Psalm 50: 'Conceived in iniquity'?

[Paul]

What does conceived in iniquity mean?

I've just read it in a Hymn, and think David mentioned it in one of his Psalms.

[Kris]

What does conceived in iniquity mean?

I've just read it in a Hymn, and think David mentioned it in one of his Psalms.

It is taken from Psalm 50 (51), verse 5, wherein King David says "For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me." It is a Psalm that forms an integral part of daily Orthodox prayer life, said as part of both morning and evening prayers and at various other times.

I will leave it to someone more eloquent than myself to explain the precise meaning of the phrase and it's relation to sin and the fall of man.

[Nina]

From The Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms


This is a psalm of repentance and God's mercy, and a prophecy about salvation through baptism (vv. 2, 7). It is also a teaching about worship in spirit (vv. 17-19). Of all 150 psalms, this is the one most used in the Orthodox Church. It is a psalm of repentance said three times daily - Matins, Third Hour, and Compline - as well as in every Divine Liturgy, where it is recited by the priest as a sign of repentance while he censes before the Great Entrance. Historically, this psalm is David's prayer of confession after his sin with Bathsheba (2Sam. 12:1-15).

Verse 5 is clarified in the LXX: "Behold I was brought forth in iniquities and in sins [plural] did my mother conceive me." Far from seeing conception and childbirth as sinful in themselves, or as a means of passing on Adam's guilt, this passage tells us every action in this fallen world is accomplished by sinful people in sinful circumstances.

This psalm is a liturgical deposit of gold in the Church, prayed by clergy and laity, expressing the most basic things that need to be said by the faithful before their God. It is best learned and understood through its use in prayer.p.676

[Paul]

I still can't grasp it.

Is it that we have a fallen nature even when conceived?

It leads me to more difficult questions, about Jesus and His childhood.
About Him as a child being God.

I'll let you answer if I'm on the right track before I go into my other questions.

Thanks.
Paul

[Nina]

I still can't grasp it.

Is it that we have a fallen nature even when conceived?

Thanks.
Paul

Dear Paul,

I think 'sinful people and sinful situations' applies in general to people and their actions in this world. But not to the conceived embryo/baby, since he is still pure. The only thing that we know about an embryo/baby is that they eventually inherit 'decay and death'.

Here is a quote from this forum:


In the Orthodox Church the inheritance of ancestral sin does not mean inheritance of the guilt of the ancestral sin, but rather of the consequences of sin, which are decay and death.
- Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos

[Anthony]

I have just noticed that the automatic links take us to the Psalms according to the Hebrew / Protestant numbering, which is confusing when posters use the correct Orthodox numbering. I don't suppose there is any easy way of fixing this?

[Father Serafim]

'Conceived in iniquity' refers to the Fall. We are born tainted with iniquity i.e. original sin, but not original guilt. Of course procreation and childbirth are not sinful, just our 'spiritual genes'.

[Paul]

'Conceived in iniquity' refers to the Fall. We are born tainted with iniquity i.e. original sin, but not original guilt. Of course procreation and childbirth are not sinful, just our 'spiritual genes'.

I suppose I can understand that.

I don't think we maybe are capable of sinning, being babies, but I remember very young, both misbehaving, and remember other children misbehaving.

As far back as I can remember I can remember my fallen nature.

Does Baptism help in this?
Or is it called Christaining?

I was brought up a Protestant, although left when I was about 13, but understand some of their beleifs.

Their problem with infant Baptism, was there was no repentence, that you had to repent in Baptism.

But I for a while, can see that we need to dedicate our children to God, and that they are ours, of us.
They come from the mother and father, they are part of them, they are not able to make any decisions, we are responsible to bring them up.

This Baptism, of the parents will, must have some good effect on the child if in genuine faith is it?

If we willing give them to God as we do ourselves?

I don't understand it all, I'm just sort of guessing.

Could you maybe explain infant Baptism a bit to me, and maybe it's relation to what we are discussing?

Thanks.
Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

The Apostle Paul likens baptism to circumcision. Are 6-day old Hebrew infants asked if they want to be circumcized?

The Apostle also talks about baptism and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea to escape the Egyptians. Did the Israelites leave their children behind so that they could make up their own minds on whether or not to leave Egypt?

