Psalm 51 and the Language of Transformation:  
      A Biblical Perspective on Holiness 
      A Paper presented to the Theology Symposium   
      Korea Nazarene University, Chonan, South Korea - May 22, 2001   
      Dennis Bratcher   
      Methodology         
      The Holiness tradition has tended to treat the idea of Christian 
		Holiness as a doctrine to be defended and proven. That has led to a 
		tendency to develop methods of examining the idea of holiness in 
		Scripture that sometimes do not really help us understand what Scripture 
		actually says. Whether we really want to admit it or not, sometimes our 
		doctrines are not the same thing as Scripture.   
    For example, one method of explaining the idea of holiness has been word 
	studies, finding all of the biblical passages that use the word holy 
	or sanctify. Often this is done without regard to the subtleties and 
	nuances of meaning of those words in Hebrew or Greek, and often in disregard 
	of their contextual meaning in Scripture. All the passages that contain 
	these words are simply added together to construct a biblical perspective on 
	holiness. Or, as a related method, any passage that contained the word 
	“holy” or “sanctify” was assumed to be talking about this developed 
	Christian doctrine no matter what the immediate context of the passage 
	itself might be. 
    Of course, there are problems with such an approach. Not every time a 
	certain word is used in Scripture is a certain doctrine or even a certain 
	topic being addressed. The ranges of meaning of most words, especially more 
	insubstantial words like “holy,” simply will not allow such an approach to 
	determine meaning.   
        This simply suggests that as helpful as word studies might be on some 
		level, they are inadequate for building doctrines, or even for 
		expressing biblical theology. A better way to come to an understanding 
		of what Scripture communicates on a particular topic is to pay careful 
		attention to the theology expressed in a larger passage of Scripture 
		than single words. Carefully examining a specific biblical passage in 
		its own context to hear what it says on its own terms will likely give 
		us a far better foundation upon which to build theological ideas. 
       The approach of this short study will be rhetorical and theological 
		analysis. We will examine a passage of Scripture in terms of both the 
		internal story world of the text as well as how that story unfolds 
		against the background of the larger canon of Scripture. The goal will 
		not be an exhaustive exegesis of the text. It will be an attempt to 
		listen to the theological affirmations about God that emerge in the text 
		and the response that the text intends to evoke as Scripture for a 
		worshipping community.  
      Tradition and Community 
      When we talk about biblical perspectives on holiness, we usually end up 
		talking about a "doctrine" of holiness. By definition, a doctrine is an 
		agreed upon statement of belief in a community. It is composed of the 
		commonly held ideas about an aspect of the Faith within a certain 
		community or group within that Faith.  
      So, for example, the Church of the Nazarene as part of the larger 
		church has a Doctrine of Holiness. Yet, the Church of the Nazarene did 
		not originate that doctrine. It goes back to John Wesley who explained 
		and shaped that doctrine in particular ways, and who grounded the 
		doctrine in Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and verified it by Experience 
		within the Church. That dimension of grounding the doctrine in both 
		Scripture and Tradition suggests that the doctrine of holiness has roots 
		much deeper than even John Wesley. He may have given a certain 
		expression to the doctrine at a certain time and place in history. But 
		he did not invent it. Wesley saw it as something that had long existed 
		in the church and among the people of God. In fact, the idea of holiness 
		as a practice of God’s people has a long history in the church, and can 
		even be traced deeply into the Old Testament.  
      Here is a crucial point in this study. If the doctrine of holiness has 
		any validity to it, if it is true at all, it has to go beyond the Church 
		of the Nazarene. It has to go beyond the heritage of the Holiness 
		Movement of the nineteenth century, or John Wesley in eighteenth century England, or 
		the Eastern Church traditions of the seventeenth century that helped shape 
		Wesley’s thinking. If the doctrine of holiness is to be something more 
		than just a unique and narrow belief of a small group of people, it must 
		have roots far beyond that group. In other words, it must be more 
		than a doctrine! It must be a truth about how God works in the world.  
         
    If the doctrine of holiness is true in that larger sense, if it is more 
	than just another doctrine, then what we are talking about in discussing the 
	idea of Christian holiness is nothing less than how God deals with human 
	beings. And if the doctrine of holiness is a true description of how God 
	deals with human beings, then it is true no matter what language we might 
	want to use for it, or how much we might want to think it is our own unique 
	possession in the Christian Faith.   
      It does not matter whether we call it the doctrine of holiness or 
		whether we even use the words  holy or  sanctification at 
		all. If it has validity as a way to express how God deals with human 
		beings with roots in the earliest days of the people of God, then it is 
		simply an expression of how God works with people. If the doctrine of 
		holiness is true, it has always been true. That is why we can 
		examine the Old Testament with the doctrine of holiness in mind, not to 
		prove the doctrine of holiness, but to ask how God worked with humanity 
		there.    
