Comentário do capítulo
Psalms Capítulo 1
서론
Psalm 1 Introduction
简体中文
Original em inglês
Introduction to the Psalm
Section 1. "The Title to the Book of Psalm."
The general title to the Book of Psalms in Hebrew is תהלים Tehilliym, Psalms, or more fully, תהלים ספר Sêpher Tehilliym, "Book of Psalms?" Sometimes a shorter title is used - תלים Tilliym. Other terms are used as appropriate to particular psalms, as מזמורים mizmôriym, or שׁירים shı̂yriym, songs; or in the singular, מזמור mizmôr, and שׁיר shı̂yr, a song. These latter titles, however, are not given to the entire collection, but to particular psalms. The former title - מזמור mizmôr - is given to Psalm 3:1-8; Psalm 4:1-8; Psalm 5:1-12; Psalm 6:1-10; Psalm 8:1-9; Psalm 9; Psalm 12:1-8; Psalm 13:1-6; Psalm 15:1-5; Psalm 19:1-14; Psalm 20:1-9; Psalm 21:1-13; Psalm 22; Psalm 23:1-6; and to 39 others, the last being Psalm 143:1-12, rendered uniformly "a psalm." The latter title, שׁיר shı̂yr, occurs in Psalm 30:1-12; Psalm 45; Psalm 46:1-11; and in 27 other psalms, the last being Psalm 134:1-3, and is uniformly rendered "song," though it is sometimes connected with the word מזמור mizmôr, psalm, and rendered "A song and psalm," as in Psalm 48:1-14; Psalm 65:1-13; Psalm 66; Psalm 67:1-7; Psalm 68; Psalm 69; Psalm 75:1-10; Psalm 83; Psalm 87:1-7; Psalm 88; and in Psalm 122:1-9; Psalm 123:1-4; Psalm 124:1-8 it is connected with the word degrees: "A song of degrees."
The word תהלים Tehilliym is derived from the verb - הלל hâlal, to praise, as in the word "Hallelujah, Praise Jehovah." The name is given to the general collection, because praise, more than anything else, is the characteristic of the book, and because the collection seems to have been designed to be used in the public praise or worship of God. They were all probably thus used in Hebrew worship.
The word "Psalms," as applied to the collection, we have derived from the Greek translation, the word ψαλμοὶ psalmoi, in the plural - "psalmos" (a psalm) and "psalmoi" (psalms). This word is derived from ψάλλω psallō, to touch, to twitch, to pluck - as the hair or beard; and then, to touch or twitch a string, "to twang," that is, to cause it to vibrate by touching or twitching it with the finger or with a "plectrum" (πλῆκτρον plēktron) - an instrument for striking the strings of a lyre, as a quill. Cic. N. D., 2. 59. Hence, the word is applied to instruments of music employed in praise, and then to acts of praise in general. The noun - ψαλμός psalmos, - "psalm," means properly "a touching, twang," as of a bowstring, or of stringed instruments; then a song, as accompanying stringed instruments; and then specifically a psalm or song of praise to God. Thus, the verb - ψάλλω psallō, - is used in the New Testament as denoting "praise" in the following places: Romans 15:9, "I will confess ... and "sing" unto Thy name;" 1 Corinthians 14:15, "I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding;" Ephesians 5:19, "Singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;" James 5:13, "Is any merry? let him sing psalms."
The verb does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. The "noun" - ψαλμός psalmos, - is used in the New Testament in the following places as denoting psalms in general: 1 Corinthians 14:26, "Every one of you hath a psalm;" Ephesians 5:19, "Speaking to yourselves in psalms;" Colossians 3:16, "Admonishing one another in psalms." In the following places it is applied in the New Testament to the Book of Psalms, considered as a collection of songs of praise; - Luke 20:42, "David himself saith in the Book of Psalms;" - Luke 24:44, "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me:" see the notes on that passage; - Acts 1:20, "It is written in the Book of Psalms;" - Acts 13:33, "It is also written in the second psalm." The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament.
Section 2. "The Authors of the Psalm."
The Psalms thus collected into a book are by no means the production of one poet or one age. They stretch through a long period of Jewish history, certainly from the time of Moses to the time of the return from the captivity of Babylon, and probably later, and they are modified by all the varieties incident to the peculiarities of their respective authors; to individual and national history; to the times in which they were composed. So many of them, however, are the composition of David, that it is customary to speak of them as "The Psalms of David," though it is probable that not much more than half of the psalms in the collection were written by him. Of the 150 psalms comprising the collection, according to the enumeration in the Hebrew manuscripts, not quite one half are usually ascribed to him. According to DeWette, 74; to Kennicott, 66; to DeRossi, 67; to Rosenmuller and Eichhorn, 71; and to Hengstenberg, 80. It is probable, however, that a portion of the psalms to which no name is prefixed in the title - but how great a portion it is impossible now to determine - is the production of David. Still, so many are known to have been composed by him, and he was so eminent as a poet, as to justify the language which is so frequently employed when they are called familiarly "The Psalms of David."
The following persons are mentioned in the titles as authors of psalms:
(1) One psalm Ps. 90 is ascribed to Moses. In regard to the question whether this is to be regarded as a composition of Moses, see the notes on the psalm. No other psalm in the collection is ascribed to him, though not a few specimens of his poetry are preserved in the Pentateuch. Why this was not incorporated with his other writings, or how it was preserved until it obtained a permanent place in the Book of Psalms, cannot now be determined.
(2) David occupies a prominent position as the author of many of the psalms in the collection, but, as has been remarked above, critics are divided in opinion as to the exact number that should be ascribed to him. In the Hebrew inscriptions of the Psalms, 68 are attributed to him. The difference between this number and that noted above in regard to the opinions of DeWette, Kennicott, DeRossi, Rosenmuller, Eichhorn, Hengstenberg, and others, arises from the variations in the manuscripts in respect to these inscriptions; the different value attached to these inscriptions by various critics; the fact that some psalms, though without a title in the Hebrew, are supposed to be so certainly the production of David as to make it proper to ascribe them to him; and the fact that some of the psalms ascribed to him are supposed by different writers to belong to a later period of the Jewish history than his time, and that, consequently, the title by which they are attributed to David is an error. There is every reason to suppose that some of the psalms now without a title are the composition of David, though it is not known, and cannot now be known, why they are not ascribed to him in the titles of the psalms themselves. In consequence of these facts, it is impossible now to determine with exact precision how many of the psalms are to be ascribed to David; though the number is undoubtedly so great that he is to be regarded as the principal author of the collection.
(3) Twelve of the psalms, Psalm 50; Psalm 73; Psalm 74; Psalm 75:1-10; Psalm 76:1-12; Psalm 77; Psalm 78; Psalm 79:1-13; Psalm 80; Psalm 81; Psalm 82:1-8; Psalm 83; are ascribed to Asaph. These, it will be seen, occupy a place together in the collection Psalm 63-83, with the exception of Psalm 1:1-6. The reason for this arrangement cannot now be known. DeWette (Einleitung, III. iii.) supposes that, with the exception of Psalm 1:1-6. and Psalm 73, these are improperly ascribed to Asaph, as, in his view, they pertain to later times of the Jewish history, Psalm 74; Psalm 79:1-13 to the destruction of the temple and the city; Psalm 80 to the Exile, etc. Compare the notes on the introduction to those psalms (Psalm 74; Psalm 79; Psalm 80).
(4) Eleven of the psalms, Psalm 42:1-11; Psalm 44; Psalm 45; Psalm 46:1-11; Psalm 47:1-9; Psalm 48:1-14; Psalm 49; Psalm 84:1-12; Psalm 85:1-13; Psalm 87:1-7; Psalm 88; are ascribed to "the sons of Korah," as the authors, or are "for the sons of Korah." See the notes to the introduction of Psalm 42:1-11. It is not certain whether these were composed by "the sons of Korah," or were composed for "the sons of Korah;" that is, for the company of musicians to whom the direction of the music in the temple was confided. It is obvious, however, that if the meaning is that they were composed by "the sons of Korah," this furnishes no information as to the individual authorship of the psalms. By which one of them they were composed, or whether by more than one, of course is not indicated by a title so general. DeWette supposes that most of these psalms pertain to the times of the Exile, or to a later period. There is nothing very unique in the character of these psalms; nothing which in themselves could lead us to conclude that they were composed by those to whom they are ascribed, rather than by David or Asaph.
(5) Two psalms, Psalm 88; Psalm 89 are ascribed to a person called "The Ezrahite." One of these, Psalm 88, is ascribed to" the Ezrahite," and the other, Psalm 89, to Ethan the Ezrahite." The former of these is also reckoned among those which pertain to the "sons of Korah." Ethan and Heman were probably, however, different persons, to each of whom the name "Ezrahite" might for some reason be applied. In 1 Kings 4:31, they are mentioned among others as remarkable for their wisdom: "For he, Solomon, was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol." In 1 Chronicles 2:6, they are mentioned as "sons of Zerah:" "Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara." In 1 Chronicles 6:33, a Heman is mentioned as one of the "sons of the Kohathites:" "Heman, a singer, the son of Joel." So, in 1 Chronicles 15:17, he is mentioned in connection with Ethan, who is there said to be the son of Kushaiah; and in 1 Chronicles 15:19, he is mentioned as associated with Asaph and Ethan: "So the singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, were appointed to sound with cymbals of brass." In 1 Chronicles 25:1, Helman is mentioned with Jeduthun, as one of those whose sons "should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals." He is there referred to as associated with Asaph. Compare 2 Chronicles 5:12; 2 Chronicles 29:13-14; 2 Chronicles 35:15. Ethan is twice mentioned - 1 Kings 4:31 as above, as a wise man, and 1 Chronicles 2:6, as above. Compare the notes on the introduction to Psalm 88; Psalm 89.
(6) Two of the psalms, Psalm 72 and Psalm 127:1-5, are ascribed to Solomon, or are "for Solomon." See the notes on the titles to those psalms (Psalm 72; Psalm 127). It cannot be positively determined whether those psalms are his composition, or whether they were composed with reference to him or for him. The latter would seem to be the more probable opinion in regard to Psalm 72, so far as can be determined from the contents of the psalm; but still there is nothing which absolutely prevents us from ascribing the two to him as the author.
(7) Fifteen of the psalms, Psalm 120-134, are entitled "Songs of Degrees." Of these, four are ascribed to David and one to Solomon. The names of the authors of the others are not mentioned. Compare the introduction to the notes on Psalm 120:1-7. They are grouped together because they appear to have been used on certain special occasions, rather than from anything special in the psalms themselves.
(8) Some of the psalms are ascribed in the Septuagint translation to Jeremiah, to Ezekiel, to Haggai, and to Zechariah. As there is nothing corresponding to this in the Hebrew titles, this must have been, of course, mere conjecture or tradition.
(9) There remains a pretty large number of the collection the names of whose authors are not mentioned; and, of course, there are now no means of determining the question in regard to the authorship. Such are s. 150. These, it will be seen, are irregularly scattered through the book, though they are, for the most part, near its close.
In regard to the origin and authority of the titles to the several psalms, see section 4.
Section 3. "The Formation of the Collection and Arrangement of the Book of Psalm."
The Jewish Talmud (Cod. Berachot, 1, 9) ascribes the formation of the Psalter, or the assembling of the Book of Psalms, to David. It is unnecessary to remark that this cannot be a correct opinion, since many of the psalms are indubitably of a later date than the time of David. Most of the Christian fathers, and many critics of modern times, ascribe the collection and arrangement of the Book to Ezra, and this is now regarded as the most probable opinion; and if so the whole collection must have been formed about 450 years before Christ. But though this may be regarded as the correct opinion in regard to the completion of the whole as it now stands, yet there is evidence in the psalms themselves of the existence of smaller collections made before from which the general one was ultimately formed. By whom those smaller collections were made is not now known, nor can it be ascertained what changes may have been made in them when the general collection was formed.
The Book is divided in the Hebrew text into five minor books or collections, sufficiently marked in their character, and so indicated at the close of each as to make it every way probable that these may have been "published," so to speak, in the form of different books, or that the later were additions to the first collection or volume. This division is found also in the Septuagint version - a fact which proves that it existed as early as the year 200 b.c. These portions bear marks of being not "arbitrary" divisions made at the time when the general collection was formed, but distinct and independent collections by different persons. The grouping is not precisely accurate, that is, in the first part, the "Psalms of David" Psalm 1-41, not all the psalms of David are included; and there are a few that are not ascribed to him in the title; but still it was so complete at the time, probably, as to make it proper to regard it as a collection of "his" psalms in respect to the purpose for which that collection was made.
The first book embraces the first 41 psalms, and was, probably, a collection of David's psalms as such, although it does not embrace by any means all that he wrote, probably not all that were extant at the time when the collection was made. The "close" of this "book" is indicated by the words "Amen, and Amen," Psalm 41:13. All the psalms in this collection, except Psalm 1:1-6; Psalm 2:1-12; Psalm 10; Psalm 33; are expressly ascribed to David, and it is every way probable that all were composed by him. In many manuscripts, in the Septuagint, and in the Latin Vulgate, the first psalm is united with the second (as are, also, in other parts of the general collection, Psalm 42:1-11 and Psalm 43:1-5; and Psalm 116 and Psalm 117:1-2). It is probable that this collection was early made, though DeWette has endeavored to show that it could not have been until after the exile, since he supposes that Psalm 14:1-7 and Psalm 44 were composed after that event. Of this, however, there is no evidence. Of course it is impossible to determine by whom this collection was made. It has been supposed by some that it was as early as the time of Hezekiah, and that it was prepared under his direction, as he is known to have ordered a collection of the proverbs of Solomon to be made and written out Proverbs 25:1; and as 2 Chronicles 29:30 he "commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David." (Kitto, Encyclopedia)
The second book in the general collection comprises Psalm 42-72. This collection is made up of the psalms of "the sons of Korah," Psalm 42-49; of one of the psalms of Asaph, Psalm 50; of 19 psalms of David; of two whose authors are not named; and of one inscribed "to Solomon," or "for Solomon," Psalm 72. At the end of this collection Psalm 72:20 the following notice is given: "The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended;" and some have supposed that this was the close of the entire psalms preceding it, as one book or collection, Psalm 1-72. Carpzov, Introduction ii. 107. But that this was a different collection, or that there were two collections made by different persons, seems evident from the fact that Psalm 53:1-6 is the same as Psalm 14:1-7; with only slight variations - the variations consisting mainly in the fact that the word אלהים 'Elohiym is used as the name of God in the latter, in the place of יהוה Yahweh in the former. It cannot be supposed that a collector would have used the same psalm with such a variation in the same collection. So also Psalm 70:1-5 is only a repetition of Psalm 40:13-17, with only a similar change.
It may be "suggested" that these two collections may have been subsequently "united," and may have constituted as one before the more general collection was made. Thus, the natural "close" of this collection, as of the first collection Psalm 41:13, would be with the words "Amen, and Amen," Psalm 72:19. To the "entire" collection - the two combined - these words may have been added Psalm 72:20, "The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended," meaning that "now" an entire and complete collection of the Psalms of David had been made in the "two" combined; or, that "as many had been combined for public worship as were then intended to be used in that service." This idea would not prevent the supposition that there may have been at that time, in fact, other psalms of David in existence; or that they might have been subsequently introduced into the worship of God in "other" collections.
The third book Psalm 73-89 consists in part Psalm 73-83 of psalms of Asaph, and in part Psalm 84-89 of the psalms of the sons of Korah, including one of David Psalm 86. The book contains none of the psalms of David, with the exception of Psalm 86; and therefore the notice is given at the end of the second book Psalm 72:20, that "the prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended." It was evidently the design of the author of the compilation at the "close" of that book not to admit in the following book any of the psalms of David; perhaps it was the intention "not" to collect anymore of the psalms of David for the purpose of public worship. Possibly, as DeWette (Einleitung, p. 21) suggests, the author of the collection in the third book put the notice at the end of the second book that David's psalms ended there, it being his intention to make a collection of another kind. when this collection was made is unknown. From Psalm 85:1-13 it would seem probable that it was made as late as the return from the captivity at Babylon. That psalm may have been written by one of the company called "the sons of Korah;" or it may have been composed for their use in the sanctuary. This collection closes, like the two former, with the expressive "Amen, and Amen," Psalm 89:52,
The fourth collection Psalm 90-106 is made up wholly of anonymous psalms, with the exception of Psalm 90, which is ascribed to Moses, and Psalm 101:1-8; Psalm 103; which are ascribed to David. They are psalms which have almost no local references or allusions, which might, for the most part, have been composed in any country or at any period of the world; and which, in their structure and allusions, give no indication of their authors or of the circumstances which led to their composition. Their authorship, except in the three instances above mentioned, cannot now be ascertained; nor is it necessary to determine that question in order fully to understand and appreciate them. They were manifestly designed for public worship, and probably written with the intention of being so used. This book closes Psalm 106:48 with the expression "Amen, Hallelujah."
The fifth and last book Psalm 107-150, is miscellaneous in its character, and seems to have been intended to be a collection of all the scattered psalms which would be proper for public worship, which had not found a place in the other collections. Part (Psalm 108:1-13; Psalm 109; Psalm 110:1-7; Psalm 122:1-9; Psalm 124:1-8; Psalm 131:1-3; Psalm 133:1-3; the four last being among the "Songs of Degrees," Psalm 138:1-8; Psalm 139; Psalm 140:1-13; Psalm 141:1-10; Psalm 142:1-7; Psalm 143:1-12; Psalm 144:1-15; Psalm 145) are ascribed to David. Part Psalm 120-134 consist of the "Songs of Degrees." The rest Psalm 107; Psalm 111:1-10; Psalm 112:1-10; Psalm 113:1-9; Psalm 114:1-8; Psalm 115; Psalm 116; Psalm 117:1-2; Psalm 118; Psalm 119; Psalm 135; Psalm 136; Psalm 137:1-9; Psalm 146:1-10; Psalm 147; Psalm 148:1-14; Psalm 149:1-9; Psalm 150:1-6 are anonymous. By whom, and when this last collection was made is unknown. It may without improbability, however, be supposed perhaps that it was made by the person (Ezra?) who undertook to collect into one the entire "books" already existing, and who found many psalms that had not been included by the collectors of the previous books, and who, therefore, grouped all these together in a single book, to be added in the general collection to those which had been already classified and arranged.
Section 4. "The Titles to the Several Psalm."
All the psalms, except Psalm 34, now have in the Hebrew titles or superscriptions. Some, however, reckon only 25 exceptions, as, according to their view, the phrase, "Hallelujah,"" Praise ye the Lord," occurring at the commencement of several of the psalms, is regarded by them as a title or superscription. The more correct supposition, however, undoubtedly is to regard that phrase as a part of the psalm. To each one of these exceptions the Talmud gives the name of "Orphan Psalms."
(a) The "authorship" of these titles is unknown, and cannot now be ascertained. They are found in the Hebrew; but it is not to be supposed that, so far as the "name" of the author of the psalm is concerned, or so far as they are intended to indicate the author, they were prefixed to the psalm by the authors themselves. The Psalms are not of the nature of epistles or histories, and it cannot be supposed that the author would prefix his name to a mere poem or hymn. The probability, therefore, is, that they were prefixed to the psalms as they came into common use, or by the collectors of the several books, or the collector of the entire book, either as indicating what was the common opinion on the subject of the authorship, and the occasion on which they were composed, or as an inspired record in regard to that authorship and design. The question "by whom" they were prefixed is, however, a point which cannot now be determined. If it were possible to ascertain that, it would do much to determine their authority and worth, but the estimate of their value must now be settled by some other method than this.
(b) These titles are of great "antiquity." The fact that they are found in the Hebrew manuscripts proves this, for there are no Hebrew manuscripts, however ancient, without them. They are found, with some variations, in the Septuagint; and it is thus certain that they existed before that translation was made. This point is also confirmed by the fact that the translators of the Septuagint have, in some instances, copied the Hebrew words in Greek letters, without attempting to translate them; and that, in other instances, the titles which they use are translations of the Hebrew words, and show that they must have been made from a Hebrew original. These facts, however, would not make it necessary to suppose that they had been prefixed by the writers themselves, nor would it be "necessary" to suppose that they were prefixed before the time when the psalms were collected - either the separate books, or the general collection.
(c) The "design" of these titles is either to designate the author of the psalm, or the occasion on which it was composed, or the chief singer to whom it was dedicated, and to whom it seems to have been committed to set it to appropriate music - that is, to arrange the music for a public use of the psalm; or the style of the poetry; or the instrument which was to be used; or the "tune" which was to be sung. Some of the titles simply designate the author, as in many of those ascribed to David; some describe at length the occasion on which they were written, as Psalm 18; Psalm 30:1-12; Psalm 51; Psalm 52:1-9; Psalm 56:1-13; etc. Some combine several of these things together, the author, the occasion, the style of the poetry, the music to be used, etc., as Psalm 52:1-9; Psalm 53:1-6; Psalm 54:1-7; Psalm 55; Psalm 56:1-13. The longest and fullest of these titles is that prefixed to Psalm 60:1-12; where we have the dedication to the chief musician, the name of the author, the style of the poetry, the design of the psalm, the instrument of music to be employed, and the historical occasion on which the psalm was composed.
(d) It is very difficult at this distance of time to explain the "meaning" of many of these titles, and critics have differed very materially in their conjectures on this subject. The difficulty arises in a considerable degree from our ignorance in regard to the temple-music, and to the instruments which were employed. The difficulty is the same which would exist two or three thousand years from the present time in explaining a book, now familiar, containing "tunes" of music, and a reference to the instruments of music which are now employed in the public service of God. It might be difficult, if not impossible, so to describe the exact instrument of music used as to be intelligible to a future age; and it would be obviously impossible to explain satisfactorily the "names" of many of the "tunes" which are now in common use - as "Mear," "Martin's," "Russia, "Windham," "Lenox." The difficulty, as has been remarked above, was felt even at the time when the Septuagint version was made, as in several instances the authors of that version have not attempted even to translate the title, but have expressed it in Greek letters answering to the Hebrew. Coverdale, who translated the Bible in 1535, felt the difficulty to be so great that he has omitted nearly all the titles except the names of the authors. In these notes, as far as an explanation can now be given that is satisfactory or probable, it will be offered in the exposition of the particular psalms.
(e) There has been a wide difference of opinion respecting the "authority" of these titles. Not a few modern critics, especially German critics, regard them as of no authority, and argue in respect to the authorship of the psalms, and the time and occasion on which they were composed, as if no such titles were found in the Hebrew. By most of the ancient critics they were considered as genuine, and as having equal authority with the psalms themselves. They were wholly rejected at the close of the fourth century by Theodore of Mopsuestia, one of the ablest and most judicious of the ancient interpreters. Rosenmuller, Hist. Interp. Librorum Sacrorum, P. III, p. 256. Tholuck and Hengstenberg admit their authority. The "objections" to the authority of the title are such as these:
(1) That the "subscriptions" at the close of the epistles in the New Testament are now regarded as of no historical value, and it is asked why may not the same conclusion be adopted in regard to the titles "prefixed" to the psalms?
(2) that the ancient versions, the Syriac and the Greek especially, exhibit them with great variations, often altering the Hebrew, and sometimes giving a heading where the Hebrew has none. It is asked whether these ancient translators would have taken such liberties if the titles had been considered sacred like the psalms themselves? (Kitto). - It is added on this point, that "if ever Ezra settled them, the variations in versions and manuscripts have tended since to make them doubtful." Eichhorn, "Einleitung," III, p. 490.
(3) It is argued that the titles are at variance with the contents of the psalms. Thus, it is alleged that sometimes the name of the author is incorrectly given, "as when David is named over the psalms referring to the captivity," as in Psalm 14:1-7; Psalm 25; Psalm 51; Psalm 69. It is also alleged that Psalm 139 cannot be David's, since it is not free from Aramaisms. It is also said that the occasion on which a psalm was composed is not always correctly specified, as in Psalm 30:1-12.
It is to be observed, however, that these writers sometimes assume that a psalm refers to the time of the exile when it would be possible to explain it on the supposition that it was composed at an earlier date; and that it is not always safe to argue from the internal evidence of a psalm against the inscription. A critic affixes his own interpretation to a psalm, and then adopts that as a basis of argument in regard to its origin; whereas often, possibly in all cases, if the inscription were assumed to be correct, it would not be difficult to explain the psalm, by fair rules of interpretation, in accordance with that supposition.
On the whole, it seems to me that these inscriptions are to be regarded as a part of the inspired record, and as having the authority of inspiration. The fact that they are found in the Hebrew - that they can be traced back to the earliest periods when we have any knowledge of the Hebrew text - that they have come down to us with that text - furnishes proof which it seems we cannot now set aside; that they are to be regarded as a part of the text, and that they should not be rejected, except as any other portion of the Hebrew text should be rejected, i. e., only when it can be demonstrated that an error has crept into the text by the fault of transcribers.
Section 5. "The General Character of the Book of Psalm."
The Psalms are mostly lyrical poetry, that is, poetry adapted to the harp or lyre; to be used in connection with instrumental music; to be "sung," not "read." Such poetry was common among the ancients, as it is among the moderns. Anacreon, Alcaeus, Stesichous, Sappho, and Horace were eminent among the ancients as "lyric" poets; and the numerous writers of "songs," sacred and secular, among the moderns, are to be ranked in the same class. The phrase "lyric poetry" now, however, is frequently applied to that species of poetry which "directly expresses the individual emotions of the poet" (Webster).
Lyric poetry is, for the most part, an expression of deep feeling, and has its foundation in feeling or emotion. It is not so much the fruit of the understanding as of the heart; not so much the creation of the imagination as the utterance of deep personal emotion. It embraces in its design and nature all kinds of feeling, and may be joyous, pensive, desponding, triumphant, according to the feelings of the author, or to the occasion, for all these utterances may be sung, or may be set to music, the varying tones of music being adapted to express them all. Hence, in the Psalms, 150 in number, and composed by a considerable variety of individuals, and on many different occasions, we have the varied feelings of trouble, anguish, fear, hope, joy, trust, thankfulness, devotion to God, penitence for sin, and the exultation of forgiveness - the heart moved, and finding vent for its feelings in words adapted to the melody of the lyre, or the musical tones of the voice. These feelings are expressed in a great variety of modes or forms, and the music was intended, doubtless, to be in accordance with these varied feelings. The Psalms, therefore, comprise compositions of the following classes or orders:
(1) Hymns in which the praise of God is the principal and leading object, as
(a) in general, God is praised as the God of nature and of men, Psalm 8:1-9; Psalm 104; Psalm 145;
(b) as the God of nature and of the Hebrew people, Psalm 19:1-14; Psalm 29:1-11; Psalm 33; Psalm 65:1-13; Psalm 93:1-5; Psalm 135; Psalm 136; Psalm 147;
(c) as uniquely the God of the Hebrew people, Psalm 47:1-9; Psalm 66; Psalm 67:1-7; Psalm 75:1-10;
(d) as the helper and deliverer of his people, Psalm 46:1-11; Psalm 48:1-14; Psalm 75:1-10; Psalm 76:1-12; Psalm 18; Psalm 30:1-12; Psalm 138:1-8.
(2) Psalms pertaining to the Hebrew nation; to its history; to the Divine interposition in its behalf; and to its relation to Yahweh. Ps. Ps. 78; Psalm 105; Psalm 106; Psalm 114:1-8.
(3) temple psalms, or songs of Zion. Psalm 5:1-12; Psalm 15:1-5; Psalm 24:1-10; Psalm 87:1-7; Psalm 132.
