Questioning Credobaptists interpretation of Ps. 51:5 concerning original sin.

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Text: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Christendom is divided both historically and geographically concerning how one interprets this psalm. The older European mega-theologies (RCC, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and Methodists) interpret Ps. 51 as referring to original sin. The newer post-Reformational American mega-theologies (Baptists, SDA, American Evangelicals, Charismatics and Pentecostals) do not.

1. David’s mother conceived him sin….meaning she committed adultery, thereby making David a bastard child. This interpretation conflicts with the civil exclusionary laws barring certain individuals or groups from leadership in the political realm of Israel. These would be considered to be teachers, judges, elders, officers and even KINGS. Civil exclusionary laws are located in Dt. 23:1-3 of which vs. 2 is pertinent: No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

It is impossible for David to be King of Israel and be a bastard at the same time.

We have to remember barred individuals are not excluded from the religious life of the nation of Israel, but only from the political life of the nation.

2. David’s mother according to ancient Jewish tradition was an adulterer according to ancient Jewish sources (Talmud and Midrash). This conflicts with Sola Scriptura. We do not interpret Scripture with extra Biblical sources written a thousand plus years after the fact.

3. The Psalms by nature are hyperbole and therefore can’t be interpreted literally. This notion is rampant among American Evangelicals. Just why the figure “hyperbole” is to be used exclusively in interpreting to the Psalms is unknown. It is just asserted. A hyperbole is a figure of speech of which functions ornamentally in language. A figure of speech is an expression used to make a greater effect on your reader or listener. Examples of figures of speech are redundancy, alliteration, parallelism, metaphor, simile, synecdoche, analogy, allegory, metonymy, etc. I have never heard of interpreting Psalms mainly through a hyperbole. Understanding figures of speech and how they work are intregal to proper interpretation OF ANY GENRE OF BIBLICAL TEXT. Paul's writings are full of figures of speech.

4. No interpretation can be assigned to any doctrine comprised of poetical or figurative language. Is this Jesus’ attitude towards interpreting the Psalms? No. Jesus said, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

• Here Jesus equates the Psalms on the same footing as the Pentateuch or Isaiah or any other prophet.
• Futhermore, we do get doctrinal content from the Psalms. In Peter first sermon on replacing Judas, he quotes two Psalms. “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his homestead be made desolate, And let no one dwell in it’ (Ps 69:25); and “Let another man take his office. (Ps. 109:8)” This is doctrinal content because from this text the disciples nominate Matthias as Judas replacement.
• Jesus quotes Ps. 110 concerning Himself (four times) which has enormous Christological content. At minimum, the NT has at least 73 quotations from the Psalms ALL OF WHICH CONTAIN DOCTRINAL CONTENT.
• Our rules for interpreting Scripture come from Scripture itself. We are called to study the Psalms and search out it’s doctrinal content.
• My rules of interpreting Scripture: 1) Parallel passages interpret each other. 2) Clear passages interpret obscure passages. 3) The NT interprets the OT. 4) You must have two more passages of Scripture to establish doctrine. Romans 5:12-18 provides the parallel passage to Ps. 51:5.

NOTE: If one were to do an internet search on “Psalm 51:5” or “Original Sin” the results would be 5x to 10x against the belief in the imputation of Adam’s sin. Why? Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, the RCC and Methodists tend to have all doctrinal positions located at the denominations websites. On the other hand, Credobaptists are independent from each other, so naturally you will have more individual statements on their distinctives than denominations.

 

[The Liturgist]

I agree with your post, although I want to stress there is another more subtle division, between how the Eastern churches refuted Pelagius, and also the Latin church initially, with the Ancestral Sin version of Original Sin, in which sin is inherited, as articulated by St. John Cassian, as opposed to the approach of St. Augustine, in which original sin is transmitted, like a venereal disease, which required the Roman Catholics to adopt the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in order to preserve the sanctity of her holiness.

 

[prodromos]

The Septuagint has "For, behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me."
It was my understanding that David is simply referring to to fallen world into which he was born, not to any transfer of so called "original sin"

 

[kidkaos2]

NOTE: If one were to do an internet search on “Psalm 51:5” or “Original Sin” the results would be 5x to 10x against the belief in the imputation of Adam’s sin. Why?

Because the son is not to be killed for the sins of the father.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Because the son is not to be killed for the sins of the father.