    We can ask the question directly.  Is there a doctrine of holiness 
	in the Old Testament? If we mean the precise way that John Wesley or the 
	American Holiness Movement or any particular denomination has expressed that 
	doctrine, no, it is not. But if we mean that way in which God works with 
	human beings that the doctrine of holiness attempts to express today, then 
	of course it is there!              
      So a biblical perspective on holiness assumes that if a doctrine of 
		holiness is true, then it will be part of the biblical witness to God 
		throughout Scripture. Apart from technical theological terms, the 
		doctrine of holiness concerns the inner transformation that occurs in 
		the life of people in which they are reoriented to God away from the 
		self-centerededness that drives them to commit sinful acts. It is a 
		genuine transformation that occurs with all people no matter what terms 
		they use to describe it. If that is true, then we can assume that it 
		occurred with Israelites long before we could even talk about being 
		Christian. It is simply how God deals with humanity. And if Scripture is 
		the revelation of the nature of God, then we will find that experience 
		described in Scripture since Scripture is the testimony of how God has 
		worked in history with his people.              
      In this study I propose an exercise in biblical theology from an 
		exegetical base. We will briefly examine a passage of Scripture from the 
		Old Testament, Psalm 51. We will need to be careful that we do 
		not read this psalm through our categories of systematic theology. The 
		goal here is to listen to the text in order to hear how the writer of 
		this psalm articulates relationship with God. If we listen to the text 
		on that level, we may gain some insight into how God deals with human 
		beings no matter what we want to call the experience.              
      The Superscription: Theological Setting             
      As with many of the psalms, Psalm 51 has a superscription, an 
		introduction that apparently gives information about the context of the 
		psalm. In some translations it is the first verse and in others it is a 
		heading above that verse.              
      To the Leader. A Psalm of David, when the 
		prophet Nathan came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.              
      Yet, as we read through this Psalm, it is interesting that there is 
		nothing in it that directly relates to the life of David. The Psalm 
		talks about sin and forgiveness and proper worship, but it does not 
		relate any of those to David. Were it not for the superscription, we 
		would have nothing in the psalm to link it with David.              
      From historical study and comparison with other writings of the time, 
		biblical scholars have concluded that the superscriptions are not 
		actually a part of the psalms. Instead, they were added later time to 
		give directions for how the psalm should be read or used in worship. 
		Although in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament the superscriptions 
		are             
      counted as part of the psalm, in most modern translations the 
		superscriptions are not numbered with the verses of the Psalms.             
      This suggests that we should not use a historical approach to 
		understand the psalm as if we were reading a biography of David. Psalm 
		51 likely has its roots in Israel’s worship. From the actual content of 
		the psalm it probably was originally a general confessional Psalm, 
		offered by worshippers as a penitential admission of sin. That would 
		account for the nonspecific content of the Psalm, similar to most of the 
		other laments and penitential psalms in the Psalter. The psalm was 
		simply a prayer of confession to God that could be prayed by anyone in 
		Israel.             
      But as it stands in the canon of Scripture, this psalm is more than 
		just a prayer of confession. It provides a theological perspective that 
		transcends Israel’s focus on priestly forgiveness of sins. It is this 
		dimension of the psalm as theological affirmation that is of interest to 
		us here.             
      So, we cannot read this psalm as simple historical recounting. But 
		neither can we leave this Psalm in Israel’s past and treat it as a relic 
		of ancient worship. The superscription to the Psalm transforms the psalm 
		into something much more viable for Israel’s ongoing life as God’s 
		people. The superscription does not make the psalm an account of David’s 
		history, nor does it tell us that David wrote this psalm. Yet, it does 
		provide the context for how the community of faith that used this psalm 
		in worship understood its message.             
      The superscription historicizes the psalm. It gives it a setting in a 
		particular time and circumstance, not as history but as theology. 
		It tells people long after the time of David how they were to read and 
		use this particular psalm in the context of Israel’s ongoing worship. In 
		so doing, it redirects the psalm from being a general psalm of 
		repentance to a confession of Israel’s faith in God’s work among people 
		in daily life under God.             
      So, we need to hear the psalm as a theological affirmation of how 
		Israel had come to understand God and the process of repentance, prayer, 
		and transformation as part of worship. The psalm is clearly a prayer, as 
		are most of the psalms in the Psalter. Yet, the superscription tells us 
		that this is not the kind of psalm a person would pray everyday. This is 
		not a morning prayer in which a person would routinely say, "Lord 
		forgive me for anything I have done that is wrong."             