Baptism constitutes the initiation into the worshipping community of God, just as circumcision did for the ancient Hebrews. It allows us to be partakers of the Eucharist. Who would deny their children the Divine medicine? Our Lord said not to deny the children but to let them come to Him. Should we ignore that?

The worshipping community of God goes to the Heavenly Jerusalem although we wander through the wilderness of this world, and we take our children with us!

[Kris]

In this case, it is not so much a question of the individual's sinful actions, but rather the condition and world into which we are born.



Does Baptism help in this?
Or is it called Christaining?


Baptism certainly helps. Indeed it is an essential part of shedding our sinful nature. Through the symbolic act of being immersed in water, the grace of God descends on us and we are truly united to the death of Christ, putting to death the fallen man and being born again.

That's not to say it is impossible to sin after baptism. We all do, which is why we must constantly restore our baptismal grace through tears of repentance (often referred to as the second baptism). But it is nevertheless through baptism that we are born again and the gates of salvatiion are opened to us.



Their problem with infant Baptism, was there was no repentence, that you had to repent in Baptism.

But I for a while, can see that we need to dedicate our children to God, and that they are ours, of us.
They come from the mother and father, they are part of them, they are not able to make any decisions, we are responsible to bring them up.

This Baptism, of the parents will, must have some good effect on the child if in genuine faith is it?

If we willing give them to God as we do ourselves?

I don't understand it all, I'm just sort of guessing.

Could you maybe explain infant Baptism a bit to me, and maybe it's relation to what we are discussing?


When baptism is seen purely as a symbolic act of publicly declaring ones faith in Christ, then baptising children would be rather superflous.

When, however, we recognise baptism as a mystery through which the grace of God truly works within a person, changing the very nature of their being, to deny our children such a gift would be insane.

Baptism is the beginning of our life in Christ, our life in His Church, our life as Christians. How could we deny children this when the Saviour Himself says "Let alone the little children to come to Me, and cease hindering them; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16)?

Naturally, when a child is baptised it is expected that they will be raised in the Church. For what use is there of a beginning without a journey or destination?

[Effie Ganatsios]

I believe we discussed this a couple of years ago. Father Averky gave an explanation I think. Unfortunately I couldn't find his message.

Effie

[M. Partyka]

Aside from the transmission of original sin, there was another facet to the Augustinian view on which it's possible that the Fathers were all in agreement. This was the facet which said that all sexual relations inevitably contained an element of lust which made the sexual act inherently simple.

Augustine personally believed that prior to the fall, the male sexual organ was under the power of the man's will. That is, arousal took place if and only if the man willed to allow it. As a consequence of the fall, the male sexual organ took on a "mind of its own", and from that time forward, arousal was triggered by sensual lust rather than brought about by a conscious act of will.

So, if a man wanted to have children, he had to have sex. If he wanted to have sex, he had to get aroused. As a consequence of the fall, if he wanted to get aroused, he would have to experience sinful lust. Hence, the sex act was inherently sinful. However, Augustine did qualify this as man's using a bad thing for good purposes, just as God uses the evil committed by others for ultimately good purposes. Thus, so long as a man used sinful lust to enable sex for procreative purposes, the man was blameless, but the child was still considered to be conceived in iniquity because some sin, however unavoidably, had been involved in the process of conception.

Thus, Augustine held that Christ's conception in the womb of Mary was without sin not only because Christ was spared the transmission of original sin but also because the conception itself took place through a means in which sensual lust played absolutely no part.

The reason I say that the Fathers may have been all in agreement on this facet of the Augustinian view is that the Fathers seemed to all share in the perspective that the only noble sexual acts were those done with procreation in mind. Sex without procreation in mind was considered an indulgence in sensual pleasure, and even under the Sacrament of Marriage they considered "sex for sex's sake" a venial sin.

[Fr. J. Benedict Cucinotta]

It is taken from Psalm 50 (51), verse 5, wherein King David says "For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me." It is a Psalm that forms an integral part of daily Orthodox prayer life, said as part of both morning and evening prayers and at various other times.

