The final post on the introduction. (I hope). These paragraphs recap
what he wrote in the earlier pages. So there is some coherence in his writing.
I will not go into much detail but I have found some links to the works that
Forbes cites. At the moment of his writing, he is on the side of the
established English theology, and is being challenged by a humbler knowledge
that insists on reality rather than magic in prophecy.
Thus far the books of the Psalms have followed what may be called a
quasi-chronological. arrangement. Book VI. still continues the same order,
since it opens with the grand Te Deum (Ps. cxviii.) composed on occasion of
the completion of the second temple. This again is succeeded by the great
alphabetical Psalm (cxix., composed probably by Daniel, cf. vers. 9, 23, 46,
54, etc.) in praise of the law of God, which under the second temple
received a prominence never before accorded to it ; after which follow the
fifteen Psalms of Ascents, all of which, it is shown, apply exactly to the
time of the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah. Book VII.
(cxxxvi.-cl.) forms a fitting conclusion to the Psalter. The prayer of the
Ransomed Church of the Messiah melts away in the triumphant burst of praise
which closes the book.
We return to Forbes division of Book 5 into three sub-books. I find this of
marginal interest. It shows he is reading but I don't think it figures in any
argument or lack thereof so far. I am curious that he thinks Psalms 119 was
composed by Daniel (probably? i.e. 0.1% probable). And the association of
the Psalms of Ascents with the rebuilding is a new one to me as well.
My aim in these studies has been to lay a sound foundation for the
Christian interpretation and use of the Psalms, by avoiding the error of the
older interpreters in reading in between the lines the additional knowledge
which they received from the New Testament; and by beginning, on the
contrary, with endeavouring to ascertain in each Psalm the meaning which the
writers themselves, with the light which they possessed from previous
revelations, must have attached to their own words,—and especially as that
meaning is shown to have been understood, and is more clearly defined, by
comparison with the group with which the Psalm is associated by those who
arranged the Psalter as we now possess it. Such evidently was the only
meaning and teaching of the Psalms to the Jewish Church for centuries
antecedent to the New Testament period ; and such, therefore, must be the
meaning of them with which we are to start in judging of the application of
the quotations made from them by our Lord and His apostles.
This assertion is not proven, merely stated again and again - 'lay a sound
foundation' is a laudable aim, but why for a particular interpretation?
It may be asked, Will not the habit of symmetrical and parallelistic
arrangement of ideas to which the Israelites were thus accustomed, modify in
part the estimate we should form of the intelligence and insight of the Old
Testament writers, and even readers, if we consider the accurate comparison
of thoughts and connection of ideas to which they were necessarily compelled
? We are inclined to think that the importance due to this consideration has
not received the attention which it deserves. And in the following studies
it will be found that considerable stress has been laid upon the additional
new light which the Divine revelation made to David in Ps. cx. must have
cast both on the preceding Messianic announcements and on many of the Psalms
subsequently indited [sic]. It will be shown from the internal evidence of
Psalm cx. itself how beautifully appropriate to the time and circumstances
of David personally was the revelation now made to him ; thus forming an
independent proof that David was the author of the Psalm, and that he was
taught to look forward to the coming of an almighty king and " priest for
ever after the order of Melchizedek," whom he styles " my lord." This
revelation lets in a clear light from the very commencement of the monarchy,
on the idea which David and every intelligent Israelite must have formed of
the Messianic King who was to accomplish God's high purposes for Israel, as
one infinitely superior to himself or Solomon, or any common mortal ; and it
threw the fulfilment into a far remote future, since no king of the tribe of
Judah could be a priest so long as Moses' dispensation lasted, which limited
the priesthood to the sons of Aaron exclusively.
He considers that 'intelligence' is required for the human insight into
the purpose of the Psalter. I find this a problem, probably a sociological
one. I cannot accept from anyone, even myself, any assumption of superiority
with respect to a human or group of humans. Love countermands such a thought.
The assumption of superiority is a false foundation.
The idea of the Messiah as a wholly distinct person thus stands out clearly
from the very first, and dissipates at once the mistaken notion of Dr.
Delitzsch, that David " regarded himself as the Anointed —sub specie
Christi" (Messianic Prophecies, Lectures by Franz Delitzsch, translated from
the MS. by Samuel Ives Cartiss, § 19, 20, p. 47. T. & T. Clark, Edin.)