(4) Psalms in relation to trial, calamity, distress, whether of individuals or of the nation. These abound, as Psalm 7; Psalm 22; Psalm 55; Psalm 56:1-13; Psalm 109; Psalm 44; Psalm 74; Psalm 79:1-13; Psalm 80; Psalm 137:1-9; Psalm 69; Psalm 77; Psalm 102; Psalm 10; Psalm 12:1-8; Psalm 14:1-7; Psalm 36:1-12; and many others.
(5) Religious and moral psalms, Psalm 90; Psalm 139; Psalm 23:1-6; Psalm 91; Psalm 121:1-8; Psalm 127:1-5; Psalm 128:1-6; Psalm 42:1-11; Psalm 43:1-5; Psalm 101:1-8; Psalm 131:1-3; Psalm 1:1-6; Psalm 133:1-3; Psalm 119:p>The uniqueness of the Hebrew lyrical poetry as distinguished from the lyrical poetry of other ancient people, and from most of the lyrical poetry in modern times, is its "religion." It is lyrical poetry on subjects pertaining to religion, or to be employed in religion: as expressing religious feeling, and as designed to awaken and foster such feeling. It is intended to raise the heart and the affections toward God; to lift up the thoughts of men from the earth; to inspire confidence in God; to produce consolation as derived from God in times of trouble; to cheer and comfort man in his pilgrimage along a path of sorrow and trouble to a better abode. Much of it can be best characterized by an expression derived from the Bible itself - an expression no less remarkable for its beauty than its truthfulness - as "songs in the night" Job 35:10; songs indicating the joy that may spring up in the soul of man in times of distress and sorrow; songs that show that there "is" joy in the darkness of this world; songs which illustrate the power and the value of religion; songs with which men cheer themselves and each other in their journey toward the grave; songs which even the guilty may pour forth from hearts softened into penitence, and filled with thankfulness in the assurance of pardon.
It is most remarkable that this rich poetry should have sprung up in Palestine, and that it should have been confined to that land. It was not that the land was better adapted to lyric poetry than other lands - for in this respect it could not compare favorably with many other countries, and particularly with Greece. It was not that the events of their history had been such as peculiarly to suggest this kind of composition - for poetry adapted to the lyre or to music abounded elsewhere, and especially in Greece. It was not that the Hebrews had a more poetic imagination than other people - for theirs did not, in this respect, surpass the Greek genius, and whatever there was of poetic imagination in the character of their minds was found with equal richness in Arabia and Persia. Nor was it that their language was especiallly favorable for this kind of poetry - for in very many respects it was far inferior in this point to the Greek, and had no superiority certainly over the Arabian and Persian.
The fact that their poetry took this turn; the fact that all which they had was religious; the fact that there was literally no poetry in their language that was designed and adapted to the dance, to festive amusements, to Bacchanalian orgies, to scenes of gaiety, frivolity, and vanity; the fact that in all the lyric poetry of the Hebrews there is literally nothing in this respect that can be placed by the side of much in the Greek lyric poetry - much in Horace - much in Burns; by the side of the lyric poetry of all lands except Palestine, can be traced only to the idea that the new religion prevailed there, and can be best explained on the supposition that the authors of that poetry were inspired to prepare and transmit to future times that which, in all ages, would express the feelings of true devotion, and which might be permanently employed in the praises of God. He will fail to explain the fact that such poetry is found in Palestine alone, and will fail to appreciate its true nature, who does not admit that these "sweet singers" were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
On the general character of Hebrew poetry, see the introduction to the notes on the Book of Job, Section 5. On "the origin and culture of lyric poetry among the Hebrews," it may be proper to introduce here the following remarks from DeWette's "Commentar ueber die Psalmen," Einleitung, II, pp. 6-12. I copy from the elegant translation of the introduction of DeWette, by Prof. John Torrey, in the Biblical Repository, Vol. III, pp. 450-456:
"If we follow the titles of the Psalms and the common opinion, we must suppose the lyric poetry of the Hebrews, as well as the largest portion of the Psalms themselves, a production of David and his contemporaries. The few specimens of lyric composition which we find before David scarcely enter into consideration, compared with the fertility of his own period. In the earlier history it is but occasionally that the voice of poetry is heard, as in the songs of Moses at the Red Sea, of Deborah, and of Hannah. We are surprised, after so few attempts in lyric poetry, to see so accomplished and fruitful a poet rise up all at once, with several others in his company. So rapid a progress supposes some adequate occasion, some preparatory steps. Now, if we cast our eye over the history of the times immediately preceding the age of David, we are presented with a phenomenon which seems to explain the difficulty.
It is Samuel's school of the prophets. Many, as Herder, Eichhorn, Nachtigall, and Rosenmuller, suppose that the composition of psalms was cultivated and brought to perfection in this seminary. Specious as this conjecture appears, it is hardly reconcilable with the facts of the history. It is not intimated that David, before his unction, had any connection with Samuel. The former tends his father's flock. Indeed Samuel appears to have had no acquaintance with David when he comes to anoint him, 1 Samuel 16:6 ff. Yet, David is already a skillful minstrel, and famed for his art, 1 Samuel 16:18; he was not, therefore, a disciple of Samuel, at least in minstrelsy. But it is well known that music and song at this period were not separated; we must therefore suppose that David was already a poet, and, as such, known and celebrated. Some time afterward, it is true, we find David in Samuel's school of the prophets, but it is only on the occasion of his flight from Saul, 1 Samuel 19:18 ff.
It may be possible that Samuel had some acquaintance with David prior to his unction, though no mention is made of it in the account of that transaction, 1 Samuel 16. But he might have been an object of attention to the prophet without being properly his disciple; or perhaps the youth was his own instructor. Natural capacity, in connection with frequent practice, might produce the same degree of talent, to say the least, as an artificial system of instruction, like that which we may suppose to have prevailed in the prophetic school. At the same time, it would be an error to imagine that lyric poetry arose among the Hebrews all at once, as if it sprung out of the ground. David's contemporaries, the women who celebrated with song and joy his victory over Goliath, practiced a species of poetry which, though rude and uncultivated, was truly lyric in its kind; their short poem, has already the form of the poetic parallelism, and an original and superior mind might easily advance from such a beginning to the highest degree of excellence.
Saul smote his thousands,
But David his ten thousands,
We find also, still earlier, in addition to the examples of Moses, Deborah, and Hannah, the practice, particularly among the women, of music and the dance, from which song certainly was not excluded. Jephthah's daughter comes out to meet her father with timbrels and dances, Judges 11:34. At Shiloh the maidens held a yearly feast with dances, Judges 21:21. It may be questioned whether Samson was not a minstrel, for he is called out to play before the Philistines, Judges 16:25, which is commonly understood to refer to the dance, but excludes not the accompaniments of song and instrumental music. But even if he was not, strictly speaking, a musician and singer, yet we meet in him with the first "Mashal" poet, as we have also from the same period the masterly apologue of Jotham. Such facts, though insulated, presuppose among a people a considerably high degree of cultivation, or at least of poetical capacity.
Indeed, the song of Deborah alone proves that the poetic art was already arrived at a stage of improvement sufficient to account for the origin of the Davidian poetry. Whether a period produces one admirable poem or more is a matter of chance rather than the result of the state of culture. Besides, the times of the judges and of Samuel constituted the heroic age of the Hebrews, a period peculiarly favorable to the first beginnings and gradual improvement of poetry. 'Such times,' says Eichhorn, 'are poetical under every climate;' but I cannot add with him, 'that poetry, in this case, is like the nation, wild and heroic, breathes only in the warlike trump, and knows no field for practice but that of valor and victory with their attendant train.' The occasions which first called forth the Hebrew poets were, probably enough, connected with war; but when poetry has once sprung into life, she confines herself to no such narrow limits, and draws still other objects within her circle. With feasts of victory, sacrifices, dances, and other rites were united, which might easily have tempered the song to a tone of somewhat softer character. Even warlike songs admit of the gentler emotions, and the song of Deborah is rich in touches of amiable feeling. When it is said they sung to the trumpet, we are certainly not to understand it in the literal sense; the music of the harp, of the flute, and of the timbrel, was the accompaniment even of the songs of war, and these instruments are adapted to the softest tones. We are not then obliged to trace the origin of the sweet and amiable poetry of David's psalms exclusively to Samuel's school of the prophets.
"Unfortunately we know far too little about the prophetic school of Samuel to determine what influence it had on the cultivation of poetry. The passages relating to it are 1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Samuel 19:19-20. In the first of these it is undoubtedly implied that the disciples of the prophets had music among them. and their 'prophesying' (התנבא hitenabē') has been understood, not without grounds, in the sense of song, for the word נביא nâbı̂y' sometimes signifies poet, Exodus 15:20, and נבא nibâ', to sing, 1 Chronicles 25:1 ff. We may suppose, however, that this music was employed simply as a support and accompaniment of the prophetic delivery. The prophets probably delivered their messages, in the earlier times at least, in connection with music and a vehement action and declamation approaching to a dance. The passage in 2 Kings 3:15 ff. is remarkable. The prophet Elisha is about to pronounce the answer of the Lord to certain inquiries of Jehoshaphat; but before he does it, he asks for a minstrel; and as the latter strikes the harp, 'the hand of Yahweh comes upon him,' and he utters his reply.
The case here, it is true, is different; the prophet does not play and sing himself, but submits to the performance of another; still it shows the constant connection of music with the prophetic office. Neither is it distinctly asserted in the passages above that the company of the prophets "sung" themselves. The word התנבא hitenabē', which is there employed, may not perhaps signify "to sing," for Saul and Saul's messengers prophecy - התנבאוּ hitenabe'û - as soon as they hear the music, without preparation or practice. Their prophesying was perhaps nothing more than a vehement action, dancing, and gesticulation, as we see from the circumstance of Saul's falling down naked. At the farthest, they might have joined in the choral song with the company of prophets. Such choral chants were perhaps sung in the school of Samuel, but only for the purposes of devotion and inspiration; and the proper design of this school was to educate youth for the prophetic office, that is, to give counsel from the Lord to a people under a theocratic government.
Samuel was a prophet, and history has preserved no remains of any poetical works of his. Is it not most probable that he was aiming to educate his disciples likewise for the prophetic office? Now, it is true that the Hebrews drew no accurate line of distinction between lyric poetry and prophetic eloquence; yet these two always differ, particularly in the mode of delivery, for the lyric poem was probably sung, while the prophetic message was only recited. Supposing, then, Samuel was employed in forming his disciples to be prophetic poets or speakers, what is more natural than to imagine that some of them might feel drawn by genius and inclination to lyric poetry, and succeed in perfecting themselves in this? Yet it lay out of the plan of the prophetic school, and was a thing quite accidental. It is hardly correct, therefore, to consider the prophetic school of Samuel simply as an institution for the cultivation of singing and poetry.
"There were other institutions which may have had an influence still more important and decided than this school of the prophets in promoting the culture of lyric poetry, especially of the religious kind. I refer particularly to those musical schools which, according to the account, 1 Chronicles 15:16 ff. were founded by David in aid of the public worship. Yet I cannot retract the unfavorable opinion I once pronounced upon these and similar narratives in the Chronicles; I must rather confirm it. Besides the reasons there alleged, which I may not repeat, it seems to me to be a circumstance particularly calculated to excite suspicion, that the psalms and fragments of psalms represented by the Chronicles to have been sung at the dedication of the tabernacle and on similar occasions can hardly have been penned by David, but belong rather to the later and less pure style of the temple poetry. The psalm which is sung, 1 Chronicles 16:8 ff, is composed Psalm 105 and Psalm 96:1-13; but both are productions of a later style. If the Chronicles had presented us on this occasion with a genuine song of David, such as the elegy for which we are indebted to 2 Samuel 1; this circumstance would have contributed not a little to add weight to its authority, but the insertion of these fragments throws suspicion over the whole of the accompanying narrative. The phrase also, quoted 1 Chronicles 16:41, and elsewhere, respecting the Levites who were appointed to give thanks to the Lord, 'because his mercy endureth forever,' betrays the later poetry of the temple, an example of which we have in Psalm 136, where this phrase forms a regular refrain; also Psalm 106; Psalm 107; Psalm 118; in which this phrase occurs appear to belong to a later style of poetry.
"We may imagine that a master like David would not be without companions and assistants in the poetic art; and, in fact, several of David's contemporaries are named in the titles as composers of psalms: but these notices are not always good authority. Solomon, according to the testimony of history, united in himself such richness of lyric invention with the sententious style unique to him, that in his time lyric poetry must have attained to a very high degree of perfection. 'Solomon spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five,' 1 Kings 4:32. It is singular, however, that with the exception of two which are quite uncertain, no psalms of Solomon are preserved in our present collection; nor do we find any psalm with the author's name belonging to the period after Solomon, not even one which admits of being referred with certainty and of necessity to any particular event in the history of those times; and yet such lyric poems as those of Hezekiah and of Habakkuk clearly evince, that during this period the culture of lyric composition had by no means fallen into neglect.
On the contrary, we have many psalms which, according to the results of a sound critical exegesis almost universally acknowledged, must be placed in the times of the captivity, and after the captivity; and these psalms rank, for purity of language, and for sublimity, beauty, and freshness of conception, in the highest class, and are, in no respect, inferior to the poems of David and his contemporaries, for example, Psalm 45; Psalm 74; Psalm 79:1-13; Psalm 107; and many, if not all, of the Psalms of Degrees. We are here presented, then, with a singular phenomenon. The lyric poetry of the Hebrews, which was cultivated and brought to perfection in the times of David, after producing abundance of fruit, sank into a repose of nearly 500 years, and then all at once, in the most calamitous period of the state, arose again, survived another golden age, and yielded a second harvest - a phenomenon hardly corresponding with the common course of events. The singularity, however, disappears as soon as we suppose that the collection of Psalms contains several pieces, either anonymous or incorrectly named, which belong to the period extending from David to the captivity. Indeed, it is in the highest degree probable that lyric composition flourished side by side with the prophetic poetry, and that many of the prophets themselves contributed to our present collection, and might reclaim their own productions from David and others. Some of the prophets, too, are actually named by the Septuagint as authors of psalms."
Section 6. "The Imprecations in the Psalm."
Much has been written on the subject of the imprecations in the Psalms, or, as they are called, "The imprecatory psalms;" and perhaps there is no part of the Bible that gives more perplexity and pain to its readers than this; perhaps nothing that constitutes a more plausible objection to the belief that the psalms are the productions of inspired men than the spirit of revenge which they sometimes seem to breathe, and the spirit of cherished malice and implacableness which the writers seem to manifest. There has been probably no explanation offered which has relieved the minds of those who are thus perplexed, or which has furnished a solution wholly satisfactory on the question how this spirit can be reconciled with the precepts of the New Testament and with the requirements of true religion. It is useless to attempt to disguise or to conceal the difficulty, and it may be admitted that most of the explanations which have been suggested leave the difficulty just where it was. Perhaps it is not possible for us to remove all such difficulty, or so to present the subject that questions may not be asked which it would be impossible to answer, and, indeed, what subject is there in mental philosophy, in natural science, in morals, or in theology, on which questions may not be asked which the human powers are not yet competent to answer? In regard to the growth of a blade of grass, questions may be asked which no chemist - no person - can answer.
With reference to the imprecations in the Psalms, it will be proper, first, to refer to some specimens of such psalms, that we may know where the difficulty lies; and then to consider in what way, if any, this difficulty may be solved.
The following are among the passages which would be referred to as belonging to that class of psalms. They are not, indeed, all that could be selected, but they are fair specimens, and there are no others that would involve any difficulty which are not found in these.
Psalm 5:10, "destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions, for they have rebelled against thee."
Psalm 10:15, "break thou the arm of the wicked and the evil man: seek out his wickedness until thou find none."
Psalm 18:40-42, "thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies; that might destroy them that hate me. They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the Lord, but he answered them not. Then did I beat them small as the dust before the wind: I did cast them out as the dirt in streets."
Psalm 28:4, "give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavors: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert."
Psalm 31:17, "let me not be ashamed, O Lord, for I have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave."
Psalm 35:3-8, "draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation. Let them be founded and put to shame that seek after my soul: let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt. Let them be as chaff before the wind: and let the angel of the Lord chase them. Let their way be dark and slippery: and let the angel of the Lord persecute them. For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, which without cause they have digged for my soul. Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall."
Psalm 40:14, "let them be ashamed and confounded together that seek after my soul to destroy it; let them be driven backward and put to shame that wish me evil."
Psalm 55:9, "destroy, O Lord, and divide their tongues: for I have seen violence and strife in the city."
Psalm 55:15, "let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick (alive, living) into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them."
Psalm 58:6-10, "break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O Lord. Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces. As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun. Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath. The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked."
Psalm 59:12-15, "for the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying which they speak. Consume them in wrath, consume them, that they may not be: and let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth. And at evening let them return; and let them make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city. Let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied."
Psalm 68:2, "as smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God."
Psalm 69:22-25, "let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake. Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents."
Psalm 79:12, "and render unto our neighbors sevenfold into their bosom their reproach, wherewith they have reproached thee, O Lord."
Psalm 83:9-17, "do unto them as unto the Midianites; as to Sisera, as to Jabin, at the brook of Kison: which perished at Endor: they became as dung for the earth. Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb; yea, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna ...O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind. As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire; so persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O Lord. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish."
Psalm 109:6-15, "set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth."
Psalm 137:7-9, "remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
These are specimens of the class of psalms now under consideration, and though the number might be somewhat increased, yet these examples embrace those which are most difficult to be explained, and involve all the difficulties to be found in this class of the psalms. None could be adduced which seem to breathe a more vindictive spirit than these do; none seem to be more opposed to the spirit of the New Testament. If, therefore, a solution can be suggested that would be satisfactory in regard to these passages, it would be easy to apply the principles of such a solution to all the similar passages in the Psalms.
The inquiry then occurs in what way, if in any way, the difficulty is to be solved, or what explanations can be suggested.
On this subject the following remarks may be made:
(1) Whatever difficulty there exists is created by the Bible itself. The record is one which the sacred writers have themselves made. This fact is proof at least of candor, and of a consciousness on their part that there was "nothing" in this record which was not founded in truth, which did not really occur; that is, that these feelings actually existed in their minds. It cannot be pretended that the writers indulged in feelings which they were unwilling to record; which they were ashamed to make known. In fact, they took all the methods in their power to make them known, and to have the record perpetuated. They not only recorded them - put them in a permanent form - but they embodied them in poetry, which was to be employed in the public worship of God; which was to go down to future ages, to direct the devotions of the people of far-distant times. Moreover, if there is any condemnation of this spirit in the Bible - if there was anything wrong in this spirit - we are to remember that the condemnation is found in the very book where these expressions occur - for it is to be assumed here that, so far as the objection lies against these expressions as a part of the Bible - as a part of a pretended revelation - "the Bible is one book;" the Old Testament and the New are parts of the same revelation from God. The Bible, thus in making the record, should be allowed at least to be a book of candor - a book in which there is no attempt to conceal what was actually passing in the minds of the writers. There was, it may be presumed some reason for making the record which was regarded as not inconsistent with the purpose of a revelation; and it was assumed also that these things would be susceptible of an explanation, which would be consistent with the claim that the Bible was a revelation from God.
(2) It may be a fair subject of inquiry how much of what is charged as wrong, harsh, and vindictive, may be referred to the spirit of the age in which the Bible was composed, and in which these men lived. This remark is not made on the supposition that the principles of morals and religion change from one age to another; or that they are modified by the circumstances of men; or that the same thing is morally right in one age or country, and morally wrong in another. Truth and holiness, right and wrong, do not change, nor are they dependent on the caprices or the customs of mankind. Still, in order to know exactly what was "meant;" how much words express; what was the precise idea intended to be conveyed by language that was used - it is necessary for us to place ourselves in the circumstances, and to understand the prevailing customs and habits of the people who used the language. We constantly apply these principles, insensibly it may be, when we read Homer, or when we read the records of knight-errantry, or when we endeavor to understand the poetry of any people in the earlier periods of history.
The language which a covenanter or a Puritan used may possibly have expressed no other internal emotion than would be expressed by the milder language which we should use; the rough words which the uneducated and the common use may express no different feelings than would be found to exist when the thoughts are conveyed in the smooth tones, and the courtly phrases of those in the higher walks of life. There may be as much bitter feeling beneath silk and satin as beneath a dress made of the skins of wild beasts; in the palace as in the wigwam. It may be possible that those who lived in the earlier ages of the world really meant no more by the language which they often used, and which seems to us to be so harsh, so revengeful, and so savage, that we do in the milder tones which we employ, and which we now suppose to be demanded by civilization and Christianity. It is, at least, a supposable case that the people of future times may have had conveyed to them as much in the records of our literature, and of our customs, which they will find it difficult to explain consistently with their notions of refinement, civilization, and the spirit of pure religion, as we recognize in the language of the covenanters and the Puritans of Scotland and England, or in the poetic effusions of the days of David. Let us be sure that we understand precisely what they meant, and exactly how our own spirit is better than theirs, before we condemn them.
(3) Part of these passages may undoubtedly be regarded as prophetic; expressing what would be, rather than indicating any wish on the part of the author of the psalms that such things should be. In some instances, the passages might have been rendered in the future instead of the imperative mood, with no violation of the laws of the Hebrew language, or the proper principles of interpretation. Several of the passages of this kind which may properly be applied to the Messiah, are undoubtedly of this nature, and those passages are to be interpreted, when the laws of language will admit of such an interpretation, as expressive of what sinners deserve, and of what will come upon them, and not as indicating any desire on the part of the author that it should be so.
It must be admitted, however, that this consideration does by no means remove all the difficulty, nor does it in fact even diminish it. It cannot be affirmed by anyone acquainted with the Hebrew language that this solution could be applied to will the cases in reference to which the difficulty exists, and there is still an explanation needed to meet the cases which cannot be brought under this rule. In a book claiming to be inspired, the objection is, in effect, as great if there is only one such passage as if there are many. The essential difficulty is to explain it consistently with the claim to inspiration at all.
It should be conceded, further, that this explanation is one which cannot be admitted in regard to the most difficult of the passages. No man can show that they are all mere predictions of the future; no one can prove that all that is implied in these passages is a mere expression of what sin deserves, or what ought to be inflicted on transgressors. Beyond all question there is, in many cases, an expression of feeling - or desire - or wish; there is language used which implies that there would be gratification - satisfaction - pleasure - if the calamity invoked should come upon the enemies of the writer, or if the punishment should be inflicted on the wicked; there is what is of the nature of prayer, that these calamities might come, and that the wicked might be detected, arrested, punished. We cannot on any honest principles interpret these psalms without admitting this; and the objector has a right to ask how this feeling can be vindicated; how it can be reconciled with the spirit of Christianity; how it can be shown to be consistent with the belief that the psalms were inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is a fair question to ask, and it is one which a believer in the inspiration of the Bible should be held to answer.
(4) Some of the expressions referred to are a mere record of the feelings of others; of the gratification which they would feel in seeing vengeance inflicted on the guilty, even when revenge should be taken in the most barbarous and savage manner. In such a case all that the inspired writer, or the Spirit of inspiration, is responsible for, is the fairness of the record, or that he has given an exact statement of the feelings which would be cherished and expressed by those who should inflict the vengeance, or who should experience gratification in seeing it. A person may describe the acts of the American savage, scalping, torturing, murdering by slow degrees women and children, or the acts of cannibals, without being responsible for any of the feelings of the savages in doing this; and the writer of history cannot assuredly be responsible for all or any of the feelings of barbarous delight which a tyrant may have in oppressing his subjects, or for the fury and hatred which leads men to pursue with vengeance their flying victims. The inspired writers who made a record of the cruelty of the sons of Jacob Genesis 34:25-29; Genesis 49:6-7, or of the act of David in bringing forth the people of Rabbah, and "putting them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron. and making them pass through the brick-kiln" 2 Samuel 12:31, or the acts of Joab, Ahithophel, Absalom, Nebuchadnezzar, Ahab or Jezebel, cannot be held to be answerable for the feelings which they manifested, or the deeds which they performed, nor is it fair to infer that in making the record they approved of what was done. All that the writers can be held to be responsible for is the correctness of the record.
An instance of this kind occurs in Psalm 137:8-9, "O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. "Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." There is nothing to prevent our regarding this as a statement of the actual feelings - the pleasure - the satisfaction - which they would actually feel who should wreak vengeance upon Babylon. The idea may be, and from anything that appears actually is, that such had been the pride and arrogance of Babylon, such the wrongs which she had done to other people; such her acts of cruelty and oppression - that they who should overcome, subdue, and destroy her, would have conscious satisfaction and pleasure in bringing deserved punishment on her, even in those forms which men usually regard as savage and barbarous. In this there is nothing which necessarily implies that the author of the psalms would approve of it, or that he would have done it himself. If the case is supposed even to indicate the common feelings of the Hebrew people, in view of the destruction of an enemy under which the nation had suffered so much and so long, still it may be a mere record of that feeling as a matter of fact, and the Spirit of inspiration is responsible only for a fair account of the feelings which would actually exist.
In one of the methods which have thus been indicated the difficulties in regard to a portion of what are called the "imprecatory psalms" may be removed altogether. These are solutions, however, which cannot be applied to all of them; and if there is any number, however small - if there is a single one remaining - to which these solutions cannot be applied, it must be admitted that the actual difficulty still remains, for the Psalms are to be regarded as forming one book; they have, as is fairly implied in the idea that they are inspired, one author - the Holy Spirit; and as it is a principle which must be held by all who regard the Bible as an inspired book, that one text of Scripture fairly interpreted is sufficient to establish the truth of any doctrine, so it must be admitted that a well-founded objection to a single text, fairly interpreted, as really affects the question of inspiration as though there were many passages of that character. Some other solution, therefore, must be found in order to remove the real difficulty in the case.
(5) A fifth remark, therefore, in regard to the prayers in these passages considered as invocations of vengeance or of punishment on the wicked may be suggested. The real question is, whether under any circumstance such prayers - such imprecations - can be right; and whether, if ever right, the circumstances in the Psalms were such as to make them proper.
To obtain a just view of this, several remarks are to be made.
(a) David was a magistrate; a king. He was, by the appointment of God, the civil and military ruler of the nation. His authority was not an usurped authority; nor were his acts those merely of a private man, a man individually wronged. As a king - a magistrate - he was appointed to preserve order; to maintain law; to dispense justice; to detect, arraign, and punish the guilty. As a magistrate, he represented the state; the majesty of the law; the interests of justice. As, a magistrate, an act done - an offence committed - a crime in the community, did not respect him as a man - an individual - but as appointed to administer the government and to defend the state. No one can deny that David sustained this relation to the state, and that the duty of maintaining and administering law rested supremely with him. From anything that appears, also, the remark here made is applicable to each of the cases where "imprecations" are found in the Psalms. The question, then, is, whether there is anything in the office and functions of one appointed to make and execute the laws of a land which would render such imprecations justifiable.
(b) Punishment is right. It is not wrong that a penalty should be affixed to law; it is not wrong that the penalty of a law should be inflicted; it is not wrong that pain, privation of office, imprisonment, and the loss of life itself, should follow the commission of crime. So all laws determine; so all nations have judged. It is material here to remark that this is not an arbitrary thing; that it is not a matter of individual or local feeling. It is laid in our very nature. It is found in all nations. It is acted on among all people. "There is something in our very nature, account for it as we may, which approves of punishment when properly inflicted; which approves of the appointment of a penalty for crime." If this is wrong, it is a wrong in our very nature; it is a universal wrong; it is a wrong which has gone into the enactment of all laws - for all law has a penalty. A law without a penalty would be a mockery and a farce. When a man, in accordance with a just sentence of law, is fined, imprisoned, executed, we approve of it. We feel that it is what ought to be done, and in this feeling we are conscious of no wrong. We are conscious that we are not to be blamed for approving the sentence which condemns the guilty anymore than we are for approving the sentence which acquits the innocent. The foundation of this feeling is laid in the very nature of man, and, therefore, it cannot be evil. No man feels that he is blameworthy when he thus finds himself approving of a just sentence of law; no man feels that this principle of his nature ought to be resisted or reversed, so that he would be a better man if he were conscious of the opposite feeling.
