The Psalter (Forbes 1888) #7

There is a style here in this document which I find turgid. Not only is it full of conclusion without argument, whether the conclusion is justified or not, but the paragraphs are long-winded. More poetry please, more white space, more time for reflection. But perhaps I shouldn't cavil. 

The Psalms hitherto considered, which are quoted as Messianic in the New Testament, we believe to have been Messianic primarily, both in the intention of the writers and according to the understanding of those who assigned them their place in the Psalter. But there are others, not Messianic in their general tenor, on the quotations from which, made in the New Testament, as pertaining to Christ, the line of argument pursued in these studies is found to throw light. One of these is the oft-quoted verse from Ps. cxviii. 22, " The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner."

 Let's have a look at Psalms 118:22 before we get into the most confusing part of this introduction. We will not draw any conclusion with respect to 'the line of argument' throwing any light, yet. Curious, stone [abn] occurs only three times in the psalter.

Psalms 118:22

אֶ֭בֶן מָאֲס֣וּ הַבּוֹנִ֑ים הָ֝יְתָ֗ה לְרֹ֣אשׁ פִּנָּֽה		22 ♪g A stone the builders refused, becomes the head of the corner.
cb abn masu hbonim hiith lraw pinh	8 6	abn mas\v h/bvn\im h/i\th l/raw pnh

The implied definite nature of the stone is fine. I.e. read The stone, rather than A stone if you prefer.

What is this stone? What the building referred to, and of what are they the symbols ? And who are the builders ? We have but to look to Zechariah (the relation between whose prophecies and the later Psalms has been already pointed out) to find a reply to all these queries. If we consult the commentators, such as Hengstenberg, Ewald, Hupfeld, Perowne, etc., Israel is the stone " despised by their heathen masters [the builders of the edifice of the world's power], but now, by the good hand of their God upon them, lifted into a place of honour, . . . chosen of God as the foundation-stone of that new spiritual building which Jehovah was about to erect ; that temple of the world, the foundation of which was to be laid in Zion." (Perowne on Ps. cxviii. 22.)

I was not convinced by his citations of verses from Zechariah (see The Psalter #6)

But if the heathen are thus made the builders, how is this to be reconciled with the words of St. Peter, who distinctly charges the rejection of the stone on the Jews as the builders : " He is the stone which was set at nought [sic] of you the builders, which was made the head of the corner" (Acts iv. 11) ? In chap. i. of Hebrews there are seven passages cited from the Old Testament in proof of Christ's superiority to angels, the difficulties connected with two of which at least are so great as to have led some to maintain that the quotations are not adduced as 'proofs, but simply by way of illustration (See, for instance, Epistle to the Hebrews, by Professor A. B. Davidson, LL.D., p. 44.) of an admitted fact. One of these is the passage adduced in Heb. i. 10-12 from Ps. cii. 25-27, [26-28 Hebrew] "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth," etc. Nothing can be more evident in turning to the Psalm than that the reference throughout is to Jehovah alone, and not to the Son, the Messiah. How then account for the writer to the Hebrews citing the words as so self-evidently applicable to Christ, as not to call for a word of comment from him for their elucidation ?

There is another aporia in his argument, skipping from the stone (his reference to Acts 4:11) to the angels of the English translation of Hebrews. First, what was the thought process for this skip? And secondly, the gloss angels is interpretive of multiple Hebrew roots. (See below).

Psalms 102:26-29

לְ֭פָנִים הָאָ֣רֶץ יָסַ֑דְתָּ וּֽמַעֲשֵׂ֖ה יָדֶ֣יךָ שָׁמָֽיִם		26 ♪g Before, the earth you founded, and the deed of your hands, the heavens.
cv lpnim harx isdt umywh idiç wmiim	9 10	l/pn\im h/arx isd\t vm/ywh id\ic wmim
הֵ֤מָּה ׀ יֹאבֵדוּ֮ וְאַתָּ֪ה תַ֫עֲמֹ֥ד וְ֭כֻלָּם כַּבֶּ֣גֶד יִבְל֑וּ כַּלְּב֖וּשׁ תַּחֲלִיפֵ֣ם וְֽיַחֲלֹֽפוּ		27 ♪C These will perish but you, you will stand, and they all like a garment will fade. As clothing you will renew them and they will be renewed.
cz hmh iabdu vath tymod vculm cbgd iblu clbuw tklipm viklopu	11 8 11	hm\h i/abd\v v/ath t/ymd v/cl\m c/bgd i/bl\v c/lbw t/klp\m vi/klp\v
וְאַתָּה־ה֑וּא וּ֝שְׁנוֹתֶ֗יךָ לֹ֣א יִתָּֽמּוּ		28 But you are he, and your years will not be completed.
ck vath-hua uwnotiç la iitmu	4 8	v/ath hva v/wn\vtic la i/tm\v
בְּנֵֽי־עֲבָדֶ֥יךָ יִשְׁכּ֑וֹנוּ וְ֝זַרְעָ֗ם לְפָנֶ֥יךָ יִכּֽוֹן		29 The children of your servants will dwell here, and their seed before your face will be established.
c't bni-ybdiç iwconu vzrym lpniç iicon	8 9	bn\i ybd\ic i/wcvn\v v/zry\m l/pn\ic i/cvn

