Latest / Reformed Thinking / O Lord, Heal Me in My Distress (Psalm 6) | Carl Friedrich Keil, et al.

Transcript

O Lord, Heal Me in My Distress (Psalm 6) | Carl Friedrich Keil, et al. · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Imagine waking up and your bones are just physically shaking.
0:05
Yeah, that is a terrifying. Thought right, Your vision is
0:07
going dark, your bed is soaked with sweat and there is this
0:11
like crushing, suffocating tightness in your chest.
0:16
It sounds like you're describing someone having a heart attack.
0:18
Or, you know, being squeezed from the inside out.
0:21
Today, a modern doctor would probably look at those symptoms,
0:24
pull out a diagnostic manual, and just confidently label it a
0:28
severe panic attack. Oh for sure, they'd point
0:30
straight to a nervous system overload.
0:31
But 3000 years ago, King David looked at those same bodily
0:36
symptoms and he diagnosed them as the terrifying weight of
0:39
divine wrath. Which is such a massive shift in
0:42
perspective. It really is welcome to reformed
0:45
thinking. Today, we're stepping away from
0:47
the clean clinical definitions of physical ailments to look at
0:51
the diagnostic landscape of the human soul.
0:53
Because the contrast between those two diagnostic methods is
0:56
just striking. Yeah, how so?
0:59
Well, a clinical diagnosis just stops at the physiological
1:02
reaction, right? Notes the adrenaline spike.
1:04
Sure, it treats the body as a machine.
1:06
But the theological diagnosis goes underneath all those
1:09
physiological symptoms. It locates the spiritual root
1:12
cause. So it treats the human as a
1:14
whole being. Precisely when dealing with
1:17
genuine spiritual affliction, the symptoms are always
1:21
holistic. A severed relationship with the
1:23
Creator bleeds directly into the physical body.
1:26
And into the emotional stability, too.
1:28
Yeah, and the psychological endurance of the individual, You
1:30
can't separate them. So we're looking at a specific
1:33
commentary today to unpack all of this.
1:35
We are analyzing the work of Carl Friedrich Keel, the.
1:38
Brilliant 19th century German exegete.
1:41
That's the one we are focusing on.
1:43
His breakdown of Psalm 6A text he titled, very appropriately, A
1:47
Cry for Mercy Under Judgement. It's an intense title.
1:50
It is our mission for this dive is to unpack the theological
1:54
weight, the raw emotional language, and the specific
1:58
Hebrew grammar that Keel highlights.
2:00
And we had the source material from his commentary right here
2:02
in front. Of us we do.
2:03
We are going to see how an ancient mine processed the
2:06
crushing reality of guilt. You know, step by agonizing
2:09
step. And Keel provides a really
2:11
brilliant blueprint for reading this text.
2:13
He does. He points out this highly
2:15
deliberate structural architecture within the Psalm
2:18
itself. Yeah, he divides it into 3
2:20
distinct strophies marked. Stanzas, right?
2:22
Right. And the architecture actually
2:24
bends under the emotional weight of the content.
2:27
I found that structural deviation so fascinating because
2:31
normally you expect ancient poetry to maintain a rigid
2:34
meter, right? For the sake of memorization.
2:37
Or just musical cadence. But here the form itself mimics
2:40
the function. I mean, the first trophy and the
2:42
third strophy are relatively balanced.
2:44
But the middle strophy is a full third longer than the other two,
2:48
yeah. Why did the author drag out that
2:50
middle section so much? Well, Keel argues, it represents
2:54
A calmer but much more exhausting outpouring of his
2:57
heart. OK.
2:58
So it's not just a quick transition.
3:00
Not at all. I mean, the first trophy is a
3:03
frantic, panicked cry of distress.
3:06
Like the panic attack symptoms we talked about?
3:08
Yeah. And the third strophy is the
3:10
arrival at a state of believing confidence.
3:12
So that extended middle section. Is the agonizing bridge between
3:16
the two. It's the prolonged struggle of
3:19
wrestling his way from sheer terror to absolute trust.
3:23
Because moving from a state of divine judgement to a state of
3:26
grace isn't just a quick, flippant pivot.
3:29
No, it takes time, and that time is visually and audibly
3:32
reflected in the extended length of the text itself.
3:35
We are essentially looking at an ancient psychological blueprint
3:39
mapped out in Hebrew poetry. It's incredible.
3:42
It really is, but before we get to the specific lyrics of that
3:45
struggle, we need to establish the spiritual state of the man
3:48
holding the pen. Right, because Keel points out
3:50
that the psychological state of this specific author has been
3:53
the subject of massive historical debate.
3:55
It's a debate that really strikes at the core of how we
3:58
understand suffering. I mean, historically the broader
4:01
church reckoned Psalm 6 as the very first of the seven
4:04
penitential Psalms. Those are Psalm 6323851102,
4:09
1:30, and 1:43. Right.
4:11
They were categorized together, likely selected with reference
4:14
to the seven days of the week. Designed to be read as
4:16
expressions of agonizing sorrow for sin.
4:18
But not everyone in the historical theological community
4:21
agreed read with throwing Psalm 6 into that category.
4:24
No, they didn't. Keel brings up August, Hum, and
4:27
Frank. The prominent 17th century
4:29
theologian. Yeah, and Frank pushed back
4:31
incredibly hard against the traditional classification.
4:35
Why? What was his issue with it?
4:36
Frock wrote this extent of introduction to the Psalter, and
4:39
he pointed out what he saw as a glaring issue.
4:43
Psalm 6 contains no explicit named confession of sin.
4:47
Wait, really? There's no specific moment where
4:50
he says he sin. No, there's no moment where the
4:52
author says I committed this particular crime.