I will leave it to someone more eloquent than myself to explain the precise meaning of the phrase and it's relation to sin and the fall of man.
Let us remember that this is a prayer of repentance.
I have also read, "indeed, in guilt was I born, and in sin my mother conceived me." Here King David offers the fact of his innate sinfulness partly as a mitigating circumstance and partly as a humble acknoweledgement of his profound corruption. Tradition sees in this passage a foreshadowing of the basic Christian doctrine of sin.

[Paul Cowan]

I tried to find another thread on Psalm 50 and didn't so, I would like to explore other parts of this Psalm.


Psalm 50:19 Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness,
With burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then they shall offer bulls on Your altar.

I know King David was under the law and did the burnt offering thing. But how does this relate to us today? Or is he saying at the Second Coming we will again offer burnt offerings?

OR

Are these symbolic offerings of something else and how does this something else come out to be bulls?

Thank you

Paul

[Michael Astley]

I'm sorry that I can't help you, Paul, but your reviving this thread has drawn my attention tot he earlier discussion to which, while very late, I would like to add.

That particular verse from psalm 50 is often quoted in defence of the western view of original sin, namely, that from the moment of conception, we are tainted with the guilt of the sin of our first parents. "In sin did my mother bear me".

At first, this seems a convincing argument that the Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin is in disagreement with the psalm. However, it is worth noting that this reading comes from the Masoretic text, which has never been the accepted norm for the Church, which has traditionally used the Septuagint. In the LXX, "sin" is in the plural form: "in sins did my mother bear me".

This seems to suggest something rather different and does not support the Augustinian or Thomist view in the same way. Each of us is born of sinful parents, into a world of sinners, affected by sin and its effects. This is what the psalm seems to be saying. Unlike the Masoretic rendering, there is no firm indication in the LXX that we are born already sinners, bearing the guilt of sin commited before our conception.

Pax,
Michael

[Juliana G.]

Are these symbolic offerings of something else and how does this something else come out to be bulls?



This is my favorite type of question, because I so love the patristic tradition of interpretation, especially the Alexandrian school. There is a text called the Physiologus that was developed in Alexandria around the 2nd century and collected all the wisdom about beasts. This passed into all the medieval bestiaries, which are an absolute delight to read. Here is part of the entry on calves from the Bodleian Book of Beasts in Oxford:

"Calves ... so called because they are virgins and have not yet borne offspring: if they had, they would be called heifers or cows [a separate entry]. So calves belong on the good side, showing the innocence of faith, or the sincere praise of pious devotion. * It is written: 'So will we render the calves of our lips' (Hosea 14:2). And in the psalm: 'Then shall they offer calves upon thin altar (50/51: 19). The writer uses calves to represent the innocent, in their first age, whose neck is a stranger to the yoke of sin; or he is prefiguring those preachers of the Gospel whose image is found in the calf which is the symbol of Luke the Evangelist ... **

We must also think of those calves who gave up their lives as sacrifices in the sweetness of the holy altars. Augustine, the holy father, when he discusses the symbols of the Evangelists *** calls the Lord Himself a calf, who offered Himself as a sacrifice for the salvation of the rest. Whether he had in mind youths, or preachers, or matryrs, the prophet could promise such calves for the altars of the Lord as he knew would be fitting for the Christian religion. Christ is the calf in the Gospel: 'Bring hither the fatted calf and kill it (Luke 15:23). Elsewhere in the Psalms: 'He maketh them also to skip like a calf (29:6)."

* For instance, to St. John Cassian its meaning is short and silent prayer:
"Wherefore we ought to pray often but briefly, lest if we are long about it our crafty foe may succeed in implanting something in our heart. For that is the true sacrifice, as 'the sacrifice of God is a broken spirit.' This is the salutary offering, these are pure drink offerings, that is the 'sacrifice of righteousness,' the 'sacrifice of praise,' these are true and fat victims, 'holocausts full of marrow,' which are offered by contrite and humble hearts, and which those who practise this control and fervour of spirit, of which we have spoken, with effectual power can sing: 'Let my prayer be set forth in Thy sight as the incense: let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice'"
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/cassian/conferences.ii.x.xxxv.html

** Jerome, Iraeneus, and Augustine agree that Luke is the calf for his dealing with priestly matters. So the calf (bull) represents preachers or priests.

