Being or Doing
Preserve my soul, for I am a godly man; O You my God, save Your servant who trusts in You. Psalm 86:2 NASB
Godly man – The ESV corrects some of the NASB translation by rendering nephesh as “life,” not “soul.” This prayer is about saving life, not about preserving a “soul” as some sort of spiritual element of a man. The ESV also alters “godly man,” removing the word “man” which is not in the Hebrew text. Therefore, the verse should read, “Preserve my life for I am godly.” But even this correction retains a latent problem. The problem is with the word “godly.” That word in Hebrew is ḥāsîd, a derivative of ḥesed. We are quite familiar with this important but difficult word, ḥesed. It is uniquely Hebrew, so it’s not possible to find cognates in other languages to help us understand its full meaning. Furthermore, since the publication of Glueck’s work in 1927, academic debate over the meaning of ḥesed has produced numerous proposals (for a brief but critical review, see R. L. Harris’ discussion in TWOT, number 698). The implications of ḥesed for God’s relationship to Israel are crucial. Therefore, understanding what this word really means has profound consequences. But here, in this verse, our concern can focus on just one of these implications. The author counts himself ḥāsîd. He declares that he is to be recognized by God as worthy of deliverance. What we need to know is why he thinks this is true.
Harris comments: “Whether God’s people in the ot were called ḥāsîd because they were characterized by ḥesed (as seems likely) or were so called because they were objects of God’s ḥesed may not be certain.”[1] For our investigation, either one will do. The author can claim that his “godliness” is a result of God’s own faithfulness toward him, or he can claim that he is “godly” because he practices ḥesed. What we need to know in order to discover an application of this verse to our lives is how either one of these situations is true for us.
First, if we suppose our status as ḥāsîd is the result of God’s ḥesed, then we realize that this is an expression of the idea of adoption. God chooses us. Because He does so, we can be called ḥāsîd, that is, holy ones, or what the apostles call “saints.” The beauty of this approach is that it does not require us to first become holy. God’s choice determines our condition. We are saints because of what He does, not because of our own righteousness (or lack thereof).
Secondly, if we view our claim as ḥāsîd to be based on the practice of ḥesed, we discover that the claim is legitimate regardless of other diminishing factors as long as we act with lovingkindness when required. In other words, ḥesed is not some impossible dream prevented from becoming a human reality because of the battle with the yetzer ha’ra. We can do this! We can act in ways that express ḥesed. And on that basis, we can ask God to preserve us.
Whether we are ḥāsîd because of God’s work or our own, the plea of the psalmist is also ours. God does care about His people, and we care about acting as He does. The theology might be a bit less important than the results. Perhaps John had this in mind when he wrote, “We love because He first loved us.”
You are ḥāsîd. How that came about might not be as important as the fact that you are ḥāsîd, because this means God does incline His ear. Of that you can be certain.
Topical Index: ḥāsîd, ḥesed, godly, lovingkindness, Psalm 86:2
[1] Harris, R. L. (1999). 698 חסד. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (307). Chicago: Moody Press.
Translating is a fatal tragedy: How many “souls” have been lost as a result.
Words like “nefesh” and “hesed” should never be adulterated by translation attempts as it leads to (religious) idolatry.
What on earth has “lovingkindness” to do with the popular image of “godly” ?
Very wise is the Mohammedan’s approach to keep scripture in the original revelation (The sad fact that they usually only recite without comprehension is another discussion)
I opened the Hebrew to find that v.5 of this Psalm uses chesed of God. And the Sefaria Tanakh has “preserve my life for I am steadfast”. So I found myself where you went, Pieter, what does my “godly”ness have to do with Yah’s steadfast love or lovingkindness? And then I kept reading what Skip presents. I’m going to be pondering this all day… I am chasid, YHVH is “rav chesed“… I am standing in the cleft of the rock with Moses, hearing God tell me about himself. Thank you, Skip, for this daily bread.