      Here is the importance of the superscription for this psalm. It tells 
		us at what point in life God’s people are to pray this psalm as a 
		confessional prayer. The superscription tells us that this is the Psalm 
		we should pray when we are David the king, the anointed one of God; when 
		we have seen Bathsheba on the rooftop; when we have taken her even 
		though she is someone else’s wife; then when we have killed her husband 
		Uriah the Hittite, and now stand before Nathan the prophet confronted by 
		the magnitude of our sin (2 Sam 11-12).             
                  
      As theology, this psalm is about that very particular crisis point in a 
		person’s life when they are confronted not only with what they have 
		done, but with who they are that has allowed them to do it. The 
		superscription defines this crisis as the only proper context in which 
		to pray this prayer, where this prayer and only this prayer is 
		appropriate.                
      So, while this psalm is not directly about David, it will be helpful 
		for us to follow the directions of the community of Faith and hear the 
		Psalm against the background of David’s life. Ancient Israel shaped and 
		defined the psalm in that context by the superscription, so we can more 
		easily hear the theological affirmation against that background. Yet, 
		because this story is not simple history, we cannot shake our heads at 
		David’s sin and be glad that we have not done anything so hideous. By 
		listening to the Psalm contextualized to David, and yet knowing that it 
		is confessional theology, we can realize that the psalm is about us, 
		that it is about you and me as people of God. This psalm illustrates 
		that kind of crisis point to which most of us come at one time or 
		another in our lives, that time in which we are confronted with who we 
		really are. It is on this level that we can read the psalm as 
		biblical theology, as instruction for us today.                
      Psalm 51               
      The actual psalm begins in the first two verses with an open 
		confessional approach to God.                
      1. Have mercy on me, O God, according to your 
		steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy, blot out my 
		transgressions; 2. wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me 
		from my sin.                
      This is the first response to recognition of sin. In David’s life, this 
		is the first response to the scathing prophetic accusation of "you are 
		the man" (2 Sam 12:7). Notice that the confession is first a confession about God. We 
		can only come before God from that kind of circumstance in life as we 
		acknowledge the mercy and grace of God, acknowledge that everything that 
		is to follow depends not on ourselves and our abilities, but on God and 
		his grace. The psalmist comes before God with a sense of commitment to 
		him and a profound sense of contrition. The prayer uses all the typical 
		ritual language common to priestly sacrifice: blot out, wash, cleanse. 
		It is an appeal from a legal context in which law has been violated and 
		the sinner seeks forgiveness.                
      Yet, we also need to understand that this plea for mercy is against an 
		Old Testament background in which there was no atonement available for 
		this sin. Sin that was done intentionally and purposefully was not part 
		of the sacrificial system, only sin that was done unintentionally (Lev 
		4). To break covenant with God as David has done has legally placed him 
		outside the covenant and beyond the normal atonement rituals. So even 
		with the language of temple worship and ritual here, the psalmist would 
		understand that it is not the priest nor the rituals that can forgive 
		here, but only God.                
      To begin with this confession means that the psalmist understands that 
		he is a sinner before God. There is no false piety, no excuses made for 
		the sin. He understands that the only way out of that sin is by a 
		gracious and a forgiving God. "Have mercy on me" is the initial cry that 
		strips away any pretense to self-righteousness or personal merit. This 
		plea acknowledges that this is a matter of grace. This is all in God’s 
		hands, not ours.                
      In the next three verses, the psalmist moves into even more direct 
		petition.                
      3. For I know my transgressions, my sin is ever 
		before me.                
      Again, the Psalmist is willing to acknowledge his sin. Many of these 
		Psalms were prayed in the temple before the community, so this may even 
		be a public confession. I am not suggesting that we always have to 
		confess all of our sins before everyone. Yet, when we have done the 
		things that David has done, it is not a private matter. When we have 
		abused our position of responsibility before God, committed adultery 
		with Bathsheba, murdered Uriah the Hittite, and been confronted with 
		Nathan the prophet, we cannot simply offer a private prayer of 
		repentance and hope that no one finds out. That kind of public sin 
		before God and the community requires a willingness to come before God 
		and the community and take responsibility for what we have done.                
      Transformation must always begin with an honest confession of who we 
		are before God. In fact there is some sense here that this sin is now 
		defining who the psalmist is. It is there in front of him so that when 
		people look at him, they see the sin.                
      Verse 4 moves to a deeper level of this confession.                
      4. Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and 
		done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your 
		sentence and blameless when you pass judgment.                