*** http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vi.iv.vi.html


If you like this sort of thing, I'd be delighted to give you a fuller rendition on the progression of burnt offering, whole burnt offering, and calves/bulls. I joined the forum specifically to connect with people who also appreciate this style of symbolic discourse.

Juliana

[Juliana G.]

If I may comment on something which was said much earlier:
I still can't grasp it.

Is it that we have a fallen nature even when conceived?

It leads me to more difficult questions, about Jesus and His childhood.
About Him as a child being God.

I'll let you answer if I'm on the right track before I go into my other questions.

Thanks.
Paul

St. Gregory Palamas makes it explicit that "conceived in iniquity" does not apply to our Lord.

"Today we celebrate the memory of those things that contributed, if only once, to the Incarnation. He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. 'Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever' (Heb. 13:8), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, 'practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips' (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5). Even in what He assumes, He is perfectly pure and has no need to be cleansed Himself. But for our sake, He accepted purification, suffering, death and resurrection, that He might transmit them to us."
From the homily on the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple
http://www.orthodox.net/sermons/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

Juliana

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Aside from the transmission of original sin, there was another facet to the Augustinian view on which it's possible that the Fathers were all in agreement. This was the facet which said that all sexual relations inevitably contained an element of lust which made the sexual act inherently simple.

Augustine personally believed that prior to the fall, the male sexual organ was under the power of the man's will. That is, arousal took place if and only if the man willed to allow it. As a consequence of the fall, the male sexual organ took on a "mind of its own", and from that time forward, arousal was triggered by sensual lust rather than brought about by a conscious act of will.

So, if a man wanted to have children, he had to have sex. If he wanted to have sex, he had to get aroused. As a consequence of the fall, if he wanted to get aroused, he would have to experience sinful lust. Hence, the sex act was inherently sinful. However, Augustine did qualify this as man's using a bad thing for good purposes, just as God uses the evil committed by others for ultimately good purposes. Thus, so long as a man used sinful lust to enable sex for procreative purposes, the man was blameless, but the child was still considered to be conceived in iniquity because some sin, however unavoidably, had been involved in the process of conception.

Thus, Augustine held that Christ's conception in the womb of Mary was without sin not only because Christ was spared the transmission of original sin but also because the conception itself took place through a means in which sensual lust played absolutely no part.

The reason I say that the Fathers may have been all in agreement on this facet of the Augustinian view is that the Fathers seemed to all share in the perspective that the only noble sexual acts were those done with procreation in mind. Sex without procreation in mind was considered an indulgence in sensual pleasure, and even under the Sacrament of Marriage they considered "sex for sex's sake" a venial sin. Dear all,

This is very interesting. I didn't know that Augustine's views on this were so explicit and clear. As a married Orthodox Christian, the issue of sexual lust and sin is often at the forefront of my anxieties about the sins we are all prone to, which are numerous as we know, and not just sexual. So St Augustine's view is helpful in some ways, but it still leaves some questions from what I've come to know as the Orthodox approach to sexuality. St Augustine, if his views are as discussed above, appears be saying that sexual arousal is necessarily sinful, and that procreative ends are the sole justification for use of these sinful means [Qu.: how Orthodox is it to claim one is able to employ sinful means to achieve a good purpose? I suppose if it's God, not man, who in Augustine's view does this, this is OK; but if what is being suggested is that man can himself decide on using a 'little' sin to achieve a good purpose, this seems strange to me. It reminds me a little of the reasoning used in the 'just war' hypothesis]. If this is what St Augustine claimed, then it is not the Orthodox approach to sexuality in marriage as I've come to understand it. From my own reading and experience thus far, I've come to understand that the Orthodox approach to sexuality is both repentant and joyful. Yes, procreation is one very important aim which the married couple should be ideally open to at all times as a blessing on their marriage; but it is also true to say that another aim of sexuality in marriage is to nurture the emotional and spiritual union of the spouses. An act of loving sexual union between spouses within holy matrimony and according to human nature which does not, by God's will, lead to conception and pregnancy, is in my understanding not a sinful act, but one of profound communion between persons - who are thus united in body, soul and spirit.

