H. Daniel Zacharias on the Use of Psalm 69 and 109 in the New Testament

  

Psalms 69 and 109

 

Psalms 69 and 109 are nowhere connected specifically to Ahithophel and his treachery in early Jewish readings, but both psalms are attributed to David and belong in the classification of "betrayal psalms." The most forthright use of Pss 69 and 109 come from Luke in Acts 1:20, which cites these psalms as predictions for the death of Judas. The eternal condemnation from Ps 69:28, applied to Judas, is not unlike other Rabbinic traditions which similarly condemn Ahithophel. Numerous allusions to Ps 109 are noted by Van de Water in Matthew as well: the refusal of Judas' plea (Matt 27:4/Ps 109:7, 12); Judas' remorse and suicide (Matt 27.5) is connected with Ps 109:7 by Jerome; the curse of the betrayer by Jesus (Matt 26.24) echoes the curses in Ps 109:6-19; and the allusion to Ps 109:25 in Matt 27:39 when passersby shake their heads at Jesus. These connections show that the betrayal psalms were drawn upon by Matthew in his Gospel. (H. Daniel Zacharias, Matthew’s Presentation of the Son of David [T&T Clark Biblical Studies; London: T&T Clark, 2017], 155)

 

Norman Powell Williams (1927) on Amrbosiaster Accepting a Doctrine of Original Sin but not Original Guilt

  

(5) 'Ambrosiaster.' This writer clearly indicates by his comments on Rom. v. vi. vii. that he accepts the idea of ' Original Sin'; but he has only one sentence which (apparently) implies the idea of ' Original Guilt.' The sentence to which we refer is, nevertheless, of the most crucial importance in the development of the 'twice-born' Fall-theory, because Ambrosiaster thereby provided, perhaps unwittingly, the doctrine of 'Original Guilt' with what it had hitherto lacked, namely, a Scriptural proof-text to be its formal basis: the ignorance of Greek now prevalent in the West, and the consequent inability of many Latin theologians to read the actual words of the New Testament, effectually screened the fact that the supposed proof-text rested upon a blunder in translation. Its relevant portions run as follows:

 

In whom, that is, in Adam, all sinned. The Apostle said ' in whom ' in the masculine gender (in quo) although he is speaking about the woman, for this reason, that his reference is to the whole race of man, not to the particular sex <which as a matter of fact sinned first>. So then it is plain that all have sinned in Adam as in a lump (quasi in massa); for all the children whom Adam begat, having been himself corrupted by the woman (ipsa) through sin, have been born under sin. From him therefore all are sinners, because from him are we all; for Adam lost the gift of God when he transgressed, having become unworthy to eat of the tree of life, so that he died

 

The cardinal error in this sentence lies in the mis- translation of St. Paul's phrase έφ' φ πάντες ήμαρτον, 'for that all sinned ' (R.V.), as though it were έν ώ πάντες ήμαρτον, 'in whom, sc. the " one man " just mentioned, all sinned.' Ambrosiaster is, of course, relying on a Latin version which renders έφ' φ as in quo, a translation which has been perpetuated in the Vulgate. This rendering is inexact and ambiguous enough in all conscience, but it does not compel us to assume that quo is masculine; a reader who possessed only the Latin version, without any knowledge of the original Greek, and read it without any preconceived ideas as to 'Original Guilt,' would probably understand in quo as equivalent to quod or quantum, 'in so far as all sinned.' In any case the words unum hominem are too far distant from the relative quo to be its grammatical antecedent. Ambrosiaster has therefore bequeathed to Western Christendom as the supposed Scriptural foundation of its characteristic doctrine of 'Original Guilt ' a gratuitous misunderstanding of a faulty rendering of what St. Paul actually wrote.

 

The fatal legacy was received only too gladly: Augustine quotes this passage, mistranslation and all, as from the writings of 'sanctus Hilarius,' who is undoubtedly 'Ambrosiaster.' Nor has its malign influence even yet come to an end : I have in my possession a Roman Catholic pamphlet in which the words of Rom. v. 12 are quoted in defence of the idea of ' Original Guilt,' in the form ' ... in whom all have sinned,' without the slightest apparent consciousness that St. Paul wrote nothing of the kind.