to the extent at least that he ever so identified himself with the Messiah
as to imagine that he should never die, but " considered himself immortal,
Ps. xvi." (Supra, § 23, p. 51.) Dr. Delitzsch must have forgotten that in
the original notice given to David of the continuance of his race on the
throne, it was distinctly told him that the first instalment of the promise
in its lower sense was to be, not to himself, but to his seed which should
proceed out of his bowels, " when thou shall sleep with thy fathers " (2
Sam. vii. 12). It is with reference to this original promise that St. Peter
explains to us that David expressed the confident assurance, "Thou wilt not
leave my soul to Sheol, nor wilt Thou suffer Thine holy one to see
corruption," etc. (Ps. xvi. 10, 11) ; not cherishing the idea of
ever-enduring life in this world, but of being raised to eternal life from
the grave. St. Peter's words are, David " being therefore a prophet, and
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his
loins he would set one upon his throne " (2 Sam. vii. 12), he "foreseeing
this spake of the resurrection of Christ" (Acts ii. 30, 31)—and of his own
resurrection as included in it. Observe the degree of insight into God's
communications which St. Peter here attributes to David, and the process of
reasoning which he presupposes to have passed in David's mind in order to
reach the conclusion he deduces from it. The promise made to David of a "
seed " whose " throne should be established for ever," must have led him to
identify his seed with the " seed " promised to the woman who was by His
victory over the serpent to undo the sentence of death, and regain the gift
of eternal life for man ;—and again with the " seed " promised to Abraham,
who was to extend the blessing to " all the nations of the earth."
Rather than intelligence as intellect or being smart, I could allow
intelligence in the sense of gift from the Spirit as the mode in which the
psalmist often writes. It is not magic though or prediction, but presence.
Here I am following Kimhi in his attribution of the work of the Spirit in
David.
Here the distinction between the Messianic King, who is to obtain by his
great conflict the boon of eternal life for himself and his people, and
between David as a mere participator therein, is as evident as in trilogy
Ps. xx—xxii., where the prize which he asks of God for all his suffering and
conflict is, " Life he asked of Thee : Thou gavest it him, even length of
days for ever and ever." In short, the primary and direct subject, in the
intention of the Psalmist, we hold to be the Messiah in Ps, ii., Ps. XX. -
xxii., and Ps. xl., whatever might have been the immediate occasion that
called forth the Psalmist's thoughts. The prominent subject before the mind
of all psalmists and prophets is ever the contest which is going on between
the supremacy and purposes of Jehovah and the powers of evil. The tendency,
therefore, with the prophet is ever to pass on from the present and
immediate event to the final victory of God's great purposes and the
consummation of all. A similar remark to those made on Dr. Delitzsch's view
of David's Messianic Psalms we must extend to Solomon's Ps. lxxii. His
remarks on this Psalm are : " In the time of David and of Solomon, the hope
of believers which was attached to the kingship of David had not yet fully
broken with the present. At that time, with few exceptions, nothing was
known of any other Messiah than the Anointed One of God, who was David or
Solomon himself." Accordingly Dr. Delitzsch affirms that the words of Ps.
lxxii. " were all fulfilled in Solomon." (Need I say with reference to
the remarks I have made on what appears to me to be errors on the part of
Dr. Delitzsch, that they are made in consequence of the very high regard of
the opinions generally of this deeply respected veteran, to whose criticisms
on the Psalms and Isaiah particularly I have been so much indebted in common
with every Biblical scholar. It is the weight so justly given to the
authority of whatever falls from the pen of such a critic, that renders it
necessary to enter a caveat against whatever tends to mislead, or to
propagate mistaken ideas.)
He is very critical of
Delitzsch. I haven't read any of his work directly. His NT translation is available
here.
On the contrary, we maintain that such views are altogether inconsistent
with the revelation made in Ps. cx. In Ps. lxxii. the direct and primary
subject is the Messiah, to whom alone the words of ver. 17 can apply, " And
all nations shall bless themselves in him ; they shall call him blessed." It
is the prayer of Solomon for the final establishment of that great kingdom
of universal peace and righteousness which the Messiah was to
introduce,—for his own kingdom only in the feeble measure in which his rule
could foreshadow and hasten its coming. All this is in accordance with the
teaching that Solomon received from his father. And the fulfilment in the
higher and perfect sense alone lends point and significance to the epigraph
which is subjoined to the doxology which closes Ps. lxxii. and the 2nd Book
of Psalms, " Ended [or fulfilled] are the prayers of Jesse the son of David.
[sic!]"
|
| Psalms 72:17 |
יְהִ֤י שְׁמ֨וֹ לְֽעוֹלָ֗ם לִפְנֵי־שֶׁמֶשׁ֮ יִנּ֪וֹן שְׁ֫מוֹ
וְיִתְבָּ֥רְכוּ ב֑וֹ
כָּל־גּוֹיִ֥ם יְאַשְּׁרֽוּהוּ
|
|
17 His name will be forever. His name
will propagate in the presence of the sun, and they will bless
themselves in him.
All nations will call him happy.
|
iz ihi wmo lyolm lpni-wmw iinon wmo
vitbrcu bo
cl-goiim iawruhu
|
19
7
|
i/hi
wm\v
l/yvlm
l/pn\i
wmw
i/nvn
wm\v
vit/brc\v
b\v
cl
gvi\m
i/awr\vhv
|
I need to define forever, don't I. Look up
ylm
and all its uses. Notice that its first domain is in the idea of hiding or
obscurity. It is not so obvious in any case that this 'ever' is a linear time
'with no term either end'. From Aquinas to Einstein is a long distance. Forbes
has preceded our capacity for mass destruction.