If I've understood things correctly from previous discussions on this topic at monachos, it is also true to say that physical sexuality in marriage is in some ways both a regression from the original union which existed between Adam and Eve before the fall (of which we know nothing) and a type of the future bliss we will come to know in the Kingdom of Heaven, as St John Chrysostom suggests. So St Augustine is 'correct' (if a sinner can use such a word to describe the writings of a saint) in suggesting that there is something fallen and sinful which is now inherent to male and female sexual desire, but perhaps the whole picture should include the writings of other Church Fathers on the human body and the role and charisms of men and women within the church.

Please accept my apologies for discussing this matter during Great Lent.

In Christ
Byron

[Kseniya M.]

I am probably over my head in these waters. Please don't whack me upside da head too hard.

This is why I have a big problem with Augustine. It makes utterly no sense to me that God would give us marriage, bless us to have children, and then give us no non-sinful way to accomplish His purpose. I don't think you can compare this to God using the sinful acts of others to ultimately good effect; bringing good out of evil is His prerogative. But to give us a command and then give us no sinless way to obey it -- that's not God, that's a monster.

It has always been my deep conviction that in every situation in which we find ourselves, every moment of our lives, there is always a sinless option. I'm no theologian, so forgive me if I am in error.

Psalm 50 -- again, I'm no theologian, but I have always read it to express King David's deep contrition and distress over his wickedness -- "I'm so wicked that I was murderer even in my mother's womb" -- and not a statement about "original sin."

-Kseniya

[Herman Blaydoe]

I am probably over my head in these waters. Please don't whack me upside da head too hard.

This is why I have a big problem with Augustine. It makes utterly no sense to me that God would give us marriage, bless us to have children, and then give us no non-sinful way to accomplish His purpose. I don't think you can compare this to God using the sinful acts of others to ultimately good effect; bringing good out of evil is His prerogative. But to give us a command and then give us no sinless way to obey it -- that's not God, that's a monster.

It has always been my deep conviction that in every situation in which we find ourselves, every moment of our lives, there is always a sinless option. I'm no theologian, so forgive me if I am in error.

Psalm 50 -- again, I'm no theologian, but I have always read it to express King David's deep contrition and distress over his wickedness -- "I'm so wicked that I was murderer even in my mother's womb" -- and not a statement about "original sin."

-Kseniya

Blessed Augustine wrote much that is controversial within Orthodoxy, I have read that he did not really have access to the correctives of the Greek Fathers that might have tempered his thoughts. Remember too that this was a man who was quoted as praying "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet." I don't know that he really had a spiritually healthy understanding of sex and marriage, but what do I know?

Herman the Pooh

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Blessed Augustine wrote much that is controversial within Orthodoxy, I have read that he did not really have access to the correctives of the Greek Fathers that might have tempered his thoughts. Remember too that this was a man who was quoted as praying "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet." I don't know that he really had a spiritually healthy understanding of sex and marriage, but what do I know?

Herman the Pooh

Dear Herman,

Well, as you know there's more to it than even this famous attributed prayer: St Augustine's (or is it more appropriate to say 'Blessed Augustine'? I can hardly be the judge of either condition, so at your advice, Herman, I will defer to the appropriate title the Orthodox Church would use) background in the body-denying Manicheans, his deserted partner and child, the picture does look shaky when viewed in this way. So I would agree his writings are probably not the best source for a Christian teaching on men and women - but probably taking any saint's writings in isolation is not a good idea. And St/Blessed Augustine does address some important issues for human sexuality, even if he does not analyse these with a full knowledge of the other fathers. So yes, I agree with what you and Ksenia are saying, but what about a healthy, patristic resolution of the problems he addresses?

In Christ
Byron

[Paul Cowan]

Sorry to resurrect an almost 2 1/2 year old thread, but I have pondered this for all this time and never seem to get around to asking. Can someone please define iniquity and sin and how the two are not the same?


2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
And cleanse me from my sin.

5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

9 Hide Your face from my sins,
And blot out all my iniquities.

They always seem to go together in this Psalm. So are they the same? Similar? somewhat different? totally different?

Paul

[Daniel R.]

I had a quick look for you Paul and as far as I know iniquity is used to translate ἀνομία (lawlessness) and ἀδικία (unrighteousness) along with a few other words, where as sin is normal used to translate ἁμαρτία (lit. to miss the mark) and sometimes a few other words.