 

It is, indeed, doubtful whether Ambrosiaster himself really intended to place on this clause (in quo omnes peccaverunt) the sense which Augustine took him to intend, and which has been adopted without question, on Augustine's authority, by so many later writers in Western Christendom. For, in commenting on v. 14 of the same fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, he lays down a principle which logically seems to exclude ' Original Guilt ' altogether. His text of this verse runs 'sed regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen, in eos qui peccaverunt in similitudinem praevaricationis Adam'; which, it will be noticed, like Origen's text, presupposes a Greek original not containing the word μή before αμαρτήσαντας. This reading, right or wrong, clearly connects the incidence of death with the commission of actual sin; and Ambrosiaster expounds it to mean that only actual sin deserves the 'second death,' or Gehenna.

 

Moreover, like most Latin writers after Tertullian, he repudiates 'traducianism.' It is, therefore, possible that by the assertion that all men 'sinned in Adam, as in a lump ' he may merely mean that they ' became sinners ' or 'acquired a sinful tendency'; in other words, he may intend to affirm merely 'Original Sin,' and not 'Original Guilt.' But the idea of 'Original Guilt ' had by this time become so popular, and the apparent discovery of a Scriptural basis for it was so welcome, amongst thinkers who knew no Greek, that critical considerations of this kind do not seem to have occurred to any of Ambrosiaster's readers; and his mistranslation of έφ' ώ πάντες ήμαρτον took its place in the armoury of controversial arguments for the ' twice-born' version of the Fall-doctrine. This momentous error, and the emergence of the conception of fallen humanity as a sinful massa, or 'lump,' bring us up to the very threshold of Augustinianism; where it will be appropriate to pause, and survey the ground which has been covered in this lecture. (Norman Powell Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin: A Historical and Critical Study [London: Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., 1927], 307-10)

 

John Wesley on Adam Being Created in Pefect Holiness and the Need for His Being Tried

  

“But if Adam was originally perfect in Holiness,” (say, perfectly Holy, made in the Moral Image of God) “what Occasion was there for any farther Trial?” That there might be Room for farther Holiness and Happiness: Entire Holiness does not exclude Growth: Nor did the right State of all his Faculties intitle him to that full Reward, which would have followed the Right Use of them.

 

“Upon the whole, Regeneration, or gaining Habits of Holiness, takes in no Part of the Doctrine of Original Sin.” But Regeneration is not “gaining Habits of Holiness:” It is quite a different Thing. It is not a Natural, but a Supernatural Change; and is just as different from the gradual “gaining Habits,” as a Child’s being born into the World is, from his growing up into a Man. The New Birth is not (as you suppose) the Progress, or the Whole of Sanctification, but the Beginning of it: As the natural Birth, is not the Whole of Life, but only the Entrance upon it. He that is born of a Woman, then begins to live a natural Life: He that is born of God, then begins to live a spiritual. And if every Man born of a Woman had spiritual Life already, he would not need to be born of God. (John Wesley, The Doctrine of Original Sin: According to Scripture, Reason, and Experience [Bristol: E. Farley, 1756], 223-24)

 

Examples of Jewish Commentaries on 2 Chronicles 29:25 and 35:4

  

2 Chron 29:25:

 

Malbim on II Chronicles 29:35:1

וגם. טעם ג', שהכהנים היו עסוקים בהעלאת האיברים והקרבתם שהיו רבים, א] שהעולות שכולם כליל, ולכל עולה צריך כמה כהנים, היו רבים ב] שהיו צריכים להעלות חלבי השלמים ונסכי העולות שזה א"א בלוים:

 

 

Metzudat David on II Chronicles 29:35:1

וגם עולה לרוב. ר״ל לזה היו צריכים הלוים לסייע את הכהנים כי המלאכה היתה מרובה כי הקריבו גם עולות מרובות עם חלבי השלמים ועם הנסכים לעולה ולא יכלו הכהנים להקריב כל אלה ולהפשיט: 

 

 

Metzudat David on II Chronicles 29:35:2

ותכון. כי הלוים סייעו בעבודת ההפשט:

 

 

Metzudat Zion on II Chronicles 29:35:1

בחלבי. עם חלבי כמו הרק אך במשה (במדבר י״ב:ב׳) ומשפטו עם משה: 

 

 