I have expanded the verses of Psalms 102 to include verse 29 (and the numbering is off by one anyway - but no material issue there.) What is the point of Psalms 102? Hebrews does not include the last verse in its reference and applies the psalm to Jesus. But it is not exclusive as the last verse shows. When I was a child (about 7 years into my study), I wrote this in Seeing the Psalter: "This prayer and Psalm 90 surround the proclamation of Yahweh as king. This extends the knowledge of Yahweh to nations, peoples, and kingdoms, to all the kings of the earth. Compare the ending of this psalm and Psalm 90. Both prayers end with establish. The two 'prayers' share 13 such keywords. A total of 24 roots are shared 108 times in 46 verses. This accounts for about a third of the words of these two psalms. Hebrews applies the psalm’s ending to the son. This application is more than a verse taken from its context. Applying it to Jesus does not preclude applying it to Zion and Jerusalem, i.e. to all the children of your servants."

Forbes goes on:

Another passage, to the interpretation of which the connection of the books of Psalms in like manner lends the clue, is Heb. i. 6, "And when He again bringeth in the First-born into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." Here we are landed in a perfect maze of difficulties. In the first place, how came the writer to the Hebrews, in speaking of the occasion on which the angels are called upon to worship the Messiah, to designate him, in place of " the Christ," by the uncommon title of " the First-born, "especially in reference to his superiority to the angels ? Firstborn implies the existence of other brethren (Rom. viii. 29). It is not in respect of angels, but of men, that the writer himself tells us that Christ " is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Heb. ii, 11). Again, the source from which the quotation is taken is much controverted. In Ps. xcvii. 7 we have words almost equivalent in the Septuagint version, " Worship Him, all ye His angels."

Psalms 97:7

יֵבֹ֤שׁוּ ׀ כָּל־עֹ֬בְדֵי פֶ֗סֶל הַמִּֽתְהַלְלִ֥ים בָּאֱלִילִ֑ים הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ־ל֝וֹ כָּל־אֱלֹהִֽים		7 All servants of a graven image will be ashamed, boasting in the good for nothing. Worship him all gods.
z ibowu cl-yobdi psl hmthllim balilim hwtkvu-lo cl-alohim	16 8	i/bw\v cl ybd\i psl hmt/hll\im b/alil\im h/wk\vv l\v cl alh\im

Forbes accepts the angels citation is from Psalms 97:7 (LXX). I do not confound messenger / angel with gods / elohim. The Greek translation renders elohim as ἄγγελοι. Fine if you like it, but what does it prove? Only that there is a piling on of imagery in the NT. It is clear that the writers of the NT, and the believers throughout Christendom are more than impressed with Jesus, who reminded us, "Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven." Any such impression that leads to enforced governance, evil laws, and subsequent destruction of others, is not consistent with the character either of Yahweh or of Jesus. So where are we left? Just more assertions of theology without real connection of the thought process either in the author or his citations.

Continuing, Forbes admits confusion, but it is a ploy for he is certain that he can work it all out with his approach. He is, so far, not working anything out, but repeatedly stating conclusions without support. And for all his being a professor of original languages, his assertions are entrenched in an English translation.

But besides that the person of the verb is changed, whence comes the strange addition of the conjunction "And" with which the quotation is introduced? This difficulty, however, seems to be removed when we are referred to the identical words of the quotation in the Septuagint translation of Deut, xxxii. 43. But we are thus only landed in greater confusion. For on turning to the Hebrew original no such words are found, and the addition made in the Greek version is discovered to be only one of three passages (Isa. xliv. 23 ; Ps. xcvii. 7 ; and Ps. xxix. 1), so combined in the Greek version with the first line of Deut. xxxii. 43 as to form a manufactured parallelistic quatrain of four lines.

 True enough Deuteronomy 32:43 has significant additions to the Hebrew. I am not sure where his use of Isaiah 44:23, or Psalms 29:1 come into play, but perhaps in the Greek, his 'logic' would be more evident.

The difficulty therefore still remains. How came this addition to be introduced into the Greek version of Moses' Song in Deuteronomy, and what led the writer to the Hebrews to prefer taking his quotation from this spurious addition instead of from the original Psalm ? Moreover, the same objection lies to the relevancy of the quotation from whichever source taken, as in the case of the preceding quotation in Heb. i. 10-12, since both the Psalm and Moses' Song refer exclusively to Jehovah and not to the Messiah. Does it not form some slight presumption in favour of the truth and value of the method pursued in these studies, if it shall be found to have supplied a satisfactory reply to all these difficulties ?

I suppose we must remember his logic until we read the next 200 pages. (If I have taken this long to wade through the introduction, will I ever get to the end?)

I suppose in my early classes in Scripture as a teen, my teachers, teaching by rote, expected me to memorize answers. We didn't get very far. Neither learning nor teaching consists of such regurgitation.