4:55
Please forgive me. Like David does in Psalm 51.
4:57
Right after the Bathsheba incident.
4:59
So because of that absence, Frank argued, it was an error
5:03
for the church to classify it as a penitential Psalm.
5:06
So what did Frank think it was then?
5:08
He argued that this is the prayer of a man who is severely
5:11
tempted, not a man who is penitent.
5:15
Those are two radically different categories of human
5:17
suffering. Completely different.
5:19
Franck assumed the author was just an innocent, suffering man
5:22
crying out for help. Completely blameless regarding
5:24
whatever caused the agony. Yeah, he thought the guy was
5:27
just having a terrible time. But Keel steps in to offer a
5:30
massive theological correction to Franck's logic, doesn't he?
5:33
He does. Keel points out that Frock is
5:35
making a fundamental mistake in how he understands the feeling
5:39
of divine wrath. Keel draws a razor sharp line
5:42
between attempted man and a penitent man.
5:46
Yeah, and this is where we need to slow down and clarify the
5:49
distinction, because on the surface, both men look
5:52
identical. Right, they're both in total
5:54
agony. People feel like God has
5:56
abandoned them. So what is the fundamental
5:59
difference in their suffering? The root cause and the objective
6:04
reality of the wrath are entirely different.
6:06
Give me an example of the tempted man.
6:08
Keel uses the biblical figure of Job as the prime example.
6:11
Job experiences the horrifying feeling of God's wrath.
6:15
I mean, he loses his family, his health, his wealth, all in a
6:18
matter of hours. He feels like God is actively
6:20
crushing him, but that feeling, as Keel notes, is perfectly
6:24
groundless. Groundless because God wasn't
6:26
actually mad at him. Right, God was not actually
6:30
pouring out retributive wrath on Job.
6:33
The prologue to the book makes it clear that God was actually
6:35
glorying in Job's righteousness, so the.
6:38
Suffering was a trial. It was a temptation to despair,
6:42
but it was not a punitive strike for a specific moral failure.
6:46
OK, so that's the tempted man, but a penitent man is dealing
6:50
with a completely different objective reality.
6:53
A penitent man has a well grounded feeling of wrath.
6:56
The wrath is real. It's an active punitive
6:59
chastisement hitting him because of his own genuine sin.
7:02
Yeah, let's ground this in an analogy.
7:04
Sure, go ahead. Imagine experiencing a sudden
7:07
excruciating pain in your hand. OK, if you are walking down the
7:10
street and a random brick falls off a scaffolding and crushes
7:13
your hand, the pain is awful. Awful but accidental.
7:16
Right. You are a victim of a random
7:19
Provident trial. You are the tempted man.
7:21
You can cry out for the pain to stop with a totally clear
7:24
conscience. Because you didn't cause it.
7:26
Yeah, but what if you have that exact same crushed hand because
7:30
you lost your temper and violently punched a brick wall?
7:33
Oh wow, yeah, the physical pain is identical.
7:36
But the psychological reality carries a completely different
7:39
weight. It is a self-inflicted wound.
7:42
You own the blame. You can't just ask for the pain
7:45
to stop, you have to deal with the guilt of why the pain is
7:48
there in the first place. That is the penitent man.
7:50
That analogy captures the nuance perfectly.
7:53
The physical sensation is identical, but the moral reality
7:57
behind the pain shifts the sufferers entire relationship to
8:00
the affliction. But this brings up a skeptical
8:03
question regarding Keels argument, which is if there is
8:06
no explicit confession of sin in the text, how does Keel prove
8:10
that this specific writer is suffering a well grounded
8:13
self-inflicted punishment? I mean, if the writer never
8:17
explicitly says I punched the wall, how do we know he's
8:20
actually guilty and not just a victim of falling bricks?
8:23
We know through the highly specific way the writer
8:26
interprets his surrounding circumstances.
8:28
Why does he interpret them? Keel explains that the writer is
8:31
surrounded by aggressive human enemies.
8:34
There is genuine life threatening hostility from men
8:37
closing in on him, but the writer does not view this
8:40
hostility as bad luck or random political persecution.
8:44
He views the aggression as a direct manifestation of divine
8:47
wrath. Spot on.
8:49
He understands that his own sin is the sting of its bitterness.
8:52
The human enemies are just the instruments of judgment.
8:55
The real conflict is between the writer's guilt and God's
8:58
justice. Yeah, the writer knows he
9:00
deserves the hostility. He completely abandons any claim
9:03
to innocence. Furthermore, that admission of
9:06
guilt dictates his primary goal in the prayer right.
9:08
It does. Think about it.
9:10
A man who thinks he is innocent just asks for the trial to end
9:13
immediately. He asked for an escape.
9:15
Hatch, But Kale knows that the goal of this penitent writer is
9:20
not an immediate escape from the trial.
9:22
What does he want then? His goal is to have the putative
9:25
chastisement changed into loving chastisement.
9:28
He wants the nature of the suffering to shift from
9:31
retributive wrath to fatherly discipline.
9:34
That concept carries massive theological weight.
9:36
The writer isn't begging God to make the pain stop, he is
9:39
begging God to change the reason why the pain is happening.
9:42
It's a huge distinction. And recognizing the genuine
9:45
guilt of the author leads us directly into another historical
9:48
controversy. The authorship debate.
9:50
Yes, we have to determine who actually penned these words.
9:55
The text attributes it to David, but 19th century German scholars
9:58
love to dissect and dispute biblical authorship.
