AN EXEGETICAL STUDY OF PSALM 51:5

By Jonathan Andres Gonzalez

April 2016. Andrews University
•Psalms 51:5
•“Surely I was sinful at birth,
    sinful from the time my
mother conceived me.”
• This verse has been used by biblical commentators in relation to the
doctrine of original sin. Some others, believe the sin should be assigned to
the mother. Because of the word ‫ יחם‬yahām (lit. to be hot, rut, conceive,
which “Delitzsch says, ‘hints to a beast like element in the act of coition’”7)
some argue it refers to sexual passions or sexual intercourse, Kaufmann goes
as far as to say that “man was created by grace, but is born through sin.

• Others believe it to be adultery on the part of the mother, but this is mere
speculation.
• Still others present a social view, “‘it is the tragedy of man that he is born
into a world full of sin’ (Weiser, 405 also A.A. Anderson, 395).”9
• Most scholars, preachers and regular interpret Psalm 51:5 to mean
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived
me,” (NIV, Holman CSB), here the phrase is translated as a predicate
complement of a nominal clause. Some may even go further and
intended it to mean, “I was born a sinner from the time my mother
conceive me” (NET, NLT, NRSV and God’s Word), this time the phrase
is translated as indirect object.
 The Focus of the Text
• Psalms 51: In this thorough prayer of forgiveness,
deliverance, and restoration He asks deliverance from
his sin of killing Uriah (v.14) but not for being born a
sinner, that because he does not consider his human
nature inherently evil or himself to be born a sinner.
• His focus was neither his mother’s iniquity nor his
nature but rather his sin with Bath-Sheba and against
Uriah, and he shows true repentance by having a
contrite spirit (v.17).
 Lexical and Syntactical Study
Key Words Study

• Peša’and cognates: (vv. 1,3, 13 Eng.) in this Psalm it is

translated as transgression. “It signifies deliberate,
premeditated, willful violation of a norm or standard…
rebellion.”
• A newborn baby cannot rebel nor willfully violate a
norm, that is, because sin does not primarily affect
the nature of the human, but his/her will. (The
consequences of sin do affect man’s will and nature).
• Āwon: (vv. 2,5, 9 Eng.) it is “almost always rendered as ‘iniquity’ before
God… it carries the root idea of crookedness, refers to falsehood and
deception…wrongful intention.”
• Once again we can see that deception and intention refer to the will of man
rather than his nature. “In iniquity (Āwon) I was shaped/brought forth” this
cannot refer to David’s crookedness for he had nothing to do with his own
“shaping.” The verb “to shape” is in the Pual, which means that the action
was performed on the subject , hence David had no part in this.
• 
• Hattā’t and cognates: (vv. 2,3,4,5, 9, 13 Eng.), translated as sin, it means, “missing a
target” as when an arrow is shot. Fowler asserts that it refers to “a lifestyle that deviates
from what God has marked out… sin is an act or attitude that causes a person to miss the
mark.”
• One can clearly see that this sin deals primarily and foremost with the will of man, not
with the nature of man or with its “fallen condition.” And in sin (Hattā’t) did my mother
conceive me.” Again here the subject of the Piel verb is third person feminine singular
(3fs), it is the mother who conceives “me” (David) in sin. “Me” is the prepositional suffix,
which indicates that he is the direct object or recipient of the action!
•  From these definitions and this brief analysis we can see that David has no part in this
sin or iniquity, he is merely the passive recipient of his mother’s actions
 Syntactical Study

• Although nothing in the preceding sections has yielded any evidence of the author of Psalm
51 or the parties involved understanding human nature as sinful or man as a sinner by birth,
nevertheless our verse in question (Psalm 51:7Heb, 51:5 Eng.) does seem to intimate so, at
least that is the way in which it has, traditionally, being interpreted, so much so that some
would dare to translate it as such:

• 1. “For I was born a sinner--yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.”
• (NLT)
• 2. “Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me.”
• (God’s Word)
• 3. “Look, I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived
• me” (NET)
• Other representative verses that seem to indicate this are:
• “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray [as soon as] they be born
(lit. they go in the wrong direction from/out of the belly), speaking lies” (Psalm 58:3).
• “For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous” (Rom 5:19).
• In Psalm 58:3 although the wicked are estranged “turned aside” from the womb, it is
not until they are out of the belly that they go astray; by speaking lies. So this would
mean that they are doing this once they have conscience of what a lie is, and not “as
soon as they are born”[as soon as] is not in the Hebrew text but is added by the
translator.
• As for the many being made sinners by the disobedience of Adam (Rom 5:19), two
remarks can be made.
First, just as many are made sinners only, and mean only many are
saved, hence not all are made sinners, since not all are made righteous,
so this cannot be used in order to present a universal transmission of
sin from Adam to the rest of humanity, since many is not all, it is short
of encompassing the entire human race!
Second, the process in which the many are made sinners is not
mentioned, hence the possibility of those being made sinners may rest
on their own free choice, just as those who are made righteous freely
choose to receive Jesus’ righteousness on their behalf.
• These two translations are not granted by the Hebrew text, it is
grammatically inconsistent with it. They deviate from the Hebrew
syntax (both clauses in this verse are verbal clauses), they are rather a
free interpretation of the translators.

• But what does our verse really say?

• The great majority of translations render this verse similar to the KJV
(ASB, ERV, ESV, ISV, NAS, NASB, Webster’s Bible Translation, WEB,
Young’s Literal Translation). From a linguistic perspective these are the
only legitimate translations. This is indeed what the verse says,
• Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
• And in sin did my mother conceived me. (KJV)
• Behold, in iniquity I was brought forth,
• And in sin did conceive me my mother (According to Hebrew Bible
translation)

• Although man indeed is born sinful, not sinner, just sinful, this verse
cannot be used in support of either of those two options. An unprejudiced
reading of the verse would immediately assign blame to the mother and
not to the son, for it is the mother who somehow conceived David in sin.
 Conclusion

• From the historical context in 2 Samuel, David did not see himself as a
sinner just because he was a human, rather he acknowledge that he
had sinned against God by doing what he had done, (i.e. adultery and
murder).
• He also acknowledged that not only his actions, but also his ‘wrong
spirit/inclination of the heart” were sin, hence he asked for a new
heart and a new spirit. We can see that he had the right
understanding of sin, he saw sin not only as actions but also as the
disposition of the heart.
• It could be argued that what David meant was that he was born into a
world of sin. The phrases “in iniquity” and “in sin” would thus be
understood as metonymy for “a world full of sin.”
• Metonymy, where a word or phrase is used in place of a different
word or phrase with which it is associated, is frequently used in
Scripture, and even in modern everyday speech.