(c) In accordance with this principle, there are arrangements in every community for detecting and punishing crime. There are laws made which define crime, and designate its just penalty; there are arrangements made for arresting the guilty, and bringing them to trial; there are prisons built in anticipation that there will be men to be punished. There are courts organized for the express purpose of trying offenders; there are penalties affixed by law to different classes of crimes; there are processes prescribed in the law books for arresting. indicting, committing, arraigning, and judging those charged with a violation of law. There is a class of men whose business it is to detect and arrest offenders; there is a class whose business it is to try them; there is a class whose business it is to inflict punishment on them. Hence, we have a detective police - men whose calling it is to find out offenders; we have an array of constables, jurymen, and judges; we have sheriffs, keepers of prisons, and executioners. These arrangements are necessary in our world. Society could not do without them. No community would be safe without them. No man would feel that his life, his property, his family were secure without them. They enter into the very structure of society as it exists on earth; and if these were abolished, the world would soon be filled with anarchy, bloodshed, and crime.
(d) These are lawful, proper, and honorable employments. The business of a detective officer, of a constable, of a sheriff, of a juryman, of a judge, is as lawful as that of a farmer, a blacksmith, a school-teacher, a physician, a clergyman. No man occupies a more honorable position than the judge of a court, though it be a criminal court; no man is rendering more valuable service to his country than he whose daily business it is to detect offenders, to prosecute for crime, or to administer the laws of a nation. The constable and the judge may go to their work with as conscious a feeling that they are engaged in an honorable work as the farmer or the merchant; and the foreman of a jury who declares that a man arraigned for crime has been found guilty, and the judge who pronounces the sentence of the law, and the man who executes the sentence, may each one lie down on his bed at night as calmly as the man who during the day has been engaged in sowing seed in his field, or gathering in his harvest, or administering medicine to the sick, or preaching the Gospel. Through all that day the one may be as conscious that he has had no malice toward his fellow-men, no desire of revenge, as the other. In the bosom of each one there may have been only the consciousness of a simple desire to do his duty.
(e) It is lawful and proper for such a man - a detective officer, a constable, a juryman, a judge, a keeper of a prison, a hangman - to pray. It is as proper for such a man to pray as any other man. He may pray in his closet and in his family; he may breathe forth a mental prayer when searching for a man charged with an offence, or when hearing a testimony against him, or when sitting in judgment on him, or when inflicting the penalty of the law. He may pray, as other men do, that he may be "diligent in business;" that he may be "fervent in spirit;" that he may "serve the Lord" in that calling. He may pray that he may have grace to be faithful to his trust; firm in his conduct; "successful in what he is appointed to do." But what is this? It is that the wicked - the guilty - may be brought to punishment; that they may be punished; that they may receive the due reward for their deeds. It is not malice against an individual; it is not a desire of revenge; it is not the indulgence of any private feeling; it is not conduct inconsistent with the widest benevolence. The officers of justice are engaged in the very work of bringing men to punishment; and why may they not "pray" for success in the work in which they are engaged? Why may not any man who loves the cause of justice, and who desires the security and good order of a community, pray that the wicked may be checked in their career - arrested - confined - punished? Since men lawfully engage in doing the thing, why may they not lawfully pray for the Divine blessing to aid them in doing it?
It is further to be remarked that a magistrate offering such a prayer would have a very different feeling from one who was engaged in an unlawful employment. How can a man engaged in the manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks "pray"? How can he ask for success in his work? To do this would be to pray that his neighbor, his fellow-men, near or far off, might spend their property for that which would not profit them; might waste their time, ruin their health, cut short their lives, and destroy their souls; that they might be profane, gross, offensive, beastly; that they might be a pest in the community, be led into crime, and find their home in an almshouse, a penitentiary, or an insane asylum; that their families might be beggared, and that a once peaceful home might become a hell; and that the young, the vigorous, the hopeful, the beautiful, the sons of the virtuous and the pious - might go down early to the drunkard's grave; that the hearts of wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters might be crushed and broken, because a husband, a father, a brother, had been made a drunkard.
But what fiendish malignity would there be in such a prayer as this! Hence, such men do not ask the Divine blessing on their work. But a magistrate may pray, and should pray. He may pray that he may be successful in discharging the duties of his office; in administering justice; in prosecuting for crime; and in pronouncing the sentence of the law. His prayer, in fact, is simply that justice may be done to all; that punishment may be inflicted when it is deserved; and that he may be made an instrument in the hands of God in detecting and punishing crime. At the same time this may be so far from being a vindictive and revengeful spirit, that he himself may be among the most kind and humane men in a community, and when he pronounces the sentence of the law, he may be the only one in the court room that shall weep. Tears may flow fast from his eyes as he pronounces the sentence of the law, while the hardened wretch sentenced to the gallows may be wholly unmoved. It indicated no lack of feeling and no malevolent spirit when Washington signed the death-warrant of the accomplished Andre, for he did it with tears.
In the same way, and with the same spirit, a man may go forth to the defense of his country when invaded, or when one portion of it has risen up in rebellion against a lawful government. A soldier called forth to defend his country may pray; the commander of an army may pray - should pray. But the prayer of such an one may be, and should be, in the line of his duty, for success in that which he has undertaken. It will be a prayer that the enemies of his country may be overcome and subdued. It indicates no malice, no personal feeling, no spirit of revenge, when he prays that the enemies of his country may be scattered as chaff before the wind; or that their counsels may be turned to foolishness; or that he may be successful in subduing them. It is a prayer for the triumph of a righteous cause; and as all his acts as a soldier tend to the destruction of the enemies of his country; as he is actually engaged in endeavoring to subdue them; as all his plans contemplate that; as he cannot be successful without that - if the employment itself is right, it cannot be wrong that he should pray for success in it; that is, that his enemies may be delivered into his hands, and that God would enable him to overcome, to scatter, to subdue them. In this view of the matter there is necessarily no feeling inconsistent with the purest benevolence when the defenders of liberty and law and right apply to themselves the language of Psalm 149:1-9 : "Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the pagan, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written," Psalm 149:6-9.
(f) It only remains to be added, as bearing on the point here suggested, that it cannot be "demonstrated" that there is in the psalms that are called "imprecatory psalms" anymore of malice, or of a spirit of revenge, than there is in the heart of a detective officer, a constable, a sheriff, a juryman, a crown lawyer, a prosecuting attorney, a judge, the keeper of a penitentiary, or an executioner, when he goes to the daily discharge of the duties of his office, and when, in his closet, or in his family, in his morning devotions, he "prays" that he may be faithful and successful in the discharge of his official duties through the day: for success in any of these duties will be in the line of prayer, and may be in answer to prayer. If the detective officer is successful in ferreting out a burglar or a counterfeiter; if a magistrate is successful in bringing him to justice; if a juryman pronounces an honest verdict finding him guilty; if an attorney is successful in prosecuting the guilty to conviction; if a judge delivers a just sentence; and if the keeper of a prison closes the massive bars and bolts on the guilty - at night, when they reflect on their work, they may regard their success in the lawful duties of the day as being as real an answer to prayer in the proper business of human life as the waving golden harvest is an answer to the prayers of the pious farmer, or the ship laden with the rich productions of the east, as she glides gallantly into port, should be regarded as an answer to the prayers of the pious merchant; and until it is proved that this may not have been all that was implied in the language of the psalmist, it should not be assumed that the imprecatory psalms breathe a vindictive spirit, or are contrary to the purest and most benevolent feelings of the human heart.
(6) There is still another solution of the difficulty which has been suggested. It is, substantially, that these expressions "are a mere record of what actually occurred in the mind of the psalmist," and are preserved to us as an illustration of human nature when partially sanctified. According to this explanation we are not required by any just view of inspiration to vindicate those feelings, or to maintain that such feelings could not occur in the case of an inspired man. One of the main objects of the Psalms is to illustrate religion as it actually exists in the minds of good men in this world; men who are not absolutely perfect, but whose best religious emotions are mingled with many imperfections. According to this view the Spirit of inspiration is no more responsible for these feelings on the part of the psalmist than it is for the acts of David, Abraham, Jacob, or Peter. The feelings - the acts - are what they are; the Spirit of inspiration is responsible for a correct record or statement in regard to these acts and feelings: a record that shall be historically and exactly true. A few remarks may explain this further.
(a) It is, then, an admitted fact that David was not a perfect man; and the same was undoubtedly true of all the writers of the Psalms. The Bible never claims that they were perfect; it makes a fair record of their faults; it lays down the general principle that none are absolutely free from sin: 1 Kings 8:46; Ecclesiastes 7:20; James 3:2; 1 John 1:8; Job 9:20. As it is everywhere declared in the Bible that no one is absolutely perfect, and as it is admitted that David, for example, was guilty of wrong acts, as in the case of Uriah - so, for the same reason, it is to be admitted that men, even the best of men, are liable to sin in thoughts and in words as well as in deeds.
(b) The proper notion of inspiration does not require us to hold that the men who were inspired were absolutely sinless. There is and must be a manifest and palpable difference between being inspired, and being personally perfect. Inspiration, in its true nature, secures a truthful record; it does not necessarily secure absolute sanctification. Indeed, inspiration has no necessary connection with sanctification; - as it is conceivable, certainly, in accordance with the common belief, that Balaam uttered true prophecies respecting the Messiah, yet no one from that fact feels bound to maintain that he was otherwise than a bad man. Livy, Gibbon, Hume, Robertson, were not perfect men, and yet it may be true that they have given a correct account of the events which they profess to record; nor do we argue that because they were faithful historians that therefore, they were perfect men, or that they never did or said anything, which, if it were recorded exactly as it occurred, would not be inconsistent with the idea of absolute perfection of character. It is, therefore, a very important principle "that inspiration secures a correct record, not that it implies or secures personal sanctification; and that if it does secure a correct record the limit of responsibility in regard to it is reached." Assuredly, the fact that David in Psalm 51 has made a true record in regard to his guiltiness in the case of Uriah, does not prove that he was right or innocent in the fact which is the subject of that record; nor if a record is a record of feelings instead of deeds does its correctness anymore justify or sanction such feelings.
(c) It was important and necessary in a revelation from God, in order to meet the wants of the world, that there should be a true representation of religion as it comes in contact with the human heart; as it is in fact illustrated and manifested in the life of man, not as it might be in the life of a spotless angel. Assuming, as the Bible does everywhere, that man is depraved; that he has corrupt and evil propensities; that he has passions which by nature are uncontrollable, and that it is the design of religion to teach him how to control and govern them - what we want is an illustration of religion as it comes in contact with such a heart. If the Bible had described only the feelings and conduct of a perfect being, it would be obviously unfit for man, for it would not be adapted to his condition. As man is imperfect and sinful, a representation of religion which would leave the impression that there is no true piety except where there is absolute perfection, would be adapted only to discourage and dishearten, for it would hold up that before his mind which he would feel to be unattainable, and his own consciousness of imperfection would lead him to the painful conclusion that he had no true religion.
Hence, in the Bible, except in the solitary instance of the Savior, we have no record of the life of a perfect saint. We have a description of piety as it must always be found in the life of man: as feeble, and struggling, and doubting, and contending with evil passions; as a life of conflict, of mingled light and darkness, good and evil, happiness and sadness, cheerfulness and despondency; as a life where evil often breaks out, where there is a constant effort required to subdue it, and where there is, amidst much that seems to be otherwise, yet truly a constant progress in the soul toward perfection - a perfection not to be obtained in this life, but which is to be consummated in heaven alone. Such a record only is fitted for man; such a record only would properly represent and describe man in his present condition. In another world - in heaven - a true record of man redeemed would be a record of religion without imperfection - as it would now be of the angels.
As it is, we have now in the Bible everywhere recorded the lives of imperfect men: imperfect in their conduct; imperfect in their feelings; imperfect in their words. We have the biographies of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, of Eli, David, Hezekiah, Moses, Aaron, Josiah, James, John, Peter - all imperfect but good men; men in whose bosoms there were the strugglings between good and evil principles; in whose lives the evil principle was constantly breaking out, and over whom for the time it seemed to triumph. Hence, the painful but honest records which we have of piety in the Bible. In like manner, in order to see and understand what true piety is, as it is found in connection with human nature, it might be important that there should be such an illustration of it as we actually find in the Psalms: the honest record of what passed through the mind of a good man; of what imperfect man actually feels often, even when it is proper to characterize him as a man of God. Probably there have been few men, very few, even under the influence of the highest forms of piety, who, if they had made an honest record of what was passing in their minds at all times - of their wishes, desires, emotions; of their feelings toward their enemies, persecutors, and slanderers - would not have found that the language of the Psalms would better express their feelings in this respect than any language which they could find elsewhere; - and is it a forced or an unauthorized thought that even such men as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Edwards, at times when unChristian feelings seemed to have got the ascendancy in their hearts; when they were strongly tempted to give way to passion, or actually gave way to it; when they might have been led to doubt whether men with such feelings could have any true religion - may have found consolation in the fact that feelings precisely like theirs sprang up in the hearts of the inspired men who composed the Psalms, and who there made an honest record of what was actually passing in the soul, almost an actual transcript of what they themselves experienced? It need be hardly remarked that if this is a true view of the matter, we are not bound to attempt to vindicate these expressions of passion - anymore than we are the conduct of David in the matter of Uriah, or of Peter in denying his Lord.
(d) According to this view, the expressions which are used in this record are not presented for our imitation. The mere fact that they are recorded as having occurred in the lives of good men is no evidence that they are right, or are to be followed by us. "All" that occurred in the life of the Redeemer was right, and was recorded that, so far as it might be applicable to us in our circumstances, we might imitate it. If the above remarks are correct, then the record was made for other purposes than that we should imitate the conduct of those who gave expression to these feelings. Nor should the fact that such feelings actually existed in the minds of good men, or that these "imprecations" are found in their writings, be charged on religion, as if it tended to produce them, anymore than the act of adultery and murder on the part of David, or the profaneness of Peter, should be referred to as an illustration of what religion is adapted to produce in the hearts and lives of men. Religion is not responsible for these things. The responsibility is in our corrupt nature.
(e) If such is a just view of the matter, then all that "inspiration" is responsible for is, the correctness of the "record" in regard to the existence of these feelings: that is, the authors of the Psalms actually "recorded" what was passing in their own minds. They gave vent to their internal emotions. They state real feelings which they themselves had; feelings which, while human nature remains the same, may spring up in the mind of imperfect man, anywhere, and at any time. They record what other men actually feel; and in making the record, they simply give utterance to what passed through their own hearts. They do not apologize for it; they do not pause to vindicate it; they offer no word in extenuation of it - anymore than other sacred writers did when they recorded the facts about the errors in the lives of the patriarchs, of David, and of Peter.
In some of these ways it is probable that all the difficulties in regard to the "imprecations" in the Psalms may be met. They who deny the inspiration of the Psalms should be able to show that these are not proper explanations of the difficulty; or that they are not consistent with any just notions of inspiration.
Section 7. "The Practical Value of the Book of Psalm."
It is not a little remarkable that the Psalms, in the estimation of religious persons, hold substantially the same place under the clearer light of the Christian dispensation which they did under the comparatively obscure Hebrew economy, and that with all the additional light which has been imparted under the Christian revelation, the Psalms have not been superseded. The "Christian" looks to the Psalms with an interest as intense as did the ancient Jew; and, as expressive of personal religious experience, as well as for the purpose of a manual for worship, the Psalms are selected by the Christian, from the whole Bible, as they were by the Jew from the books in his possession - the Old Testament. As such, they will retain their value in all times to come, nor will there ever be in our world such an advance in religious light, experience, and knowledge, that they will lose their relative place as connected with the exercises of practical piety.
How far this fact is to be regarded as a proof that the authors of the Psalms were inspired; that there was communicated to them a knowledge of the principles and workings of true piety, so in advance of their own age as to be on a level with what will be possessed in the most advanced periods of religious culture; that there must have been an influence on their minds, in composing the Psalms, beyond anything derived from mere poetic genius, is a question which must occur to all reflecting minds. It is a fair question to propose to one who doubts the inspiration of the Psalms, how he will account for this fact, consistently with his idea that the authors of the Psalms were men endowed only as other men of genius are, and with the acknowledged fact that they lived in an age when the views of truth in the world were comparatively obscure. How did it happen that a Hebrew bard, in the matter of deep religious experience and knowledge, placed himself so high as to be a guide to mankind in all coming times, after a new revelation should have been introduced to the world, and after all the attainments which men would have made in the knowledge of religion and of the human heart?
The special value of the Psalms arises: (a) from the fact that they are adapted to the worship of God; (b) from the fact that they are records of deep religious experience.
(a) As adapted to the worship of God. For this many of them were originally designed in their very composition; to this the entire book seems to have been intentionally adapted by those who made the collection. It is not necessary to suppose that these sacred songs comprise the whole of the Hebrew lyrical poetry, for as we know that some of the books mentioned in the Old Testament, though inspired, accomplished their purpose and have been lost, so it may have been in regard to a portion of the lyrical poetry of the Hebrews. Many of the words of the Savior, though all that he spoke was pure truth - truth such as no other man ever spoke - truth such as the Spirit of God imparts - were lost from not having been recorded John 21:25, and in like manner it may have been that truths which were written may have accomplished their purpose, and have passed away. But, if there were such productions which have not come down to us, we have no reason to doubt that they were of the same general character as those which have survived, and which now constitute the Book of Psalms. Now, it is remarkable that the poetry of the Hebrews is so adapted to public worship above all other poetry, and that the poetic genius of the nation took so exclusively a religious turn.
In this respect the Hebrew lyric poetry stands by itself, and is unlike that of every other nation. Among the Greeks there are, indeed, hymns to the gods - hymns designed to be used in the worship of the gods; but this is by no means the general character of their lyric poetry. Among the Persians, the Arabs, the Romans, the Babylonians, there were doubtless such hymns; but this is not the prevailing character of their lyric poetry. In the early Scotch, French, Spanish, Italian, and English poetry there are such hymns, but this is by no means the exclusive or the predominant character of the early lyric poetry of those nations. Few of all their lyric compositions can be used in the worship of the true God; nor is that which can be thus used always of the most exalted character as poetry. The composition of psalms and hymns is a separate poetic art; and though there are specimens, in the hymns in these languages, of the highest kind of lyric excellence, yet it is to be admitted that a large portion of that species of literature would scarcely be regarded as even "respectable," if it related to other subjects than religion.
Of the Hebrews, however, this is their all. They have no other poetry whatever. They have none merely amatory or pastoral which will compare with the Bucolics of Virgil, or with much of the poetry of Burns. Their poetry of the religious kind, also, is all of a high order. There is none that can be placed on the same low level with much that is found in the hymn books of most denominations of Christians - very good; very pious; very sentimental; very much adapted, as is supposed, to excite the feelings of devotion - but withal so flat, so weak, so unpoetic, that it would not, in a volume of mere poetry, be admitted to a third or fourth rank, if, indeed, it would find a place at all. It is for him who rejects the idea of "inspiration," as applied to the Book of Psalms, to account for this fact.
(b) The Book of Psalms is a record of deep religious experience. It is this which, in the estimation of religious persons in general, gives it its chief value. It is the guide of young believers; and it becomes more and more the companion, the comforter, and the counselor, as the believer moves along through the varied scenes of life, and as grey hairs come upon him, and as the infirmities, which pre-intimate the approaching close of all things, press him down. A religious man is rarely, if ever, placed in circumstances where he will not find something in the Psalms appropriate to his circumstances; where he will not find that the Hebrew sacred bard has not gone before him in the depths of religious experience. Hence, in sickness, in bereavement, in persecution, in old age, on the bed of death, the Book of Psalms becomes so invariable and so valuable a companion; and hence, not as a matter of convenience, but as supplying a want in the minds of men, and as significant of their value, the Psalms and the New Testament are so often bound together in a single volume. Hence, also, for the aged, for the sick, for those whose powers of vision fail by disease or by years, the Psalms and the New Testament are printed in large type, and bound in convenient forms, that the truths contained in these volumes may be still accessible to the saint ripening for heaven, as the light fails, and as life ebbs away. To the end of the world the Psalms in religious experience will occupy the same place which they now occupy; to the end of the world they will impart comfort to the troubled, and peace to the dying, as they have done in the ages that are past.
Section 8. "The Qualifications for Preparing a Commentary on the Psalm."
It is an undoubted fact that there have been more failures in the Commentaries on the Book of Psalms than on any other of the books of the Bible. As yet there has been no commentary that has met the wants of the Christian world; there are none, whatever anticipations may have been raised, which can be read without feelings of disappointment. For this fact there must be a cause; and that cause is probably to be found in the very peculiar qualifications needed to produce a commentary on the Psalms: - qualifications which are rarely to be found united in the same person.
A few remarks on the qualifications necessary for preparing such a commentary may explain the cause of the failures which have occurred; and may, perhaps, also explain the reason why the one now submitted to the public may be found to be an addition to the failures already existing. Every man who prepares a commentary on the Psalms will probably, at the close of his work, be sensible of a feeling of disappointment in what he had hoped, perhaps what he had expected to do, and will share fully in the feelings of his readers that what is thus submitted to the world is very far from being what a commentary on this portion of the sacred Scriptures ought to be.
The unique qualifications for preparing a commentary on the Psalms are such as the following:
(1) A knowledge of the Hebrew language, particularly as it is affected by the laws of poetry which prevailed among the Hebrews. In all languages there are special rules of poetry; rules by which the sense of the words used is affected. and by which special shades of thought are expressed. In most languages, words have a "poetic" and a "prosaic" sense; and the application of the meaning of a word as used in prose to a passage in poetry might by no means express the idea which was in the mind of the poet. We learn almost insensibly, in reading a language familiar to us, to make this distinction accurately, even when we could not explain it; and we read a psalm, a hymn, a lyric song, without mistaking the meaning. But it is another thing when one undertakes to read a book of poetry in a language different from his native tongue. What is obvious to an Italian, a Frenchman, or a German, in reading poetry in his native language, becomes a matter of difficult acquisition when an Englishman attempts to read the poem.
The same thing is true in studying a dead language. It need not be said that there is a unique literature with respect to the Greek and Latin poets; and he who can read Herodotus or Livy cannot assume that he has such a full knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages as to qualify him to understand the poetry in those languages. So much depends often on rhythm, on the poetic forms of words, or on the images special to poetry, that a classical education is not complete, nor is the student qualified to apprehend the meaning of the language of a poem, or to appreciate the beauties of its thought and imagery until he has mastered this most difficult part of the rules of language. That the Hebrews, like other people, had such rules and usages, there can be no doubt, for they are to be found in all languages, and there is abundant evidence in the Hebrew poetry itself that they existed among the Jewish people. Yet, it may be doubted whether it is possible now so fully to recover the knowledge of those rules and usages as to apply them perfectly in the explanation of the poetic portions of the sacred writings. Much pertaining to the rhythm of the language, much relating to the accents, much connected with the peculiar use of words, it may be impossible now to recover. To show the difficulty of this subject in its bearing on the interpretation of the Psalms, as well as to illustrate the subject of Hebrew poetry, I may refer to the remarks of DeWette, Einleitung, vii. pp. 37-76. An elegant translation of this may be found in the Biblical Repository, vol. iii.; pp. 478-514.
(2) True piety is essential to qualify one to be an interpreter of the Psalms. This is true, in fact, in regard to the interpretation of any portion of the sacred volume. Since the Bible is a book of religion, employed in describing the nature, the power, and the influence of religion, it is obvious that correct religious feeling, or a practical acquaintance with religion, is necessary in an interpreter. The principle is substantially the same which is required in the interpretation of books on any subject. In a treatise on painting, poetry, sculpture, architecture, there will be things which could not be so well explained as by one who had a practical knowledge of these arts; and in order to the possession of a complete qualification for the interpretation of such a book, an ability to appreciate what is said on those arts must be regarded as indispensable. It is obvious that the mere knowledge of words - of philology - would not be all that would be demanded; nor would any power of explaining local allusions, laws, customs, manners, or geographical or historical references, be all that would be required. Beyond all this, there was in the mind of the writer or author that which he intended to express, and which no mere knowledge of language or of customs would be sufficient to explain. To show what the writer meant it would be obviously necessary to be able to understand him - to appreciate what he intended to say; to bring out what was in his mind; what he thought of - what he felt - what he designed to express. Hence, however valuable a work may be on the Psalms as a philological work, or as illustrating the authorship of a psalm, and the circumstances of the author in its composition, it is plain that we have not reached the main thing unless we have entered into the spirit of the author, and are qualified to understand and appreciate his own feelings in the composition.
(3) For the reason above stated, there should be in an exposition of the Psalms more than the mere possession of piety. "There should be deep religious experience." There should be an acquaintance with piety in its highest forms of rapture, and in the lowest depths of despondency, darkness, and sorrow. There is no book in the world in which there are such varied expressions of piety, in which there are such diversified forms of religious experience, as in the Book of Psalms. As the Psalms were designed for every age of the world, for persons found in every rank and condition of life, for seasons of joy and of sorrow, for childhood, youth, middle age, old age, for the ignorant and the learned, for times of sickness and of health, for private, social, domestic, and public life, for magistrates and private citizens, for war and peace, for acts of business and acts of charity, for the living and for the dying, and for those that mourn - so they were designed to form a "manual" that would illustrate religion in all these forms and relations; to be a book in which anyone, in all the varied conditions of human existence, might be sure that he would find something that would be applicable to himself. If this is so, then it is clear that in order to a good commentary on the Psalms - in order that the expositor may be able to enter into the real spirit of the work which he undertakes to explain - piety of no common order is demanded; a rich and varied religious experience is required that falls to the lot of very few of mankind. Looking simply at this qualification of a commentator on the Psalms, we may cease to be surprised that no such commentary has ever appeared as to leave nothing yet to be desired.
(4) Poetic taste is an important requisite in a commentator on the Psalms. The Psalms are poetry, and poetry of the most delicate kind. Much of the beauty of the Psalms, and much of their adaptedness to the wants of man, depends on the fact that they are poetry. This was a reason why the Spirit of God, in breathing his influence on the men who composed the Psalms, preferred that the sentiments found in them should be expressed in poetry rather that in prose, and hence, this medium was selected. Among the original endowments of the human mind, that which contemplates "poetry" as among the means of happiness; as adapted to impress truth on the mind; as fitted to arouse the soul to great efforts; as designed to fill the mind with calm, peaceful, pure, patriotic, pious emotions, is one. Possessed by men, indeed (either in the power of producing poetry or of appreciating it) in very different degrees, yet it is an endowment of man; and, being such, religion makes use of it to promote its own ends. There are those who will be moved by little besides calm argument, stern logic, severe demonstration; there are those who will be aroused only by the lofty appeals of eloquence; there are those who will be most influenced by the voice of persuasion; there are those who will be awakened from dangerous slumbers only by the denunciations of wrath; there are those in whose minds pure and joyful and holy emotions will be best excited by poetry. It is the province of "song," as such, to awaken many of the most pure and devoted feelings of piety in the human soul; and the Book of Psalms is the portion of the sacred volume by which it is designed and expected that this object will be accomplished as a permanent arrangement.