10:01
Oh, they did. The era of higher criticism
10:04
produced intense skepticism regarding traditional
10:07
authorship. Keel addresses a very specific
10:10
critic named Ferdinand Hitzig. Yeah, Hitzig looked at the
10:13
emotional tone of Psalm 6, noted the sheer terror and physical
10:17
collapse described in the verses.
10:19
And flatly denied that David could have written it.
10:21
He basically said David's a tough guy, he couldn't have
10:23
written this. Hitzik's argument relies on a
10:26
bizarre caricature of historical figures.
10:28
I mean, he essentially claims David could not have composed
10:31
such a disconcertedly despondent text because David was a
10:34
warrior. King, it's so reductive.
10:36
It is, Hitzik assumes David was simply too tough to write
10:40
something so broken and melancholy.
10:42
It highlights a strange habit modern people have of turning
10:45
ancient historical figures into one-dimensional statues.
10:49
We do that all the time. We assume a military general who
10:52
kills giants cannot also be a man who suffers from
10:55
debilitating panic attacks and cries himself to sleep.
10:58
We project our own desire for simple, unbroken heroes onto
11:02
these historical figures. Hitzig wanted David the
11:05
triumphant king, not David the weeping, exhausted, guilt ridden
11:09
man. But Keel refuses to let Hitzig
11:11
get away with that historical flattening.
11:13
Thank goodness. Keel mounts a thorough,
11:15
devastating defense of David's authorship by pointing directly
11:19
to the historical records in the book of Tase and Samuel.
11:21
Yeah, Keel brings the historical receipts to prove David was
11:24
entirely capable of severe despondency.
11:26
He cites numerous documented instances where David wept
11:30
openly, bitterly and publicly. Right like to use Samuel 1.12
11:34
where David weeps over the death of his enemy Saul and his friend
11:37
Jonathan. Or chapter 3 verse 32 where
11:39
David weeps at the grave of Abner.
11:41
And chapter 12, verse 21 details his agonizing fasting and
11:44
weeping for his dying infant son.
11:47
In chapter 15 verse 30, it shows him weeping as he flees barefoot
11:50
up the Mount of Olives. To escape his own son Absalom.
11:54
Yeah, and chapter 19 verse one describes him weeping
11:56
inconsolably after Absalom is actually killed.
12:00
So the historical record is abundantly clear.
12:02
David was a man of extreme emotional volatility.
12:06
He was intimately acquainted with severe depression and
12:08
despondency. To claim he lacked the emotional
12:11
capacity to write a melancholy palm requires ignoring the
12:15
actual documented history of his life.
12:18
Keel establishes that David had the emotional capacity, but he
12:21
takes the argument further by examining the linguistic
12:23
evidence too. This is where it gets really
12:25
technical and fascinating. Keel details how the specific
12:28
phrasing in this text was coined by David, and he proves it by
12:32
showing how later ancient writers copied the precise
12:35
phrasing. Keel refers to this as an
12:37
anthological relationship. Right, he contrasts the
12:40
linguistic style here with other authors.
12:42
He notes that the language of him and the Ezraite in Psalm 88
12:45
is perceptibly different, but when you look at the writings of
12:49
the prophet Jeremiah. Who lived centuries after David?
12:52
Right. Centuries later, you see massive
12:55
similarities. Jeremiah's prophecies are packed
12:57
full of direct echoes of Psalm 6.
13:00
Wait, hold on. If Jeremiah and David are using
13:02
the exact same words, couldn't David have just copied Jeremiah?
13:06
That's exactly what Hitzig argued.
13:08
Oh, really? Yeah, Hitzig argued that these
13:10
echoes prove the Psalm was written by Jeremiah, not David,
13:14
and then attributed to David later.
13:16
So how do we definitively know who came first?
13:20
Keel answers that with a brilliant piece of literary
13:22
analysis. He starts by noting that
13:24
Jeremiah has a well known anthological style across all of
13:28
his writings. Meaning he quotes older stuff.
13:30
Yeah, Jeremiah constantly quotes and reproduces earlier
13:33
literature to give his prophecies theological weight.
13:36
OK, but how does Keel prove the sequence for this specific
13:40
Psalm? He provides a specific
13:42
undeniable proof using Jeremiah chapter 10, verse 25.
13:46
Walk us through the mechanics of that proof.
13:47
OK, so in Jeremiah 10 the prophet uses language that
13:51
heavily resembles Psalm 6. OK.
13:53
If you stop reading there, hitzig might have a case.
13:56
Right. But immediately after using that
13:57
Psalm 6 language, without missing a single beat, Jeremiah
14:01
continues the sentence with words directly taken from Psalm
14:03
79. Oh wow, so he deliberately
14:06
strings two older, distinct psalms together to form a new
14:10
prophetic statement. Yes, it functions just like
14:13
common law legal precedent. That's a great way to put it.
14:17
Think about it, If a 19th century judge writes a legal
14:20
opinion and in one sentence he quotes a ruling from 1790 and in
14:24
the next sentence he quotes a ruling from 1810.
14:26
You do not assume the 1790 judge time traveled and copied the
14:30
19th century judge. No, you know, the newer judge is
14:33
pulling from an established, older body of foundational law
14:36
to give his current ruling absolute authority.
14:39
Because Jeremiah weaves Psalm 6 and Psalm 79 together into a
14:43
single thought, it cements his his role as the reproducer.
14:47
He is drawing from an established older body of
14:49
Davidic literature. The linguistic evidence of
14:52
Jeremiah's quoting style combined with the historical
14:55
reality of David's emotional capacity completely dismantles
14:58
Hitzig's skepticism. The text undeniably originates
15:02
with David. Knowing that David wrote it in a
15:04
state of genuine, well grounded guilt radically shifts how we
15:07
read the text. It changes the tone completely.