• So in the case of Psalm 51:5, David could be referring to the world of

sin in which he was conceived and subsequently born.
• Acts 2:8 refers to people who were born into a language, but clearly,
they were not born already knowing this language, but had to learn it
just like everyone else.
• If this is how to understand Psalm 51:5, David is saying that he was
born with sinful nature which he inherited from his mother.
 JEWISHS INTERPRETATION OF PS.
51:5
• They say that David grew up in a family in which he was despised, rejected,
shunned, and outcast. He was treated with scorn and derision (Psalm 69:7-8). The
community followed the example of the family, and assumed that David was full of
sin and guilt (Psalm 69:11-12). If something turned up missing, they believed he
stole it, and forced him to replace it (Psalm 69:4). He was often the object of jokes
and pranks, filling his plate with gall and his cup with vinegar (Psalm 69:20-21).
• If this is true, it somewhat explains why Jesse did not have David present when the
Prophet Samuel came to choose a man to be God’s anointed king (1 Samuel 16:1-
13), and also why his oldest brother Eliab reacted the way he did when David later
showed up at the Israelite camp when they were being mocked by Goliath (1
Samuel 17:28).
• But why would David’s family reject him?
• The traditional Jewish answer to why David’s family rejected him is that they all thought
that David’s mother had committed adultery and borne him out of wedlock. They thought
he was a bastard (in fact, the word “stranger” in Psalm 69:8 has the same Hebrew root as
muzar, meaning “bastard”). The traditional Jewish story is stated briefly below.
• David’s father, Jesse, was the son of Obed, who was the son of Boaz, who married Ruth, the
Moabite woman. The Jewish traditional law explicitly forbade Hebrew women from
marrying Moabite men because of how the Moabites treated the Israelites when they were
wandering in the desert after fleeing Egypt. But the law was unclear about whether or not a
Hebrew man could marry a Moabite woman. Boaz believed that the law allowed such a
marriage, which is why he married Ruth.
• However, according to Jewish tradition, Boaz died on the night that he and Ruth were
married (Midrash, Zuta, Ruth 4). Many believed that his death proved that God had
condemned Boaz’ marriage to Ruth, and had punished him accordingly.
• However, even though Boaz and Ruth had only been intimate for that one night, she
conceived and gave birth to Obed.
• Obed was then viewed as illegitimately born, as was his own son, Jesse. Nevertheless,
both of these men labored hard in learning the Torah and loving God and so the
conduct of their lives helped convince the surrounding communities that though Boaz
had sinned, they themselves were accepted by God as part of the covenant community.
Jesse married a Jewish girl named Nizbeth (Babylonian Talmud, Baba Batra 91a).
• After Jesse had been married for many years, had fathered seven sons with Nizbeth,
and had gained honor as a righteous man and spiritual leader in the community, doubts
began to fill his mind about whether or not his line and seed were permanently polluted
by his Moabite blood. It was at this point that he resolved to cease all sexual relations
with Nizbeth. He did this out of love for her, because she, as a pure Israelite, would be
sinning to be married to someone who was of impure Moabite ancestry.
• Anyway, Nizbeth’s maidservant loved her mistress dearly, and so switched
places with her before Jesse entered her bed, much like Leah and Rachel
had switched places so many years before on Jacob’s wedding night.
• So Jesse ended up sleeping with his wife, even though he thought it was
his wife’s servant. Nizbeth became pregnant, but never told her family
how she had become pregnant, because she wanted to protect Jesse from
public shame.
• The result, however, was that Jesse, their seven sons, and the entire
community came to believe that Nizbeth was an adulterer. The town urged
Jesse to stone his wife for adultery, but out of love for her, he refused, and
several months later, David was born.
• So David grew up in a family in which he was despised, rejected,
shunned, and outcast. He was treated with scorn and derision (Psalm
69:7-8). The community followed the example of the family, and
assumed that David was full of sin and guilt (Psalm 69:11-12).
• There are numerous other details to this story, but the point for our
purposes here is that this may be what David is referring to in Psalm
51:5.
• If this Jewish history is true (and we have no good reason to believe
otherwise), then almost everybody—including David’s own father and
brothers—believed that David was born as a result of adultery, which
is why David writes, “I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin my
mother conceived me.”
 THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
Exodus 20: 5,6;

• You shall not bow down to them or worship

them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,
punishing the children for the sin of the parents
to the third and fourth generation of those who
hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand
generations of those who love me and keep my
commandments.
• In an interpretive article on the second commandment,
• George Amadon commented on the phrase "visiting the sins of the
fathers upon the children." Every day's experience shows us children
suffering for the sins, vices and follies of their parents, by hereditary
disease, poor constitution, bad education and example, bad name,
intemperance, and a thousand other parental transgressions and
disobedience of God's natural laws, so-called. G. W. Amadon, "The
Skeptic Met," RH 16:16 (September 4, 186 0):122—123.
• The *age of accountability* has everything to do with a child's
obtaining eternal life with God in heaven, and just exactly NOTHING
to do with God guaranteeing a child (or anyone else) a sustained
PHYSICAL life. The children who died in The Flood, and in Sodom and
Gomorrah, lost their physical lives. They did NOT lose their spiritual
lives [that is eternal life with God].
• Amadon felt that the true sense of the text was:
• "Visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the transgressing children,
unto the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, when the
children follow the iniquities of their fathers." G. W. Amadon, "The
Skeptic Met," RH 16:16 (September 4, 186 0):122—123. So both the
physiological (realistic) and the imitation aspects of transmission were
employed. G. C. Tenney, "The Knowledge of Evil," RH 73:39
(September 29, 1896):620.
• Ellen White followed the same interpretive line of reasoning four
years later with these words:
• “God did not mean in his threatening that the children should be
compelled to suffer for their parents’ sins, but that the example of the
parents should be imitated by the children. . . . The effects of a sinful
life are often inherited by the children. They follow in the footsteps of
their parents. Sinful example has its influence from father to son to
the third and fourth generation.”
• 4Spiritual Gifts, 3:291. Cf. Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 306.