In response to B. W. Bacon’s 1902 article (PDF can be found here), Jody A. Barnard noted, in part, that:
. . . one has to question the assumption
that it is necessary to introduce an additional participant into the Psalm. The
Psalm is introduced as προσευχὴ τῷ πτωχῷ ὅταν ἀκηδιάσῃ καὶ ἐναντίον κυρίου ἐκχέῃ
τὴν δέησιν αὐτοῦ, ‘a prayer of a poor man when he was deeply afflicted and
poured out his petition before the Lord’. This establishes the framework for interpreting
the Psalm and only two participants are introduced. Other than απεκριθη
αυτω
(v. 24), the Psalm gives no reason for suspecting the presence of a third
party. One may wonder, therefore, if these two words necessitate the introduction
of an additional participant. The aforementioned attempts at introducing a
third party and not only highly speculative, but, as we have observed, create
problems of their own. Although the mistranslation of ענה introduced a little
awkwardness, there are at least two ways that the Greek version of the Psalm
may have been understood without restoring to additional participants.
One could construe the afflicted man
as the subject of απεκριθη
and YHWH as the referent of αυτω. On this reading the words απεκριθη
αυτω
function as a discourse marker signalling the resumption of the
man’s petition mustered from his remaining strength (εν οδω ισχυος αυτου). Having digressed
a little in verses 19-23 by documenting his hopes for the reading material of
the next generation, GK (v. 24) may be understood as reasserting the referential
framework of verse 1. ‘Απεκριθη αυτω εν οδω ισχυος αυτου,
therefore, introduced and underscores the man’s concluding plea to his God (vv.
24b-29), which, incidentally, reiterates the content of his earlier plea (vv.
12-17).
Alternatively, YHWH may be construed
as the subject of απεκριθη
and the afflicted man the referent of αυτω. On this reading the whole clause απεκριθη
αυτω
εν
οδω
ισχυος αυτου
is understood as the conclusion and climax of the record he hopes would be read
by the next generation. In addition to the grandiose theme of establishing
Zion, he wanted the next generation to know that ο κυριος απεκριθη
τω
πτωχω
(cf. v. 18). He knew that the power employed in establishing God’s kingdom ins
the same power at work in answering the petition of an afflicted man. He then
proceeds to address his God directly in verses 24b-29 as in verses 12-17.
It will be noticed that both of these interpretations
maintain that verses 26-28, like the Hebrew Vorlage, are addressed to YHWH,
which remains the most likely understanding of the Psalm. This is indicated further
by the declaration of the unique sovereignty of YHWH (GK, v. 28; cf. Isa 52:6),
and his identity as the eternal and immutable creator, features which typically
distinguish the God of Israel from everything else. In all likelihood, the author
of Hebrews understood Ps 102(101):26-28 as an address to the God of Israel. Tue
author’s use of this text in Hebrews 1, therefore, cannot be explained on the
basis of contextually sensitive, text orientated exegesis. He has taken a text,
which was originally addressed by an afflicted man to God, to express his
confidence in God, and transformed it into a heavenly declaration from God to
the Son, to establish the superior position of the Son in the heavenly
hierarchy. The imposition of textually focused exegetical operations struggle
to explain this phenomenon, but within a context of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism,
the words of Ps 102:(101):26-28 offer a particularly appropriate formula for
expressing the superiority of the Son over the angels . . . Moreover, in Heb
1:10-12, these words are uttered by the highest authority, namely God himself,
which might suggest that the author is using the words of Ps 102(101):26-28 to capture
some kind of auditory revelation that was disclosed during a mystical
experience. (Jody A. Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role
of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews [Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 331; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012],
231-33; my thanks to Thomas Farrar for
making me aware of this volume)