Metzudat Zion on II Chronicles 29:35:2

ותכין. מל׳ הכנה:

 

 

Minchat Shai on II Chronicles 29:35:1

וגם עלה. בכל ספרים המדוייקים חסר וא"ו כי לא נמנה במסורה גדולה עם ט' מלאים בספרא:

 

 

Ralbag on II Chronicles 29:35:1

וגם עולה לרב וגו'. ועוד שהרי היתה שם עולה לרב שהיה מחויב שיעלוה הכהנים והיו צריכים בזה כהנים רבים והיו גם כן צריכים להעלות שם חלבי השלמים שהיו רבים והנסכים לעולה שהיו גם כן רבים ואפשר שקרא עולה חלבי השלמים והנסכים לפי שהיו עולים על המזבח: (source)

 

 

Malbim on II Chronicles 29:35:1
“And also” — a third reason: the priests were occupied with lifting up and offering the parts, and there were many of them:
a) because the burnt offerings were wholly consumed, and each burnt offering required several priests;
b) because they had to offer up the fat of the peace offerings and the drink offerings of the burnt offerings, and this was impossible for the Levites to do.

 

Metzudat David on II Chronicles 29:35:1
“And also a great number of burnt offerings” — כלומר, for this reason the Levites needed to assist the priests, because the work was very great, for they also offered many burnt offerings, together with the fat of the peace offerings and the drink offerings for the burnt offerings, and the priests could not offer all of these and skin them.

 

Metzudat David on II Chronicles 29:35:2
“And it was established” — because the Levites assisted in the work of skinning.

 

Metzudat Zion on II Chronicles 29:35:1
“With the fat” — meaning “with the fat,” like “but Moses” in Numbers 12:2, where it should be understood as “with Moses.”

 

Metzudat Zion on II Chronicles 29:35:2
“And they prepared” — from the root of “preparation” or “making ready.”

 

Minchat Shai on II Chronicles 29:35:1
“And also a burnt offering” — in all the accurate manuscripts, the waw is lacking, because it is not counted in the Great Masorah among the nine full spellings in Scripture.

 

Ralbag on II Chronicles 29:35:1
“And also a great number of burnt offerings,” etc. — Moreover, there was a great number of burnt offerings there, which the priests were required to offer up, and many priests were needed for this. They also had to offer up there the fat of the peace offerings, which were many, and the drink offerings for the burnt offerings, which were also many. It is possible that he called the fat of the peace offerings and the drink offerings “burnt offerings,” because they ascended on the altar.

 

 

2 Chron 35:4:

 

Metzudat David on II Chronicles 35:4:1

והכינו. את עצמכם הכינו כל א׳ לבית אבתיו כפי אשר נחלקתם כאמור בכתב דוד ושלמה

 

Minchat Shai on II Chronicles 35:4:1

והכונו. והכינו קרי:

 

 

Ralbag on II Chronicles 35:4:1

והכינו לבית אבותיכם כמחלקותיכם. ר"ל שתטרחו ליחס הלוים לבית אבותיכם איש על המחלוקת שלו: (source)

 

 

Metzudat David on II Chronicles 35:4:1
“And prepare” — prepare yourselves, each one for his father’s house, according to how you were divided, as stated in the writing of David and Solomon.

 

Minchat Shai on II Chronicles 35:4:1
“And be prepared” — the Qere reads, “and prepare.”

 

Ralbag on II Chronicles 35:4:1
“And prepare yourselves according to the houses of your fathers, by your divisions” — כלומר, you should take care to assign the Levites to the houses of your fathers, each man according to his division.

 

Oliver Granger bond to Michael Rank (May 21, 1841)

 The following is a transcription of Oliver Granger bond to Michael Rank (CHL call no.: MS 21600)

 

Know all men by these presents that I, Oliver Granger of Kirtland, Lake county, Ohio, am held and firmly bound unto Michael Rank of West Milton, Miami county, Ohio, in the sum of five hundred and forty dollars lawful money of the United States, for the payment of the which sum well and truly to be made I bind myself my heirs and assigns firmly by these presents.

Dated May 21, 1841.