15:10
But Keel brings up a detail that forces us to change how we hear
15:12
the text as well. Ah.
15:14
Yes. This poem wasn't written to be
15:16
read silently on a page. It was written to be played as
15:18
music. The text opens with a highly
15:20
specific musical direction. The Hebrew phrase is AL
15:24
hashemineth. Translated literally, it means
15:27
upon the octave. And the history of how scholars
15:29
have interpreted that phrase is a perfect example of how
15:33
dangerous it is to over spiritualize ancient texts.
15:36
Oh. Absolutely.
15:38
When certain religious readers see a word like octave or the
15:41
number 8, they immediately discard the practical meaning
15:44
and try to find some mystical allegorical code.
15:48
Right. The source material talks about
15:49
how the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew
15:53
Bible produced in Alexandria, translated this phrase as
15:56
Hypertesagos. And the early Church fathers
15:59
took that Greek translation and just ran wild with it.
16:02
The Alexandrian school of interpretation loved allegory.
16:05
Keel mentions Gregory of Nyssa specifically.
16:08
What did Gregory say about it? Gregory claimed that this phrase
16:11
upon the octave was a mystical reference to the Octave of
16:14
eternal happiness. Eternal happiness from a musical
16:18
direction. Yeah, he argued.
16:20
It was a theological cipher for the eternal age to come, playing
16:23
on the idea of the number 8 symbolizing a new beginning
16:27
after the seven days of creation.
16:28
I mean, it is a highly poetic idea, but it is completely
16:32
detached from the grammatical historical reality of the text.
16:35
Totally detached, Gregory took a practical stage direction for
16:38
musicians and turned it into an eschatological fantasy.
16:41
But Keel rejects the allegorical method and brings the text
16:44
firmly back to the ground. He insists on a literal
16:47
historical interpretation. He cross references the phrase
16:50
Al Hasheminith with an entirely different historical book.
16:53
Which one first chronicles chapter 15, verse 21?
16:57
By analyzing how the phrase functions in a narrative
17:00
historical account of temple worship, Keel establishes that
17:04
it is undeniably a musical direction for the Levitical
17:07
choirs. Keel also points out that it is
17:08
not the name of a specific instrument.
17:10
Right. Right.
17:11
If it referred to an instrument with eight strings, it would not
17:15
have been called an octave. The appropriate Greek
17:17
translation for an 8 string instrument would be an Octa
17:20
chord. The passage in First Chronicles
17:22
clarifies this by making a stark contrast between two different
17:26
musical groups. Walk us through that contrast.
17:28
It states that certain musicians were to play upon stringed
17:31
instruments called nablas with a direction called Al Alamoth,
17:36
while others were to play with Southerns using the direction Al
17:40
Hashemanith. The contrast between those two
17:42
directions unlocks Keel's interpretation.
17:45
It does. The phrase Al Alamoth literally
17:47
translates to maidens voices. In modern musical terms, we
17:51
would call that the soprano register.
17:53
Exactly. It was a direction used for
17:54
songs meant to be played in a high, bright, piercing register.
17:59
Keel points out that Psalm 46, a joyous, triumphant song
18:03
celebrating God as a refuge, is accompanied by the direction Al
18:07
Alamoth. It is meant to sound light,
18:09
victorious and elevated. Psalm 6.
18:12
And Psalm 12, which is another incredibly gloomy and impressive
18:14
texts. Are accompanied by all
18:16
Hasheminath. Upon the octave, meaning the
18:18
lower octave, the base. Keel equates it directly to the
18:21
musical term al otava basa. The musicians were instructed to
18:26
play the melody in the heavy low bass register.
18:29
Think about the sensory experience of temple worship
18:32
with that in mind. You have a man crushed by the
18:35
realization of his own sin, feeling the full weight of
18:39
divine justice pressing down on his chest, and he writes a poem
18:42
of absolute despair. And when he hands that text to
18:46
the Levitical musicians, he gives them a strict Sonic
18:49
parameter. He tells them do not play this
18:51
bright, do not play this high. Tune your instruments down.
18:54
I want this plate in the lowest, heaviest, most vibrating bass
18:57
register possible. The listener is meant to feel
18:59
the oppressive gloom vibrating in their chest cavity before the
19:03
singer even even articulates the first word.
19:06
The physical music is designed to mirror the theological
19:08
reality of the text. It grounds the congregation in
19:11
the sheer weight of the affliction.
19:12
It sets the stage perfectly. So with those heavy bass notes
19:15
ringing in our minds, let's move into the opening lyrics.
19:18
We are looking at verses 2 through 4 which detail the
19:22
anatomy of this affliction. And the author opens by begging
19:26
for a highly specific type of relief from God.
19:29
The text reads Javi, not in my wrath rebuke me, and not in thy
19:34
hot displeasure chasten me. Keel stops here to expand on a
19:39
crucial theological distinction regarding the nature of divine
19:42
discipline. We have to separate the concept
19:44
of chastisement from God's love and chastisement from God's
19:47
wrath. Right chastisement from God's
19:50
love is essentially fatherly discipline.
19:51
It's designed to purify and correct.
19:54
It is meant to prove and strengthen a person's faith.
19:57
Heel cites the Book of Proverbs, noting that a righteous person
20:01
should never decline this loving discipline.
20:02
To reject it would be to act against their own
20:05
sanctification. It functions like a surgeon's
20:07
scalpel. It inflicts pain, but the
20:09
explicit goal of the pain is healing and restoration.
20:12
But the chastisement of wrath operates with a completely
20:15
different motive. The chastisement of wrath is not
20:17
restorative, It is designed to satisfy divine justice.