In Christ.
Daniel,

[Paul Cowan]

So iniquity is "done on purpose" and sin is "an accident"?

[Olga]

My impression is that the frequent pairings of similar things in scripture is a literary device. The Psalms are full of them.

[Daniel R.]

Dear Paul,

I would say sin can be done knowingly or unknowingly, so through ignorance one can miss the mark, or one can do so willingly.

To me the point is more that sin is more to do with not hiting the mark set for us, where as iniquity (lawlessness) is being without the law. It is more not just not getting it right but being completely outside the law that God has set and this I suppose would be more a thing of will but I am not sure. And then iniquity (unrighteousness i.e. un-right-wise-(ways)-ness) is more that one is not righteous like Abraham or Saint James the Just (Righteous). Now I think that righteous (just) in Greek comes from a word meaning right or custom or a just thing, so someone is just beacuse they uphold it, therefore unrighteousness is not doing so.

Please someone correct me if I be wrong.

In Christ.
Daniel,

[Daniel Williamson]

I'm not sure how valid this translation holds up but according to the New English Translation of the Septuagint.

Psalm 50 verse 8 reads: "For, look, I was conceived in lawlessness and in sin did my mother crave for me."

[Michael Stickles]

I had a quick look for you Paul and as far as I know iniquity is used to translate ἀνομία (lawlessness) and ἀδικία (unrighteousness) along with a few other words, where as sin is normal used to translate ἁμαρτία (lit. to miss the mark) and sometimes a few other words.

ἀνομία and ἁμαρτία are indeed the words used in this passage in the LXX. The difference in the shades of meaning are along the lines of what Daniel said, but I'd tend to agree with Olga that in this case we're looking at a literary device, and the distinctions of meaning aren't critical to understanding what's intended.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Looking in the Slavonic I'd also affirm that Olga is correct.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if there are Fathers who do interpret these words in ways that give them different shadings but with overlapping meanings. You'd have to look this up.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Daniel Williamson]

Here is a nice commentary on Psalm 50:


Conclusion: Psalm 50

Perhaps no other psalm epitomizes the act of confession better than Psalm 50.* Ironically, the word “confession,” appears nowhere in the psalm.* Since the psalm is a confession, it may not need to.* It is not an exhortation for others to confess.* The “Miserere,” as the psalm is known, is the psalm of confession and repentance. St. Athanasios the Great from his Letter to Marcellinus, tells Marcellinus which psalms to chant for which purpose.* He says that Psalms 11 and 16 show confidence in prayer, “and in the Fiftieth, how it is speaking the proper words of his own repentance.”[30]* St. Athanasios continues, “You have sinned, and being ashamed, you repent and you ask to be shown mercy.* You have in Psalm Fifty the words of confession and repentance.”[31]

Almost every service of the Church has psalm 50 as a constituent part whether chanted aloud for all to hear or chanted quietly by the priest or deacon during the censing of the Church building..* Although not often used during confessions today, Psalm 50 is a part of that rite.* By using the interpretation of the fathers concerning exomologesis* as both confession of sin and confession of praise, or more importantly confession of sins preceding confession of praise, we are given a tool to help* us understand this most important of Psalms.
The Text of Psalm 50 (Holy Transfiguration Translation):

Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy; and according to the multitude of Thy compassions blot out my transgression.

Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I know mine iniquity, and my sin is ever before me. Against Thee only have I sinned and done this evil before Thee, that Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, and prevail when Thou art judged. For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me. For behold, Thou hast loved truth; the hidden and secret things of Thy wisdom hast Thou made manifest unto me. Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be made clean; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.