It is clear, therefore, that he cannot be completely qualified to be a commentator on the Psalms who has not himself such endowments as to appreciate the beauties of poetry; who cannot, in this respect, enter into the feelings of the sacred writer on the one hand, and into the hearts of those who are so made as to be affected by poetry on the other. One of the causes of the "failure" to produce a good commentary on the Psalms may be traced to this source. A mere philologist; a man who regards nothing as valuable but exact demonstration; a man of prosaic temperament, though he may have piety that is exalted and pure, may lack still an important qualification for entering into the true spirit of the Psalms, and for meeting the needs of those who seek for edification and comfort in this portion of the Bible.
(5) A knowledge of the human heart - of human nature - is an indispensable condition for a good commentator on the Psalms. The Psalms comprise, more than any other book in the Bible, a record of the workings of the heart. Indeed, they pertain mostly to the heart. They are not addressed, as the epistle to the Romans is, to the loftier powers of the understanding, nor do they make such appeals to the imagination as the visions of Isaiah, or the visions of John in Patmos. It is the heart which, in the Psalms, is eminently the medium of communication between the Divine Spirit and the soul. Of all parts of the Bible there is most to illustrate the human heart in the Psalms. All that there is in the heart of man is there in one way or another illustrated, and in an almost endless variety of circumstances. Joy, sorrow, penitence, gratitude, praise, despondency, sadness; love - love to God - love to man; - the feelings experienced in sickness, and on a recovery from sickness; - the anguish, the bitterness of soul, arising from the ingratitude of others; terror at the wrath of God; the dread of death; the peace which religion gives in the prospect of death; the joy of prayer; the light which comes into the soul in answer to earnest supplication; the calmness which springs from devout meditation on the character of God and his law; the light which beams upon the soul after long darkness; the effects of remembered guilt (as in Psalm 51); the feeling of despair when God seems to have forsaken us; the feelings which spring up in the heart on the reception of injuries; these are a few among the many topics which are found illustrated in the Psalms in the personal experience of the writers, and it is obvious that no one is qualified to comment on these subjects unless he has himself a knowledge of the workings of the human heart.
To be able to explain the words used; to state the origin and authorship of the Psalms, and the occasion on which they were composed; to investigate the genuineness and accuracy of the text, and to determine the value of the varied readings; to understand and explain the parallelisms, the rhythm, and the accents employed in the Psalms; to comprehend and appreciate the poetry of the Psalms; or to gather together what Jewish rabbis and the Christian fathers have written, or to transplant from Germany what has been produced under Rationalistic views of the Bible, or even what the German mind in its best workings and under the influence of true religion has produced, is not all or mainly what is demanded in a commentary on the Psalms that will meet the wants of those in our own land, or that will illustrate the Psalms in the manner that will be of most value to the great masses of the young, the sick, the bereaved, the tempted, the aged, and the desponding. A man who cannot in this varied manner enter into sympathy with the writers of the Psalms in the workings of the human heart as there illustrated, is not a man who is fully qualified to prepare a commentary on this Book. For some purposes he may, indeed, make a book that will be valuable, but not a book that will be valuable in relation to the real purpose designed to be accomplished by the Psalms - to be a guide and a comfort to believers of every station and condition, in all the varied circumstances of human life, and in all the varied and complicated workings of the human heart.
(6) It may be added that the Book of Psalms, in the main, is so plain, so easy to be understood by the great mass of readers; so expressive of the internal feelings and emotions, as to increase the difficulty in the preparation of a commentary. The Psalms are so rich; so full of meaning; so adapted to the wants of believers; they so meet the varied experiences of the people of God, and are so replete with the illustrations of piety; they so touch the deepest fountains of emotion in the soul, that, so far as most of these points are concerned, a "commentary," considered as an additional source of light, does not differ materially from a candle considered as affording additional splendor to the sun. What a man finds in the ordinary perusal of the Psalms as a book of devotion, on the subject of deep experimental piety, is so much in advance of what he will usually find in the commentary, that he turns from the attempt to explain them with a feeling of deep disappointment, and comes back to the book itself as better expressing his emotions, meeting his necessities, and imparting consolation in trial, than anything which the commentator can add. He welcomes the Book of Psalms itself as a comforter and a guide; and in the little volume sold now at so cheap a rate, or appended to his pocket Testament, the common reader of the Bible finds more that is suited to his need than he would in the voluminous commentary of Venema; in all the collections in the Critici Sacri; in the Synopsis of Poole; in the Annotations of Grotius; or in the learned expositions of DeWette - elegant as the work of DeWette is - or of Tholuck, or Hengstenberg.
When these difficulties in composing a commentary on the Psalms are considered - when a man who sits down to write one reflects on the qualifications necessary for the task - and when under the influence of these thoughts, constantly increasing in magnitude, and pressing upon him more and more as he labors for a dozen years, though at intervals, as I have done, in preparing a commentary on this portion of Scripture - whatever ardor of desire or confidence of success he may have had at the commencement of his enterprise, he will cease to wonder, as he progresses in his work, that the efforts of others to prepare a commentary heretofore have been a failure, and he will not be surprised, should his life be lengthened out to see the result of his own labors, if he finds that the world regards that at which he has toiled so long, and which he hoped might be, in some measure, worthy of the volume he has undertaken to explain, as but adding another to the long list of unsuccessful attempts to prepare a proper exposition of the Book of Psalms.
The first psalm has no title prefixed to it, which is the case, also, with many others, Psalm 10; Psalm 116; Psalm 117:1-2, and others. It is now in vain to attempt to search for the cause of this omission. On the origin and authority of the titles prefixed to the Psalms, see the introduction, Section 4. Some have supposed that the reason why no title was affixed to this psalm was that the general title, "The Psalms of David," was prefixed to the whole book, and that that was a sufficient indication of the author of this the first in the series. But this is mere conjecture, and this reason would no more make proper the omission of the title to the first psalm than of any other that came under that general title. In some manuscripts (2 codices of Rossi) this psalm is not numbered; in some others (4 codices of Kennicott, and 3 codices of Rossi) it is united with the second psalm, and the two are reckoned as one.
It is, however, manifestly a distinct composition from the second psalm. It has a unity of its own, as the second has also; and there are almost no two psalms in the whole collection which might not be united with as much propriety as these. It is impossible now to ascertain the authorship of the psalm, though the common opinion is probably the correct one, that it was composed by David. But on what occasion it was written it is now equally impossible to discover. There are no historical allusions in it which would enable us to determine the occasion on which it was written, as there is nothing in it which certainly determines its authorship. The terms employed are of the most general character, and the sentiments are applicable to all times and all lands. It has all the marks of being a general introduction to the Book of Psalms, and of having been designed to express in a few sentences the substance of the entire collection, or to state the great principle which would be found to run through the whole of it - that a righteous life will be attended with prosperity and happiness, and that the life of the wicked will be followed by sorrow and ruin. This was the great principle of the Jewish theocracy; and was of sufficient importance to be stated clearly in the commencement of a book that was designed to illustrate so fully the nature and the value of true religion. Compare Deuteronomy 27-28.
The psalm is designed to describe the blessedness or the happiness of the righteous man. This is done "literally and figuratively, positively and negatively, directly and by contrast, with respect both to his character and his condition here and hereafter." - Prof. Alexander. It is not, however, as Prof. Alexander supposes, a "picture of the truly happy man;" it is a description of the blessedness of the righteous man, in contrast with the condition of the unrighteous. The righteous man is indeed prosperous and happy; and it is one design of the psalm to show this. But it is not the happy man, as such, that is in the eye of the psalmist; it is the righteous man, and the blessedness of being righteous.
The psalm is properly made up of two parts - the blessedness of the righteous man, and the unblessedness, or, the German word, "ungluck" (DeWette), of the wicked or ungodly man.
I. The blessedness of the righteous man, Psalm 1:1-3. This consists also of two minor parts:
(1) His character Psalm 1:1-2, and this is described also in two forms - negatively and positively.
(a) Negatively. He does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of the scornful, Psalm 1:1.
(b) Positively. He delights in the law of the Lord, and he has pleasure in meditating continually on his truth, Psalm 1:2.
(2) his prosperity, as the result of being righteous, Psalm 1:3. His condition is compared with that of a tree planted in a well-watered place, whose leaves are always green, and whose fruit never fails; so whatever he does shall prosper.
II. The condition of the unrighteous, or the strong contrast between the unrighteous and the righteous, Psalm 1:4-6. Their condition and destiny are expressed in three forms:
(1) They are like chaff which the wind drives away, Psalm 1:4.
(2) They shall not be acquitted in the judgment, nor have a place among the righteous, Psalm 1:5.
(3) They shall not be approved by God, but shall perish, Psalm 1:6.
1
Psalm 1:1
简体中文
有福的人——即他的境况是快乐或令人羡慕的。这里所用的词 אשׁר 'esher 本义是“幸福”或“福乐”。然而,该词仅以复数形式并处于构造状态出现,带有感叹词的性质和力量——“哦,这人的幸福啊!”或“哦,有福的人啊!”Deuteronomy 33:29:“以色列啊,你是有福的!”1 Kings 10:8:“你的臣子是有福的,你的这些臣仆是有福的!”Job 5:17:“神所惩治的人是有福的!”Psalm 2:12:“凡投靠他的,都是有福的!”另见 Psalm 32:1-2;Psalm 33:12;Psalm 34:8;Psalm 40:4;Psalm 41:1;Psalm 65:4;Psalm 84:4-5,Psalm 84:12 等处,该词在这些地方都译作“有福”。这个词的含义最为笼统,就其本身而言,足以涵盖一切被认为构成真正幸福的内容。这里所论的福分的具体内容,正如本篇余下部分所解释的,在于如下事实:他避开与恶人为伴;他以耶和华的律法为乐;他必在今世亨通;他至终必不灭亡。这里的“人”一词同样含义最为笼统,旨在包括所有时代、一切境况中具有此处所描述之品格的一切人。这个词既适用于穷人,也适用于富人;既适用于卑微者,也适用于尊贵者;既适用于仆人,也适用于主人;对老年人、中年人和青年人同样适用。凡具有此处所描述之品格的人,都落在“有福之人”这一概括性的描述之内——就是那境况快乐、令人羡慕的人。
“不从”——他的品格乃是:他不照所指明的那种方式而行。亚历山大教授 Alexander 将此译作“未曾如此行过的人”。但这词的含义不止于此;它所指的不仅是过去。这是此人一贯且习惯性的特征——他不这样行;这不仅在过去为真,如今为真,将来也必为真。这正是将此人区分出来的标志。“行”一词在圣经中常用来表示生活方式或行事为人——因为人生被描绘为一段旅程,而人被描绘为旅人。Psalm 15:2:“就是行为正直、做事公义、心里说实话的人。”试参 1 Kings 9:4;Deuteronomy 19:9;Deuteronomy 28:9;Psalm 81:12-13;Isaiah 33:15。
“计谋”——照这类人的行事方式、原则、计划。他不从他们那里领受关于当如何生活的谋略,而是从耶和华的律法领受,Psalm 1:2。这会包括诸如此类的事:他不随从罪人的建议,2 Samuel 16:20;1 Kings 1:12;他不执行罪人的目的或计划,Isaiah 19:3;他不按照他们的观点和提议来规划自己的人生。在他人生的计划与目的上,他独立于他们,并向别的来源寻求引导自己的准则。
“恶人的”——即恶人。这里所用的词是一般性的,会包括各类、各种程度的不义之人。它不那么具体,就其本身而言,也不像随后那些词语那样表明明确或严重的堕落。这里的大意是:所说的这人并非恶人的同伴。
“不站”——这表明更多的深思熟虑;一种更固定、更决然的品格。
“道路”——他们所在之处,或他们通常行走的那条路。他站在那里,就仿佛是在等候他们,或仿佛渴望与他们结交。他不是在自己的正规、正当的职业中继续前行,而是驻足于罪人通常经过的路上,在那里徘徊逗留。这样,他就显出想要与他们在一起的意愿。这一点在现实中常常由以下的人得到例证:他们仿佛无所事事地把自己安置在恶人通常经过的地方,或安置在大城街头拐角、可能遇见恶人的地方。
“罪人的”——חטאים chaṭṭâ'iym。这个词字面意思是错过目标的人;进而指偏离本分之路或正路的人。它常用来表示任何种类、任何程度的罪。它比前面译作“恶人”的那个词更具体,指那些偏离本分之路的人;在人生的大目标上失败的人;违犯明确且已知之义务的人。
“不坐”——这比前面所用的任何一个词都包含更深的深思熟虑和更坚定的品格决心。这里所说的这人,并非偶然、无意地与他们同行,也不是站在他们惯常所在之处而把自己置于他们的路上;他乃是借着在他们中间占一席位而成了他们中的一员,就这样刻意地与他们联合。他在恶人中有了确定的居所;他永久地成为他们中的一员。
“座位”——亵慢人通常所坐的座位;这类人彼此交谈、同坐之地——例如舞厅,或恶人举行聚会的“俱乐部”,或不信者与嘲弄者惯常聚集之处。
“亵慢人的”——לצים lētsiym。这个词的本义是指那些嘲弄、讥诮、哂笑的人;那些以轻蔑和讥嘲对待美德与宗教的人。Proverbs 1:22;Proverbs 3:34;Proverbs 9:7-8;Proverbs 13:1;Proverbs 15:12,et saepe。它所表示的邪恶程度比前面所用的其他任何一个词都更高、更顽固,指堕落品格的顶点、邪恶的最后阶段——即神和圣物受轻蔑与讥嘲相待的阶段。只要一个人还以某种程度的尊重对待美德与宗教,他就仍有指望;及至他在自己的品格中到了只把美德与敬虔视为适合嘲笑讥讽之物的地步,他就几乎或全然无望了。于是我们在这里看到,在本节的名词和动词中有一个美妙的双重递进或高潮,表明品格的各个连续阶段。首先是与恶人偶然同行,或意外落入他们的同伴之中;接着是更刻意地倾向他们的交往,表现为自愿置身于他们通常聚集之处,站着等候他们;然后是刻意而固定的、与他们联合的决心——借着经常坐在他们中间,而永久地成为他们中的一员。
在他们所结交的人物方面也是如此。首先是笼统意义上的不敬虔之人;接着是那些在堕落上已深到无视已知本分、违犯已知义务地步的人;最后是那些在不信中变得顽梗、公开嘲弄美德、讥诮宗教之主张的人。不必说,在这两方面,这都是对世上实际发生之事的准确描述。那偶然、无意地与恶人同行、听从他们计谋的人,很快就会学会把自己置身于他们的路上,等候他们,渴望与他们为伴,最终很可能与公开的讥诮者混同为一;而那放纵于某种形式的堕落、或以任何方式忽略宗教的人,若不受约束、不被归正,就很可能经历邪恶的每一个等级,直到成为对一切宗教顽梗不化的讥诮者。本节的要旨是:那真正有福的人,是不做上述任何一件事的人。他的结交与喜好另有所在,正如下一节所述。
Original em inglês
Blessed is the man - That is, his condition is a happy or a desirable one. The word used here, אשׁר 'esher means properly, "happiness" or "blessedness." It is found, however, only in the plural form and in the construct state, and takes the nature and force of an interjection - " O the happiness of the man!" or "O happy man!" Deuteronomy 33:29 : "happy art thou, O Israel!" 1 Kings 10:8 : "happy are thy men, happy are these thy servants!" Job 5:17 : "happy is the man whom God correcteth!" Psalm 2:12 : "blessed are all they that put their trust in him!" See also Psalm 32:1-2; Psalm 33:12; Psalm 34:8; Psalm 40:4; Psalm 41:1; Psalm 65:4; Psalm 84:4-5, Psalm 84:12, et al., where it is rendered "blessed." The word is of the most general character, and, in itself, would embrace all that is supposed to constitute real happiness. The particular kind of blessedness referred to here, as explained in the subsequent part of the psalm, consists in the fact that he avoids the companionship of the wicked; that he has pleasure in the law of the Lord; that he will be prospered in this world; and that he will not perish at lasts. The word "man" here, also, is of the most general character, and is designed to include all people, of all times and of all conditions, who possess the character referred to. The term is applicable to the poor as well as to the rich; to the low as well as to the exalted; to the servant as well as to the master; alike to the aged, the middle-aged, and the young. All who have the character here described come under the general description of the happy man - the man whose condition is a happy and a desirable one.
That walketh not - Whose character is that he does not walk in the manner specified. Prof. Alexander renders this, "Who has not walked." But it implies more than this; it refers to more than the past. It is the characteristic of the man, always and habitually, that he does not thus walk; it has not only been true in the past, but it is true in the present, and will be true in the future. It is that which distinguishes the man. The word "walk" is often used in the Scriptures to denote a way of life or conduct - since life is represented as a journey, and man as a traveler. Psalm 15:2 : "who walketh uprightly." Compare 1 Kings 9:4; Deuteronomy 19:9; Deuteronomy 28:9; Psalm 81:12-13; Isaiah 33:15.
In the counsel - After the manner, the principles, the plans of this class of men. He does not take counsel of them as to the way in which he should live, but from the law of the Lord, Psalm 1:2. This would include such things as these: he does not follow the advice of sinners, 2 Samuel 16:20; 1 Kings 1:12; he does not execute the purposes or plans of sinners, Isaiah 19:3; he does not frame his life according to their views and suggestions. In his plans and purposes of life he is independent of them, and looks to some other source for the rules to guide him.
Of the ungodly - The wicked. The word used here is general, and would embrace all kinds and degrees of the unrighteous. It is not so specific, and would, in itself, not indicate as definite, or as aggravated depravity, as the terms which follow. The general sentiment here is, that the man referred to is not the companion of wicked men.
Nor standeth - This indicates more deliberation; a character more fixed and decided.
In the way - The path where they are found, or where they usually go. His standing there would be as if he waited for them, or as if he desired to be associated with them. Instead of passing along in his own regular and proper employment, he stations himself in the path where sinners usually go, and lingers and loiters there. Thus, he indicates a desire to be with them. This is often, in fact, illustrated by men who place themselves, as if they had nothing to do, in the usual situation where the wicked pass along, or where they may be met with at the corners of the streets in a great city.
Of sinners - חטאים chaṭṭâ'iym. This word means literally, those who miss the mark; then, those who err from the path of duty or rectitude. It is often used to denote any kind or degree of sin. It is more specific than the former word rendered "ungodly," as denoting those who depart from the path of duty; who fail in regard to the great end of life; who violate positive and known obligations.
Nor sitteth - This implies still greater deliberation and determination of character than either of the other words employed. The man referred to here does not casually and accidentally walk along with them, nor put himself in their way by standing where they are ordinarily to be found; but he has become one of them by occupying a seat with them; thus deliberately associating with them. He has an established residence among the wicked; he is permanently one of their number.
In the seat - The seat which the scornful usually occupy; the place where such men converse and sit together - as in a ball-room, or in a "club," where wicked men hold their meetings, or where infidels and scoffers are accustomed to assemble.
Of the scornful - לצים lētsiym. This word properly means those who mock, deride, scoff; those who treat virtue and religion with contempt and scorn. Proverbs 1:22; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 9:7-8; Proverbs 13:1; Proverbs 15:12, et saepe. It denotes a higher and more determined grade of wickedness than either of the other words employed, and refers to the consummation of a depraved character, the last stage of wickedness, when God and sacred things are treated with contempt and derision. There is hope of a man as long as he will treat virtue and religion with some degree of respect; there is little or none when he has reached the point in his own character in which virtue and piety are regarded only as fit subjects for ridicule and scorn. We have here, then, a beautiful double gradation or climax, in the nouns and verbs of this verse, indicating successive stages of character. There is, first, casual walking with the wicked, or accidentally falling into their company; there is then a more deliberate inclination for their society, indicated by a voluntary putting of oneself in places where they usually congregate, and standing to wait for them; and then there is a deliberate and settled purpose of associating with them, or of becoming permanently one of them, by regularly sitting among them.
So also it is in regard to the persons with whom they associate. They are, first, irreligious men in general; then, those who have so far advanced in depravity as to disregard known duty, and to violate known obligations; and then, those who become confirmed in infidelity, and who openly mock at virtue, and scoff at the claims of religion. It is unnecessary to say that, in both these respects, this is an accurate description of what actually occurs in the world. He who casually and accidentally walks with the wicked, listening to their counsel, will soon learn to place himself in their way, and to wait for them, desiring their society, and will ultimately be likely to be feared identified with open scoffers; and he who indulges in one form of depravity, or in the neglect of religion in any way, will, unless restrained and converted, be likely to run through every grade of wickedness, until he becomes a confirmed scoffer at all religion. The sentiment in this verse is, that the man who is truly blessed is a man who does none of these things. His associations and preferences are found elsewhere, as is stated in the next verse.
2
Psalm 1:2
简体中文
惟喜爱——就是他的喜悦;他的快乐。他不是在恶人的交往和事务中寻找快乐,而是在神的真理中寻得它。神的律法或真理在他并非索然无味,他如此以它为乐,以致渴望对它越来越熟悉,并让它的真理越来越深地铭刻在心中。
耶和华的律法——就是雅威的律法——译本中的小型大写字母,在此处和别处一样,表明原文的词是雅威。圣经中"律法"一词有多种相当不同的意义。希伯来词 תורה tôrâh 本义是教训、训诲;继而是吩咐、命令、律法,即该词通常的意义。它特别用于指摩西五经,或摩西的律法(试参 Luke 24:44 的注释),因它包含神最早写成并记录的律法;其后这词在更广的意义上,被用来指旧约的全部书卷,作为律法的解释和应用。此处这词无疑是指神旨意的成文启示,即当时已经显明的部分。然而按同样的原则,这里的宣告也适用于神圣启示的任何部分;因此,其要旨是:真正敬虔的人在神所启示的真理中寻得他最高的喜乐。这常被引为真敬虔的特征。试参 Psalm 19:10;Psalm 119:97、Psalm 119:99。
在他的律法上——在他的律法或真理上。"思想"。这里所用的词——הגה hâgâh——本义是抱怨、喃喃低语;继而是说话;再而是以低沉的语声发出,如人在深沉默想中常有的情形;因此,按通常的意义,是默想某事;思想它。如 Joshua 1:8:"总要昼夜思想。"Psalm 77:12:"我也要思想你的经营。"Proverbs 15:28:"义人的心,思量如何回答。"这里的意思是:他思想它;他努力明白它的含义;他以反思它为乐。这不是他推开一旁的题目,也不是他漠不关心的事,而是他把它持守在心中,并以此为满足。
昼夜——就是持续不断地——因为昼与夜构成了全部的时间。其意是:
(a)他习惯性地这样做,或者说,他有意识地养成默想神圣真理的习惯,借着操练自己的心,使他能以行出;
(b)他花时间这样做——特意每天分别出合宜的时段,好使自己在脱离生活的操劳之后,借默想神圣真理使心灵得以更新,或得以更认识神、更认识自己当尽的本分,并使那关乎永恒实在的真理更直接地作用于自己的灵魂;
(c)他在事务的间隙、白日可能有的闲暇时刻这样做——这样他就有一个永不枯竭的反思题目,他的心思随时容易回到其中,并在生活的操劳与辛苦之间,在其中寻得舒缓和安慰;并且
(d)他在夜间醒着的时刻这样做——当患病卧床辗转难眠时,或当因任何别的缘故"眼睛不得合眼"时。Psalm 63:5-6:"我在床上记念你,在夜更的时候思想你。"Psalm 119:54:"我在世寄居,素来以你的律例为诗歌。"试参 Psalm 119:23、Psalm 119:43;Psalm 143:5。诗人心中很可能存着 Joshua 1:8 所载的吩咐。
Original em inglês
But his delight - His pleasure; his happiness. Instead of finding his happiness in the society and the occupations of the wicked, he finds it in the truth of God. The law or truth of God is not distasteful to him, but he so delights in it as to desire to become more and more acquainted with it, and to have its truths impressed more and more on his heart.
In the law of the Lord - The law of Yahweh - the small capitals in the translation indicating here as elsewhere that the original word is Yahweh. The word law in the Scriptures is used in a considerable variety of significations. The Hebrew word תורה tôrâh, properly means instruction, precept; and then, an injunction, command, law, in the usual sense of the word. It was applied particularly to the Pentateuch, or law of Moses (compare the notes at Luke 24:44), as containing the first written and recorded laws of God; and then the word came, in a more general sense, to be applied to all the books of the Old Testament, as being an exposition and application of the law. Here the word undoubtedly refers to the written revelation of the will of God as far as it was then made known. On the same principle, however, the declaration here made would apply to any part of a divine revelation; and hence, the sentiment is, that a truly pious man finds his highest delight in the revealed truths of God. This is often referred to as characteristic of true piety. Compare Psalm 19:10; Psalm 119:97, Psalm 119:99.
And in his law - On his law, or his truth. "He doth meditate." The word used here, הגה hâgâh, means properly to complain, to mutter; then, to speak; then, to utter in a low complaining voice, as is often done by a person in deep meditation; hence, in the usual sense, to meditate on anything; to think of it. So Joshua 1:8 : "Thou shalt meditate therein (the law) day and night." Psalm 77:12 : "I meditate on all thy work." Proverbs 15:28 : "the heart of the righteous meditateth what to answer." The meaning here is, he thinks of it; he endeavors to understand its meaning; he has pleasure in reflecting on it. It is not a subject which he puts away from him, or in respect to which he is indifferent, but he keeps it before his mind, and has satisfaction in doing it.
Day and night - That is, continually - as day and night constitute the whole of time. The meaning is:
(a) he does this habitually, or he intentionally forms the habit of meditating on divine truth, by disciplining his mind in order that he may do it;
(b) he takes time to do it - designedly setting apart suitable portions of each day, that, withdrawn from the cares of life, he may refresh his spirit by contemplating divine truth, or may become better acquainted with God, and with his duty to him, and may bring to bear upon his own soul more directly the truths pertaining to eternal realities;
(c) he does this in the intervals of business, the moments of leisure which he may have during the day - having thus an unfailing subject of reflection to which his mind readily reverts, and in which, amid the cares and toils of life, he finds relaxation and comfort; and
(d) he does it in the wakeful hours of night, when sick and tossed upon his bed, or when, for any other reason, his "eyes are held waking." Psalm 63:5-6 : "my soul shall be upon my bed, and meditate on thee in the night-watches." Psalm 119:54 : "Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage." Compare Psalm 119:23, Psalm 119:43; Psalm 143:5. It is probable that the psalmist had the injunction in his mind which is contained in Joshua 1:8.