20:21
It is direct against a person who is obstinately rebelling
20:24
against God. Or someone who has fallen away
20:26
from his favor through severe your sin.
20:28
The motive is purely punitive retribution.
20:31
Now the source material brings up a debate with another 19th
20:34
century scholar named Hankenburg.
20:36
Who held a very different view on this?
20:38
Yeah, Hankenburg argued that making a hard distinction
20:41
between love and wrath during suffering is a mistake.
20:44
He claimed that all chastening every single time God
20:47
disciplines a human being has wrath as its root principle.
20:52
Kingston Berg argued that when God strikes, he is always
20:55
expressing anger on some fundamental level.
20:57
Kingston Berg's view was common, but Keel dismantles it
21:01
completely by returning to the overarching narrative of
21:03
Scripture. How does he do that?
21:05
Keel points out that if you believe wrath is always the true
21:09
and proper motive when God brings suffering, you are forced
21:12
to ignore the entire theology of the Book of Job.
21:15
Because Job shatters the idea that suffering always equals
21:18
divine anger. Exactly.
21:21
Job was subjected to unimaginable chastisement, but
21:24
God's motive was absolutely not wrath.
21:26
The prologue definitively proves God was highly pleased with Job.
21:30
Therefore, Hangstenburg's universal rule that suffering
21:33
requires wrath fails the biblical test.
21:36
However, Keel concedes that for David in this specific Psalm,
21:40
Hangstenburg's rule regarding wrath actually applies.
21:44
Because for David, the wrath is present due to his specific
21:47
moral failure. Keel assumes the historical
21:50
tradition that David's adultery with Bathsheba and the
21:53
subsequent murder he orchestrated to cover it up,
21:55
might be the historical occasion for this crushing guilt.
21:59
The chastisement bringing David to the edge of death currently
22:02
has God's wrath as its primary motive.
22:05
It is a punitive strike against a king who abused his power and
22:09
broke the law of his creator. And Keel notes that it will
22:11
remain punitive as long as David remains alienated from God's
22:15
favor. This brings us back to the
22:17
theological genius of David's prayer.
22:19
He isn't asking God to ignore nor justice.
22:21
No, he's asking for a fundamental change in their
22:24
relational standing. If, through sincere, agonizing
22:28
penitence, David is restored to favor, the nature of the
22:31
suffering shifts. The punitive chastisement alters
22:34
into loving chastisement. The physical consequences of his
22:37
sin might remain right. Yes, but the evil he is
22:40
suffering, which originated in the principle of wrath, becomes
22:44
a tool for discipline and purification.
22:47
He is pleading for the underlying motive behind the
22:49
pain to change. Keel actually includes A
22:52
paraphrase from the great Italian poet Dante Alagueri to
22:56
summarize this theological nuance.
22:57
I love that quote. Dante captured the essence of
23:00
verse 2 like this. Lord reprove me not with fury,
23:04
and will not to correct me with wrath, but with sweetness and
23:07
with perfect love. Dante understood the desire for
23:11
a relational shift. Getting rid of the physical
23:13
suffering is secondary to fixing the broken relationship with
23:17
God. Because the physical suffering
23:18
David is enduring is just horrifying.
23:21
In verse 3, David prays for healing, pleading that he is
23:24
fading away and that his bones are affrighted.
23:26
Keel's linguistic analysis of the specific Hebrew words used
23:30
here is astounding. What is the specific word David
23:32
uses for fading away? The Hebrew word is umlal, and
23:36
Keel points out a fascinating grammatical anomaly regarding
23:39
how this word is structured in the text.
23:41
Breakdown the grammar for us. Why is the structure of umlal
23:44
strange? Keel notes that umlal features a
23:47
specific vowel pointing a path hatch.
23:49
OK, what does that mean? Under normal Hebrew grammatical
23:52
rules, that path hatch would make it a third person verb.
23:55
But reading it as a third person verb violates the syntax of the
23:58
sentence, right? Completely, Keel argues it is
24:01
actually an adjective that has been forcefully shortened into a
24:04
passive state. Why was it shortened?
24:06
The pronunciation tone in the spoken Hebrew lies heavily on
24:09
the preceding pronoun I, which is ani.
24:13
The heavy stress on the eye causes the following adjective
24:16
umlal to contract and shorten. So the grammar is physically
24:20
contracting under the weight of the personal pronoun.
24:22
Yes, but the actual root meaning of the word adds another layer
24:26
of dread. Tell me about the root.
24:28
Keel tracks the root of umlal back to an older Arabic word.
24:32
The primary meaning of that Arabic route is to stretch out
24:35
lengthwise. OK, stretching out.
24:37
But Keel explains that the specific grammatical formation
24:39
it takes here is analogous to Arabic verb forms used almost
24:43
exclusively to express two things, fading colors and severe
24:47
physical defects. Wow.
24:49
It is a deeply haunting image. David isn't just saying he's
24:53
tired. Not at all.
24:54
He is using vocabulary that describes A vibrant, rich color
24:58
being bleached out by the sun until it is dull, Gray and
25:02
ruined. He feels his life force, his
25:04
vitality as a human being, literally fading into a defect.
25:08
He is becoming a physical shadow of himself.
25:10
And that physical fading is accompanied by absolute,
25:13
uncontrollable terror. He says his bones are
25:16
affrighted. The specific Hebrew word used
25:19
for affrighted is nibhall. Yeah, how does the word nibhall
25:23
go beyond standard human fear? Because humans get scared all
25:26
the time without their bones literally shaking.
25:29
Standard fear might trigger a fight or flight response.
25:31
It gives you an adrenaline rush. But Keel explains that the root
25:35
of Nibhall means something entirely different.