Here we have a very straightforward confession of sinfulness (“for I know mine iniquity”) with a confident hope of redemption.* Let’s look more closely at a couple of words in this passage that can also help us in our confession of sin andpraise. First let’s briefly look at the word for mercy.* In Greek the word for mercy has the same root as the word for olive oil (Eleison, elaion).* So when we think of asking for God’s mercy, whenever we say “Lord have mercy” we can think also of the various uses the scriptures and the Church has for olive oil.* It is in the oil of gladness, in the Chrismwhich anoints us and is the gift of the seal of the Holy Spirit.* It is the anointing of priests and kings in the Old Testament. Asking for mercy is not just the juridical cry of “don’t blast me, Lord!”* It is the cry of a soul saying, “make meholy, make me one of the royal priesthood, give me joy, and give me the Holy Spirit to dwell within me!”* Perhaps one of the greatest images in the use of olive oil comes from the parable of the Good Samaritan in which the Samaritan man pours oil and wine into the wounds of the man who was beaten by robbers.* The oil softens the wounds the edges of the wound keeping them from becoming hard which would prolong or hinder the healing time.* The wine cleans the wound.* Blessed Theophylact sees in the oil the gentleness of Christ’s teaching which heals us, and the wine is thesharpness of his teaching which prods us to virtue.* One can also see the oil as the humanity of Christ (and his sometimes non-ascetic life) and the wine is his divinity which could not be borne alone by us if it were poured directly into our wounds....the humanity had to temper the divinity for us to be healed.* For St. Theophylact the Samaritan is an image of our Lord Himself binding our wounds of sin by His humanity and His divinity.* I think one could also see in the oil and the wine the sharpness of our repentance and the soothing mercy of the Lord’s forgiveness (and as a side note for this conference, this parable is told immediately before the passage in Luke about Martha and Mary...coincidence?* You be the judge).* Now for the second word... It is interesting to note that the word for “wash” in verses 2 and 7 is not the word used for bathing the body, as one would think in reading the Englsih, but it is the Greek term for washing clothes.* The Hebrew term is also the one used for washing clothes.* Considering that clothes were washed by being beaten or trampled, this is quite an interesting entreaty.[32](look a the footnote)
*Thou shalt make me to hear joy and gladness; the bones that be humbled, they shall rejoice.
We have been humbled and now we will rejoice.* Perhaps the humbled bones are due to the type of washing they have received.

Turn Thy face away from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and with Thy governing Spirit establish me.

Again here we see the seeking of restoration of joy and praise after confession and repentance.
I shall teach transgressors Thy ways, and the ungodly shall turn back unto Thee.
The result of confession and repentance is the ability to restore another sinner to communion with God.

Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, Thou God of my salvation; my tongue shall rejoice in Thy righteousness. O Lord, Thou shalt open my lips, and my mouth shall declare Thy praise.

Here the connection of forgiveness of sins after confession leads to rejoicing and praising God.
For if Thou hadst desired sacrifice, I had given it; with whole-burnt offerings Thou shalt not be pleased. A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit; a heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise.
Cassiodorus says concerning the broken and humbled heart (he uses contrite for broken), “Contrite means sorely afflicted by the toils of repentance; humbled, that is, before God, so that the heart which had been proud through arrogance became devoted through holy confession.”[33]* We can also bring to mind what St. John said concerning exomologesis in psalm 110, “God looks for nothing as much as this after all:* this sacrifice, this offering, this sign of a grateful spirit, this is a blow against the devil.”* The psalm concludes.

Do good, O Lord, in Thy good pleasure unto Sion, and let the walls of Jerusalem be builded. Then shalt Thou be pleased with a sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole-burnt offerings. Then shall they offer bullocks upon Thine altar.

Admittedly this has been only a cursory attempt at analysis of Psalm 50; a short example of how it could be used to exemplify the Fathers’ teaching on confession, exomologesis.* Indeed there are many more psalms that could have been used for analysis which employed exomologesis (8 psalms) or more commonly its verb form e0comologe/omai (44 total psalms).* So we can see just by this arithmetic that confession as praise and or repentance....both two sides of the same coin...is an important part of the book of Psalms.* There are 150 psams and about one third of them concern this topic.* It is my hope that this little presentation has opened up the psalms for you a bit more.* More importantly,

I hope it has made you want to unburden yourself from any sins that may weigh heavily upon you.* It may be painfulat first, but the cost of that pain is more than made up for by the joy of freedom.* Christ wants to heal us all.* St. John Chrysostom writes:

“Such is the love of God for mankind that He never rejects genuine repentance, but even if someone were to go beyond the limit of evil and desired to return from there to the way of virtue, He would receive and approach him doing everything to guide him to his former condition.* In fact, He is still more loving:* for even if one did not show all repentance –even the very least – He would reward him much for the little repentance shown.