3
Psalm 1:3
简体中文
“他要像一棵树”——接着便描述那如此避开恶人之道、喜爱耶和华律法之人的幸福或昌盛。这是以一个非常优美的形象呈现的——一棵栽在根部可充分得水之处的树。
“栽在溪水旁”——这不是一棵自发而生的树,而是栽种在合宜之处、受到细心栽培的树。“溪水”一词在这里并未十分贴切地表达原文的意思。希伯来文 פלג peleg(源自 פלג pâlag,意为劈开、分裂、分开),本义是分岔;继而指水道、沟渠、壕沟、分支的水路、溪流。这里所暗指的,是东方人借开凿人工小溪、把水从较大的河流或湖泊引出以灌溉田地的方法。这样,水便被引向四面八方。古时整个埃及地就是这样用水渠浇灌的,埃及异常的丰饶也正是这样得到保证的。本段的一个例证,可从芒德雷尔(Maundrell)关于大马士革城郊花园果园浇灌方法的记述中得来:“园中密植着各种果树,靠巴拉达河(Barady)的水保持新鲜青翠……这河一出前述山峡流入平原,便立即分为三股;其中居中最大的一股直流向大马士革,分注城内所有的水池与泉源。另外两股——我认为是出于人工——则一右一左沿园圃的边界环绕而流,沿途借小小的支流放入园中,就这样散布于整个广大的林园,以致没有一个园子不是有一条清畅湍急的溪流贯穿其中。”(《游记》第122页)
圣经中有一个显著的例子,暗指这样栽培的树木,见于 Ezekiel 31:3-4:“看哪,亚述王曾如黎巴嫩中的香柏树,枝条荣美,影密如林,极其高大,树尖插入云中。众水使他生长;深水使他长大;所栽之地有江河围流,汩汩的河水浇灌田野的树木。”又如 Ecclesiastes 2:4:“挖造水池,用以浇灌嫩小的树木。”我们面前这段经文并没有特指哪一种树,但在东方这些人工水渠两岸成排的柳树、橙树等等,为本段提供了丰富的例证。这里的形象,是一棵得到充足浇灌、欣欣向荣的树。
“按时候结果子”——他的果子不因缺乏养分而坠落。这里的思想是:一棵树在一年正当的时节挂满果实。参 Psalm 92:14。这形象十分优美。果子并非不合时令;它不会太早成熟坠落,也不会在未熟之时落下;而且收成丰盈。
“叶子也不枯干”——不因干旱炎热而枯干。参 Job 8:16 的注释;Job 15:32 的注释。它青翠繁茂——这是幸福昌盛之人一个鲜明的形象。
“凡他所做的尽都顺利”——这是把上文以比喻或诗体形式表达的意思,用平直的话陈述出来。它包含一个普遍的真理,宣告真宗教——敬虔的生活——自然且正当的果效,与 1 Timothy 4:8 中的话相似:“惟独敬虔,凡事都有益处,因有今生和来生的应许。”敬虔生活之果效的观念,在圣经中十分常见,并为事物的常规进程所证实。人若渴望持久的兴盛与幸福,只有在德行与真宗教的道路上才能寻见。这里的“凡”当从一般意义上来理解;按正当的解经法则,并不要求我们把它解释为在每一实例中都绝对为真。可以想象,一个义人——一个深深而真诚敬畏神的人——有时也会定下并不明智的计划;可以想象,他可能失去财富,或在商业萧条、战争、饥荒、瘟疫的时期,与众人同遭灾祸;可以想象,他可能因他人的欺诈与不义而受损;然而,作为一项普遍且极为重要的真理,敬虔的生活终必带来兴盛,并不断赐下幸福。诗篇的主要设计所要阐明的,正是这个伟大而重要的真理。
Original em inglês
And he shall be like a tree - A description of the happiness or prosperity of the man who thus avoids the way of sinners, and who delights in the law of God, now follows. This is presented in the form of a very beautiful image - a tree planted where its roots would have abundance of water.
Planted by the rivers of water - It is not a tree that springs up spontaneously, but one that is set out in a favorable place, and that is cultivated with care. The word "rivers" does not here quite express the sense of the original. The Hebrew word פלג peleg, from פלג pâlag, to cleave, to split, to divide), properly means divisions; and then, channels, canals, trenches, branching-cuts, brooks. The allusion is to the Oriental method of irrigating their lands by making artificial rivulets to convey the water from a larger stream, or from a lake. In this way, the water was distributed in all directions. The whole land of Egypt was anciently sluiced in this manner, and it was in this way that its extraordinary fertility was secured. An illustration of the passage may be derived from the account by Maundrell of the method of watering the gardens and orchards in the vicinity of Damascus. "The gardens are thick set with fruit trees of all kinds, kept fresh and verdant by the waters of the Barady .... This river, as soon as it issues out of the cleft of the mountain before mentioned, into the plain, is immediately divided into three streams, of which the middlemost and largest runs directly to Damascus, and is distributed to all the cisterns and fountains of the ciy. The other two, which I take to be the work of art, are drawn round, the one to the right, and the other to the left, on the borders of the gardens, into which they are let out, as they pass, by little rivulets, and so dispersed over all the vast wood, insomuch that there is not a garden but has a fine, quick stream running through it." Trav., p. 122.
A striking allusion to trees cultivated in this manner occurs in Ezekiel 31:3-4 : "Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of a high stature, and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high, with his rivers running round about his plants, and sent out his little rivers unto all the trees of the field." So Ecclesiastes 2:4 : "I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees." No particular kind of tree is referred to in the passage before us, but there are abundant illustrations of the passage in the rows of willow, oranges, etc., that stand on the banks of these artificial streams in the East. The image is that of a tree abundantly watered, and that was flourishing.
That bringeth forth his fruit in his season - Whose fruit does not fall by the lack of nutriment. The idea is that of a tree which, at the proper season of the year, is loaded with fruit. Compare Psalm 92:14. The image is one of great beauty. The fruit is not untimely. It does not ripen and fall too soon, or fall before it is mature; and the crop is abundant.
His leaf also shall not wither - By drought and heat. Compare Job 8:16, note; Job 15:32, note. It is green and flourishing - a striking image of a happy and a prosperous man.
And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper - This is a literal statement of what had just been put in a figurative or poetic form. It contains a general truth, or contains an affirmation as to the natural and proper effect of religion, or of a life of piety, and is similar to that which occurs in 1 Timothy 4:8 : "Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." This idea of the effect of a life of piety is one that is common in the Scriptures, and is sustained by the regular course of events. If a man desires permanent prosperity and happiness, it is to be found only in the ways of virtue and religion. The word "whatsoever" here is to be taken in a general sense, and the proper laws of interpretation do not require that we should explain it as universally true. It is conceivable that a righteous man - a man profoundly and sincerely fearing God - may sometimes form plans that will not be wise; it is conceivable that he may lose his wealth, or that he may be involved in the calamities that come upon a people in times of commercial distress, in seasons of war, of famine, and pestilence; it is conceivable that he may be made to suffer loss by the fraud and dishonesty of other men; but still as a general and as a most important truth, a life of piety will be followed by prosperity, and will constantly impart happiness. It is this great and important truth which it is the main design of the Book of Psalms to illustrate.
4
Psalm 1:4
简体中文
恶人并不是这样——按字面直译是"恶人并非如此"。关于"恶人"("ungodly")一词,见 Psalm 1:1 的注释。"恶人并非如此"这一陈述,是同样适用于他们的品格与结局的概括性陈述,尽管本诗作者的心思当下特别专注于他们结局的不同,而没有特别论述他们的品格。然而,恶人确实行恶人的计谋、站罪人的道路、坐亵慢人的座位,正如义人不行这些一样真实;他们确实不以耶和华的律法为乐,正如义人以之为乐一样真实;恶人确实不像栽在溪水旁的树,正如义人像那样一样真实。因此,这段经文可以用来显明恶人的品格;这样应用时,先前关于义人的否定性陈述,就恶人而言成为肯定性的;先前的肯定性,则成为否定性的。于是,以下皆为真实:
(a) 恶人确实行恶人的计谋;确实站罪人的道路;确实坐亵慢人的座位;
(b) 他们确实不以耶和华的律法为乐,不思想他的话;
(c) 他们确实不像栽在水旁的树——那样青翠、美丽而结果子。
无论在品格上还是在结局上,恶人都与义人不同。本节随后的部分表明:虽然作者心中存有这普遍的真理,但他心思特别专注的,乃是恶人在人生中的光景——他们的结局——因为那光景无法与青翠结果的树相比,而是暗示了截然不同的另一个意象。
乃像糠秕被风吹散——即在扬麦之时。在东方各国,这事通常在露天的场上进行,且常在高处、风力强劲之地。在无法得到簸箕或风车时——如如今我国乡间也行的——这工序是趁谷物脱粒后用杈铲扬起,风吹散糠秕,谷粒便落在地上。参 Matthew 3:12 的注释。
这非常自然贴切地提供了对恶人结局的例证。与义人相比,他们就像被风吹散的无价值糠秕。这意象在圣经中屡见不鲜。见 Job 21:18 的注释;Isaiah 17:13 的注释。另参 Psalm 35:5;Isaiah 29:5;Isaiah 41:15;Daniel 2:35;Hosea 13:3。这里的观念是:恶人在任何方面都不像 Psalm 1:3 所述的那棵青翠结果的树。他们在任何方面都不像树。他们甚至不像一棵朽树、不结果的树、枯死的树,因为这些多少还暗示某种稳定或恒久。他们像被风吹去的干燥无用的糠秕,对农人毫无价值——一种农人只想把它与谷物完全分开、从路上除掉的东西。因此,所暗示的观念乃是内在的无价值。恶人将被驱散,原因之一正在于此——他们在神的宇宙中毫无价值——对于人受造的目的毫无价值。同时,在这糠秕与农人要保存的有用谷粒之间,也可能含着一种含蓄的对比。
Original em inglês
The ungodly are not so - literally, "Not thus the wicked." For the word ungodly, see the notes at Psalm 1:1. The statement that the "wicked are not so," is a general statement applicable alike to their character and destiny, though the mind of the author of the psalm is fixed immediately and particularly on the difference in their destiny, without specifying anything particularly respecting their character. It is as true, however, that the ungodly do walk in the counsel of the wicked, and stand in the way of sinners, and sit in the seat of the scornful, as it is that the righteous do not; as true that they do not delight in the law of the Lord, as it is that the righteous do; as true that the wicked are not like a tree planted by the channels of water, as it is that the righteous are. This passage, therefore, may be employed to show what is the character of the ungodly, and in so applying it, what was before negative in regard to the righteous, becomes positive in regard to the wicked; what was positive, becomes negative. Thus it is true:
(a) that the wicked do walk in the counsel of the ungodly; do stand in the way of sinners; do sit in the seat of the scornful;
(b) that they do not delight in the law of the Lord, or meditate on his word; and
(c) that they are not like a tree planted by the waters, that is green and beautiful and fruitful.
Both in character and in destiny the ungodly differ from the righteous. The subsequent part of the verse shows that, while the general truth was in the mind of the writer, the particular thing on which his attention was fixed was, his condition in life - his destiny - as that which could not be compared with a green and fruitful tree, but which suggested quite another image.
But are like the chaff which the wind driveth away - When the wheat was winnowed. This, in Oriental countries, was commonly performed in the open field, and usually on an eminence, and where there was a strong wind. The operation was performed, as it is now in our country, when a fan or fanning-mill cannot he procured, by throwing up the grain as it is threshed with a shovel, and the wind scatters the chaff, while the grain falls to the ground. See the notes at Matthew 3:12.
This very naturally and appropriately furnished an illustration of the destiny of the wicked. Compared with the righteous, they were like the worthless chaff driven away by the wind. The image is often found in the Scriptures. See Job 21:18, note; Isaiah 17:13, note. Compare also Psalm 35:5; Isaiah 29:5; Isaiah 41:15; Daniel 2:35; Hosea 13:3. The idea here is, that the wicked are in no respect like the green and fruitful tree referred to in Psalm 1:3. They are not like a tree in any respect. They are not even like a decaying tree, a barren tree, a dead tree, for either of these would suggest some idea of stability or permanency. They are like dry and worthless chaff driven off by the wind, as of no value to the farmer - a substance which he is anxious only to separate wholly from his grain, and to get out of his way. The idea thus suggested, therefore, is that of intrinsic worthlessness. It will be among other things, on this account that the wicked will be driven away - that they are worthless in the universe of God - worthless to all the purposes for which man was made. At the same time, however, there may be an implied contrast between that chaff and the useful grain which it is the object of the farmer to secure.
5
Psalm 1:5
简体中文
因此——因为他们如此无价值。
恶人——见 Psalm 1:1 的注释。泛指恶人;任何种类、任何程度的恶人。
必站立不住——比较 Psalm 1:1 的注释。其观念是:他们必不列在蒙审判者宣告无罪、蒙他认可的人之中。这说法似乎源于受审或宣判时站立起来的举动。
当审判的时候——亚兰文意译本将其译作“在大日子”,把它理解为审判之日。七十士译本和武加大译本译作“恶人必不兴起”—— ἀναστήσονται anastēsontai,resurgent,“在审判中”。大多数犹太解经家跟随亚兰文意译本,把这理解为指最后的审判。Rosenmuller, in loc.(罗森缪勒,见该处)然而这里所陈述的真理似乎比那更普遍,尽管那很可能包含在内。其含义是:他们必不能有份于义人的分。在一切品格被判定、神对人类品格的评价得以显明的地方和时候,都将发现他们经不起试验,承受不住结果,以致无法与义人同列。在所有这样的情形中,他们的真面目都将显露,他们必被看待如被风吹散的糠秕。这在今世品格受判定的各种试验境况中是真实的,在最后审判、宣告决定人类最终命运之判决时也是真实的。
罪人——见 Psalm 1:1 的注释。
在义人的会中——不被算为或被视为属于义人。即:在义人作为义人聚集的一切地方,他们都无分:在众人聚集敬拜神的地方;在他们作为神的朋友相聚的地方;在他们一同有份于神恩惠的地方;在末日他们被召集领受赏赐的时候;在他们于天上一同聚集的时候。罪人在神子民的会中毫无地位。
Original em inglês
Therefore - Because they are thus worthless.
The ungodly - See the notes at Psalm 1:1. The wicked in general; the wicked of any kind or degree.
Shall not stand - Compare the notes at Psalm 1:1. The idea is, that they will not be found among those who are acquitted by the Judge, and approved by him. The idea seems to be derived from the act of standing up to be tried, or to receive a sentence.
In the judgment - The Aramaic Paraphrase renders this, "in the great day" - understanding it of the day of judgment. The Septuagint and Vulgate render it, "the wicked shall not rise - ἀναστήσονται anastēsontai - resurgent - in judgment." Most of the Jewish interpreters, following the Aramaic Paraphrase, understand this as referring to the last judgment. Rosenmuller, in loc. The truth stated, however, seems to be more general than that, though that is probably included. The meaning is, that they would not share the lot of the righteous: in all places, and at all times, where character is determined, and where the divine estimate of human character is manifested, it would be found that they could not stand the trial, or abide the result, so as to have a place with the righteous. Their true character would in all such cases be shown, and they would be treated like the chaff that is driven away. This would be true alike in those situations of trial in the present life when character is determined, and at the last judgment, when the sentence will be pronounced which will determine the final doom of mankind.
Nor sinners - See the notes at Psalm 1:1.
In the congregation of the righteous - Be reckoned or regarded as belonging to the righteous. That is, in all the places where the righteous, as such, are assembled, they will have no place: where they assemble to worship God; where they meet as his friends; where they unitedly participate in his favor; when, in the last day, they shall be gathered together to receive their reward, and when they shall be assembled together in heaven. The sinner has no place in the congregations of the people of God.
6
Psalm 1:6
简体中文
因为耶和华知道义人的道路——这是恶人在审判中必不能与义人一同站立的理由。理由是:耶和华,那伟大的审判者,完全认识那些是他朋友之人的品格,能将他们与其余一切人分别出来,无论别人怎样伪装有那品格。惟有神所认可、所爱、视为朋友的人,才能在那大判决作出的日子站立得住。没有人能借虚伪的敬虔外貌欺骗他;没有人能凭强力闯到他的恩惠或义人的赏赐面前;没有人能凭等级与地位要求这个。品格经不起无所不知之眼细察的人,没有一个能蒙神悦纳、得天上的赏赐。试比较 2 Timothy 2:19 的注释。人判断品格可能受骗,神却不会。说“耶和华知道义人的道路”时,“道路”一词似乎用于指整个生命——生活的方式(见 Psalm 1:1 的注释),因而指整个品格。或许这里还包含这样的意思:耶和华知道他们生活方式的结局——它所引向的终局——因此他能公正地审判义人,把他们安置在来世的那个位置上,也就是他们的行为所趋向的天堂。
恶人的道路却必灭亡——恶人的生活道路或方式必趋向灭亡;他们的图谋、目的与盼望必归于无有。他们的路程事实上趋向毁灭。在宗教方面,他们的计谋没有一样会兴旺;他们的盼望没有一样会实现。在这一点上,正如在其他一切方面一样,他们与义人形成强烈的对照——无论在今世还是在来世。
Original em inglês
For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous - This is given as a reason why the wicked would not stand in the judgment with the righteous. The reason is, that the Lord, the great Judge, fully understands the character of those who are his friends, and can discriminate between them and all others, whatever pretences others may make to that character. Only those whom God approves, and loves, as his friends, will be able to stand in the day when the great decision shall be made. No one can impose on him by any mere pretensions to piety; no one can force his way to his favor, or to the rewards of the just, by power; no one can claim this in virtue of rank and station. No one can be admitted to the favor of God, and to the rewards of heaven, whose character is not such that it will bear the scrutiny of the Omniscient eve. Compare the notes at 2 Timothy 2:19. Man may be deceived in judging character, but God is not. When it is said that "the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous," the word "way" seems to be used to denote the whole of life - the manner of living (Notes, Psalm 1:1), and hence, the whole character. Perhaps there is included also the idea that the Lord knows the result of their manner of life - the issue to which it leads - and that, therefore, he can properly judge the righteous and assign them to that place in the future world, to wit, heaven, to which their actions tend.
But the way of the ungodly shall perish - The way or manner in which the ungodly live shall tend to ruin; their plans, and purposes, and hopes, shall come to nought. Their course, in fact, tends to destruction. None of their plans shall prosper in regard to religion: none of their hopes shall be fulfilled. In this, as in all other respects, they stand in strong contrast with the righteous, alike in this world and the world to come.
诗篇引言
第1节 “诗篇的标题”
希伯来文《诗篇》的总标题是 תהלים Tehilliym,即“诗篇”(赞美诗),或更完整地作 תהלים ספר Sêpher Tehilliym,意为“诗篇之书”。有时也用较短的标题——תלים Tilliym。另有一些用语适用于个别诗篇,如 מזמורים mizmôriym 或 שׁירים shı̂yriym(“歌曲”);单数则作 מזמור mizmôr 与 שׁיר shı̂yr(“一首歌”)。不过后面这些标题并非赋予整部诗集,而是赋予个别诗篇。前一种标题——מזמור mizmôr——见于 Psalm 3:1-8; Psalm 4:1-8; Psalm 5:1-12; Psalm 6:1-10; Psalm 8:1-9; Psalm 9; Psalm 12:1-8; Psalm 13:1-6; Psalm 15:1-5; Psalm 19:1-14; Psalm 20:1-9; Psalm 21:1-13; Psalm 22; Psalm 23:1-6,以及另外39篇,最后一篇是 Psalm 143:1-12,一律译作“诗”。后一种标题 שׁיר shı̂yr 出现于 Psalm 30:1-12; Psalm 45; Psalm 46:1-11 以及另外27篇诗篇(最后一篇是 Psalm 134:1-3),一律译作“歌”;它有时与 מזמור mizmôr(“诗”)一词连用,译作“一篇诗歌”,如 Psalm 48:1-14; Psalm 65:1-13; Psalm 66; Psalm 67:1-7; Psalm 68; Psalm 69; Psalm 75:1-10; Psalm 83; Psalm 87:1-7; Psalm 88;而在 Psalm 122:1-9; Psalm 123:1-4; Psalm 124:1-8 中,它与“上行”一词连用,作“上行之诗”。
תהלים Tehilliym 一词源自动词 הלל hâlal(“赞美”),正如“哈利路亚”(Hallelujah,赞美耶和华)一语所示。这个名字被赋予整部诗集,因为赞美比其他任何要素更是本书的特色,也因为这卷诗集似乎本来就是为在公开赞美或敬拜神中使用而设计的。在希伯来人的敬拜中,它们很可能都曾如此使用。