      The sin of David had been a social sin. It had been against Bathsheba 
		and against Uriah the Hittite. It had been against the entire kingdom 
		over which David ruled, against the community for which David was 
		responsible. This is not a private sin. It is a very public one. And yet 
		when the psalmist comes before God, he says that it is against God alone 
		that he has sinned.                
      Sometimes we think that our sins are more like social mistakes, 
		violations of social responsibility for which we should apologize to one 
		another. We do things that hurt other people and then we apologize to 
		them. Sometimes we are more concerned with what people think of us, more 
		concerned with saving face, than we are concerned with the fact that we 
		have sinned against God. Of course, we should apologize when we have 
		hurt people as an expression of our repentance and our love for them. 
		Yet theologically, this Psalm says that finally all sin is sin against 
		God.                
      That is really the heart of the problem. Of course, it is Uriah that is 
		dead. The consequences of sin have worked out in the context of the 
		community and created tremendous disruption. But finally the Psalmist 
		knows that he has to deal with God first. It is not enough to begin with 
		the human relationships that have been destroyed. That has to come out 
		of how he allows God to shape his life. He must begin with this 
		confession: "it is against you, and you only, that I have sinned."                
      The psalmist admits that there are consequences that will work out from 
		his sin: "you are justified in your sentence and blameless when you pass 
		judgment." Contrary to some of our modern ideas about the judgment of 
		God, in most of the Old Testament the "judgment" of God refers to those 
		historical consequences that come from our actions. The Old Testament 
		view, especially from the prophetic traditions, is that our sinful 
		actions create their own consequences that will destroy us unless God 
		intervenes. As we read about the rest of David’s life, it is easy to 
		follow those consequences as they tear apart David’s family. Yet, there 
		is a willingness here to come before God, even knowing that consequences 
		will come, yet trying to do something to address this problem of sin.                
      If we are not careful, we will badly misunderstand verse five.                
      5. Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my 
		mother conceived me.                
      This verse has traditionally been interpreted as teaching a specific 
		doctrine of original sin, what is known in systematic theology as the 
		genetic theory of the transmission of original sin. It began with those 
		who used the assumptions of Greek Neo-Platonic philosophy and read this 
		verse from the perspective of philosophical dualism. In this view, all 
		physical matter is inherently evil and therefore sin is located in the 
		physical body. Beginning with that perspective, this verse seems to 
		confirm that human beings are sinful simply because they are born 
		physically, that all human beings are guilty of sin simply because they 
		exist as physical creatures. From that premise, it was easy for some to 
		conclude that as long as human beings exist in a physical world they 
		will always be sinful in every thought and action.                
                     
      But this is not a doctrine of original sin. There may be other 
		places in Scripture in which "original sin" is in view, but not here. 
		This is not about newborn babies being guilty of sin. To adopt that view 
		is to destroy human responsibility that is at the heart of this Psalm!                
      Verse five is simply a way to say that at this moment, as the Psalmist 
		stands before God in confession, maybe for the first time in his life, 
		he is willing to say, "I really am this bad." At this moment of honesty 
		the psalmist has come before God and finally admits, "I have never been 
		much better than who I am at this moment."                
      We human beings don’t like that kind of honesty about ourselves. We are 
		very good at deceiving ourselves. We will do almost anything we have to 
		do to avoid confronting who we really are. We like to think that we are 
		righteous. If we put this confession against the background of David’s 
		life, perhaps it will give us a perspective to see how crucial this 
		confession really is for us.                
      David was a very young boy tending sheep for his father. The biblical 
		text in 1 Samuel tells us that God choose this young shepherd boy to be 
		king of Israel because he was "a man after his own heart" (1 Sam 13:14). 
		And we can follow his story as God protected and helped him throughout 
		his life. He killed Goliath the giant because God was with him. He 
		assembled a band of men and became a hero leading raids against the 
		Philistines. The books of Samuel record victory after victory that God 
		helped David and his men achieve. He became king of Israel, the anointed 
		one of God. David was God’s man for the hour, and because of his 
		faithfulness God promised that his descendants would always rule over 
		Israel (2 Sam 7).                
      Now if you were David, how would you be able to say that you have been 
		a sinner since birth? All the external evidence says differently. It 
		would be very easy for David to deny what he really is by appealing to 
		his past greatness and uprightness. We as human beings are very good at 
		looking at ourselves and seeing our successes, seeing our righteousness, 
		seeing how good we are. And so we say, "I’m not really so bad." It is 
		easy to pray the prayer of the Pharisee as he stood on the temple steps: 
		"I thank God that I am not like other sinful men!" (Luke 18:10 ff).                