 

The condition of the above obligation is such that if the above bounden Oliver Granger shall make to order unto Michael Rank or his heirs assigns, on or before the first of December next, a good and sufficient deed of such lands or lots as the said Michael Rank may select sufficient to satisfy the said sum of five hundred and forty dollars either in the city of Nauvoo or adjacent lands in the State of Illinois; or in the city of Zarahemla, or lands in the Territory of Iowa, or shall cause any other persons to make a good and sufficient deed to lands in any of the aforementioned places to cover the aforesaid amount by the time specified. Then this obligation to be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue.

 

The said Rank is to elect said land and give notice in time to make and forward said deed.

 

Signed and sealed

In presence of

Wm. Whells

H. Frank

Oliver Granger

 

Horace Kingsbury letter of recommendation to Oliver Granger (October 26, 1838)

The following is a transcription of Horace Kingsbury letter of recommendation to Oliver Granger (CHL call no.: MS 21600)

 

To All people that are or may be interested

 

I Horace Kingsbury of Painesville Township, Geauga County & State of Ohio - feeling the importance of recommending to remembrance every worthy citizen who has by his conduct commended themselves to personal acquaintances by their course of strict integrity and desire for truth and common justice feel it my duty to state that Oliver Granger’s management in the arrangement of the unfinished business of people that have moved to the Far West in relinquishing their pledges, and thereby restoring their integrity, has been truly generous worthy, and has entitled him to my high esteem and ever grateful recollection

 

P. Ville Oct 26th 1838

 

Horace Kingsbury

 

Don Carlos Smith's Letters (July 11, 1841 and February 14, 1841) to Oliver Granger

The following are transcriptions of Don Carlos Smith letters, Nauvoo, Illinois, to Oliver Granger, Kirtland, Ohio, 1841 (CHL call no.: MS 7043)

 

 

Letter 1:

 

Nauvoo city July 11th 1841

 

Mr O. Granger

 

Sir I sit down to improve a few moments this morning, having an opportunity to send by Elder Babbit, in addressing an old friend. I am in tolerable health, but the health of my wife is very poor, Joseph is in good health, but his wife has been very sick, Mother has been sick ever since Father died but I think she is improving; Hiram [illegible] is in the east his family are well. There is some sickness here now but not many deaths. Persecution is kindling up again against the saints. The devil cant let us alone, he seems to be our perpetual enemy. I learn by Elder Babbit that you are getting your health again, this I am glad to hear. I hope you will get sufficient health to visit Nauvoo again, I should be pleased to see you.

 

I understand that you are the owner of the house and lot that was to be mine. I am glad the property is [illegible]. I hope that you will consider it my circumstances and let me have the property by paying you back the money that I have paid. The claim I have on that property is all my dependence. They say I have that property by paying you the amount you had. Will you write me and let me know? Will you give my wife the deed and take my notes, payable in six months and one year? Or, will you take land here if I will procure it for you? Will you write me in respect of this and let me know all about the matter.

 

I am with respect

your friend

Don G. Smith

 

Letter 2:

 

Nauvoo, Feb 14th 1841

 

To Brother Granger:-

 

Dear Sir,

 

Having an opportunity to send you a line by the hand of Hyrum who leaves here tomorrow for your place, I gladly improve the opportunity. I am in tolerable health, my wife has poor health at present; father’s family are all well except my mother her health is poor. Samuel has lost his wife which was very unexpected she left a small babe about a week old. This place is growing very rapidly, a general account of which Hyrum will give you. Some time since I received a letter from Bro. Brundick by which I learned that you had bid off my house at $12.00. I was glad to learn that it had been saved from our enemies and that you had got it in your possession. Now Dear Brother & friend, you know my circumstances, & that I am struggling in poverty to sustain the hopes &c. & if an arrangement can be made with Hyrum so as to secure that house to me it would be a matter of satisfaction I feel anxious to have the house finished off & if you could make an arrangement to finish it off as my dame of your business arrangements I will be responsible to you and then I would like to have it rented so that it might be preserved and not go to destruction for the want of repair. I intend if the Lord will, to occupy it myself one these days. I know not Brother Granger there are some demands against me in Kirtland which if you could purchase in some of your trade I would see that you had your pay. There is also one more which never was due $400 I think is the principal; it was given to Bankhock & King of Painesville. I think these could all be purchased under price. Can you, or will you see to it if I will satisfy you for it? I send you the same 2 seasons regularly. I am, as usual,

Don G. Smith