“诗篇”(Psalms)一词用于指这部诗集时,我们是从希腊文译本得来的,即 ψαλμοὶ psalmoi(复数)——“psalmos”(一首诗篇)与“psalmoi”(诗篇)。该词源出 ψάλλω psallō,意为触摸、拨动、弹拨——如拨动头发或胡须;进而指触摸或拨动琴弦,使其“拨响”,即用手指或“拨子”(πλῆκτρον plēktron)使之振动——那是一种用来弹拨里拉琴弦的器具,如同羽管。Cic. N. D., 2. 59. 因此,这个词被用于赞美中所用的乐器,继而泛指各种赞美的行为。名词 ψαλμός psalmos(“诗篇”)本义是“一弹、一拨”,如弓弦或弦乐器的发声;继指配弦乐器的歌;再特指赞美神的诗篇或歌。这样,动词 ψάλλω psallō 在新约中用来表示“赞美”,见于以下经文:Romans 15:9,“我要在外邦中称赞你,‘歌颂’你的名”;1 Corinthians 14:15,“我要用灵歌唱,也要用悟性歌唱”;Ephesians 5:19,“口唱心和地赞美主”;James 5:13,“有喜乐的呢,他就该歌颂”。
这动词在新约其他地方没有出现。名词 ψαλμός psalmos 在新约中以下列经文泛指诗篇:1 Corinthians 14:26,“各人或有诗歌”;Ephesians 5:19,“当用诗章、颂词、灵歌彼此对说”;Colossians 3:16,“彼此教导,互相劝戒”。在以下经文中,它指作为赞美诗歌集的《诗篇》全书:Luke 20:42,“大卫自己在诗篇上说”;Luke 24:44,“摩西的律法、先知的书和诗篇上所记的,凡指着我的话都必须应验”——参见该段经文的注释;Acts 1:20,“诗篇上写着说”;Acts 13:33,“正如诗篇第二篇上记着说”。这个词在新约别处没有出现。
第2节 “诗篇的作者”
这样汇编成书的诗篇绝非一位诗人或一个时代的作品。它们绵延于犹太历史的漫长时期——肯定从摩西时代直到从巴比伦被掳归回之时,可能更晚——并带有各作者的特点、个人与民族的历史、以及写作时代种种情况的印记。然而,其中如此之多出自大卫之手,以致人们习惯称之为“大卫的诗篇”,尽管诗集中出自他手笔的可能只是略多于一半。在按希伯来文手稿编排的一百五十篇诗中,归于他名下的通常不足一半:据德维特 DeWette 统计为74篇;肯尼科特 Kennicott 为66篇;德罗西 DeRossi 为67篇;罗森米勒 Rosenmuller 与艾希霍恩 Eichhorn 为71篇;亨斯滕伯格 Hengstenberg 为80篇。不过很可能,有一部分标题未署名的诗篇——但究竟有多少已无法确定——乃是大卫的作品。尽管如此,既已有这么多诗篇确知为他所写,他又是一位如此杰出的诗人,因此人们惯常称这卷书为“大卫的诗篇”,实属合理。
以下诸人见于标题,被称为诗篇的作者:
(1)有一篇诗——Ps. 90——归于摩西名下。至于这是否应视为摩西的作品,试参该篇的注释。诗集中没有其他诗篇归于他,尽管五经中保存了不少他的诗歌样品。这篇诗为何未与他其他的著作汇为一处,或它如何被保存下来,直至在《诗篇》中获得固定的位置,如今已无法判定。
(2)大卫作为诗集中许多诗篇的作者,占有显要地位;但如上文所言,批评家们对应当归于他名下的确切篇数意见分歧。在希伯来文诗篇的题词中,有68篇归于他。这个数目与上文所述德维特 DeWette、肯尼科特 Kennicott、德罗西 DeRossi、罗森米勒 Rosenmuller、艾希霍恩 Eichhorn、亨斯滕伯格 Hengstenberg 等人的见解之间的差异,源于诸手稿在这些题词上的出入;源于各批评家对这些题词价值的不同评估;源于有些诗篇虽在希伯来文中没有题词,却被认为确系大卫所作,以至归于他名下并无不当;也源于其中一些归于他名下的诗篇,被不同学者认为属于犹太历史上晚于他的时期,因而其归属大卫的题词乃是错误。我们有充分理由设想,一些现今没有题词的诗篇乃是大卫的作品,尽管为何在诗篇的题词中未将它们归于他,现已无从知晓,也无法知晓。由于这些事实,如今已不可能精确断定多少诗篇应归于大卫;然而数目无疑极大,他当被视为这部诗集的主要作者。
(3)有十二篇诗——Psalm 50; Psalm 73; Psalm 74; Psalm 75:1-10; Psalm 76:1-12; Psalm 77; Psalm 78; Psalm 79:1-13; Psalm 80; Psalm 81; Psalm 82:1-8; Psalm 83——归于亚萨名下。可以看到,除 Psalm 1:1-6 外,这些诗篇在诗集中的位置彼此相连,即 Psalm 63-83。这种编排的原因现已无从知晓。德维特 DeWette(《Einleitung》III. iii.)认为,除 Psalm 1:1-6 与 Psalm 73 外,这些诗篇归于亚萨名下并不正确,因为在他看来,它们涉及犹太历史较晚的时期:Psalm 74 与 Psalm 79:1-13 涉及圣殿与圣城被毁;Psalm 80 涉及被掳时期等。试参那些诗篇引言的注释(Psalm 74; Psalm 79; Psalm 80)。
(4)有十一篇诗——Psalm 42:1-11; Psalm 44; Psalm 45; Psalm 46:1-11; Psalm 47:1-9; Psalm 48:1-14; Psalm 49; Psalm 84:1-12; Psalm 85:1-13; Psalm 87:1-7; Psalm 88——归于“可拉后裔”,即他们为作者,或是“交与可拉后裔”。试参 Psalm 42:1-11 引言的注释。这些诗究竟是由可拉后裔所作,还是为可拉后裔——即受托管理圣殿音乐的乐师班——而作,并不能确定。然而显然,若意思是指由可拉后裔所作,这并不能提供关于各篇个人作者的信息。由他们中间哪一位所写,还是出于不止一人之手,如此笼统的标题当然无从指明。德维特 DeWette 认为,这些诗篇大多属于被掳时期或更晚。这些诗篇的特色并无十分独特之处;就其本身而言,没有任何东西能使我们断定它们出自标题所归属之人,而非大卫或亚萨的手笔。
(5)有两篇诗——Psalm 88 与 Psalm 89——归于一位被称为“以斯拉人”的人。其中 Psalm 88 归于“以斯拉人”,另一篇 Psalm 89 归于“以斯拉人以探”。前者同时也列入属于可拉后裔的诗篇之中。不过,以探和希幔可能是两个不同的人,“以斯拉人”这名称或因某种缘故分别适用于他们二人。在 1 Kings 4:31,他们与其他人一同被提及为以智慧著称:“因为他(所罗门)比众人更有智慧,胜过以斯拉人以探,并玛曷的儿子希幔、甲各、达大的智慧。”在 1 Chronicles 2:6,他们被称为“谢拉的众子”:“心利、以探、希幔、甲各、大拉。”在 1 Chronicles 6:33,提到一位希幔是“哥辖的子孙”之一:“歌唱的希幔,约珥的儿子。”照样,在 1 Chronicles 15:17,他与以探一同被提及,那里说以探是古沙雅的儿子;在 1 Chronicles 15:19,他与亚萨、以探一同被提及:“这样,派歌唱的希幔、亚萨、以探敲铜钹,大发响声。”在 1 Chronicles 25:1,希幔与耶杜顿一同被提及,列于那些子孙“当弹琴、鼓瑟、敲钹、唱歌(原文作说预言)”的人之中。那里他与亚萨相提并论。试参 2 Chronicles 5:12; 2 Chronicles 29:13-14; 2 Chronicles 35:15。以探被提及两次——1 Kings 4:31 如上所述,称他为智慧人;1 Chronicles 2:6 如上所述。试参 Psalm 88 与 Psalm 89 引言的注释。
(6)有两篇诗——Psalm 72 与 Psalm 127:1-5——归于所罗门,或是“为所罗门”而作。试参这两篇诗标题的注释(Psalm 72; Psalm 127)。这两篇诗究竟是他本人的作品,还是为着他、或论着他而写,无法断然确定。单就 Psalm 72 的内容所能判断的而言,后一种看法似乎更为可能;但也没有任何因素绝对拦阻我们承认这两篇都出自他的手笔。
(7)有十五篇诗——Psalm 120-134——题为“上行之诗”。其中四篇归于大卫,一篇归于所罗门。其余各篇的作者之名未见提及。试参 Psalm 120:1-7 注释的引言。它们被编为一组,与其说是因为这些诗本身有什么特别之处,不如说是因为它们似乎曾在某些特定场合中使用。
(8)七十士译本将一些诗篇归于耶利米、以西结、哈该和撒迦利亚。由于希伯来文标题中没有任何与此对应的内容,这当然只能是臆测或传说。
(9)诗集中还剩下相当多的一部分,其作者之名未被提及;当然,如今也没有办法判定这些诗篇的作者问题。这样的诗篇有 s. 150。可以看到,这些诗篇散布全书,位置并不规则,不过大部分靠近全书末尾。
至于各篇诗篇标题的来源与权威,参见第4节。
第3节 “诗篇搜集本的形成与编排”
犹太《塔木德》(Cod. Berachot, 1, 9)将诗篇集——即《诗篇》一书的汇编——归于大卫。无须赘言,这不可能是正确的见解,因为许多诗篇无疑晚于大卫时代。大多数教父和许多近现代批评家将本书的汇集与编排归于以斯拉,这如今被视为最可能的意见;若果真如此,整部诗集必是在基督之前约450年形成的。然而,尽管这可以视为全书最终定稿的正确看法,诗篇本身却显示,在此之前已有较小的诗集存在,后来的总集正是由它们汇成。这些较小的诗集由何人编成,如今已无从知晓;总集形成时对它们可能做过什么改动,也无法查考。
希伯来文本将本书分为五卷小的书集,其特色相当分明,并且每卷末尾都有标记,使人很有理由认为它们可能曾经以不同书卷的形式“刊行”,或者说后出的各卷是对第一卷诗集或第一册的增补。这一划分也见于七十士译本——这一事实证明它早在主前200年即已存在。这些部分带有印记,表明它们并非总集形成时所作的“任意”分割,而是由不同的人编成的各自独立的诗集。这种归类并不完全精确:在第一部分“大卫的诗篇”(Psalm 1-41)中,并未收入大卫全部的诗篇,还有几篇标题并未归于他;但在当时,它大概已经相当完备,以致就那卷诗集的编纂目的而言,可以恰当地视为“他”的诗篇集。
第一卷包含前41篇诗,大概本身即是大卫诗篇的汇集,尽管它绝未囊括他全部的作品,可能也未囊括编集当时现存的所有诗篇。这卷书的“结尾”以“阿们!阿们!”一语标明(Psalm 41:13)。这卷诗集中,除 Psalm 1:1-6; Psalm 2:1-12; Psalm 10; Psalm 33 外,都明确归于大卫,而且极有可能全部出自他的手笔。在许多手稿、七十士译本和拉丁文武加大译本中,第一篇与第二篇合为一篇(正如总集其他部分中 Psalm 42:1-11 与 Psalm 43:1-5、以及 Psalm 116 与 Psalm 117:1-2 也各自相连一样)。这一诗集的编纂大概相当早,尽管德维特 DeWette 曾力图证明它不可能早于被掳之后,因为他认为 Psalm 14:1-7 与 Psalm 44 是在那事件之后写成的。然而这并无证据。当然,这卷诗集由何人编成,已无从确定。有人推测它早在希西家时代即已编成,或是在他的主持下预备的,因为众所周知,他曾下令搜集所罗门的箴言加以誊录(Proverbs 25:1);又如在 2 Chronicles 29:30,他“吩咐利未人用大卫……的诗词颂赞耶和华”。(基托 Kitto,《Encyclopedia》)
总集中的第二卷包括 Psalm 42-72。这卷诗集由以下部分构成:可拉后裔的诗篇(Psalm 42-49);亚萨的一篇诗篇(Psalm 50);大卫的19篇诗篇;两篇未署作者之名的诗篇;以及一篇题着“所罗门的诗”或“为所罗门”的诗,即 Psalm 72。在这卷诗集的末尾(Psalm 72:20)有如下批注:“耶西的儿子大卫的祈祷完毕。”有人认为这是其前全部诗篇(作为一个书卷或诗集,即 Psalm 1-72)的结尾。卡普佐夫 Carpzov,《导论》ii. 107。但这与前一卷乃是由不同的人编成的不同诗集,这一点似乎显而易见,因为 Psalm 53:1-6 与 Psalm 14:1-7 是同一篇诗,仅有细微出入——出入主要在于后者用 אלהים 'Elohiym 作为神的名,代替了前者中的 יהוה Yahweh。很难想象编者在同一部诗集中,会带着这样一处变异同时收录同一篇诗。同样,Psalm 70:1-5 也只是 Psalm 40:13-17 的重复,仅有类似的改动。
可以“揣测”,这两卷诗集后来可能被“合并”,在更大的总集编成之前即已构成一个整体。这样,这卷诗集自然的“结尾”,正如第一卷(Psalm 41:13)一样,就以“阿们!阿们!”一语结束(Psalm 72:19)。而对“整个”诗集——即合并后的两卷——可能加上了这句话(Psalm 72:20):“耶西的儿子大卫的祈祷完毕”,意思是说,“如今”在大卫诗篇的“两”卷合集中,已经收齐了一套完整的大卫诗篇;或者说,“当时为公众崇拜所拟收录的诗篇,已经收录了所要收的那么多”。这一理解并不排除以下可能:那时可能还有别的大卫诗篇存世,或它们后来被收进“别的”诗集,用于对神的敬拜。
第三卷(Psalm 73-89)部分由亚萨的诗篇组成(Psalm 73-83),部分由可拉后裔的诗篇组成(Psalm 84-89),其中包括大卫的一篇(Psalm 86)。这卷书除了 Psalm 86 以外,不含大卫的任何诗篇;因此在第二卷末尾(Psalm 72:20)才有那样的批注:“耶西的儿子大卫的祈祷完毕。”编纂者在那一卷的“结尾”处显然有意不在下一卷中收入大卫的任何诗篇;或许他的意图是“不再”为公众崇拜的目的搜集大卫的诗篇。也可能,如德维特 DeWette(《Einleitung》第21页)所揣测的,第三卷诗集的编纂者在第二卷末尾放置了大卫诗篇到此为止的批注,因为他有意编成另一种性质的汇集。这卷诗集何时编成,无从知晓。从 Psalm 85:1-13 看,它很可能晚至从巴比伦被掳归回之时才编成。那篇诗可能出自称为可拉后裔的班中某人之手,也可能是为他们在圣所中使用而写的。这卷诗集与前面两卷一样,以意味深长的“阿们!阿们!”结束(Psalm 89:52)。
第四卷(Psalm 90-106)全部由无名的诗篇组成,只有 Psalm 90(归于摩西)以及 Psalm 101:1-8 与 Psalm 103(归于大卫)除外。这些诗篇几乎没有地域性的指涉或暗指,其中大部分几乎可以在任何国家、任何时代写成;其结构与暗指也不显明作者是谁,或促成其写作的环境如何。除了上述三篇之外,它们的作者现已无从查考;而要充分理解并欣赏这些诗篇,也无须先判定这个问题。它们显然是为公众崇拜而设计的,很可能就是抱着被如此使用的意图写成的。这一卷以“阿们!你们要赞美耶和华!”(Amen, Hallelujah)的表述结束(Psalm 106:48)。
第五卷即最后一卷(Psalm 107-150)性质驳杂,似乎意在把那些适合公众崇拜、却未在前几卷诗集中找到位置的零散诗篇统统收集起来。一部分(Psalm 108:1-13; Psalm 109; Psalm 110:1-7; Psalm 122:1-9; Psalm 124:1-8; Psalm 131:1-3; Psalm 133:1-3——末四篇属“上行之诗”——以及 Psalm 138:1-8; Psalm 139; Psalm 140:1-13; Psalm 141:1-10; Psalm 142:1-7; Psalm 143:1-12; Psalm 144:1-15; Psalm 145)归于大卫。一部分(Psalm 120-134)由“上行之诗”构成。其余的(Psalm 107; Psalm 111:1-10; Psalm 112:1-10; Psalm 113:1-9; Psalm 114:1-8; Psalm 115; Psalm 116; Psalm 117:1-2; Psalm 118; Psalm 119; Psalm 135; Psalm 136; Psalm 137:1-9; Psalm 146:1-10; Psalm 147; Psalm 148:1-14; Psalm 149:1-9; Psalm 150:1-6)为无名之作。这最后一卷诗集由何人、于何时编成,无从知晓。不过,大致可以这样推测而不失为合理:它可能是由那位(以斯拉?)着手将已有的各“卷”汇为全书的人所编,他发现许多诗篇未被前几卷的编者收入,于是将所有这些诗篇归为一卷,附加在已经分类编排的诗集之后,构成总集。
第4节 “各篇诗篇的标题”
如今在希伯来文中,除三十四篇外,所有诗篇都有标题或题词。不过也有人只算出25篇例外,因为按他们的看法,若干诗篇开头的“哈利路亚”“你们要赞美耶和华”一语应视为标题或题词。然而更正确的看法无疑正是视那一短语为诗篇正文的一部分。塔木德给这些例外中的每一篇起了“孤儿诗篇”的名字。
(a)这些标题出自何人之手,不得而知,如今也无法查明。它们见于希伯来文本;但就标题中所含诗篇作者之“名”、或就其标明作者的意图而言,不能设想它们是诗篇作者本人加在前面的。诗篇并非书信或史书一类的文字,不能设想作者会在一篇纯粹的诗或颂歌前面署上自己的名字。因此,较可能的是,它们是诗篇进入通用之时、或各卷诗集的编者、或全书的编者所加,或是标明关于作者与写作场合的通行见解,或是关于该作者与宗旨的默示性记录。然而它们由“何人”所加,这一点现已无法确定。倘若能够查明,将大大有助于确定它们的权威与价值;但如今对其价值的评估,只能另辟蹊径。
(b)这些标题具有极高的“古老性”。它们见于希伯来文手稿这一事实证明了这一点,因为没有任何希伯来文手稿——无论多么古老——是缺少它们的。它们也见于七十士译本,只是略有出入;因此可以确定,它们在该译本完成之前即已存在。这一点还有另一事实为证:七十士译本的译者有时用希腊字母照抄希伯来文词,并不试加翻译;另一些时候,他们所用的标题是希伯来文词的译文,表明它们必定译自希伯来文原稿。然而这些事实并不迫使我们设想标题是作者本人所加,也不必设想它们早于诗篇被编成集——无论是各卷诗集还是总集——之前即已附上。
(c)这些标题的“宗旨”或在于标明诗篇的作者,或写作的场合,或该诗所献给的伶长——诗篇似被交托与他,由他为诗篇的公开使用配上恰当的音乐,即为公开用途安排音乐;或在于标明诗歌的体裁、当用的乐器,或当唱的“调子”。有些标题只标明作者,如许多归于大卫名下的诗篇;有些详细描述写作的场合,如 Psalm 18; Psalm 30:1-12; Psalm 51; Psalm 52:1-9; Psalm 56:1-13 等。有些将几项内容合并在一起——作者、场合、诗歌体裁、当用之乐等——如 Psalm 52:1-9; Psalm 53:1-6; Psalm 54:1-7; Psalm 55; Psalm 56:1-13。其中最长最全的是加在 Psalm 60:1-12 前面的标题:那里有献给伶长的题记、作者之名、诗歌的体裁、诗篇的宗旨、当用的乐器,以及写作该诗的历史背景。
(d)时隔久远,如今要解释许多标题的“含义”极其困难,批评家们在这问题上的臆测分歧极大。困难相当程度上源于我们对圣殿音乐及所用乐器的无知。这困难好比两三千年后的人要解释一本如今常见的书——其中含有“曲调”以及对今日公共敬拜神所用乐器的指涉——所会遇到的困难。要确切描述所用乐器的构造,使未来时代的人能明白,也许困难甚至不可能;而要令人满意地解释现今通用的许多“曲调”的“名称”——如“Mear”“Martin's”“Russia”“Windham”“Lenox”——则显然不可能。如上文所言,这一困难早在七十士译本成译之时即已感到,因为那译本的作者在好几个例子中根本未试译标题,而是用与希伯来文相对应的希腊字母加以表达。1535年翻译圣经的科弗代尔 Coverdale 深感此难,以致几乎删除了所有标题,只保留作者之名。在这些注释中,凡如今能给出令人满意或可信之解释的,都将在个别诗篇的释义中提出。
(e)关于这些标题的“权威”,历来意见分歧极大。不少现代批评家——尤其是德国批评家——认为它们毫无权威,在讨论诗篇的作者、写作时代与场合时,仿佛希伯来文本中根本不存在这些标题。大多数古代批评家则视之为真实可靠,与诗篇本身具有同等权威。第四世纪末,摩普绥提亚的狄奥多若 Theodore of Mopsuestia——古代释经家中最能干、最审慎的一位——曾全盘拒绝它们。罗森米勒 Rosenmuller,《圣经解释史》(Hist. Interp. Librorum Sacrorum),P. III, p. 256。托鲁克 Tholuck 与亨斯滕伯格 Hengstenberg 则承认其权威。反对标题权威的“理由”大致如下:
(1)新约书信末尾的“附记”如今被视为没有史料价值;有人问,对于诗篇前面所加的“标题”,为何不可采取同样的结论?
(2)古代译本——尤其是叙利亚文译本与希腊文译本——呈现这些标题时出入极大,常改动希伯来文本,有时在希伯来文本没有标题的地方加上标题。有人问,若这些标题被视为与诗篇本身同样神圣,那些古代译者岂会如此随意?(基托 Kitto)——关于这一点,还补充说:“即便以斯拉曾把它们确定下来,此后诸译本与手稿中的种种变异,也已使它们变得可疑。”艾希霍恩 Eichhorn,《Einleitung》III, p. 490。
(3)有人辩称,标题与诗篇的内容相抵触。例如有人指控,作者之名有时标注错误,“如大卫之名被冠于涉及被掳时期的诗篇之上”,如 Psalm 14:1-7; Psalm 25; Psalm 51; Psalm 69。又有人称 Psalm 139 不可能是大卫的作品,因为其中不乏亚兰语风。还有人说,诗篇写作的场合有时标得不准确,如 Psalm 30:1-12。
然而应当注意,这些学者有时是先假设某篇诗指向被掳时期,而其实该诗按更早的写作时间并非不能解释;而且,以诗篇的内在证据来反驳题词,并不总是稳妥的。批评家把自己的解释强加于诗篇,再以之为据论其来源;而往往——可能在一切实例中都是如此——若假设题词正确,按公正的解经规则,并不难按这一假设解释该篇诗。
总而言之,在我看来,这些题词应被视为默示记录的一部分,具有默示的权威。它们见于希伯来文本——可以追溯到我们对希伯来文本稍有认识的最早时期——并随那文本流传到我们手中——这些事实所提供的证据,如今似乎是我们无法撇开的:它们当被视为文本的一部分,不应摒弃,除非希伯来文本的任何其他部分可被摒弃,也就是说,只有当能够证明抄写者的过失已使错误混入文本时,方可摒弃。
第5节 “诗篇的总体特色”
诗篇大部分是抒情诗,即适配于竖琴或里拉琴的诗;用于与器乐配合;要被“唱”而非“读”。这样的诗在古人中很常见,在今人中亦然。阿那克里翁 Anacreon、阿尔凯乌斯 Alcaeus、斯特西科罗斯 Stesichorus、萨福 Sappho 和贺拉斯 Horace 是古人中杰出的“抒情”诗人;今人中许多“歌”的作者——无论圣诗还是俗歌——也属同类。不过,“抒情诗”一语如今常指那种“直接表达诗人个人情感”的诗体(韦氏词典 Webster)。
抒情诗大部分是深沉情感的表达,以情感为本。它与其说是理智的果实,不如说是心灵的果实;与其说是想象的创造,不如说是深沉个人情感的流露。按其宗旨与性质,它涵盖各样的情感,或喜悦、或沉思、或消沉、或昂扬,随作者的心情或当时的场合而定——因为这一切心声都可以被歌唱,都可以配乐,音乐多变的音调正适于表达它们。因此,在一百五十篇、出自相当多不同作者、写于许多不同场合的诗篇中,我们看到忧患、痛苦、恐惧、盼望、喜乐、信靠、感恩、对神的虔诚、为罪的痛悔,以及蒙赦免之喜乐等各样情感——心灵受感,在适配里拉旋律或人声音调的言辞中,为它的情感找到出口。这些情感以多种多样的方式或形式表达,音乐无疑也当与这些变化的情感相配。因此,诗篇包含以下各类或各体的作品:
(1)以赞美神为主要与主导目的的颂赞诗,如:
(a)一般而言,神作为自然与人类之神受赞美,Psalm 8:1-9; Psalm 104; Psalm 145;
(b)作为自然与希伯来民族之神,Psalm 19:1-14; Psalm 29:1-11; Psalm 33; Psalm 65:1-13; Psalm 93:1-5; Psalm 135; Psalm 136; Psalm 147;
(c)作为希伯来民族独有的神,Psalm 47:1-9; Psalm 66; Psalm 67:1-7; Psalm 75:1-10;
(d)作为他子民的救助者与拯救者,Psalm 46:1-11; Psalm 48:1-14; Psalm 75:1-10; Psalm 76:1-12; Psalm 18; Psalm 30:1-12; Psalm 138:1-8。
(2)关于希伯来民族的诗篇:论其历史、神为其所做的介入、它与耶和华的关系。Psalm 78; Psalm 105; Psalm 106; Psalm 114:1-8。
(3)圣殿诗篇,或锡安之歌:Psalm 5:1-12; Psalm 15:1-5; Psalm 24:1-10; Psalm 87:1-7; Psalm 132。
(4)论及试炼、灾祸、困苦的诗篇,无论关乎个人还是民族。这类诗篇比比皆是,如 Psalm 7; Psalm 22; Psalm 55; Psalm 56:1-13; Psalm 109; Psalm 44; Psalm 74; Psalm 79:1-13; Psalm 80; Psalm 137:1-9; Psalm 69; Psalm 77; Psalm 102; Psalm 10; Psalm 12:1-8; Psalm 14:1-7; Psalm 36:1-12,以及其他许多。
(5)宗教与道德诗篇:Psalm 90; Psalm 139; Psalm 23:1-6; Psalm 91; Psalm 121:1-8; Psalm 127:1-5; Psalm 128:1-6; Psalm 42:1-11; Psalm 43:1-5; Psalm 101:1-8; Psalm 131:1-3; Psalm 1:1-6; Psalm 133:1-3; Psalm 119。希伯来抒情诗与其他古代民族抒情诗判然有别、也与近代大部分抒情诗有别的独特之处,在于它的“宗教性”。它是关乎宗教主题的抒情诗,或用于宗教:抒发宗教情感,并旨在唤起和培养这样的情感。它意在使人心与情感上升趋向神;使人的思想超越尘世;激起对神的信靠;在患难之中使人从神得着安慰;使人在忧患之旅途中、在行往更美住处的路上得着鼓舞与安慰。其中大部分最好用圣经本身的一个说法来形容——这说法既真实又优美,无与伦比——即“夜间歌唱”(Job 35:10):表明人在忧苦之中心灵里所能涌起的喜乐;表明在这世界的黑暗中“确实有”喜乐;说明宗教的能力与价值;是人奔向坟墓途中鼓舞自己、彼此鼓舞的歌;甚至是罪人从被软化成痛悔、并因蒙赦免的确据而满心感恩的心中所倾出的歌。
最令人惊叹的是,这样丰美的诗歌竟在巴勒斯坦发源,又仅限于那一地。这并非因为那片土地比别处更宜于抒情诗——就这方面而言,它无法与许多国家相比,尤其不能与希腊相比。也不是因为他们历史中的事件特别启发这类作品——因为适配里拉或音乐的诗在别处也比比皆是,在希腊尤然。也不是因为希伯来人比别的民族更富于诗的想象——在这方面,他们的天资并不超过希腊的天才,他们心性中无论有多少诗意的想象,在阿拉伯和波斯也同样丰盈。也不是因为他们的语言特别有利于这类诗歌——在许多方面,它在这方面远逊于希腊文,也肯定不优于阿拉伯文和波斯文。
他们的诗歌竟取了这样的方向;他们所有的竟全是宗教的;他们的语言中竟完全没有为舞蹈、宴乐、酒神狂欢、轻浮虚华之场而作、而适配的诗;希伯来人的全部抒情诗中,在这一方面竟没有任何东西可以与希腊抒情诗的许多内容、与贺拉斯 Horace 的许多作品、与彭斯 Burns 的许多作品、与巴勒斯坦以外各国的抒情诗相提并论——这一切只能追溯到这一观念:这新的宗教在那地得势;其最好的解释只能是:那些诗歌的作者受了默示,要预备并将那在一切时代都能表达真虔诚情感、并可供永久赞美神之用的作品传于后世。若不承认这些“甜美的歌唱者”曾受圣灵默示,便无法解释这样的诗何以独见于巴勒斯坦,也无法领会其真正的性质。
关于希伯来诗歌的总体特色,参见《约伯记》注释引言的第5节。至于“希伯来人抒情诗的起源与培养”,此处宜引述德维特 DeWette《Commentar ueber die Psalmen》《导论》(Einleitung)II,第6-12页中的以下论述。我转录自约翰·托里教授(Prof. John Torrey)所译德维特导论的雅致译文,载《Biblical Repository》第III卷,第450-456页:
“我们若循诗篇的标题与通行的见解,就必须把希伯来人的抒情诗、连同诗篇本身的绝大部分,视为大卫及其同时代人的作品。大卫以前所能见到的抒情作品寥寥无几,与他本人在世的丰产相比不足挂齿。在较早的历史中,诗的声音只是偶一可闻,如摩西在红海边的歌、底波拉的歌和哈拿的歌。在如此少量的抒情尝试之后,竟有这样一位炉火纯青、多产的诗人和其他几位与他相伴之人骤然兴起,实在令人惊讶。如此急速的进步,必以某种充分的动因、某种预备的步骤为前提。如今,我们若纵目大卫之前不久的时代历史,便有一个现象呈现在眼前,它似乎能解释这难题。
“这就是撒母耳的先知学校。许多人,如赫尔德 Herder、艾希霍恩 Eichhorn、纳赫蒂加尔 Nachtigall 和罗森米勒 Rosenmuller,认为诗篇的写作乃在这所学堂中得到培养并臻于完善。这臆说看似有理,其实很难与史实相合。经文并未暗示大卫在受膏之前与撒母耳有任何往来。前者本是牧放父亲羊群的人。撒母耳前来膏他的时候,显然还不认识大卫(1 Samuel 16:6 ff.)。然而大卫那时已是熟练的琴师,且以技艺闻名(1 Samuel 16:18);因此他并非撒母耳的门徒,至少在琴艺上不是。但众所周知,那个时代的音乐与歌唱并未分家;所以我们必得认为,大卫当时已是诗人,并且作为诗人为人所知、所称誉。诚然,一段时间之后,我们发现大卫身在撒母耳的先知学校中,但那只是他逃避扫罗的时候(1 Samuel 19:18 ff.)。
“撒母耳在大卫受膏之前或与他有些交往,也未可知,虽然那段记事(1 Samuel 16)并未提及。不过,这少年纵然曾引起那先知的注意,也未必正式做过他的门徒;或者,这少年乃是自学成才。天赋的才能,加上经常的练习,所达到的造诣至少不会逊于我们所设想盛行于先知学校中那种人为传授的体系。同时,若以为希伯来人的抒情诗如平地突起一般骤然产生,那也是一种错误。大卫的同时代人——那些以歌唱欢呼庆祝他战胜歌利亚的妇女——所操的也是一种诗,虽粗拙未经雕琢,在其种类上却真正属于抒情;她们的短诗已具诗体平行句的形式,而一个原本卓越的头脑,从这样的起点前进到最高的造诣,本非难事。
扫罗杀死千千,
大卫杀死万万,
“此外,在摩西、底波拉和哈拿的例子之外,我们发现更早的时候,尤其在妇女中间,已有音乐与舞蹈的风习,歌唱肯定也不例外。耶弗他的女儿拿着鼓、跳舞出来迎接她的父亲(Judges 11:34)。在示罗,少女们年年上来守节舞蹈(Judges 21:21)。参孙是否为乐师,亦可存疑,因他被召出来在非利士人面前“戏耍”(Judges 16:25),此语通常理解为指跳舞,但并不排除歌唱与器乐的配合。然而,即便严格说来他不是乐师和歌手,我们在他身上也见到第一位“玛沙尔”(Mashal)体诗人,同一时代还有约坦那篇精妙的寓言。这类事实虽然零散,却表明这个民族已具有相当高的文化程度,或至少具有相当的诗才。
“的确,仅底波拉之歌一篇便足以证明,诗艺在当时已进步到足以说明大卫诗由来的阶段。一个时代产出的是一篇杰作还是多篇杰作,与其说是文化状态的结果,不如说是机缘使然。况且,士师时代与撒母耳时代构成了希伯来人的英雄时代,一个特别有利于诗歌发端并渐进改良的时期。“这样的时代,”艾希霍恩 Eichhorn 说,“无论处于何种气候之下都是诗性的;”但我不能附和他接下去的话:“在这种情形下,诗也像民族本身一样,粗犷而英雄,只在战争的号角中呼吸,除了勇武与胜利及其随行的一幕幕之外,别无用武之地。”最初唤起希伯来诗人的场合,大概确与战争有关;但诗一旦萌生,便不自限于如此狭窄的范围,而将别的对象也纳入自己的园地。与祝捷的宴会、献祭、舞蹈及其他礼仪相伴的种种,很容易使歌调转为较为柔和的音调。战歌也容得下较为温柔的情感,底波拉之歌便富于动人情感的笔触。说他们向号角歌唱,当然不能按字面理解;琴、笛与鼓的音乐即便对战歌也是伴奏,而这些乐器正适于最柔和的音调。因此,我们不必把大卫诗篇中那些甜美动人诗歌的起源,单单追溯到撒母耳的先知学校。
“可惜我们对撒母耳的先知学校所知太少,无从确定它对诗歌的培养有过什么影响。与此相关的经文是 1 Samuel 10:5 与 1 Samuel 19:19-20。在前一处,无疑可以推知先知的门徒中间有音乐;他们的“受感说话”(התנבא hitenabē')被理解作歌唱之意,并非没有根据,因为 נביא nâbı̂y' 一词有时指诗人(Exodus 15:20),נבא nibâ' 有时指歌唱(1 Chronicles 25:1 ff.)。不过我们可以设想,这音乐只是用来扶持并伴随预言的传讲。先知们传讲信息,至少在较早的时代,大概是伴随音乐和一种接近舞蹈的热烈动作与朗诵的。2 Kings 3:15 ff. 一段值得注意:先知以利沙即将宣告耶和华对约沙法某些询问的答复;但他先叫人找一个弹琴的来;弹琴的时候,“耶和华的手就降在他身上”,他才说出答复。
“此例当然有所不同:先知并不亲自弹琴歌唱,而是听任他人演奏;但它仍表明音乐与先知职分恒常相连。上述经文也未明言先知的班众自己“歌唱”。那里所用的 התנבא hitenabē' 一词,或许并不指“歌唱”,因为扫罗和扫罗的使者一听见音乐就受感说话——התנבאוּ hitenabe'û——毫无预备或练习。他们的受感说话也许不过是热烈的动作、舞蹈与手势,正如扫罗赤身倒卧一事所示。至多,他们或曾加入先知班众的合唱。这样的合唱或曾在撒母耳的学校中唱诵,但只为虔诚与感发之用;而这所学校的正当宗旨,乃是训练青年担任先知职分,即在神权政体之下,从耶和华向百姓施教。
“撒母耳是先知,而历史没有保存他任何诗作的遗迹。他所要施于门徒的,大概也是先知之职的训练,岂非最有可能?诚然,希伯来人并未在抒情诗与先知讲论之间划定精确的界限;然而二者毕竟有别,尤其在传达的方式上,因为抒情诗大概是被人歌唱的,而先知的信息只是诵读。这样,倘若撒母耳所从事的,是把门徒培养成先知诗人或先知演说家,那么设想其中有些人因天资与性之所近而被引向抒情诗,并在此中臻于完善,岂非再自然不过?但这本在先知学校的计划之外,乃是相当偶然的事。因此,把撒母耳的先知学校径直视为一所以培养歌唱与诗歌为宗旨的机构,恐怕并不正确。
“还有一些制度,对抒情诗——尤其宗教抒情诗——的培养,其影响可能比这先知学校更重要、更显著。我特别指那些音乐学校,据记载(1 Chronicles 15:16 ff.),它们是大卫设立以辅助公众崇拜的。然而,我对《历代志》中这些及类似记事曾下的不利评判,不能收回;反而必须加以确认。除了我在那里提出的理由(此处不再重复)之外,在我看来有一情形尤其足以引起怀疑:《历代志》所载会幕奉献礼等场合所唱的诗篇及诗篇片段,几乎不可能是大卫所写,而更属于后来较不纯正的圣殿诗风。1 Chronicles 16:8 ff. 所唱的那篇诗由 Psalm 105 与 Psalm 96:1-13 组成;而这两篇都是较晚风格的作品。《历代志》若在这场合向我们呈现一首真正的大卫之歌——例如我们借 2 Samuel 1 所得的那首哀歌——那将大大增加其叙述的分量;但这些片段的插入,却使整个伴随的叙述蒙上疑云。1 Chronicles 16:41 等处所引、论到蒙派称谢耶和华之利未人的那句话——“因他的慈爱永远长存”——也显出后期圣殿诗的痕迹,Psalm 136 即是一例,这句话在其中构成固定的副歌;此外,这句话出现于其中的 Psalm 106; Psalm 107; Psalm 118,看来也属于较晚的诗风。
“我们可以设想,像大卫这样的大师,在诗艺上不会没有同伴与助手;事实上,大卫的几位同时代人见于诗篇的标题,被称为诗篇的作者:但这些记载并非总是可靠的凭据。据历史的见证,所罗门集抒情创作之丰沛与他独有的格言风格于一身,以至在他那个时代,抒情诗必已达到极高的造诣。“所罗门作箴言三千句,诗歌一千零五首”(1 Kings 4:32)。然而,除两篇颇不确定的诗外,我们现在的诗集中没有保存任何所罗门的诗篇;所罗门以后的时代,我们也找不到一篇署名的诗篇,甚至没有一篇能确定而必然地指涉那段历史中的任何特定事件;然而,希西家的诗与哈巴谷的诗明明表明,这段时期抒情创作的培养绝非已被荒废。
“反之,我们有许多诗篇,按健全批判释经几乎公认的结果,必须置于被掳之时与被掳之后;而这些诗篇就语言的纯净、构思的崇高、优美与清新而言,均属最高一类,绝不逊于大卫及其同时代人的作品,例如 Psalm 45; Psalm 74; Psalm 79:1-13; Psalm 107,以及上行之诗的许多篇——若非全部。于是我们在这里遇到一个奇特的现象。希伯来人的抒情诗在大卫时代得到培养并臻于完善,在大量结果之后,陷入将近五百年的沉寂,然后在国家最灾难深重的时期骤然复兴,再历一个黄金时代,结出第二批收成——这现象很难与事物的常轨相合。然而,只要设想诗篇集中含有若干属于大卫至被掳之间的匿名或误署之作,这奇特之处便涣然冰释。事实上,极其可能的是:抒情创作与先知诗歌并行繁荣,许多先知本人也对我们现今的诗集有所贡献,并可以到大卫等人那里认领自己的作品。七十士译本也确实点名了几位先知为诗篇的作者。”
第6节 “诗篇中的咒诅”
关于诗篇中的咒诅——或所谓“咒诅诗”——已有多人着文讨论;圣经中或许没有别的部分比这更使读者困惑伤痛;或许也没有什么比这些诗篇有时似乎流露的报复之气、比作者似乎表现的挟恨不肯和解之心,更能构成一种貌似有理的反对理由,否定诗篇乃受默示之人所写。为纾解这样的困惑,大概还没有哪一个解释真正奏效;对于这种心气如何与新约的教训、与真宗教的要求相调和的问题,也还没有一个完全令人满意的解答。试图掩饰或遮盖这难题是无益的;而且可以承认,大多数已有的解释仍使难题原封未动。或许我们根本无法除去这一切难题,也无法把这主题陈述得使人提不出任何无法回答的问题——何况,在精神哲学、自然科学、道德或神学中,又有哪个主题能使人提不出人类能力尚不能回答的问题呢?即如一根草叶的生长,也可以提出任何化学家——任何人——都答不出的问题。
关于诗篇中的咒诅,首先宜举出这类诗篇的一些实例,使我们知道难处何在;然后再思考这难处若可化解,当如何化解。
以下经文属于可列为这一类的诗篇。它们固然不是可以选出的全部,却是恰当的样本;凡在这些经文中找不到的其他经文,也不涉及任何别的难题。
Psalm 5:10,“神啊,求你定他们的罪!愿他们因自己的计谋跌倒;愿你在他们许多的过犯中把他们逐出,因为他们背叛了你。”
Psalm 10:15,“愿你打断恶人的膀臂;至于坏人,愿你追究他的恶,直到净尽。”
Psalm 18:40-42,“你又使我的仇敌在我面前转背逃跑,叫我能以剪除那恨我的人。他们呼求,却无人拯救;就是呼求耶和华,他也不应允。我捣碎他们,如同风前的灰尘,倒出他们,如同街上的泥土。”
Psalm 28:4,“愿你按他们所做的,并他们所行的恶事待他们。愿你照他们手所做的待他们,将他们所应得的报应加给他们。”
Psalm 31:17,“耶和华啊,求你叫我不至羞愧,因为我曾呼吁你;求你使恶人羞愧,使他们在阴间缄默无声。”
Psalm 35:3-8,“抽出枪来,挡住那追赶我的;求你对我的灵魂说:我是拯救你的。愿那寻索我命的,蒙羞受辱;愿那谋害我的,退后羞愧。愿他们像风前的糠,有耶和华的使者赶逐他们。愿他们的道路又暗又滑,有耶和华的使者追赶他们。因他们无故地为我暗设网罗,无故地挖坑,要害我的性命。愿灾祸忽然临到他身上!愿他暗设的网缠住自己!愿他落在其中遭灾祸!”