      David could have done that very easily. Except that now he is at a 
		point in life when the evidence of his sin is too obvious to ignore. He 
		has taken Bathsheba. He has killed Uriah the Hittite. And now Nathan the 
		prophet has come and confronted David. He cannot hide any longer from 
		the truth. He must face who he is. We might speculate that if he had done it 
		sooner, Uriah might still be alive!                
      This is the tragedy of the story of David. As we read through the book 
		of Samuel about the life of David, we are not prepared for what happens 
		with Bathsheba. Everything that we have read about David up to that 
		point says that this is truly a righteous person, that he truly is a man 
		after God’s own heart. He is God’s man of the hour, because God himself 
		chose him to be King.                
      And yet at that crucial moment, after God had enabled him to become 
		King of Israel and had given him rest from his enemies, he committed the 
		worst and most brutal kind of sins. He took his power as king, the power 
		that was given to him by God to shepherd his people, and used God’s gift 
		to abuse others. We just do not expect that in the David story. It comes 
		as a shock to us to learn that God’s man is even capable of thinking 
		such things, let alone actually doing them.                
      Here is where we need to start hearing the power of this psalm as 
		theology. Because, after all, this psalm is not just about David. It is 
		about us. The tragedy here is our tragedy. This psalm is a challenge to 
		that tendency we have of ignoring or refusing to see who we really are. 
		It is a warning against seeing ourselves as so righteous before God and 
		so good that we are not willing to admit the immense potential that we 
		have to sin. Of course, our immediate reaction is, "Not me. I would 
		never do that." But that is the point here. We are                
      David here!                
                     
      This is a dangerous position to be in because it overestimates who we 
		are as human beings and underestimates the magnitude of the disruption, 
		pain, and sin that we can bring into the world. This should not have 
		happened to David. He was too good. And yet one day, as he was simply 
		out for a walk in the sunshine, who David really is comes to the 
		surface. And sooner or later, who we really are will come to the 
		surface as well.                
      Verse five tells us that perhaps for the first time the psalmist comes 
		to the point of being able to see himself and admit that maybe he never 
		really was as good as he thought. And so finally he is brought face to 
		face with himself. And what he sees is ugly. At that time in life when 
		we are confronted with who we really are, we are finally able to see 
		what we are beyond all of our pretense to righteousness. Beneath all the 
		external veneer of goodness, deep down in the heart where our will and 
		intentions and motives hide, we really are that bad.                
      Do you realize that coming to that point is the only way that any 
		newness can truly begin? As long as we have the attitude that we are OK, 
		there is no room for God to work transformation in our lives. It is only 
		when we come to that kind of honesty before God, as we admit to God and 
		ourselves who we really are that God can begin working newness in our 
		life. The first step toward light is to recognize the darkness.                
      The psalmist continues in verses six through nine and begins to unfold 
		what needs to happen.                
      6. You desire truth in the inward being, 
		therefore, teach me wisdom in my secret heart. 7. Purge me with hyssop, 
		and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Let me 
		hear joy and gladness; let the bones that you have crushed rejoice. 9 
		Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities.                
      This echoes the passage in Isaiah 1: "though your sins be as scarlet 
		they shall be white as snow." This is an understanding of God’s 
		forgiveness, an understanding that when we come to a recognition of sin 
		there is a forgiveness in God’s grace.                
      The symbols and the metaphors here are all the metaphors of priestly 
		ritual. The priest used hyssop symbolically to cleanse a person from 
		their sin. In priestly perspective, sin was seen as a contamination that 
		made a person unclean before God, much as a garment could be stained and 
		in need of cleansing. The act of washing was a ritual that symbolized 
		God removing the contamination of sin. To be "white as snow" was a 
		metaphor of forgiveness, the removal of the stain and contamination of 
		sin.                
      Within the context of Old Testament worship, this symbolism and ritual 
		are ways of affirming that God does forgive sin. In this context, it 
		becomes an affirmation about the nature of God’s grace. It is important 
		for us to realize not only the magnitude of our sin, but also the 
		magnitude of God’s grace and the forgiveness that he brings into a 
		person’s life. There is the implication here that no sin, even the sin 
		of murder, is beyond the ability and desire of God to forgive. The 
		Psalmist here is willing to come before God and acknowledge the 
		magnitude of his sin, and yet trust in the magnitude of God’s grace.                
      Yet, the Psalm does not end there. If it did, we could be content with 
		asking for forgiveness for the sins that we commit even though we are 
		God’s people, even though we have been chosen to lead God’s people. If 
		the psalm ended here, we could concede that perhaps human beings really 
		do sin like this all the time, and need to pray this prayer every 
		morning.                
      Yet, Verse ten takes us in a totally different direction.                