Leslee, I like monking around with translation:
“… for I demonstrate [my very continuing existence as your property, legally / contractually / rightfully insisting on] Your hesed; Oy! [listen to me!] You are my Master / Owner, save Your slave [to be PC, translated as servant] who [faithfully] trusts in You”
Protected in the cleft (Arms of Yashua – the Rock), Aloah / Eloah showed Moshe the future (= back of His head).
Interestingly there is a branch of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism called Hasidic Judaism or Hasidism and the adherents are called Haredi or Hasidim. They follow the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and their particular sects rabbi and lean toward a mystical interpretation of Torah through the Kabbalah. They are easily identified by their conservative style of dress and “black-hat” headwear. The entomology of the term hesed allows them to use the word to mean “pietist” and “piety” rather than mercy or lovingkindness as we tend to lean toward in our translations and general understanding. In my limited experience with this group it is a fitting and telling difference.
Curiously, Michael, the Hasidim tends to understand the “Godhead” as a “complex unity” and would often accept Yashua as The Messiah, and regarded Abraham as the originator of Kabbalah.
A Baal Shem Tov story [capitalisation added]:
“Once, a musician came to town—a musician of great but unknown talent. He stood on a street corner and began to play. Those who stopped to listen could not tear themselves away, and soon a large crowd stood enthralled by the glorious music whose equal they had never heard. Before long they were moving to its rhythm, and the entire street was transformed into a dancing mass of humanity. A deaf man walking by wondered: Has the world gone mad? Why are the townspeople jumping up and down, waving their arms and turning in circles in middle of the street?”
“Chassidim,” concluded the Baal Shem Tov, “are moved by the melody that issues forth from every creature in Elohim’s creation. If this MAKES THEM APPEAR MAD TO THOSE WITH LESS SENSITIVE EARS, should they therefore cease to dance?”
Good point. It makes one wonder why it is that we in the West eschew dancing as a general principle. Is it we are too prudish; too awkward; too embarrassed by our flailing limbs or could it be that we are simply not hearing the eternal heavenly music from the bowels of the cosmos. Our joy seems to be relegated to only our countenance. Our limbs are not the only things who lose their tone and vitality. Our souls suffer a form of spiritual atrophy as a result of our lethargy.
Congenital deafness caused by hereditary susceptibility to the CGV (Christian Greek Virus), endemic in Western Europe.
Thank you, Skip, for connecting John’s exegesis to this verse. We cannot do to others what is not (or has not) been done to us. This apparently is by design. Hurting people hurt people and people who are loved love people. If you want to love others, you must open your heart to being loved yourself.
Forgiveness, also, happens IN CONJUNCTION with being forgiven. Yeshua relates the story of the servant who was forgiven much but who refused to forgive someone else as LOSING his own forgiveness; apparently forgiveness also has a flow pattern, like all the other transcendent goodies of heaven. I get lovingkindness almost as a byproduct of choosing to obey the commandment to do the same; it at least is concurrent. I feel loved when I love.
Martyrs went to the stake with forgiveness in their hearts and joy on their faces for full forgiveness of your enemies insures your own, too. I have become suspicious that all the ingredients of right relationship are about what happens IN BETWEEN. Hesed is probably no exception; if I want to ‘receive’ heaven’s lovingkindness I should make a choice to practice the same to those around me. I will get what I need about the same time they do. This should provide the incentive for me to make every effort to love others, for that is when I get the full monty of the love I need. Heaven will hear me about the same time I hear others.
I think God extends faith towards us when He gives us an earnest of forgiveness and love and blessing (which is the fruit of the free gift of justification), but if we don’t then USE that freedom from sin and condemnation to extend the same to others (the sanctifying fruits of obedience) we will end up in worse shape than when we started. The evil servant only owed a debt before he refused to extend the hesed he had received to the man who owed him; after he refused to use that freedom to pass on that gift of forgiveness, he actually ended up in debtor’s prison.