Psalm 40:14,“愿那些寻找我、要灭我命的,一同抱愧蒙羞!愿那喜悦我受害的,退后受辱!”
Psalm 55:9,“主啊,求你吞灭他们,变乱他们的舌头!因为我在城中见了强暴争竞的事。”
Psalm 55:15,“愿死亡忽然临到他们!愿他们活活地(quick,即“活着、尚存”)下入阴间!因为他们的住处、他们的心中都是邪恶。”
Psalm 58:6-10,“神啊,求你敲碎他们口中的牙!耶和华啊,求你敲掉少壮狮子的大牙!愿他们消灭如急流的水一般;他们瞅准射箭的时候,箭头仿佛砍断。愿他们像蜗牛消化过去,又像妇人坠落未见天日的胎。你们用荆棘烧火,锅还未热,他要用旋风把青的和烧着的一齐刮去。义人见仇敌遭报就欢喜,要在恶人的血中洗脚。”
Psalm 59:12-15,“因他们口中的罪和嘴里的言语,并咒骂虚谎的话,愿他们在骄傲之中被缠住。求你发怒,使他们消灭,以至归于无有,叫他们知道神在雅各中间掌权,直到地极。到了晚上,任凭他们转回;任凭他们叫号如狗,围城绕行。他们必走来走去,寻找食物,若不得饱就终夜在外。”
Psalm 68:2,“他们被驱逐,如烟被风吹散;恶人见神之面而消灭,如蜡被火熔化。”
Psalm 69:22-25,“愿他们的筵席在他们面前变为网罗,在他们平安的时候变为机槛。愿他们的眼睛昏蒙,不得看见;愿你使他们的腰常常战抖。求你将你的恼恨倒在他们身上,叫你的烈怒追上他们。愿他们的住处变为荒场;愿他们的帐棚无人居住。”
Psalm 79:12,“主啊,愿你将我们邻邦所羞辱你的羞辱,加七倍归到他们怀里。”
Psalm 83:9-17,“求你待他们如待米甸,如在基顺河待西西拉和耶宾。他们在隐多珥灭亡,成了地上的粪土。求你叫他们的首领像俄立和西伊伯,叫他们的王子都像西巴和撒慕拿。……我的神啊,求你叫他们像旋风的尘土,像风前的碎秸。火怎样焚烧树林,火焰怎样烧灭山岭,求你也照样用狂风追赶他们,用暴雨恐吓他们。愿你使他们满面羞耻,好叫他们寻求你耶和华的名。愿他们永远羞愧惊惶!愿他们惭愧灭亡!”
Psalm 109:6-15,“愿你派恶人辖制他,派撒但站在他右边。他受审判的时候,愿他出来担当罪名,愿他的祈祷反成为罪。愿他的年日短少,愿别人得他的职分。愿他的儿女为孤儿,他的妻子为寡妇。愿他的儿女漂流讨饭,从他们荒凉之处出来求食。愿强暴的债主牢笼他一切所有的,愿外人抢他劳碌得来的。愿无人向他延绵施恩,愿无人可怜他的孤儿。愿他的后人断绝,名字被涂抹,不传于下代。愿他祖宗的罪孽被耶和华记念,愿他母亲的罪过不在耶和华面前涂抹。愿这些罪常在耶和华面前,使他的名号断绝于世。”
Psalm 137:7-9,“耶路撒冷遭难的日子,以东人说:拆毁,拆毁,直拆到根基。耶和华啊,求你记念这仇。将要被灭的巴比伦城啊(“城”原文作“女子”),报复你像你待我们的,那人便为有福。拿你的婴孩摔在磐石上的,那人便为有福。”
以上便是现在所讨论的这类诗篇的样本;数目固然还可以再增加一些,但这些例子已包括最难解释的各篇,涵盖了这类诗篇中的一切难题。再举不出别的诗篇比这些更流露报复之气;也举不出别的比这些更与新约的精神相悖。因此,若对这几段能提出令人满意的解答,就不难把这种解答的原则应用于诗篇中一切类似的经文。
于是问题便来了:这难处若可化解,究竟当如何化解,或能提出什么解释。
关于此题,可作以下数点评论:
(1)这里存在的任何难处,都是圣经自身造成的。这记录是圣洁作者们自己写下的。这一事实至少证明他们的坦率,也证明他们自觉这记录中“没有”任何不是植根于真实、不是确实发生的事;也就是说,这些情感确实存在于他们心中。不能假装说,作者们沉溺于他们不愿记录、羞于启齿的情感。事实上,他们竭尽所能的方法使这些情感为人所知,并使这记录流传后世。他们不仅记录下来——以永久的形式写下——而且将之纳入诗体,用于对神的公开敬拜,传于后代,引领遥远时代之人的灵修。再者,圣经中若有对这种心气的谴责——这种心气若有任何不对之处——我们当记得,谴责恰恰见于这些话出现的那卷书中;因为在这里当这样假定:就这些话作为圣经——作为自称的启示——的一部分所受的反对而言,“圣经是一本书”;旧约与新约乃是同一位神启示的两部分。圣经既作出这样的记录,至少当被容许为一本坦率的书——一本无意隐瞒作者心中实际经过之事的书。可以推想,作出这记录总有某种理由,而这理由并不与启示的宗旨相悖;并且也当假定,这些事必能得到一种解释,与圣经是神之启示的主张相合。
(2)被指控为错误、苛刻、报复的言辞中,有多少可以归因于圣经写成之时、这些人生活时代的风气,这是一个可以公平探讨的问题。这样说,并不是假定道德与宗教的原则随时代改变,或随人的环境而更改,也不是假定同一件事在一个时代或一个国家是道德上对的,在另一个时代或国家却是道德上错的。真理与圣洁、对与错并不改变,也不系于人类的反复无常或风俗习惯。然而,要确切知道当时“所指为何”、言语表达了多少分量、所用的言语所要传达的准确意思是什么,我们必须设身处地,明了使用那种言语的百姓其时流行的风俗与习惯。我们读荷马 Homer、读骑士游侠传奇的记载、或力图了解任何民族早期历史的诗歌时,都会有意识或无意识地应用这些原则。
盟约派信徒或清教徒所用的语言,其内心情感未必多于我们今日用较温和的言语所表达的;未受教育者与平民所用的粗粝之词,其情感也未尝异于以圆滑声调、上流社会文雅辞令表达的思想。绸缎之下可能正与兽皮之下一样多苦毒之情;宫殿之中可能一如棚屋之内。生活在世界较早时代的人,所用的语言在我们看来虽然常显得如此苛刻、如此报复、如此野蛮,但他们真正所要表达的,未必多于我们用今日自认为文明与基督教所要求的温和语调所表达的。至少可以设想:后世的人在我们的文献与风俗记载中,也会发现同样多的事,与他们关于文雅、文明与纯正宗教之精神的观念难以调和,正如我们在苏格兰与英格兰的盟约派信徒和清教徒的语言中,或在大卫时代诗篇的语言中所认识到的一样。先确切弄清他们的本意,并确切弄清我们自己的心气究竟比他们的好在何处,再去定罪他们不迟。
(3)这些经文中有一部分无疑可视为预言性的;表达的是将要成就的事,而非表明诗篇作者愿这些事发生的任何心愿。有些经文可以按将来时而非祈使语气翻译,而不违背希伯来文的文法规则或正当的解经原则。有几句这类可以恰当地应用于弥赛亚的经文,无疑正属这种性质;凡语言规则容许如此解释的经文,都当解释为表达罪人所当受的、将要临到他们身上的事,而非表明作者愿其如此。
然而必须承认,这一考量绝不能除去一切难题,实际上甚至没有减轻它。凡熟悉希伯来文的人都不能断言,这一解答可以应用于存在难题的一切案例;对于那些不能归入此规的案例,仍需要别的解释。在一本自称受默示的书里,只要有一段这样的经文,其反对的效果便与有许多段一样大。根本的难题在于:如何使它与默示的主张本身相调和。
再者,应当承认,对其中最难懂的几段,这解释是不能成立的。没有人能证明它们全是对将来的纯粹预言;没有人能证明这些经文所隐含的一切,只是对罪所当受的、对犯法者所当施行之刑罚的一种陈述。毫无疑问,在许多情形中,其中有情感的表达——愿望——心愿;所用的语言意味着,若所求的灾祸临到作者仇敌的身上,若惩罚加于恶人的身上,便会有快意——满足——愉悦;其中有真祷告性质的东西,求这些灾祸临到,求恶人被查出、被拘捕、受惩罚。凭任何诚实的解经原则,我们都无法回避这一承认;反对者有权利问:这种心气如何得以辩护?如何与基督教的精神相调和?如何显明与诗篇乃圣灵所默示的信仰相容?这是一个可以公平提出的问题,凡相信圣经默示的人,都应当承担回答之责。
(4)前面提到的某些表达,只是对他人情感的记录;记录他们在看到复仇临到罪人身上时——即便那复仇以最野蛮残暴的方式施行——所会感到的快意。在这样的情形下,受默示的作者或默示的圣灵所须负责的,只是记录的公正,即他是否准确陈述了那些施行报复之人的情感,或那些目睹报复而引以为快之人的情感。一个人可以描述美洲野人剥取头皮、以酷刑慢慢残杀妇孺的行为,或食人者的行为,而无需为野人这样做时的任何情感负责;史家固然也无需为一个暴君压迫臣民时的一切野蛮快意负责,无需为人怀着狂怒与仇恨追逐逃亡受害者之事负责。受默示的作者们记录雅各众子的残忍(Genesis 34:25-29; Genesis 49:6-7),或记录大卫把拉巴的居民带出来、“放在锯下,或铁耙下,或铁斧下,或叫他经过砖窑”的行为(2 Samuel 12:31),或记录约押、亚希多弗、押沙龙、尼布甲尼撒、亚哈或耶洗别的行为时,不能要他们为那些人所表现的情感、所行的行为负责,也不能因他们作了记录,就推论他们赞同那些事。作者们所须负责的,只是记录的正确。
这类情形的一个实例见于 Psalm 137:8-9:“将要被灭的巴比伦城啊(‘城’原文作‘女子’),报复你像你待我们的,那人便为有福。拿你的婴孩摔在磐石上的,那人便为有福。”我们完全可以把这看作对实际情感的陈述——对那些将要向巴比伦施报复的人实际会感到的快乐、所会有的满足的陈述。这意思可以是——而且从一切迹象看,事实正是如此——巴比伦的骄傲狂妄、她对别国民众所行的种种不义、她种种残暴压迫的行为如此严重,以致那些征服、制伏并毁灭她的人,会在把当受的惩罚加于她身上时自觉快意与愉悦,即便以世人通常视为野蛮的形式施行。这里没有任何东西必然意味着诗篇的作者会赞同这事,或他自己会亲手去行。即便假定这是希伯来民众对一个长期苦害通国之仇敌遭毁灭的普遍心情,它仍可以只是对这心情的事实记录,而默示的圣灵所负责的,只是对实际会存在的情感作出公正的陈述。
以上所指出的方法之一,可以完全除去所谓“咒诅诗”中一部分的难题。然而这些解答不能应用于全部;若还有若干篇——无论数目多小——若还有任何一篇不能应用这些解答,就必须承认实际的难题依然存在,因为诗篇当被视为构成一卷书;按其受默示这一观念所自然含有的意思,它们只有一位作者——圣灵;而且,凡视圣经为受默示之书的人都必须持守一个原则:一段经文的正当解释足以确立任何教义的真确性;照样,也必须承认:对单独一段经文之有据的反对,只要解释正当,其对默示问题的真实影响,正如有许多段此类经文一样。因此,要除去这案例中真正的难题,还必须另寻解答。
(5)因此,关于这些段落中被视为呼求复仇或惩罚恶人的祷告,还可提出第五点评论。真正的问题是:这样的祷告——这样的咒诅——在何种情形下可以是正当的;而若曾有正当的可能,诗篇中的情形是否属于使之正当的情形。
要对此有公正的认识,当作以下几点评论。
(a)大卫是执法者,是君王。他奉神的设立,是这民族的行政与军事统治者。他的权柄并非僭越而得;他的行为也不仅是一个私人——一个个人蒙冤受损之人——的行为。作为君王、作为执法者,他受命维持秩序、维护法律、施行公义、查出、控告并惩罚罪人。作为执法者,他代表国家、代表法律的尊严、代表公义的利益。作为执法者,一桩行为的施行、一项过犯的犯下、社区中一桩罪案,并不是对他个人——对某个个体——而发,而是对那受命治理国家、护卫国家的人而发。没有人能否认,大卫对国家负有这一关系,而且维护与施行法律的职责至高无上地系于他身上。况且,就一切迹象看,这里的评论同样适用于诗篇中出现“咒诅”的每一个案例。于是问题是:在受命制定并执行一国之法律者的职分与职能中,是否有什么东西使这样的咒诅成为正当。
(b)惩罚是正当的。法律附加刑罚并非不对;法律的刑罚被执行并非不对;痛苦、褫夺公职、监禁、乃至生命的丧失随着罪行的施行而施行,并非不对。一切法律都如此裁定;一切国家都如此判断。这里应当注意,这并非出于任意,也不是个人或地方情感的事。它深植于我们的本性之中。它见于一切国家。它在一切人中间被实行。“我们的本性中有某种东西——无论我们如何解释——在惩罚被恰当地执行时予以认可;在为罪行规定刑罚时予以认可。”若这是错的,那是我们本性中的错;是普遍的错;是已进入一切法律制定中的错——因为一切法律都有刑罚。没有刑罚的法律不过是嘲弄与闹剧。当人按公正的法律判决被罚款、监禁、处决时,我们予以认可。我们觉得这是当作的事,在这情感中我们自觉无错。我们自觉,认可定罪人为有罪之判决的心,与认可开无罪之人为无罪之判决的心,同样无可指摘。这情感的根基立于人性本身之中,因此它不可能是恶的。没有人当他这样发现自己认可一条公正的法律判决时,会觉得应受责备;也没有人会觉得,他本性中的这一原则应当抵拒或颠覆,仿佛他若怀着相反的情感,便会成为更好的人。
(c)按照这一原则,每个社会都有查出并惩罚罪行的制度。有界定罪行、指明其当受刑罚的法律;有逮捕罪人、将其解送受审的安排;有预期将有人须受惩罚而建造的监狱。有专为审判违法者而设立的法院;有法律为不同等级罪行所定的刑罚;有律书所载逮捕、起诉、羁押、提审、裁断被控违法者的程序。有一类人以查出并逮捕违法者为业;有一类人以审判他们为业;有一类人以对其实施惩罚为业。因此,我们有侦缉警察——以查出违法者为业的人;我们有一大批警员、陪审员与法官;我们有司法官、狱卒与行刑者。这些制度在我们的世界中是必需的。社会离了它们便无法运转。没有它们,任何社区都不得安全。没有它们,没有人会觉得自己的生命、财产、家庭是安稳的。它们进入地上现存社会的基本结构之中;若把它们废去,世界很快就会充满混乱、流血与罪恶。
(d)这些是合法、正当而体面的职业。侦缉官、警员、司法官、陪审员、法官的职务,与农夫、铁匠、学校教师、医生、传道人的职务同样合法。没有人比法院的法官——即便是刑事法庭的法官——居于更体面的位置;没有人为国家提供比以查出违法者、追诉罪行或执行国家法律为日常职务更有价值的服务。警员与法官去履行职务时,可以像农夫或商人一样自觉从事的是体面的工作;宣告被控犯罪者有罪的陪审团团长、宣判法律判决的法官、执行判决的人,夜间都可以像那白天播种田地、收割庄稼、为病人施药、传讲福音的人一样安然就寝。这一整天之中,他可以同样自觉对同胞没有恶意、没有报复之心,如同另一个人一样。他们各人胸中所存的,可以只是单纯尽本分的自觉。
(e)这样的人——侦缉官、警员、陪审员、法官、狱监、行刑者——祷告乃是合法且正当的。他祷告与任何别人祷告一样正当。他可以在内室祷告,也可以在家中祷告;当他搜寻一个被控犯法的人、当他听取不利于他的证词、当他坐堂审断他、当他执行法律的刑罚时,他都可以在心中发出默祷。他可以像别人一样祷告,求自己“殷勤不可懒惰”;求自己“心里火热”;求自己在那一职分上“服事主”。他可以祷告求恩典,使自己对所受的托付忠心、行事坚定、“在所受派的事上顺利”。但这意味着什么?这意味着恶人——罪人——要被绳之以法;要受惩罚;要按其行为受当得的报应。这不是对个人的恶意;不是报复之心;不是任何私情的放纵;不是与最广博的仁爱相悖的行为。司法官员所从事的,正是把人绳之以法的工作;他们为何不可以为自己所从事的工作“祷告”求顺利?任何热爱公义之业、渴望社区安全与良序的人,为何不可以祷告求恶人的行径被遏制——被拦阻——被监禁——受惩罚?既然人行这些事是合法的,为何不可合法地求神的赐福,帮助自己去行?