      10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and a new 
		and right spirit within me.                
      We need to understand the change between verse nine and verse ten. It 
		is a radical change. To this point the psalmist has been talking about 
		forgiveness, with all the liturgical and ritual language of washing and 
		cleansing. This is the correct priestly language of what should happen 
		when God forgives.                
      Yet, verse ten moves away from the language of the temple and the 
		rituals, and so moves away from the language of forgiveness. Notice 
		there are different terms used there. "Create in me a clean heart, O 
		God. And put a new and a steadfast spirit within me." Something is 
		different there. There is talk of newness, of new creation. This is not 
		the language of cleansing the old, but of creating something new. And 
		there is also the language of stability here, of a steadfastness that 
		comes from within. This is not just the language of forgiveness, but of 
		something more than forgiveness.                
      Part of the problem with forgiveness is that it can only deal with the 
		results of sin. Like Paul’s argument about the law in Romans, the 
		problem with any legal or ritualized conception of relationship with God 
		is that law and atonement rituals can only deal with violation. 
		Forgiveness can only apply after the violation has occurred. Of 
		course, that is necessary, especially in the context of sins such as 
		these. We must not minimize the nature of sin and the dimension of God’s 
		grace that makes forgiveness possible.                
      Yet, if we are not careful, as important as that emphasis on 
		forgiveness might be at some stage, it is easy to focus on the remedy 
		for the sinful acts without ever asking what might cause the 
		sinful acts. Forgiveness can all too easily become trapped in a cycle of 
		sin and forgiveness, so that we become more preoccupied with responding 
		to sin than we are with being faithful to God in the first place. The 
		Neo-Platonists assumed that sin was part of being human, that it was 
		grounded in physical existence. But there is no such biblical 
		perspective. Biblically, sin is a matter of the heart and described in 
		terms of unfaithfulness and disobedience. That suggests that a solution 
		must involve the heart.                
How many times will God forgive? It is an easy question to ask, especially if 
we are talking about ourselves. We easily want to claim the broadest dimension 
of God’s grace, and affirm that his grace is unending. But when we ask this 
question about ourselves, we need to realize that we are really asking the wrong 
question. It is not a matter of how many times will God forgive. That is 
unending. The more important question is: why should we keep on sinning so that 
God has to forgive?               
      Here is the significance of the shift from the language of forgiveness 
		to the language of new creation between verses nine and ten. The first 
		nine verses clearly portray the honesty of someone who has come face to 
		face, not only with what they have done, but also with who they are. The 
		psalmist has admitted that his very existence is defined by sin.                
      The cry here from the heart of the Psalmist is a cry for 
		transformation, realizing that there has to be a better way than just 
		forgiveness. There must be something more than going through the cycle 
		of sin and forgiveness, better than risking again becoming in practice 
		what he has always been in his heart. There must be a better way, as 
		Paul so eloquently echoes in Romans 7. I want to suggest that verse ten 
		is that better way.                
      The language here is the language of creation:  
		Create in me a clean heart, O God. 
		 And put a new and a steadfast spirit within me. 
		In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word translated "create" is only 
		used with God as subject. Only God can bring the newness that the word 
		"create" suggests. Here there is no idea of washing the old heart and 
		trying to remove the contamination of sin. In verse 10, the psalmist 
		abandons the priestly language of forgiveness and begins using the 
		language of transformation. The psalmist is no longer simply praying for 
		continued forgiveness, but for a radical change in who he is.                
      There is recognition here that the problem is not really the failure in 
		sinning, but a problem of the heart that caused the sin. In Hebrew, the 
		"heart" is a metaphor for the seat of the intellect, the center of will 
		and decision-making. The "spirit" is also a metaphor for the entire 
		person in terms of the motives and intentions that lie behind actions. 
		To pray for a newly created heart and for a new spirit is a confession 
		that the heart, the will of the person, is the source of the problem. It 
		is an admission that the hidden motives and intentions of the psalmist 
		are so perverted and unstable that nothing short of a new creation and a 
		steadfastness from God will bring any significant change in who he is. 
		And he has already confessed that he needs to change.                
      It is also significant that the prayer is for a "steadfast" spirit. 
		This Hebrew word means to establish as firm and solid. It is the same 
		word used in the promise to David (2 Sam 7:16) that God would 
		"establish" his descendants as kings of Israel. In this context, David 
		had the external trappings of strength and permanence for his kingdom. 
		Now, there is the realization that the external appearance of stability 
		is not much without an inner steadfastness and stability that will allow 
		faithfulness in actions.                