Grace may be free, but how many of us are “doing despite to the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29) by refusing to extend that same faith that God extended to us (trust, vulnerability of relationship) to others? Obedience to the law of love may not be required for dead folks who haven’t been set free yet, but it is not optional for those who want to STAY alive. I stay alive when I do everything I possibly can to extend life (practice the hesed of grace) beyond me. Grace, like all the rest of the fire of love, apparently is a hot potato!
Laurita, You noted: “We cannot do to others what is not (or has not) been done to us”. I am reminded (often and painfully) that “You cannot love yourself unless you have been loved and are loved. The capacity to love cannot be built in isolation.” (Dr Bruce Perry)
I, for one, did not receive the foundations of love and respect in my formative years when most (thankfully) do. I have also discovered, to my chagrin, that it does not mean that I can build those foundations now on my own either, as it takes a “village to raise a child” (even when that child is 66 years old). I think that in my childhood I must have heard that proverb as “it take a village to raise an idiot” as I have played the “village idiot” too long, too often and too well (due, no doubt, to my 2 instances of Traumatic Brain Injury [TBI] at age 5 and 11). So it is time for a new village, a re-newed beginning, and a new (wonderful) life.
Thank you Skip for the reminder that I am ḥāsîd and to Laurita for the reminder that “I stay alive when I do everything I possibly can to extend life (practice the hesed of grace) beyond me”. It is by applying the prescription of hesed which YHWH wrote that love wins, community works and The Kingdom comes.
Michael…I’ve been reading your posts far to long to ever believe you’re an idiot. Let’s try, humble, witty, sharp, verbally expressive, a lover of God’s truth & perhaps a little self deprecating. But, idiot…not buying it. ??
Michael, thank you for your continued transparency. The quote; “You cannot love yourself unless you have been loved and are loved. The capacity to love cannot be built in isolation.” (Dr Bruce Perry) resonated. Yesterday was the right time for me to hear this. I could have clicked agree many times with your childhood as so many of us can as well. What opened up for me was a deeper perspective comparing loved and alive vs love and life. As always one question opens the door to more.
In the struggle we are in over the objectifying of people, gender, race, creed, beliefs, religion etc. I hadn’t given thought to being loved connected to being the object of love. Another killer – we love others see other hear others (la la) as we love ourselves. I spent much of my life defining and valuing loved and alive with my feelings. I was relating to love and life with my emotions not through them. Loved describes a condition but Love is our identity. Love is our collective identity that is passionately seeking expression and desire for life.
The part of me that thought I missed out perhaps the little boy in me that was still waiting to be loved can step out as a
man. What was that song from the 60’s just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in….
Thank you again.
God is most certainly the initiator, but we have to participate to keep it going. Skip has often reminded us that hesed must be “reciprocal “ if we expect anything good to come from it.
Amen!!!
“…God does incline His ear. Of that you can be certain.”
Yes. He inclines His ear to the godly ones, but He does not hear the prayers of the ungodly. So then, is the psalmist ASKING through prayer to be preserved and saved? I would NOT think he is TELLING God to do it. I wonder, is this is a statement of faith and an expression of agreement for God to go ahead and do what He does according to His good nature, according to His good name, which is to keep His promises and guarantees to those who are ḥāsîd, and that being that he will “preserve and save a godly man”? Is it like a declaration rather than a request?
If the psalmist is ḥāsîd, whether it is by God’s ḥesed or his in response God’s hesed, would the psalmist need to ASK for his life to be preserved and saved? Wouldn’t he already know that that is God’s good nature to do so, that He will act according to His good name to do that, that His preservation and salvation is promised and guaranteed to the psalmist because he is ḥāsîd? After all, faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen. Therefore, wouldn’t asking possibly imply some doubting? Why would we ask for something God has already said He will do if we are ḥāsîd, for to be ḥāsîd implies that we already know and trust Him and His word to do as He has promised. Maybe, if the psalmist is asking through prayer, it’s an act of faith to STRENGTHEN his faith because his faith is little or weak.
maybe hesed involves asking instead of demanding, even if it is promised. ?