25:37
It means to let go. To let go, yeah.
25:39
It expresses a condition of outward overthrow and inward
25:42
consternation. Oh wow.
25:44
It is the physiological effect of a fright so severe that it
25:47
completely disconcerts you. It deprives you of all bodily
25:50
self-control. It is the terror that turns your
25:52
muscles to water. You let go of your posture, you
25:55
let go of your strength, because you are completely overthrown by
25:58
the reality of divine judgment. His soul is shaken even more
26:03
violently than his physical body.
26:05
He's experiencing an affliction beyond all other afflictions
26:09
because the face of God is hidden from Him.
26:12
The Wrath is wearing him completely away, which triggers
26:15
the most desperate, visceral moment in the entire first
26:18
Sturphy. Verse 4 ends with a raw,
26:20
unfinished cry that breaks all poetic structure.
26:24
And thou, O Javi, how long? The sentence just violently cuts
26:28
off. He doesn't even finish the
26:29
thought. It is the sound of a man who has
26:31
completely run out of breath and collapsed.
26:33
It is a severe panic attack captured in ancient ink.
26:36
And that bodily terror spirals immediately into the next
26:39
section of Kiel's blueprint, verses 5 through 8, which detail
26:43
the Abyss and the Flood. The sheer physical exhaustion
26:46
reaches its peak here because the bodily terror spirals into a
26:49
terrifying theological reality regarding death in verse. 5
26:53
David pleads for God to return to him and rescue his soul.
26:56
Let's look at the specific words for return and rescue.
26:59
The word for return is shuba. And Keel makes a highly specific
27:04
note about the phonetic pronunciation of this word.
27:07
He does. The accentuation marks in the
27:09
Hebrew text are highly deliberate.
27:11
Keel notes that the accent is placed on the ultima, the final
27:14
syllable of the word. Why is that significant?
27:17
He explains that this Ultima accentuation is intended to
27:20
secure the distinct sharp pronunciation of the final
27:24
syllable of shuba ah. Because the very next word in
27:28
the text begins with a similar aspirate sound.
27:31
Right. If the person reading or singing
27:33
the text isn't careful, the end of shuba could be swallowed up
27:36
and escaped notice. The ancient scribes were
27:39
meticulous. They wanted to ensure that the
27:41
desperate plea to return rang out clearly over the heavy bass
27:44
instruments. And the word for rescue is
27:46
chilitz. Let's talk about Chilitz.
27:48
The root of chilitz is a transitive verb.
27:51
It means to free, or more violently, to pull.
27:54
Loose to pull, loose keel. Connects it to an Arabic root
27:57
meaning to be pure, but notes its proper functional meaning is
28:00
to be loose or free. So David feels that his
28:02
spiritual affliction has taken deep tangled root in his soul.
28:06
Yes, and he needs God to violently pull him loose from
28:09
it. He knows he cannot untangle
28:11
himself. He asks for this extraction
28:13
solely on the ground of God's mercy towards sinners.
28:16
And he gives God a highly specific theological motive for
28:20
why his life should be spared. He says, For in death there is
28:23
no remembrance of thee in Sheol. Who can give thee thanks?
28:27
The primary reason he wants to survive this panic attack is not
28:31
just to enjoy breathing oxygen again.
28:33
Right. It is to maintain his ability to
28:35
praise God. That is the ultimate tragedy for
28:38
the ancient psalmist. The cessation of biological life
28:41
is secondary to the cessation of worship.
28:43
In Sheol there is no praising God.
28:45
We really need to explain the concept of Sheol.
28:47
We do, because modern readers often reflexively conflate it
28:51
with the later developed Christian concept of hell.
28:54
But Keel? Clarifies what the ancient
28:56
Hebrew mind actually pictured when they use that word.
28:59
Sheol is the ancient Hebrew name for the grave.
29:02
It is the yawning abyss. Keele notes that the
29:05
etymological root of the word means to sink or to hang down.
29:08
It implies a dark depth, a massive sinking in.
29:12
To the ancient writers of the Psalms, Sheol was the single
29:15
universal gathering place of all the dead in the depth of the
29:19
earth. The ancient Israelites believed
29:21
everyone went there, regardless of their moral standing during
29:25
life. They believed the dead lived a
29:27
shadowy quasi life there, but it was universally lamentable.
29:32
Because the inhabitants were completely secluded from the
29:35
light of the living world. And infinitely worse, secluded
29:38
from the light of God's presence, there is no joy, no
29:42
corporate worship, and no remembrance of God saving acts
29:45
in Sheol. It is a realm of theological
29:47
silence. Keel actually uses this specific
29:50
description of Sheol to win a major historical argument
29:53
regarding when the text was written.
29:55
Oh, this is a critical piece of historical evidence.
29:58
Various modern scholars try to date these Psalms extremely
30:01
late. Pushing them all the way to the
30:03
Meccabean period, which is hundreds of years after David,
30:06
much closer to the time of Christ.
30:08
But Keel argues that by the Meccabean period, Jewish
30:10
theology had developed a much more complex, compartmentalized
30:13
view of the afterlife. Separating the righteous from
30:17
the wicked into different realms.
30:19
Right. The fact that Psalm 6 only knows
30:21
of one single gloomy gathering place for all the dead
30:25
definitively proves it belongs to a much earlier, older era of
30:28
Hebrew thought. It shatters the late dating
30:31
theory entirely. The terror of sliding into this
30:33
dark, silent abyss drives David to total physical collapse.
30:38
The bodily imagery in verses 6 and seven is visceral.
30:41
We have to look at the specific Hebrew vocabulary for weeping,
30:44
because the hyperbole is intense.
