome and invited to do so! :mrgreen:

Purgatory
"Eternal Sin" and Universalism - Yikes!
#2

Just a thought, Jason – how does this look in the Septuagint?

#3

Good thought since the LXX has been proved (in other non-contentious areas) to preserve older readings than the Masoretic!

Of course, that might go either way, in theory. :wink:

I’ll have to look that up tomorrow, but if someone beats me to it go right ahead and post, I won’t mind. :slight_smile:

#4

Here’s another translation:

Say to God, "How awesome are Your deeds! Through the greatness of Your might, Your enemies will admit their lies to You. The Complete Jewish Bible

And ESV says:
Say to God, “How awesome are your deeds!
So great is your power that your enemies come cringing to you

Sonia

#5

I looked this up in the LXX the moment I saw this yesterday; but I didn’t want to confuse things. But now you have asked:

**Psalms 66:3 (Brenton LXX) **- “Say unto God, How awful are thy works! through the greatness of thy power thine enemies shall lie to thee.”

**Psalms 66:3 (Thompson LXX) **- “Them who are working iniquity; they sharpened their tongues.”

(JRP update: actually "“For the greatness of thy power, let thine enemies submit to thee.” See comment later.)

The verse is missing from the DSS.

Peace
S.

#6

Oh dear! Worse and worse! :laughing:

#7

Hmm… the verb in LXX (Greek OT, Ps 65:3 by that reckoning) is ψεύσονταί {pseusontai}. The grammar parsing (according to the Kata Biblion tools) comes out to “they-will-be-LIE-ed”, which is not exactly what one would expect as a form to indicate that they will be lying.

The term in this form only shows up one other place in the LXX, Deuteronomy 33:29, in a very similar situation which the Psalmist was most likely referring to, the difference being that enemies would {pseusontai} to Israel (instead of to God) thanks to God. (It’s literally the last thing Moses says in his last blessing and prophecy of Israel before he dies.)

The tense of the verb is 3rd person plural (they); future indicative (shall in the future as a matter of fact); middle passive. It’s the middle passive combination that’s so weird, partly because English doesn’t have a middle voice in grammar, which makes it hard to translate.

But that isn’t the only reason. The whole point to a middle voice is that the doer of the verb is acting the verb in relation to the doer. But the whole point to a passive voice is that the subject of the verb is receiving the action of the verb.

So the verb means the enemies shall (passively by someone or something else) be being lied or shall be lied (the passive can be read either way); and shall also (middle) be actively doing this to themselves.

The gist in combination, especially if God is agreed to be the doer of the action that the enemies are passively receiving, seems most feasibly to mean that they shall be exposed as liars and shall agree with this exposure. (Somewhat similar to the difficult-to-translate Greek of 2 Thess 1:9, where the gist seems most feasibly to be that those who are punished shall come to value the justice of what’s happening to them, which is what the Greek happens to literally read. :slight_smile: )

That fits well with universal salvation, unless God does not accept cooperative repentance of evil! The parallel passage at the tail end of Deut would likewise involve the enemies of Israel being exposed as liars (possibly by Israel, more likely by God given the context) which the enemies shall also then be agreeing with.

This idea has a strong connection to several other OT prophecies, including ones with universal salvation (or at least post-mortem salv) details: the enemies of God and of Israel are repenting of their sins to God and to Israel in cooperation with the judgment of God.

Note: check Psalm 81:15 (80:16 in the LXX) – in the latter, those who pretend obedience have a time of olam (into the ages in the LXX)! But it’s still a closely related middle passive verb, so still would mean being exposed as liars in a way they’re cooperating with somehow. In a parallel verse of the same term as 81:15, 78:36 (77:36 LXX), the flatterers are rebel Israel being exposed as liars. The subsequent verses show God having mercy on rebel Israel (though He still has to punish them for impenitence eventually), remembering that they were but flesh which cannot abide by itself (a wind that passes away and doesn’t come again) – despite their impenitent rebellions YHWH is their shepherd according to the integrity of His heart and the skillfulness of His hands. (Intention and competency to save them from their sins after all.)

#8

That’s an excellent summary, Jason, thanks.

The context, IMO, brings out this view as you have outlined, and it also suggests a future time of repentance (“be exposed as liars and shall agree with this exposure”). My first impression is that this is particularly speaking of the redemption work of Christ, where the enemies will repent throughout “all the earth.” Verse 8 (LXX) says: “Bless our God, ye Gentiles, and make the voice of his praise be heard.” These are those who were once enemies, but who are now worshipping and praising God. It is interesting that the Masoretic implies that this obedience would be “feigned”, and not genuine. It also, in verse 8, confuses who the subject is by saying “peoples”. The LXX identifies the subjects as the “Gentiles”, for, in verse 10, they are to be tested with fire, and are to be refined as silver. These are terms suggesting that the gentiles would become God’s procession, and like the Hebrews, they also would be refined as silver. The MT scribes may have tried to disguise this.

Peace
S.

#9

Yep, there’s salvific refining language along afterward in that Psalm – I forgot to mention it, but I’m glad someone else noticed it!