Robert, you rang my bell!
Asking is what opens the closed hand/door, which was all that was preventing the promises from getting delivered in the first place. I think the act of asking is what metamorphoses us out of rebellion and back into faithful subjects. Oh, do we HATE to (‘have to’) ask!
He stands at our door and knocks (asks) to come in (personal delivery: we don’t get His promises without getting Him, too), but I think our asking Him back for those promises is what actually opens our door/hand.
The act of asking (respect) is what equals do with each other. This never fails to stagger me!
Laurita, I wonder if that was the significant difference between the 2 times Moses ascended the mountain. It wasn’t until after he spoke with God concerning the children of Israel in this manner that his face glowed after meeting with God. I don’t want to say too much here, as it can definitely be taken wrong, but it’s an interesting pattern that shows up. Perhaps in our “piety” we tend to grovel when we should be speaking face to face. Just some thoughts.
Robert, as usual, you floor me. Thank you.
I think of it in terms of a marriage, because that is the way it is presented in the Bible. In a marriage, I don’t think anybody is going to get very far if they find themselves having to “grovel”; in fact, I found that to be true in mine.
Respect is the real foundation for trust; groveling presupposes a lack of trust on both ends. Trust can only be found in its pure, unsupported, unconditional form between equals, for there is nothing to ‘gain’ (for equals anyway) by not trusting. I think grovelers grovel (the act of hiding the face) because they have not addressed the issues that keep trust from being exercised (sin comes to mind). Face to face only happens between those who have nothing to hide.
Further, I don’t think a marriage would get very far if we did ANY of the practices of false religion in it, like trancing out or repeating ourselves meaninglessly over and over, or, well, you just try any false religion practices with your spouse and see how far you get!
Love it, it just ain’t that complicated is it? ?
I appreciate the theologically based reply, but don’t you think that EMOTIONALLY we still cry out even when we know He is faithful? Perhaps the psalmist isn’t writing The Institutes. Perhaps he is writing poetry.
Yes, for sure. At least some people do sometimes, even literally, cry out to be preserved and saved. I have and I just might do it again sometime. However, is it presumptuous or less than being truly human to be so trusting in His faithfulness and to have such confident assurance and shalom so as not to be so emotional as to cry out? Is that necessarily being presumptuous, prideful, unfeeling or coldhearted? I think that could be a false judgement of another man’s heart, or even our own.
I think that sometimes it has been when my theology, really my right mindedness and therefore my faith and trust, has not been quite in keeping with who He really is and what He assuredly promises, that I have become emotional is such a way that I have cried out. It has sometimes been, for me, when my faith and trust has been little or weak, not that He is unfaithful, or probably more accurately, when I am not so sure that I am quite so ḥāsîd enough, or that HE regards me as being quite so ḥāsîd enough, that I have not been able to just quietly trust in His faithfulness. Maybe that’s when and why we cry out, because we are not so certain that we are quite ḥāsîd enough, and so we desperately plead for Him to be ḥesed toward us. How can we have confidence before Him if our conscience condemns us? It can be those times that we cry out to Him and He does NOT answer according to our plea that we then might ask Him to search our hearts and see if there is any deceitful, any wicked way in us, so that we can then repent, have a clear conscience, and become confident before Him.
“The result of righteousness will be shalom and the effect of righteousness will be quietness and confidence forever.”. [Isa 32:17]
Now, having said that, I do ask myself, why then did Yeshua cry out in the end?
“About the ninth hour Yeshua cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, My God, why have You abandoned Me?’” [Mat_27:46]
It wasn’t to be preserved or saved. But why? Certainly He was ḥāsîd enough. He ought to have had confident assurance. Was He just being emotional? Was He confused? Was He complaining?