• King David's son was killed because David killed Uriah by murder by proxy.
• The small children of Israel suffered judgment as they had to wander for 40 years due to their parents grumbling against Moses and Joshua.
• The children of Sodom and Gomorrah were killed because their parent were not righteous.
• The first born of the Egyptians were killed because Pharoah sin against Moses.
• All infants and children were killed in the flood due to their parents engaging in evil and violent acts.
• Because of the sins of their parents by worshipping other gods, the children are taken into capitivity by the Assyrians and Babylonians to be slaves.
• Shall I list more?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Text: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Christendom is divided both historically and geographically concerning how one interprets this psalm. The older European mega-theologies (RCC, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and Methodists) interpret Ps. 51 as referring to original sin. The newer post-Reformational American mega-theologies (Baptists, SDA, American Evangelicals, Charismatics and Pentecostals) do not.

1. David’s mother conceived him sin….meaning she committed adultery, thereby making David a bastard child. This interpretation conflicts with the civil exclusionary laws barring certain individuals or groups from leadership in the political realm of Israel. These would be considered to be teachers, judges, elders, officers and even KINGS. Civil exclusionary laws are located in Dt. 23:1-3 of which vs. 2 is pertinent: No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

It is impossible for David to be King of Israel and be a bastard at the same time.

We have to remember barred individuals are not excluded from the religious life of the nation of Israel, but only from the political life of the nation.

2. David’s mother according to ancient Jewish tradition was an adulterer according to ancient Jewish sources (Talmud and Midrash). This conflicts with Sola Scriptura. We do not interpret Scripture with extra Biblical sources written a thousand plus years after the fact.

3. The Psalms by nature are hyperbole and therefore can’t be interpreted literally. This notion is rampant among American Evangelicals. Just why the figure “hyperbole” is to be used exclusively in interpreting to the Psalms is unknown. It is just asserted. A hyperbole is a figure of speech of which functions ornamentally in language. A figure of speech is an expression used to make a greater effect on your reader or listener. Examples of figures of speech are redundancy, alliteration, parallelism, metaphor, simile, synecdoche, analogy, allegory, metonymy, etc. I have never heard of interpreting Psalms mainly through a hyperbole. Understanding figures of speech and how they work are intregal to proper interpretation OF ANY GENRE OF BIBLICAL TEXT. Paul's writings are full of figures of speech.

4. No interpretation can be assigned to any doctrine comprised of poetical or figurative language. Is this Jesus’ attitude towards interpreting the Psalms? No. Jesus said, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

• Here Jesus equates the Psalms on the same footing as the Pentateuch or Isaiah or any other prophet.
• Futhermore, we do get doctrinal content from the Psalms. In Peter first sermon on replacing Judas, he quotes two Psalms. “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his homestead be made desolate, And let no one dwell in it’ (Ps 69:25); and “Let another man take his office. (Ps. 109:8)” This is doctrinal content because from this text the disciples nominate Matthias as Judas replacement.
• Jesus quotes Ps. 110 concerning Himself (four times) which has enormous Christological content. At minimum, the NT has at least 73 quotations from the Psalms ALL OF WHICH CONTAIN DOCTRINAL CONTENT.
• Our rules for interpreting Scripture come from Scripture itself. We are called to study the Psalms and search out it’s doctrinal content.
• My rules of interpreting Scripture: 1) Parallel passages interpret each other. 2) Clear passages interpret obscure passages. 3) The NT interprets the OT. 4) You must have two more passages of Scripture to establish doctrine. Romans 5:12-18 provides the parallel passage to Ps. 51:5.

NOTE: If one were to do an internet search on “Psalm 51:5” or “Original Sin” the results would be 5x to 10x against the belief in the imputation of Adam’s sin. Why? Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, the RCC and Methodists tend to have all doctrinal positions located at the denominations websites. On the other hand, Credobaptists are independent from each other, so naturally you will have more individual statements on their distinctives than denominations.

Agreed, for the most part. I would stress that common sense knows the use of language is different in poetry than in, for example, instructional or historical text. But I thoroughly agree that Scripture interprets Scripture. My goodness! the amount of dispersion and delusion brought on by one text out of context or a 5 minute jog of reason! People delight in taking liberties with Scripture that they wouldn't think of taking with a cookbook or the daily newspaper!

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

People delight in taking liberties with Scripture that they wouldn't think of taking with a cookbook or the daily newspaper!

Good. I have to remember that one.