The Christian Review

THE difficulties which embarrass the interpretation of the Sixteenth Psalm are known and acknowledged. Scholars of the highest rank, at different times, and aided by each other's labors, have expended the treasures of their learning, and tasked all their skill to remove them. The result of these endeavors has been far from satisfactory. The difficulties remain in all their original force. The door of entrance into the mysteries of the Psalın is yet unopened. The true principle of interpretation has not yet been applied. We still ask, Who is the speaker in the Psalm? What is the meaning, and what the application of the terms employed? The closing verses seem to speak of a resurrection. Is it a proper or a figurative resurrection? If the former, whose resurrection is intended? No oracle has furnished a satisfactory response to these inquiries. The uses made of these verses by the apostles Peter and Paul, have, in the minds of many, even increased the embarrassment. A discrepancy is fancied between the explanation given

VOL. XI.-NO. XLII.

by them, and the evident meaning as indicated on the face of the Psalm. Hence a new difficulty is added. How shall this apparent difficulty be reconciled? To effect this, various and opposing theories have been contrived; some of them as remarkable for their impiety as for their ingenuity; and all equally and utterly unavailing.

Why then add another, which may seem as unsatisfactory as those which have gone before it? It may be suggested too, that matters so grave and confessedly perplexing should be left with the learned and practised in biblical criticism. The crudities of ordinary minds shed darkness, and not light, by their unbidden entrance on themes above their reach. While the present writer would not come forward as an instructer of the learned, he holds it to be the right and the duty of every one, however humble his pretensions, to give to the world whatever he deems useful and true, however great the presumption the publication may seem to imply.

The object of this essay is not to offer verbal criticism, nor practical remark on the general topics of meditation suggested in the Psalm; but rather to intimate the posture of the author's mind; to define the real object which glowed in the light of his inspired and prophetic vision; to trace the thread of thought, which runs through and distinguishes the Psalm.

The great difficulties sought to be removed, relate chiefly to the latter part of the Psalm-the resurrection indicated. To prepare the way, it is deemed proper to expose some of the more important explanations already before the world. These, though somewhat numerous, may be reduced to three leading ones. The reader may find a minute and critical examination of them in an able essay, written some years ago by Professor Stuart for the Biblical Repository, and quoted at the head of this article. The interpretation adopted and elaborately defended by the Professor, chiefly claims consideration; as, in this country, it is the one most extensively received. A brief reference to the others will suffice.

The first method of interpretation refers the entire Psalm to David. He is regarded as alike the speaker and the subject. The whole force of the language applies to him personally and alone; without conveying the most

distant allusion to any one else. All mystic interpretations are repudiated as abhorrent to enlightened reason. This interpretation supposes the author of the Psalm to be contemplating, prospectively, his own personal and literal resurrection from the dead; or, as is more commonly believed and insisted on by this class of writers, a figurative resurrection-a signal deliverance from imminent peril. It defers not in the least to the apostles, as inspired and infallible expositors. They, like all other finite mortals, may err. Passing by the immodesty of this interpretation, it is enough to say, it is wholly gratuitous. We will not affirm, that the mere language of the Psalm, apart from all other considerations, cannot, by any possible and legitimate construction, be understood to denote a metaphorical resurrection. All languages are familiar with such strong, figurative representations. They are frequent in the Bible. But Peter and Paul have unequivocally decided against it; and have assigned their reasons. The words in question, they assert, and even condescend to prove, apply exclusively to the proper and literal resurrection of Christ; not by way of accommodation, as receiving in that memorable event a fulfilment; but they expressly restrict the application to it, as the only and necessary accomplishment of the prophecy. The above mode of interpreting the Psalm cannot be entertained, therefore, without renouncing the authority of these inspired teachers. For this we are not prepared. We must, at least, first see some necessity for it.

The second method, and the one demanding special consideration, makes the entire Psalm the language of Christ. David wholly disappears. All the earnest expressions of steadfast piety and exulting hope are the real and ardent breathings of the Messiah. David is only the apparent, Christ is the real, though invisible speaker. The personal pronoun "I," occurring in the Psalm, belongs to Christ. The scene described, as the advocates of this theory suppose, is laid just before the cross. There the Redeemer, in full view of his bitter sorrows and violent death, sings, in the language here ascribed to him, his conflict and his victory. "This strikes me," says Prof. Stuart, "as the best and only sure interpretation." He proceeds to give his reasons for adhering to it. Two he presents in due form; the third, he mentions inciden

tally. The first is the coincidence between this Psalm thus interpreted, and other parts of the prophetical writings. We are referred to the forty-third chapter of Isaiah. Here is said to be "a great resemblance." "The general course of thought is alike in both." "In some

respects," the "great resemblance" urged may be allowed. They evidently both relate, in some way, to the Messiah; and the general sentiment may be alike in both. There is, however, one very material respect, in which they are widely dissimilar. They are not at all alike in their structure. Isaiah speaks of Christ in the third person. No one could suppose him to mean himself. David, in the sixteenth Psalm, uses the first person; and certainly seems to be speaking his own feelings. The mere correspondence in language and sentiment proves nothing to the purpose. It only shows that these might be uttered by the Messiah, which no one perhaps would dispute. Had Isaiah, like David, employed the first person, "I shall grow up before him," the comparison would be relevant, and the reference unexceptionable. The Professor seems to us to have overlooked the difference in the two passages. Christ does not speak through Isaiah, as he is supposed to speak through David.

The

The twenty-second and fortieth Psalms to which we are likewise referred, it is admitted, are more closely analogous in structure with the sixteenth Psalm. first person is used throughout, and that the course of thought is the same, cannot be denied. But we have now before us a principle of interpretation. In a given passage, the apparent speaker is affirmed not to be the actual speaker; and the personal pronouns have an application assigned them, different from the obvious one. Unfortunately, these references do not verify the principle. In neither of these passages is it clear and admitted, that the language throughout is entirely that of Christ. That he applies parts of them to himself is conceded. That most, if not all of them, with a little aid of the imagination, might be so applied, need not be denied. This might be said of many other Psalms. It may be still further admitted that these Psalms all speak of Christ, and yet he not be the speaker throughout. The principle seems to us not to be supported by the references. Many of the Messianic portions of the Old Testament can be more

« Föregående Fortsätt »

Böcker

The Christian Review, Volym 11