      The Psalmist cannot make that happen by himself. The rituals of the 
		temple cannot make that change. The sacrifices and the water may 
		symbolize God’s forgiveness. But forgiveness is not the same as 
		creation. Something has to happen beyond the forgiveness. Something has 
		to happen inside the psalmist on the level of the heart, that deals with 
		who he is. So he cries out: "Create in me a new heart. Transform me and 
		make me new. Put a new steadfast spirit within me."                
      As we move to verse 11, we have to be careful that we do not misread 
		it. Again, it is easy here to assume our modern systematic and doctrinal 
		formulations, and read them into this text.                
      11 Do not cast me away from your presence, and 
		do not take your holy spirit from me.                
      This is not about grieving the Holy Spirit, as if there is danger that 
		God will not be willing to extend grace, that the sin is so hideous that 
		God will reject the prayer. In fact, this is not about the Holy Sprit in 
		a Christian sense at all. That understanding of God will have to await 
		God’s revelation of himself in Jesus Christ when an understanding of the 
		Trinity could be formulated.                
      Here, as in all of the Old Testament, the "spirit" or "breath" of God 
		is simply a metaphorical way to talk about the active and dynamic 
		presence of God in the world to effect change and growth. It is this 
		"breath" of God that moved on the primeval waters at the beginning of 
		creation (Gen 1). It is this "breath" of God that dried up the waters of 
		the Great Flood (Gen. 6). It is this "breath" of God that filled 
		Ezekiel’s dry bones with new life (Ezek. 37). The prayer of the psalmist 
		here is for the dynamic and creative presence of God that will bring the 
		change for which he cries. This is the only avenue to restoration and 
		future stability for which the psalmist prays in verse 12:                
      12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and 
		sustain in me a willing spirit.                
      The final transformation of the psalmist is in view in verse 13.                
      13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways, 
		and sinners will return to you.                
      The one who was once nothing but a sinner, who had to face himself in 
		light of where his sin had led him, can now envision turning to concern 
		for other sinners. The psalmist is willing to share with others in 
		teaching what he has himself learned about God. The new heart for which 
		the psalmist prays is not just to make him better. It is really a 
		gift to the world. It is out of that newly created heart and the 
		steadfast spirit given by God that his vision can turn from a 
		preoccupation with his own unrighteousness and the need for personal 
		forgiveness to seeing the need of others to experience the same 
		transformation. That newly created heart is a heart that beats for 
		others, because it is a God created heart.                
      Verses sixteen and seventeen are a summary of the theology of the 
		psalm.                
      16 For you have no delight in sacrifice; if I 
		were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased.                
      In typical prophetic language adopted here, the idea that God requires 
		sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is rejected. It is not all worship 
		that is rejected, only worship as an end in itself or as a means to 
		righteousness. Theologically, this simply repeats what the psalm has 
		already said. Finally, what God wants from us is not sacrifice and 
		repentance, but transformation.                
      In our Christian context, this may be harder to formulate since we have 
		so easily adopted the language of sacrifice to talk about Jesus. But in 
		that Christian context, we can say that God does not really want us to 
		claim the sacrifice of Jesus for forgiveness for sins as the goal of the 
		Christian life. That may have its place just as the priestly language of 
		sacrifice had its place in this psalm. But finally, there is something 
		more to relationship with God than simply being forgiven of sin.                
      If the psalmist wants something more than forgiveness, then God wants 
		something more for him as well. This passage says that God grows as 
		tired of our sacrifices and our repentance as we grow tired of offering 
		them.                
      What is the solution? Verse 17 is a powerful conclusion in this psalm 
		to Israel’s understanding of God and God’s call to his people.                
      17 The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken 
		spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.                
      What God seeks in us is a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart, a 
		willingness to abandon who we are in ourselves for what we can become in 
		God. What God wants is a person to come to a sense of brokenness in 
		their life, just as the psalmist has done here. It is not just that we 
		realize who we are as sinner, but that we are so grieved at who we are 
		that we will cry out before God. "Make me new! I don’t like who I am and 
		I don’t like what I have done. God, what I need is for you to do 
		something new in my life that gives me a new heart, that so fills me 
		with your presence that I can live a different way and be a different 
		person." That prayer can only come at the point of brokenness, when we 
		come face to face with who we are, and do not like what we see.                
      This is a brokenness that realizes that we cannot be the center of our 
		world, even if we are King of Israel. It is a brokenness that knows if 
		we are ever going to be different, if we are ever going to move beyond 
		the level of constantly seeking forgiveness, we are going to have to 
		give ourselves to God, to allow him to remake us on his terms.                
