Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Buchs" <buchs AT lutheran.com>]

Thanks for the reply.

David Stabnow wrote:
> First, do not be too quick to assume that the "imperfects" in v. 21 imply
> future tense.  It is not that easy, especially in poetry.  It could be
> customary: "The Lord (typically) rewards me according to my
righteousness,"
> or, "The Lord has always rewarded me according to my righteousness."  You
> also need to look at all the verb forms in the book, and the patterns from
> section to section, and try to see how the formal structure relates to the
> semantic intention of the author with regard to the temporal frame.

Thanks for the reminder about the imperfects.  I have been taught that the
imperfect can convey multiple tenses in a single use, past, present, and
future.  In this verse, however, it seems the imperfects need to be taken in
parallel, that is communicating action that took place at the same point in
time.  I am not sure I can see how the second clause could take on the
customary sense of the imperfect.  It does not suggest a continuous or
ongoing action to me.  Getting pure hands is a dramatic event when it comes
to Yahweh, is it not?

> Second, you say, "Further, the second clause of that verse suggests that
> the subject does not currently possess righteousness, for he is not the
> possessor of purified hands."  This depends on two things: the tense of
the
> translation, as above, and assumptions regarding David's willingness to
> claim sinlessness.  Do not assume that because of David's past it is
> impossible for him to do so.  You will see in the next four verses he
> clearly considers himself "blameless."  There are also a few other places
> in the Psalms where the psalmist does the same.  The theological
> explanation is that he considers himself sinless with regard to this
> situation, not with regard to his whole life.

I  am not sure that I can see how the next four verses convey David clearly
considering himself blameless.  With regard to situational blamelessness, I
find myself hesitant because it seems that such strong language is used
here, which suggests completeness to me.  Would you argue that it is in the
nature of the poetical language to communicate in a stronger sense than the
meaning that is trying to be conveyed?

Theologically (please admonish and excuse me if this breaches list
ettiquette) it seems to me that if David claims to be blameless even in
regard to a particular even, then he is in fact not blameless with regard to
that event.

> Third, as in Gen 50:15 and Hos 12:15, the hifil of *$WB* can mean "repay
in
> accordance with."  If this is the meaning in the second part, *GML* in the
> first part probably means "do (good or bad) in accordance with," rather
> than "finish."

Certainly I must study my lexicon more on the use of $WB.  On initial glance
it appears that this is an obscure usage.  Does this mean that I need to
fight my way through both irregular grammar and obscure meanings when
reading the Psalms?  If so, do we have hope of getting it right?

Kevin Buchs  buchs AT lutheran.com  Rochester, MN