还应进一步指出,执法者这样祷告,与一个从事不合法职业之人的心情截然不同。一个制造并贩卖烈酒的人怎能“祷告”?他怎能求自己的事业顺利?这样祷告,等于求他的邻舍、他的同胞——或近或远——把财产耗费于无益于己之物;求他们虚掷光阴、毁坏健康、折损寿命、沉沦灵魂;求他们变得亵渎、粗鄙、可憎、兽性;求他们成为社会的祸害、被引入罪恶、以济贫院、监狱或疯人院为归宿;求他们的家庭陷于穷困、一度安宁的家变成地狱;求年少力壮、前途可期、俊美可爱、贤德敬虔之家的子弟,早早坠入酒徒之墓;求为妻、为母、为姊妹、为女儿者心碎肠断,因为丈夫、父亲、兄弟成了酒徒。
但这样的祷告里含着何等恶魔般的恶毒!因此,这样的人并不求神赐福自己的事业。但执法者可以祷告,也应当祷告。他可以求自己在履行职务、施行公义、追诉罪行、宣判法律判决上顺利。他的祷告实际上就是:愿人人得着公义;愿惩罚在当受之时施行;愿自己成为神手中查出并惩罚罪行的器皿。同时,这与报复和复仇的心气可以相去甚远,以致他自己可以跻身社区最仁慈、最有人道之心的人中间;当他宣判法律的判决时,他可能是法庭中唯一流泪的人。他宣判的时候,眼泪可以滚滚而下,而被判上绞刑架的顽梗恶徒可能全无所动。华盛顿签署处死博学多才的安德烈 Andre 的死刑令时,绝非缺乏情感,也非心怀恶毒,因为他签字的时候流着泪。
照样,人也可以怀着同样的心气,在国家遭入侵时、或当其中一部分人起来反叛合法政府时,出去卫国。蒙召卫国的士兵可以祷告;军队的统帅可以祷告——也应当祷告。但这样的人的祷告可以是、也当是在其职分之内的,求他所承担的事顺利。这将是求他国家的仇敌被击败、被制伏的祷告。当他祷告求他国家的仇敌如风前的糠秕被吹散、求他们的谋算变为愚拙、求自己制伏他们顺利时,其中并无恶意,并无私人的情感,并无报复之心。这是为一个正义之业的得胜而献的祷告;而当他作为士兵的一切行动都指向敌国的毁灭;当他实际从事制伏他们的努力;当他的一切计划都以之为着眼点;当他若不如此便不能成功——若这职业本身是正当的,他为此祷告求顺利就不可能是不正当的;即求他的仇敌被交在他手中,求神使他能够胜过他们、驱散他们、制伏他们。按这样的理解,当自由、法律与公义的捍卫者把 Psalm 149:1-9 的话应用于自己时,其中必然没有任何与最纯洁的仁爱相悖的情感:“愿他们口中称赞神为高,手里有两刃的刀,为要报复列邦,刑罚万民,要用链子捆他们的君王,用铁镣锁他们的大臣,要在他们身上施行所记录的审判”(Psalm 149:6-9)。
(f)关于这里所提的一点,只须再补充一句:没有人能“证明”,在那些所谓“咒诅诗”中,所含的恶意或报复之心,必然多于一个侦缉官、警员、司法官、陪审员、刑事律师、检察官、法官、监狱长或行刑者每日履行职务时心中的恶意或报复之心——当他在内室、在家中、在清晨的灵修中“祷告”求自己当日尽忠并且顺利时;因为在这些职务中的顺利,都在祷告的范围之内,也可以是蒙应允的祷告。若侦缉官顺利查出一个窃贼或造假者;若执法者顺利将他绳之以法;若陪审员作出判他有罪的诚实裁决;若检察官成功地追诉使他定罪;若法官宣判公正的判决;若狱监在罪人身后关上沉重的门闩铁栅——夜间,当他们回想自己的工作时,他们可以把当日合法职务中的顺利,看为人生正当事务中真实蒙应允的祷告,正如金黄起伏的庄稼是虔诚农夫祷告的应允,满载东方丰饶物产、英姿焕发驶入港湾的船,当看为虔诚商人祷告的应允一样;而且,在尚未证明诗篇作者的话所含的意义不可能仅止于此之前,就不应断定咒诅诗流露报复的心气,或与人心最纯洁、最仁爱的情感相悖。
(6)还有人提出过另一种解答。其实质是:这些表达“只是诗篇作者心中实际经过之事的记录”,并作为人性在部分成圣状态下的例证而保存给我们。按照这一解释,我们不必凭任何正当的默示观去为那些情感辩护,也不必坚持说这样的情感不可能发生在一位受默示的人身上。《诗篇》的主要宗旨之一,乃是展示宗教在世上善人心中实际存在的情形;这些人并非绝对完全,其最佳的宗教情感也掺杂着诸多不完全。按这一观点,默示的圣灵对诗篇作者的这些情感所负之责,并不重于对大卫、亚伯拉罕、雅各或彼得之行为所负的责任。情感如何、行为如何,便是如何;默示的圣灵所负责的,是关于这些行为与情感的准确记录或陈述:一个在历史上、在事实上完全真实的记录。以下几点评论可以进一步说明这一点。
(a)那么,大卫并非完全人,这是公认的事实;所有诗篇的作者无疑也是如此。圣经从未声称他们是完全的;圣经公正地记录他们的过失;圣经立下总原则:没有一个人绝对没有罪(1 Kings 8:46; Ecclesiastes 7:20; James 3:2; 1 John 1:8; Job 9:20)。圣经既处处宣告没有人绝对完全,又承认大卫曾犯下恶行,如乌利亚事件——那么,出于同样的理由,也当承认:人,甚至是最好的人,不仅在行为上,也在心思和言语上容易犯罪。
(b)默示的正意并不要求我们认定受默示的人绝对无罪。受默示与个人完全之间,显然必有明白可见的差异。默示按其真义保证的是记录的真实,并不必然保证绝对的成圣。事实上,默示与成圣并无必然的关联——因为按照通行的信念,巴兰 Balaam 显然曾就弥赛亚发出真实的预言,却没有人因此便觉得必须坚持说,他不是个坏人。李维 Livy、吉本 Gibbon、休谟 Hume、罗伯逊 Robertson 都不是完全人,然而他们对自己所载事件的记述可能是正确的;我们也并不因为他们是忠实的史家,就推论他们是完全人,或推论他们从未做过、说过任何若被如实记录便与绝对完全的品格不相容的事。因此,这是一个极重要的原则:“默示所保证的,是正确的记录;默示并不蕴含、也不保证个人的成圣;而默示若保证了正确的记录,其责任的限度便已达到。”大卫在 Psalm 51 中就自己在乌利亚事件上的罪愆作了真实的记录,这固然不能证明他在那被记录的事实上是无辜或清白的;同样,一个记录若所记录的是情感而非行为,其正确性也绝不能为这样的情感辩护或认可。
(c)在神的一项启示中,为满足世人的需要,对宗教有真实的呈现——呈现它在与人心接触时的实际情形、在人生活中实际被例证并显明的情形,而不是呈现它在一位无瑕天使生活中可能的情形——是重要而必需的。圣经既处处假定人已堕落、有败坏邪恶的倾向、有天然难以控制的私欲,而宗教的宗旨正是教导人如何控制并驾驭它们——那么我们所需要的,是宗教与这样一颗心相接触时的例证。圣经若只描写一位完全者的情感与行为,显然就不适合于人,因为它不合人的光景。人既不完全又有罪,一种若非绝对完全便无真虔诚可言的宗教呈现,只会使人沮丧灰心,因为它把人自觉无法达到的标准悬在他眼前,而他对自己不完全的自觉,会使他痛苦地得出结论:自己没有真宗教。
因此,在圣经中,除了救主这独一无二的例外,我们没有一位完全圣徒的生平记录。我们有的是敬虔在人生活中必有的样貌:软弱、挣扎、疑惑,与邪恶情欲相争;是冲突的一生,光明与黑暗、善与恶、快乐与忧伤、欢欣与消沉交织的一生;是邪恶时常爆发、须要常常努力制伏、而尽管表面多有不然、灵魂却真实地不断向完全迈进的一生——那完全非今生所能获得,惟有在天上才得成全。惟有这样的记录才适合于人;惟有这样的记录才能如实描绘并描述人现今的光景。在另一个世界——在天上——蒙救赎之人真实的记录,将是毫无不完全的宗教记录——正如如今天使的记录那样。
如今,圣经处处记载的是不完全之人的生平:行为不完全、情感不完全、言语不完全。我们有亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各、以利、大卫、希西家、摩西、亚伦、约西亚、雅各、约翰、彼得的传记——都是不完全的善人;胸中经历善恶之争、生活中恶的原则不断发作、且一时之间似乎占了上风的人。因此才有圣经中那些令人痛苦却诚实的敬虔记录。同样,为要看见并明白何为与人性相连的真敬虔,可能正需要我们在诗篇中见到如今这样的例证:一位善人心中所经过之事的诚实记录;一位不完全的人——即便被恰当地称为神人——也常常实际怀有的情感。或许很少有人——非常少——即便在最高形态的敬虔之下,若他们对自己心中时时经过之事、对自己的愿望、欲求、情绪,对自己仇敌、逼迫者与毁谤者的情感,作出诚实的记录,不会发现诗篇的语言比他们在别处所能找到的任何语言,都更贴切地表达他们在这方面的情感;——而这岂是牵强或无据的想法:连奥古斯丁 Augustine、路德 Luther、加尔文 Calvin、诺克斯 Knox 和爱德华兹 Edwards 这样的人,当非基督教的情感似乎在他们心中占了上风、当他们强烈地要放纵血气、或实际已经放纵、当他们可能开始怀疑怀有这种情感的人能否有真宗教时,也曾在这样一个事实中得着安慰:与他们一模一样的情感,也曾涌起于写作诗篇的那些受默示之人的心中,而他们在此对自己心中实际经过的事作了诚实的记录,几乎就是他们自身经历的实录?几乎无须指出:若这是对实情的正确看法,我们并无义务试图为这些情感的表达辩护——正如我们没有义务为大卫在乌利亚之事上的行为、或彼得否认主的行为辩护一样。
(d)照这一观点,这记录中所用的表达,并不是给我们效法的。这些情感曾发生在善人的生活中,仅这一事实并不能证明它们是对的,或证明我们应当效法。救赎主一生所行的“一切”都是对的,其被记录下来,是为叫我们按其适用于我们光景的范围去效法。倘若上述评论正确,那么这记录的目的另有所在,并不是要我们效法那些流露此种情感之人的行为。善人心中确实曾存在这样的情感、或这些“咒诅”确实见于他们的著作,这一事实也不应归咎于宗教,仿佛宗教倾向于产生它们;正如大卫的奸淫与杀人、彼得的发咒起誓,不应被引来作为宗教适于在人心中和生活中产生之物的例证。宗教对这些事没有责任。责任在我们的败坏天性。
(e)若这是对实情的公正看法,那么“默示”所负责的,只是关于这些情感存在之“记录”的正确性:即诗篇的作者们确实“记录”了自己心中所经过的事。他们倾吐了内心的情感。他们陈述了自己确实怀有的真实情感;这些情感只要人性不变,就可能在任何地方、任何时间,涌起于不完全之人的心中。他们记录了别人确实怀有的情感;在作记录时,他们只是把自己心中经过的事倾吐出来。他们不为之辩解;他们不停下来为之辩护;他们不为之说一句开脱的话——正如其他圣洁作者记录族长们、大卫与彼得的过失时那样。
以上述的某些方式,诗篇中“咒诅”的一切难题大概都可应对。凡否认诗篇默示的人,应当能指出这些并非对难题的正当解释,或指出它们与任何正当的默示观不相容。
第7节 “诗篇的实用价值”
相当值得注意的是:在宗教人士的评价中,诗篇在基督教纪元较清晰的光照之下所占的地位,与在相对晦暗的希伯来体制之下所占的地位大体相同;并且,尽管基督教的启示带来了附加的光照,诗篇并未被取代。“基督徒”对诗篇的关切,与古时的犹太人一样强烈;而作为个人宗教经历的表达,也作为崇拜的手册,基督徒从整本圣经中拣选诗篇,正如犹太人从他所拥有的书卷——旧约——中拣选它们一样。因此,它们将永远保持其价值;世上永远不会有宗教的光照、经历与知识发达到这样一个地步,以致诗篇在与实际敬虔操练的关系上失去其相对的地位。
这事实在多大程度上可视为诗篇作者受默示的证明——证明他们获得了对真敬虔之原则与运行的认识,远超自己时代,达到与宗教修养最先进时代相当的水平;证明他们写作诗篇时,心思上必有一种超越一切纯粹诗才的影响——这是每一个深思的人都会遇到的问题。向一个怀疑诗篇默示的人提出这个问题是公平的:他既认为诗篇的作者只是具有常人所有诗才的人,又承认他们生活在世上真理观念相对晦暗的时代,他如何解释这事实,使两者相容?一位希伯来诗人,在深湛的宗教经历与知识上,怎么把自己提到如此之高,以致在新的启示临到世界之后、在人类在宗教与人心之知识上取得一切成就之后,仍能作万世的引导?
诗篇的特别价值源于:(a)它们适配于对神的敬拜;(b)它们是深湛宗教经历的记录。
(a)就其适配于对神的敬拜而言。其中许多篇在写作之初即为此目的;整卷书看来也正是编集者们特意使其适配于此的。不必设想这些圣歌涵盖了希伯来抒情诗的全部,因为正如我们所知,旧约中提到的一些书卷虽出于默示,却已成就其功用而失落了;希伯来人的一部分抒情诗可能也是如此。救主的许多话,虽然所说的尽是纯正的真理——那样的真理别人从未说过——圣灵所赐的真理——却因未被记录而失传(John 21:25);照样,已经写下的真理,也可能已经成就其功用而消逝。但若真有这样的作品未能流传下来,我们没有理由怀疑,它们与那些幸存下来、现今构成《诗篇》一书的作品性质大体相同。如今令人瞩目的是:希伯来人的诗歌如此超越其他一切诗歌地适配于公众敬拜,这民族的诗才又如此专一地转向宗教。
在这方面,希伯来抒情诗卓然独立,有别于任何其他民族。在希腊人中间固然也有献给诸神的颂歌——为敬拜诸神而作的颂歌;但这绝非其抒情诗的总体特征。在波斯人、阿拉伯人、罗马人、巴比伦人中间,无疑也有这样的颂歌;但这不是他们抒情诗的主要特征。在早期苏格兰、法兰西、西班牙、意大利和英吉利的诗歌中,有这样的颂歌;但这绝非那些民族早期抒情诗的独有或主导特征。他们的抒情作品中,能用于敬拜真神的寥寥无几;而可用于此的,也未必都是诗歌中最超逸拔群的杰作。诗篇与颂歌的写作是一门独立的诗艺;在诸语言的颂歌中,虽有最高型抒情杰作的样品,但必须承认,这类文献的很大一部分若改写宗教以外的题材,几乎连“体面”二字都算不上。
然而,对希伯来人而言,这就是他们的全部。他们别无其他诗歌。他们没有一首可与维吉尔 Virgil 的《牧歌》或彭斯 Burns 的许多诗作相媲美的爱情诗或田园诗。他们宗教类的诗,也尽属上乘。没有任何一篇,可与基督教多数宗派赞美诗集里大量内容同列那样的低水准——那些诗固然很好、很敬虔、很伤感,也被认为很适合激发虔诚的情感——但同时又如此平庸、如此乏力、如此缺乏诗趣,以致若收入一卷纯诗集中,连第三第四流都排不进,甚至究竟能否占得一席之地都成问题。拒绝把“默示”观念应用于《诗篇》的人,正须对这事实作出解释。
(b)《诗篇》是深湛宗教经历的记录。在一般宗教人士的评价中,这正是其主要价值所在。它是年轻信徒的引导;而随着信徒行过人生多变的场景、白发上了头、预示万事将尽的衰弱压在身上,它越来越成为他的同伴、安慰者与谋士。一个虔诚的人几乎从不——可以说从不——处于在诗篇中找不到切合其境遇之内容的境地;不会发现希伯来的圣歌作者竟未曾先行他一步,进入宗教经历的深处。因此,在疾病中、在丧亲中、在逼迫中、在暮年中、在临终的床榻上,《诗篇》成为如此恒常而珍贵的伴侣;因此——不是出于方便,而是为供应人心中的需要,也是其价值的一个标志——诗篇与新约常被合订为一册。因此,也为年长者、为病人、为视力因病或因年而衰退的人,诗篇与新约被印成大字本,装订成便于持握的样式,使这些书卷中的真理,在光照渐弱、生命渐逝之时,仍能为那渐臻成熟、预备升天的圣徒所用。直到世界末了,诗篇在宗教经历中所占的地位,必与今日所占的相同;直到世界末了,它们必如既往各时代一样,把安慰赐给受苦的人,把平安赐给垂死的人。
第8节 “撰写诗篇注释所需的资格”
一个无可置疑的事实是:《诗篇》注释中失败的例子,多于圣经任何其他书卷的注释。迄今为止,还没有一部注释满足了基督教世界的需要;无论曾引发何等期望,没有一部是读来不感失望的。这事实必有原因;而这原因大概正在于撰写诗篇注释所需的条件极为独特——这些条件很少集于一人之身。
关于撰写这样一部注释所需资格的几点评论,或可解释以往失败的原因;或许也能解释,为何现在呈给公众的这一部,也可能被发现是既有失败之列的新增一笔。每一位撰写诗篇注释的人,到工作结束的时候,大概都会对自己曾盼望、或许曾期待达成之事感到失望,并充分分担读者的感受:如此呈给世人的东西,距离神圣圣经这一部分当有的注释,实在还很遥远。
撰写诗篇注释所需的独特资格大致如下:
(1)通晓希伯来文,尤其通晓它受希伯来人诗歌律法影响的方面。一切语言都有诗歌的特殊规则;这些规则影响所用词语的意义,藉以表达思想的各种特殊色调。在多数语言中,词语有“诗的”意义与“散文的”意义之分;把一个词在散文中的意义套用于诗歌的段落,可能完全表达不出诗人心中之意。我们在阅读一种熟悉的语言时,几乎不知不觉地学会准确作此区分,即使讲不出来;我们读一首诗、一篇颂歌、一支抒情之歌,不会误解其意。但一个人着手阅读一种非母语的诗集时,情形就不同了。对意大利人、法兰西人或德意志人在用母语读诗时显而易见的事,到英格兰人试读那诗的时候,便成了艰难的功课。
学习一种死语言也是如此。无须多说,希腊与拉丁诗人自成一类的独特文献;能读希罗多德 Herodotus 或李维 Livy 的人,不能因此就假定自己对希腊文、拉丁文有足够的认识,足以明白那些语言中的诗。有那么多的东西往往系于韵律、诗体的用词形态、或诗特有的意象,以致古典教育未臻此境便不算完成,学生也未算具备领受诗的语言之意义、欣赏其思想与意象之美所需的资格,直到他掌握了语言规则中这最难的部分。希伯来人像别的民族一样,有这样的规则与用法,无可怀疑,因为它们见于一切语言;希伯来诗歌本身也提供丰富的证据,表明它们存在于犹太民众中间。然而,如今能否把这些规则与用法恢复到可以完善地应用于解释圣经诗体部分的程度,则属可疑。与语言韵律有关的许多内容、与重音有关的许多内容、与词语特殊用法相关的许多内容,如今可能已无法恢复。为说明这一问题对解释诗篇的难度,也为阐明希伯来诗歌这一主题,可参德维特 DeWette 的论述,《Einleitung》vii. 第37-76页。其雅致的译文可见《Biblical Repository》第III卷,第478-514页。
(2)真正的敬虔,是作诗篇解释者不可或缺的资格。事实上,解释圣经的任何部分都是如此。圣经既是宗教的书,用于描述宗教的性质、能力与影响,那么解释者显然必须有正确的宗教情感,或有对宗教的实际体认。这原则与解释任何题材书籍所需的原则大体相同。在一部论绘画、诗歌、雕塑、建筑的论著中,有些内容,凡对诸艺有实际认识的人都能更好地解释;而要具备解释这样一部书的完整资格,欣赏书中论诸艺所言的能力,必须视为不可或缺。显然,仅认识字词——仅语言学——并非所需的全部;解释本地暗指、法律、风俗、习惯或地理历史指涉的能力,也不是所需的全部。超越这一切之上,写作者或作者的心中,还有他所要表达的东西,那是仅靠语言或风俗的知识不足以说明的。要显明作者的意思,显然必须能够理解他——领会他要说的话;把在他心中的东西带出来;他所想的——他所感的——他要表达的。因此,一部关于诗篇的著作,无论作为语言学著作多么有价值,或对说明某篇诗篇的作者与其写作时的环境多么有用,除非我们进入作者的灵里、有资格理解并体会他写作时的情感,我们就没有触及那主要的对象。
(3)因上述理由,在诗篇的释义中,所需要的不仅是拥有敬虔,“更当有深湛的宗教经历”。当认识敬虔最欢腾的至高形态,也认识消沉、黑暗与忧伤的最深之处。世上没有别的书像《诗篇》这样,有如此多变的敬虔表达、如此多样的宗教经历形态。诗篇既为世界的每一个时代、为处于每一等级与境况中的人、为喜乐与忧伤的时节、为童年、青年、中年、老年、为无知者与有学问的人、为患病与康健之时、为私人、社交、家庭与公众生活、为执政者与平民、为战争与太平、为商务之举与慈善之举、为生者与垂死之人、并为哀哭之人而写——它们就要构成一部“手册”,在这一切形态与关系中展示宗教;成为一本书,任何人处在人生千变万化的境况中,都可以确信在其中找到切合自己的内容。若果如此,那么显然,要写出好的诗篇注释——要使释经者能进入他所解释之著作的真正精神——所需的敬虔绝非寻常之品;所需的丰富而多面的宗教经历,是极少有人能得的。单看诗篇注释作者的这一资格,我们便不再惊讶:为何从未有过一部诗篇注释,能使人读后别无所求。
(4)诗的趣味,是诗篇注释者的一项重要必备条件。诗篇是诗,而且是最精致细腻的那一种诗。诗篇之美、以及它们之所以切合人的需要,很大程度上系于它们是诗这一点。这正是神的灵在感动写作诗篇之人时,宁愿使其中的意念以诗而非散文来表达的原因,也因此选用了这一媒介。人心原有的诸般禀赋中,有一种把“诗”视为幸福之手段之一、视为适于把真理铭刻于心、适于激发灵魂成就大业、适于使心中充满平静、纯洁、爱国、虔诚情感的禀赋。人拥有它(无论是创作诗的能力还是欣赏诗的能力)的程度固然大不相同,但它确是人的禀赋;既是禀赋,宗教便使用它来成全自己的目的。有人几乎只被冷静的论证、严格的逻辑、缜密的证明所动;有人只被雄辩的崇高呼吁所激励;有人最易被劝化的声音感化;有人惟有借着震怒的警告,才能从危险的沉睡中唤醒;有人心中最纯洁、最喜乐、最圣洁的情感,最易被诗唤起。“歌”的职分正在于此——唤起人心中许多最纯洁、最虔诚的敬虔情感;而圣经中的《诗篇》这一部分,正是预期借着这一常设的安排来达成此目的的。
因此显然,一个自身不具备欣赏诗之美的禀赋的人——既不能在这点上体认圣洁作者的情怀,又不能体认那些生性易受诗感动之人的心——不能算完全具备作诗篇注释者的资格。以往未能产生一部好的诗篇注释,其原因之一可追溯至此。一个纯粹的语文学家;一个除非精确证明便不认任何价值的人;一个散文气质的人,尽管可以有高超纯洁的敬虔,仍可能缺少一个重要资格——进入诗篇真正精神、满足那些在这部分圣经中寻求造就与安慰之人需要的资格。
(5)认识人心——认识人性——是作诗篇注释者不可缺少的条件。《诗篇》比圣经任何其他书卷都更是一部记录人心运行的书。它大部分都是关乎内心的。它不像《罗马书》那样诉诸悟性较高的能力,也不像以赛亚的异象、或约翰在拔摩岛的异象那样诉诸想象。在《诗篇》中,心正是圣灵与灵魂之间卓越的交通媒介。圣经的各部分中,数《诗篇》最能阐明人心。人心中的一切,都在其中以某种方式、在几乎无穷无尽的境况中得到阐明。喜乐、忧伤、痛悔、感恩、赞美、消沉、悲哀;爱——对神的爱——对人的爱;患病之时所受的感受与病愈之时所受的感受;因他人的忘恩而生的痛苦与心酸;对神震怒的恐惧;对死亡的畏惧;宗教在死亡前景中所赐的平安;祷告的喜乐;恳切祈求之后进入心灵的光;因虔诚默想神的性情与律法而生的安宁;长久黑暗之后照彻心灵的光;被记起之罪疚的影响(如 Psalm 51);神似乎离弃我们之时的绝望之感;受伤害之后心中涌起的情感——这些只是《诗篇》在作者个人经历中所阐明的诸多主题中的一小部分;显然,除非人自己认识人心的运行,否则没有资格注释这些主题。
能够解释所用的字词;能陈明诗篇的来源与作者、及其写作的场合;能考订文本的真确与准确、判定种种异读的价值;能理解并解释诗篇中的平行句、韵律与重音;能领会并欣赏诗篇的诗艺;或能汇集犹太拉比与基督教教父们的著述,或能从德意志移植在唯理主义圣经观之下产生的作品,甚至移植德意志心智在其最佳运作、并在真宗教影响之下产生的作品——这一切并不是注释诗篇所需的全部,也算不得其中的主体;一部满足我国民众需要的诗篇注释,一部能以对大众——对年少的、患病的、丧亲的、受试探的、年迈的、消沉的人——最有价值的方式阐释诗篇的注释,所需要的并非这些。一个不能以这多样的方式、在人心的运行上与诗篇作者们同情共鸣的人,就不是完全有资格撰写这书注释的人。为着某些用途,他固然可以写出一部有价值的书;但对照诗篇所要成就的真正目的——在人生一切千变万化的境况中、在人心一切多变而复杂的运行中,作每一阶层、每一境况之信徒的引导与安慰——那书就不是有价值的了。
(6)还可以补充一点:《诗篇》大体上如此平易、如此易于为广大读者理解、如此善于表达内在的情感与情绪,以致反而增加了注释撰写的难度。诗篇如此丰富、如此充满意义、如此切合信徒的需要;如此应和神子民多变的经历,如此富于敬虔的例证;如此触动灵魂最深的情感之泉,以致就这些方面大多数的要点而言,“注释”作为附加的光源,与蜡烛之于太阳的光辉相比,实在没有多大差别。人在平日灵修阅读诗篇时,在深湛经历性敬虔的事上所获的,远超他通常在注释中所得的,以致他带着深深的失望离开解释它们的尝试,回到书本身,觉得它比注释家所能添加的任何东西,都更贴切地表达他的情感、满足他的需要、在试炼中赐他安慰。他欢迎《诗篇》本身作他的安慰者与引导者;在这如今以极廉价格出售的小册子里,或在这附于他袖珍新约之后的小书中,圣经的普通读者找到的切合需要的内容,比他在威尼玛 Venema 的长篇注释中、在《Critici Sacri》的全部汇辑中、在普尔 Poole 的《Synopsis》中、在格劳秀斯 Grotius 的《Annotations》中、或在德维特 DeWette——尽管德维特 DeWette 的著作何其典雅——、托鲁克 Tholuck 或亨斯滕伯格 Hengstenberg 的博学释义中所得到的更多。
细想撰写诗篇注释的这些困难——当一个坐下来写作的人反思这项任务所需的资格,当这些念头不断放大、随着他像我这样断断续续为准备圣经这一部分的注释劳作了十二年之久、越来越沉重地压在他身上时——无论他在开始这一事业时怀有怎样的热望与自信,随着工作的推进,他都将不再惊讶于以往别人撰写诗篇注释的尝试尽归失败;而且,倘若他的寿命得以延长,看见自己劳作的结果,他也不会惊讶于世界竟把他长期劳作、并盼望在某种程度上配得上他所解释之圣卷的东西,看作不过是撰写《诗篇》恰当释义之漫长失败记录上又添的一笔。
第一篇诗的前面没有标题,还有许多别的诗篇也是如此,如 Psalm 10; Psalm 116; Psalm 117:1-2 等。如今想要探究这省略的原因,是徒然的。关于诗篇前面标题的来源与权威,参见引言第4节。有人猜想,这篇诗未附标题的原因,是全书的前面附有总标题“大卫的诗篇”,那就足以标明这第一篇的作者。但这纯属臆测;而且这一理由若能成立,第一篇诗可省去标题,同一总标题下任何别的诗篇也照样可省,并无分别。在某些手稿(罗西 DeRossi 的两个抄本)中,这篇诗没有编号;在另一些手稿(肯尼科特 Kennicott 的四个抄本、罗西 DeRossi 的三个抄本)中,它与第二篇相连,两篇算作一篇。
然而,它显然是与第二篇不同的一首独立作品。它有自己的统一性,第二篇也有;整部诗集中几乎没有任何别的两篇,比这两篇更有理由合并为一。这篇诗的作者现已无从查明,尽管通行的见解——它出于大卫的手笔——大概是对的。但它写于什么场合,如今同样无从发现。其中没有任何历史的暗指,可借以确定写作的场合;正如其中没有任何内容,能确实断定其作者。所用的字词极其宽泛,其中的情感适用于一切时代、一切地域。它带有作为《诗篇》全书总引言的一切印记,似乎是有意用寥寥数语概括整部诗集的要旨,或陈述贯穿全书的那一大原则——义人的生命必伴随兴旺与福乐,恶人的道路必以忧愁与毁灭告终。这正是犹太神权政体的重大原则;在一卷旨在如此充分阐明真宗教之性质与价值的书的开头,把它清楚陈明,实属要事。试参 Deuteronomy 27-28。
这篇诗旨在描写义人的福分或幸福。这描写“字面与比喻、正面与负面、直接与对比兼施,兼顾其品格与其今世来世的境遇”。——亚历山大教授 Prof. Alexander。然而,它并不像亚历山大教授 Prof. Alexander 所设想的那样,是一幅“真幸福之人的画像”;它是对义人之福分的描写,与不义之人的光景相对照。义人固然兴旺蒙福;显明这一点也是本诗的一个宗旨。但在诗人眼中所看的,不是幸福的人本身,而是义人,以及身为义人的福分。
本诗恰当地由两部分构成——义人的福分,与恶人或不敬虔之人的不幸,即德维特 DeWette 所谓的 "ungluck"。
一、义人的福分(Psalm 1:1-3)。这又由两个小的部分构成:
(1)他的品格(Psalm 1:1-2),这也从两面描写——反面与正面。
(a)反面。他不从恶人的计谋,不站罪人的道路,不坐亵慢人的座位(Psalm 1:1)。
(b)正面。他喜爱耶和华的律法,且以持续思想他的真理为乐(Psalm 1:2)。
(2)他的兴旺,作为行义的结果(Psalm 1:3)。他的光景被比作栽在水源充足之处的树,叶子常青,果子不断;凡他所作的,尽都顺利。
二、不义之人的光景,或不义者与义人之间的强烈对比(Psalm 1:4-6)。他们的光景与结局以三种方式表达:
(1)他们乃像糠秕被风吹散(Psalm 1:4)。
(2)当审判的时候,他们必站立不住;在义人的会中,他们也不能立足(Psalm 1:5)。
(3)他们必不蒙神认可,必要灭亡(Psalm 1:6)。