      Talking of brokenness is hard for us, because it is scary to risk 
		becoming something other than what we are. We have grown comfortable 
		with ourselves, even though we know in our better moments that we are 
		like the psalmist here. We would much rather have the joy of our 
		religion. We would rather have all the blessings that go with being a 
		Christian. I suspect that for many of us we would much rather be trapped 
		in the cycle of sin and forgiveness, hoping that who we really are is 
		never exposed, than we would to become broken enough to have a new 
		heart. Yet if we do not, we will never learn to love God with all of our 
		heart, mind, soul and strength, nor will we ever learn to love our 
		neighbor as ourselves.                
      As Christians, especially as evangelical Christians, we often like to talk about Jesus 
		dying on the cross for us, taking our place. Let me suggest to you that 
		Jesus did not die on the cross so that you would not have to die. He 
		died on that cross to show you the way. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German 
		theologian, wrote in The Cost of Discipleship: "When Jesus bids a 
		man come, he bids him come and die." That is the power of the Gospel 
		passages that call us to take up our cross and follow him.                
      We cannot get away from the idea of the cross. That cross is the kind 
		of brokenness to which we are called when we take in our hands the 
		symbols of his broken body and the cup of his suffering. When we 
		celebrate Eucharist, we are not celebrating the fact that we do not have 
		to die. We are celebrating the fact that he has shown us how to become 
		broken. If we are not willing to come before God with that kind of 
		brokenness, a willingness to cry out to God from a broken spirit for 
		renewal, then we have not understood the Gospel. And we have not 
		experienced the creative power of God that he can bring into our lives.                
      There is a place in this psalm for praise and rejoicing, and even for 
		worship and sacrifice. Verse fifteen is about praise.                
      15. Oh Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will 
		declare your praise.                
      And the conclusion of the psalm is about acceptable sacrifice.                
      18 Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; 
		rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, 19 then you will delight in right 
		sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls 
		will be offered on your altar.                
      Yet like Easter Sunday following Good Friday, that praise can only come after the brokenness 
		and death that has allowed new creation. There is no newness in 
		Christian living that does not come out of brokenness and ending. 
		This is perhaps the most important insight into our own humanity from 
		this psalm. If we are not willing to come to that point of brokenness 
		with the psalmist there will be no new heart. The only solution for our 
		struggle with sin is to come to the point where we are willing to face 
		who we are honestly, to come to that crisis point in our life where we 
		are willing to be recreated by God.                
      That does not mean that everything will then be perfect. It does not 
		mean there will be no more struggles in our lives. David would spend the 
		rest of his life dealing with the unfolding consequences of his sin. But 
		it means that we can have a new heart that is steadfast and oriented to 
		God. It means that we can have the very presence of God recreating us 
		and transforming us from what we are into what we can be by grace. It 
		means we can have the living breath of God within us giving us new life 
		and enabling us to do what we cannot do on our own. That is the most 
		important thing we learn about God from this psalm.                
      Conclusion               
This psalm does not contain the traditional terms for sanctification and 
holiness. Some have argued for a “second blessing” from this psalm focusing on 
the time and circumstance of God’s work. But that kind of doctrinal formulation 
is just not here. Yet, what this psalm presents is a perspective on human beings 
and God that focuses on the transformation of our sinful humanity by a creative 
act of God. However we define holiness and sanctification doctrinally or 
systematically, I think that truth must lie at its center. We as Wesleyans 
really do believe that God can so transform human beings that they can become 
“children of God,” that they can live a life of holiness in perfect love toward 
God and others. And this passage teaches us that this transformation comes 
through the avenue of brokenness that deals honestly with who we really are.           
Notice that the psalm does not conclude with a precise formula for what 
happens, when it happens, or how we make it happen. I think this has been one of 
the mistakes of some of the holiness traditions, of trying to reduce the work of 
God with people to a formula. There is none of that here. There is no shorter 
way to holiness. There is only that time in life when we are confronted with 
ourselves, that time in which our spirit and self-will are broken by the sight 
of ourselves and who we really are. And we respond by crying out to God for 
newness from the midst of our brokenness. That cry is a cry of profound faith 
that is willing to place who we are in God’s hands and let him shape us however 
he wants to shape us.           
      When we come to that point of crisis with the psalmist, and pray this 
		prayer for a new heart from a broken spirit, we will never be the same. 
		That’s what a new heart means. It is a transformation by God of the very 
		essence of who we are. He gives us a newly created heart first to love 
		God. And then he will work in our lives to bring newness in all of our 
		life and to others. This psalm is a call to new creation that we call 
		holiness.               
      -Dennis Bratcher, Copyright ©
      2018, Dennis 
		Bratcher, All Rights Reserved                                      
      See Copyright and User Information Notice
    
      |