The term certainly does usually mean to lie about something, including to feign loyalty, in other verses (at least in the Greek LXX, also in the Greek NT), so I’m not sure I blame translators for going with that translation here. The grammatic form is notoriously weird, and could also be construed as meaning that God will expose them in the lies they are actively lying, perhaps while trying to flatter Him. There are several verses suggesting this, too, in other scriptures, most notably the latter two judgment parables in Matt 25, where the baby goats have no idea when they haven’t been serving Christ, and in the preceding parable Christ’s lazy servant (who refused to work the work of His absent master, which must involve evangelizing thus leading sinners to reconcile with God) tries to excuse his refusal to work by flattering Christ as a robber-chief! (The colloquial meanings tend to be lost to anyone living outside the Near Middle East but I’ve read a work by a missionary there, whose name I forget, which discusses this context. The book was Jesus Through Middle-Eastern Eyes if anyone wants to look up the author and be less lazy in rendering justice than I am. :wink: )

Jesus’ judgment warning earlier in GosMatt (partly paralleled in GosLuke) about putative followers, actually empowered by Christ to work miracles, seems relevant here, too: they even know enough to appeal to Christ with the divine double-name (per some OT refs), but they were rebels after all. Christ’s judgment warning against the Ephesian church of RevJohn’s day seems appropriate, too.

Anyway, before I lean more on this interpretation, I want to check how well it fits with other applications of the same middle-passive usage of the verb.

#10

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

I put a reasonable emphasis on ‘context’ to assist in examination of the meaning of words and phrases, although I do love the Zodhiates critical examination which grammatical notations unlock. If you do not have the tools to explore the grammatical notations, then context is a quick measurement to clarify conflicts between different manuscripts. I find it useful anyway.

Peace
S.

#11

Kenneth E Bailey, Jason. GREAT book. Dick recommended it to me. I have his other two as well A double-header; Poet & Peasant and something or other else I can’t remember at the moment. I can’t thank Dick enough for pointing me toward these books. There among my all-time favorites!

And THANKS for your work figuring this out! Not that it was worrying me. The overwhelming witness of scripture is bigger than a couple of difficult-to-translate verses.

Love, Cindy

#12

I think it’s interesting the verse is missing from the Dead Sea Scroll version(s?) of the Psalm; and I haven’t got the faintest clue why Thompson would translate the LXX there as “Them who are working iniquity, they sharpened their tongues”. Just shows how hard it is to get a translation out of that verse I guess.

Yay Kenneth Bailey! – I had his first name correct, but was pretty sure I was mis-remembering his last name (in my head it was More).

#13

I am very sorry, but I gave the wrong verse from Thonpson’s LXX. Here is the correct verse:

“For the greatness of thy power, let thine enemies submit to thee.”

Placing the verse in context it reads like this:

books.google.com.au/books?id=Sw4wAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR94&lpg=PR94&dq=%22Them+who+are+working+iniquity;+they+sharpened+their+tongues.%22&source=bl&ots=_LexmLSzit&sig=HsaT41U4_shucWFafSjgJ42oB4E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rd1mUuqiMKi1iQfv14CADQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Them%20who%20are%20working%20iniquity%3B%20they%20sharpened%20their%20tongues.%22&f=false

Peace
S.

#14

Okay, whew, that makes a lot more sense! :laughing:

I’ve updated your original post giving his translation, with the correct one added in, pointing back down here where you found the right verse. :slight_smile:

Note: Stef’s link above actually goes to LXX Psalm 63 (given the Hebrew/modern number 64 in the text), with the last half and the first half of verses 2 and 3 highlighted. The relevant translation there actually read, “Hear, O God, my prayer when I invoke Thee. From the fear of an enemy deliver my soul. Thou hast sheltered me from the conspiracy of wicked men – from the multitude of them who are working iniquity. They sharpened their tongues like a sword: they bent their bow, a bitter thing, to shoot secretly a blameless man.”

The verb there isn’t the same, although the general idea could be, of falsely flattering someone (a threat David often prays for protection against).

#15

This might be of interest:

chabad.org/library/bible_cdo … rashi=true

#16

That is really cool! Thanks, Sven. And what a great resource. Bookmarking! :smiley:

#17

It’s Y’Khakhashu (Yod Khaf Het Shin Vav) in the BHS.
It is in Niphal Prefix w/o vav conversive, 3.M.P.
Without vowel pointing this would in fact be identical to Kal Prefix 3.M.P.

#18

Timothy, I’m sorry but I don’t know what you’re talking about – I’m not that smart. But I did see your comment and I wanted to thank you for it, lest you think no one noticed. :slight_smile:

Blessings, Cindy

#19

No Problem :slight_smile:

Jason asked about the Hebrew word translated as cringing, and its conjugation and whether the only signal for its binyan (its verb form) was in the niqqud (vowel pointing). Because of the form, the answer is yes: only the niqqud signal the form. :slight_smile:

Edited for spelling

#20

Thanks Tim; I’ll reprint the salient points from my original post which led to the question, for ease of reference:

What Tim is saying is that the vowel pointing in this case makes all the difference between Qal and the other forms; so the question is whether the rabbis traditionally interpreted the term correctly or not, since to be fair the vowel pointing doesn’t come out of nowhere. Even in the case of the Rashi commentary (referenced twice above in the thread), where he goes with much the same kind of interpretation I did, he doesn’t seem to be treating the form as though it ought to be Qal (where the previously gluttonous sinners would be becoming lean in their praise of God, presumably through God disciplining them.)

Now the question is whether there’s anything in the Psalm itself to signal a difference between Qal and either of the other three forms.

Keep in mind that, as I argued extensively, even if the form shouldn’t be Qal (and the Greek definitely doesn’t follow the interpretation of becoming lean), that doesn’t mean the verse should be read to mean God accepts as a final state false flattery from sinners. The verb form of the LXX there may even indicate God is exposing their lies to themselves, making them acknowledge what they’re doing, which would indicate remedial action. (God’s punishment of sinners afterward in the same Psalm, including the Psalmist speaking inclusively for previously rebel Israel, is explicitly shown to be remedial in its goal, for which the Psalmist is praising God – although the Psalmist might not be thinking of remedial punishment for the cringers, too.)