30:46
Let's start with the phrase where he says he makes his bed
30:48
to swim. The Hebrew verb used there is
30:50
Himshaw. It is a causative form,
30:52
specifically a Hifil derived from the root Sacha, which means
30:56
to swim. The Hifil form literally means
30:59
causing the bed to swim. He follows that by claiming he
31:01
floods his couch with tears. The word for tear is dima.
31:05
In Arabic, the cognate word means a single tear.
31:08
But in Hebrew, as Cale points out, Dima represents a massive,
31:12
overwhelming flood of peers. He is claiming he's dissolving
31:15
his own bed with his grief. It is poetic hyperbole, but it
31:18
expresses the severe physical reality of absolute dehydration
31:21
from non-stop sobbing. He is physically emptying
31:24
himself out. And then there is the horrifying
31:27
phrase describing his eyes in verse 8.
31:31
Sunken is mine eye with grief. It has grown old because of all
31:35
mine oppressors. What is the Hebrew word
31:37
translated as grown old? The word is ash.
31:40
Keel notes that Ashish appears to be a denominative derived
31:43
from a root, meaning to be moth eaten.
31:45
A moth eaten eye. Think about the destructive
31:47
process of a moth eating a garment.
31:50
It slowly eats away at the structural integrity of the
31:52
fabric until it is brittle, full of holes and completely falling
31:55
apart. David is saying his eyes are so
31:57
swollen, so red and so devoid of light they look like ruined moth
32:01
eaten fabric. And he blames the severe
32:03
physical decay directly on his oppressors.
32:06
The word he uses for them is zori.
32:09
Keel traces the word zori to a root that means to press, to
32:13
squeeze, and especially to bind together or constrict.
32:16
The physical squeezing the zori sounds exactly like the
32:19
constriction someone feels in their chest during a massive
32:22
cardiac event or severe panic attack.
32:24
It is the physiological sensation of not being able to
32:27
expand your lungs. The physical constriction and
32:29
the spiritual terror are inextricably linked here.
32:33
The physical tightness in his chest is the somatic bodily
32:36
manifestation of his spiritual realization.
32:40
He feels violently constricted because he knows he is cut off
32:44
from God's expansive presence. The human enemies are squeezing
32:47
him from the outside, but the well grounded wrath of God is
32:51
constricting him from the inside.
32:53
The bodily collapse is the direct, unavoidable result of
32:56
the spiritual alienation. He is completely pinned down.
33:00
He is fading out about moth eaten, dehydrated from sobbing
33:04
and terrified of the silent abyss of Sheol.
33:07
He has hit the absolute rock bottom of the heavy bass octave
33:10
we talked about. Earlier and then without any
33:12
warning or transition, everything changes.
33:14
Which brings us to the final segment of Keel's blueprint, the
33:16
sudden reversal in verses 9 through 11.
33:19
Right when the physical and emotional exhaustion hits its
33:21
absolute lowest point, the text violently and unexpectedly
33:25
pivots. Keel quotes a writer named
33:27
Frisch who wrote a book called David's Newly Sounding Harp to
33:30
describe the sheer speed of this moment.
33:32
What does Frisch say? Frisch says even before his
33:35
plaintive prayer is ended, the divine light and comfort come
33:39
quickly into his heart. His enemies were mocking him as
33:42
a man totally forsaken by God, but suddenly, in a fraction of a
33:47
second, he knows he is justified.
33:49
It is a massive whiplash inducing psychological snap.
33:53
In verses 9 and 10, the author repeats A3 fold assurance that
33:57
completely replaces his terror with unshakable confidence.
34:01
Let's break down the specifics of that threefold assurance.
34:04
Yeah, please do. First, he declares that Jave
34:07
have heard his loud weeping, his sobbing.
34:10
The Hebrew word is shama. Second, he repeats the exact
34:14
same verb Jave have heard his supplication.
34:17
And 3rd, he states the logical consequence of being heard.
34:20
Jave will accept his prayer. The word for accept is you
34:23
catch. God hears the sobbing.
34:25
God hears the articulated words. Therefore, God accepts the
34:29
prayer. It is a logical progression of
34:31
absolute restored faith. The punitive wrath has been
34:35
transformed back into fatherly discipline.
34:37
But what happens to the human enemies?
34:39
What happens to the people who are squeezing him?
34:41
The author turns on them aggressively in verse 11.
34:44
He declares they will be put to shame.
34:46
Keele's analysis of the Hebrew word.
34:48
For shame. Bosch reveals that it means much
34:52
more than just feeling mildly embarrassed.
34:54
Walk us through the roots of Bosch because it carries a much
34:57
heavier physical consequence. Keel tracks Bosch back to older
35:01
Arabic roots, specifically Bot and Bayou.
35:04
And what do those mean? The literal meaning of these
35:07
ancient roots is not about losing face socially.
35:10
It means to root up, to violently disperse, to scatter
35:14
about things that lie together. Oh wow.
35:16
It means to be completely perplexed and to lose 1's bodily
35:19
self-control. The loss of self-control that is
35:22
the identical concept to the terror David felt back in verse
35:25
3 when his bones were affrighted.
35:26
The consternation is completely reversed.
35:29
The exact inward overthrow and outward panic that David was
35:32
suffering under the wrath of God is now transferred directly onto
35:35
his enemies. The higher power turns the human
35:38
assailants back, filling them with the very terror and
35:40
physical constriction they were causing David.
35:42
The malicious trap, they said for him, snaps shut on their own
35:45
legs. And this brings us to what might
35:48
be the most brilliant piece of linguistic analysis in Keel's
35:52
entire commentary. Oh, the grand finale.