******** It is not He who ever turns away from us, but rather we who detach ourselves from Him.
******** If you have sinned and fallen, rise, arise please.* For the good and loving Master who was put to shame by your sin is beside you and does not reject cohabitation with you.
Give Him you hand.”

[Olga]

In Greek the word for mercy has the same root as the word for olive oil (Eleison, elaion)

A small digression: This is a commonly-found assertion, but it is incorrect. Eleos and elaion have very similar pronunciation, but are different in their root spelling and origins.

Greeks since ancient times have loved to used puns and wordplay as literary devices; even in liturgical texts, the feasts of St Basil the Great (basil the sweet-smelling herb is the same word as the masculine form of regal), Nicholas of Myra (myrrh and Myra are played with, as are the roots of the saint's name victory and people), and Apostle Andrew (brave, manly) are full of such wordplay, a great deal of which is lost in translation.

[Leah]

Here is a nice commentary on Psalm 50:


Conclusion: Psalm 50


[QUOTE]Do good, O Lord, in Thy good pleasure unto Sion, and let the walls of Jerusalem be builded. Then shalt Thou be pleased with a sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole-burnt offerings. Then shall they offer bullocks upon Thine altar.

Thank You so much for this explanation,it helped me so much in my understanding of this psalm. I have been struggling ,just reciting hoping that God will unwrap its meaning for me.(literal meaning , i mean, ) The words were getting in the way.( i am slightly dyslexic so can not separate some words in my head,also cant spell as you might have noticed.)I still however do not understand the last bit.(i can not work out the multi quote, so i mean:)
Do Good in thy good pleasure unto sion - ?
And let the walls of Jerusalem be builded - Let Christianity grow?
Then shall thou be pleased with the sacrifice of righteousness , with oblation and whole burnt offerings -?
Then shall they offer young bullocks upon thine alter - ?
I wounder if anyone could help me understand . Thankyou in advance, God Bless. Leah

[Michael Commini]

I tried to find another thread on Psalm 50 and didn't so, I would like to explore other parts of this Psalm.



I know King David was under the law and did the burnt offering thing. But how does this relate to us today? Or is he saying at the Second Coming we will again offer burnt offerings?

OR

Are these symbolic offerings of something else and how does this something else come out to be bulls?

Thank you

Paul

I realize Paul's quote is over two years old, but I thought I would tie this in with Leah's question, which seems to be along the same lines.

Mainly, I thought I'd focus on the historical situation of the Psalm- King David's sin with Bathsheeba happened right around the same time as he was expanding the boundaries of Jerusalem, and as he was looking forward to building the temple that would ultimately be built by his son Solomon. The psalm itself fits neatly within the sacrificial period of Judaism.

We can certainly look at the comments about Jersualem being built as being prophetic, looking toward the perfect Jerusalem at the end of the ages; and while a bull is used in the case of the sacrifice of this psalm, it is but another sin offering akin to the lamb (and I'm sure we all know what sin offering represents).

The meat of this penitential psalm, however, comes a few verses prior "For if Thou hadst desired sacrifice, I had given it; with whole burnt offerings Thou shalt not be pleased. A sacrifice to God is a broken spirit, a heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise." Here David echoes the words of the prophet Samuel to King Saul, first in I Kingdoms 13:12 (where Saul's pride lead him to offer the sacrifice for himself rather than wait for Samuel to arrive) then later in 15:22 (where Saul disobeyed God's command to eradicate the Amalekites down to even their livestock on pretext of offering the livestock as a sacrifice). David did what Saul could not and humbled himself, offering true repentance for his sins before undergoing the ritual of the sin offering.

I am not entirely sure how the Fathers approach this, however I do not think it is entirely out of line to apply these verses to Confession- certainly God forgives our sins in the mystery of Confession, but we must bring a broken and humbled heart, not approach it as if God MUST forgive our sins, but because we are truly sorry and repentant.

Of course, I could be completely off here.

[Jesse Dominick]

here's St. Athanasius: Commentary on the Psalms (Ps. 50:5)
The original intention of God was for us to generate not by marriage and corruption. But the transgression of the commandment introduced marriage on account of the lawless act of Adam, that is, the rejection of the law given him by God. Therefore all of those born of Adam are “conceived in iniquities,” having fallen under the condemnation of the forefather.