We would plead, therefore, with our modern critics to grant to the psalmists
and prophets of the Old Testament a little more intelligence and insight
into their own utterances than they seem inclined to allow them. The great
function of this class whom the Spirit of God raised up was to explain the
meaning and purposes of God's dealings with His people, that they might
learn the lessons these were intended to teach them, and might be prepared
to do their part, both in abstaining from whatever would obstruct, and in
striving to promote the accomplishment of God's great purposes. They must
therefore have been men accustomed to look before and behind them, and to
take an enlarged and comprehensive view of God's kingdom.
We claim this intelligence for them partly on St. Peter's authority, whose
reasoning on the grounds upon which David based his hope of a resurrection
to eternal life, expressed in Ps. xvi. 10, 11, has, as we have seen,
consistency only when founded on the promise made to him in 2 Sam. vii., as
St. Peter shows. Yet one of the latest of our commentaries on the Psalms,
(The Psalms, with Introductions and Critical Notes, by Rev. A. C. Jennings,
M.A., assisted in part by Rev. W. H. Lowe, M.A., Cambridge. Macmillan &
Co., 1877.) and one which contains many thoughtful and judicious
observations, says of Ps. xvi. 10, "All that is implied in this verse is
that the Psalmist, in that he has Jehovah at his right hand, is confident
that he shall escape death, i.e. probably the violent death with which his
adversaries menaced him."
If this was all that David contemplated, what has his prophetic knowledge of
a future Messiah, to which Peter refers, to do with his hope of present
deliverance from death ? The only reply we find is a reference to one of
those tantalizing comments of Dean Alford, in which he says and straight
unsays his words, leaving the difficulty in greater obscurity than he found
it. Alford well remarks in Acts ii. 31, " The word προϊδὼν distinctly
asserts the prophetic consciousness of David in the composition of this
Psalm. But of what sort this prophetic consciousness was, may be gathered
from the same apostle, 1 Pet. i. 10-12. It was not a distinct knowledge of
the events which they foretold, but only a conscious reference in their mind
to the great promises of the covenant, in the expression of which they were
to be guided by the Holy Spirit of prophecy to say things pregnant with
meaning, not patent to themselves but to us."
Forbes clearly has an aversion to historical critical thought.
Never has statement been more completely misrepresented than this of St.
Peter generally is, as if he meant to assert that because some things in the
prophetic utterances were obscure and indistinct to the prophets, the whole,
or main part, was so. Though they sought and searched diligently, they knew
not " the time, nor the manner of the time, that the Spirit of Christ that
was in them did point to ; " but this they knew distinctly, that it
testified beforehand " the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should
follow them." And though they knew not the exact time or way when all this
should take place, yet they knew distinctly that it was not to be in their
own time , or that of their contemporaries that the fulfilment was to take
place. To them " it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you [of
the apostle's days], did they minister these things." To conclude, we are
very much inclined to turn the tables against our modern critics, and to
question whether the want of insight and discernment which they attribute to
the ancient psalmists and prophets be not rather chargeable on themselves in
not taking the connected and comprehensive view of the whole circumstances
of God's ancient people which they ought.
They judge of each Psalm too much as an isolated production, without taking
into account the enlarged meaning which it immediately received on being
introduced into the Public Manual of Devotion for the Church in all future
time, and thus being connected in living articulation with other Psalms. In
like manner the prophecies are judged of too frequently by looking only at
an isolated chapter, the tendency being on the part of the more advanced
critics, wherever a difficulty occurs in tracing the connection, to split up
a Psalm into " fragments," or in prophecy to suppose a break in the MS.
here, or an interpolation there.
Curious, I agree with Forbes that the Psalter has form and structure and
purpose, just not the purpose he is determined to attribute to it.
To what other cause are we to refer the miserable state of confusion in
which the two great prophecies of Isaiah appear in the commentaries of the
present day ? Of the Immanuel prophecy no satisfactory explanation has been
given by the critics, one main reason being, because they coniine their
attention to chap, vii., instead of seeing that they must extend their view
to the whole six chapters, vii. to xii.- (Let me refer to my exposition of
the whole prophecy in a publication too little known in this country, the
Presbyterian Review for October 1886, pp. 690-713. C. Scribner's Sons, New
York'; and T. K. T. Clark, Edinburgh.) With regard to the still more
magnificent prophecy of the " Servant of the Lord " (Isa. xl. to Ixvi.),
notwithstanding the great care which the author has taken from the first to
map out his great subject into three distinct divisions or stages, and to
mark out the transitions from the one to the other, the rationalistic
critics have muddled up all three together, and thereby so confused their
own minds and those of others as to render it difficult to trace out the
beautiful arrangement and line of argument which runs through the whole. If
spared to pass the present work through the press, I may attempt to clear
away some of the mistaken ideas which render this prophecy a reproach to the
present state of criticism. The short sketch now given of the line of
argument pursued in these studies may, it is hoped, prepare the reader to
follow with greater ease and interest the details in the book itself, from
seeing beforehand their bearing on the whole.
The review he notes is
here. (Enjoy this early debate between the assumption of superiority and the need
for humility of knowledge.)
Here endeth the extensive introduction to Forbes. This must at least be an
insight into the mind of 1888 at the height of Empire and the beginning of the
disintegration of Christendom.