35:55
He details the grand finale of the Psalm, the very last three
35:59
words of the Hebrew text, and points out a piece of musical
36:03
and literary genius that is totally invisible in English
36:06
translations. The final three words in the
36:08
Hebrew text are Yeshubu, Yeboshu, raga.
36:12
They translate to They shall turn away ashamed suddenly.
36:16
Keel points out that all three of these words share a highly
36:19
specific grammatical feature. They are all what grammarians
36:22
call malelles. Explain the mechanics of a mile
36:25
for those of us who have not studied the accentuation rules
36:28
of biblical Hebrew. A mile is a word where the
36:31
accent, the heavy stress of the pronunciation, falls on the
36:34
penult. Which is the second to last
36:36
syllable. Right, the alternative is a
36:38
milra, where the stress falls in the final syllable.
36:40
OK, because these 3 words are all miles, the stress hits
36:43
early, avoiding a heavy drawn out ending on the last syllable.
36:47
Kiel describes this specific accentuation as creating a
36:50
tripping measure. If you say it out loud, Yeah, SU
36:54
Boo. Yeah, Boo.
36:55
Shu are a guy. It is fast.
36:57
It is a rapid fire, almost frantic rhythm.
37:00
After all the heavy, slow, drawn out groaning and the elongated
37:04
middle stroke of the previous verses, the poem suddenly
37:08
accelerates to top speed. The phonetic rhythm of the
37:10
spoken words physically mimics the sudden frantic scrambling
37:14
and scattering of the panicked enemies.
37:16
But Keel finds an even deeper layer of genius in the spelling
37:19
of the words. There is a visual and auditory
37:22
chiasmus occurring here, a literal linguistic reversal.
37:26
Keel points out that the letters in the sound of the word
37:28
yeboshu, which means shamed, yeah, are the direct mirror of
37:32
the word yeshubu, which means turn back.
37:34
Yeshu Yeboshu The concept tenants mirror each other
37:37
perfectly. The linguistic structure of the
37:39
sentence physically reverses itself, just as the fate of the
37:42
enemies is reversed. It is a phonetic anagram of
37:45
Divine Justice. Kayla gets so excited by
37:47
discovering this that his rigid academic German tone completely
37:50
shatters. He literally uses exclamation
37:53
points in his published commentary.
37:55
He writes what music there is in the Psalter if composers could
37:59
but understand it. It is a beautiful moment of a
38:01
brilliant scholar being genuinely moved by the
38:04
architecture of the text he is studying.
38:06
The visual layout of the letters, the phonetic sound of
38:09
the consonants, the metrical rhythm of the miles, and the
38:12
theological meaning of the reversal all aligned perfectly
38:16
in those final 3 words to enact the sudden justification of the
38:19
author. We have covered an immense
38:21
amount of ground today. Let's recap the progression of
38:24
the diagnostic landscape we've just walked through.
38:26
We started by defining the severe nature of the author's
38:29
suffering. He was not a victim of random
38:31
providential circumstances. He was dealing with the
38:33
crushing, constricting weight of well grounded guilt, seeking to
38:37
turn punitive wrath into loving discipline.
38:40
We saw how David's authorship is proven not just by the
38:43
historical accounts of his emotional depths into a Samuel,
38:46
but by the anthological evidence of later prophets like Jeremiah
38:50
legally reproducing his exact phrasing.
38:53
We tuned our ears to the musical direction, stripping away the
38:56
over spiritualized allegories of the Alexandrian Church Fathers
39:00
to realize this was meant to be played in the heavy, low
39:03
vibrating register of the base octave.
39:06
We walked through the anatomy of affliction, observing the fading
39:09
colors, the letting go of all self-control, and the raw,
39:13
unfinished cries of a spiritual panic attack.
39:16
We descended into the physical and theological abyss, looking
39:19
at the threat of Sheol, the moth eaten eyes and the flooded tears
39:23
caused by the constricting squeeze of absolute spiritual
39:26
isolation. And finally, we witnessed that
39:28
sudden tripping musical reversal.
39:30
A linguistic mirror where despair is violently scattered
39:34
and the enemies lose their self-control.
39:36
And a rapid fire rhythm of sudden faith.
39:38
But before we sign off, I want to leave you with one final
39:40
thought to Mull over. It is something that builds on
39:42
all this source material, but points to a reality regarding
39:45
faith that we all face. Look closely at the precise
39:48
shift between verse 8 and verse 9.
39:50
In verse 8, David is completely dehydrated from crying.
39:53
His bones are shaking, his eyes are ruined, and he is terrified
39:56
of dying. In verse 9, he is declaring
39:58
absolute victory and ordering his enemies to depart in panic.
40:02
But here is the catch. Absolutely nothing in his
40:05
external circumstances changed in that fraction of a second.
40:08
The human enemies with weapons were still standing right there
40:12
outside his door. The physical sickness remained
40:14
in his body. The external threats had not
40:17
moved a single inch, yet total, crushing despair flipped into
40:22
absolute, unshakable confidence in a split second.
40:26
How does that happen? It happens because the most
40:28
monumental, life altering shifts in reality happened entirely
40:32
within the hidden silent space of the human mind before a
40:35
single thing in the physical world actually alters.
40:38
The physical evidence of his life looked identical, but the
40:41
internal architecture of his soul had completely rebuilt
40:43
itself upon the assurance of justification.
40:45
The music of his reality had shifted, even if the surrounding
40:49
world had, and not caught up to the rhythm yet.
40:51
Think about that the next time you feel pinned down by guilt or
40:53
circumstances. The shift happens inside first.
40:57
Thanks for listening to Reformed Thinking.
40:59
We will see you on the next deep dive.