God in Private

Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being, and in secret You will make wisdom known to me.  Psalm 51:6  NASB

Truth – What is “truth”?  Aren’t you inclined to say something like “correspondence to the facts,” “certainty,” or “what is acknowledged as reality”?  That’s typical of the Western world.  We think of “true” as something that describes what is real, what is verifiable in the external world.  So, a statement like “Italy is a country in Africa,” is false because it doesn’t align with the real world.  Truth is external to the individual.  If I believe that Italy is in Africa, I am wrong no matter how strongly I believe it.

“I believe in God.”  Is that statement true?  Well, since I can’t point to something in the “real” world to confirm my statement, the truth or falsity of my claim will depend on the veracity of my personal conviction.  When put to the test, my claim will be true if I continue to assert God’s existence under trying circumstances (like being burned at the stake).  Then others will know just how strongly I hold this conviction.  To say that I believe in God, but to live as though He doesn’t matter, is to vitiate my claim.  The claim must align with the behavior.

But now notice David’s statement: “You desire truth in the innermost being.”  Does that mean just that God loves integrity?  Or something else?  How can “truth” be located in ṭūḥôt (in inner man)?  Wouldn’t that mean it was completely dependent on personal belief, without the need for verification?   David’s choice of the terms gives us some problems:

This noun (found twice in the ot) describes an object covered over, hidden, or concealed. Ps 51:6 [H 8] clearly communicates the sense of “inward being”—inner man covered by the body. ṭūḥôt is parallel to sātm, a “closed up place,” and to the seat of the sin nature (v. 5), denoting the residence of truth or faithfulness, referred to elsewhere as “heart” (Ps 15:2; cf. I Sam 12:24). There is no agreement concerning the etymology of this term in Job 38:36, and the meaning of the word poetically parallel to it is debated. ṭūḥôt is understood as 1) “man’s inward being” (cf. Ps 51:6 [H 8]), 2) “clouds” (in the sense of that which is covered), or 3) “Thot,” the Egyptian ibis bird (parallel to the sense of “cock” for śekwî). The context describes man’s inability to direct storm and rain clouds. Verse 36 implies that God is the source of wisdom implanted either in the inner man (perhaps the best rendering), or in a cloud to make it give rain, or in the ibis.^[1]

Does David think of this as the place of consciousness as opposed to the physical body?  That sort of dualism doesn’t seem to fit the Hebraic worldview.  Did you pay attention to the claim that this word describes “the seat of the sin nature,” a statement Alexander imports from theological assumptions, not from the text?

Finally, what about the phrase, “in secret You will make wisdom known to me”?  Does that mean we should expect God to speak privately to the heart, that if we hear His voice inside we will know whatever we hear is the truth?  If so, what need is there for public instruction, for social commands, for a written text?  Is religious truth only what we ascertain through God’s direct, private, internal communication?  That seems to fit the modern idea of religion—some kind of internal personal belief without necessary external obligations or verification.  But is that what David has in mind?

Ah, well, we better find out what “truth” David is talking about.  And, of course, that’s the Hebrew term ʾĕmet, a word that does not exclusively mean correspondence with the “facts” of the real world.  The basic idea of ʾĕmet is not verifiable fact but rather unshakeable support.  It is an emotive word, not a physical reality construct.  It’s about reliability, not declarations.  So, what David suggests is that God desires the same reliability from us as He offers to us.  The secret is not some hidden, mystical gem but rather the unshakeable support that holds life together found ultimately only in God. What God makes known is ḥokmâ, translated “wisdom,” but not factual collections of data.  ḥokmâ is “a manner of thinking and attitude concerning life’s experiences; including matters of general interest and basic morality. These concerns relate to prudence in secular affairs, skills in the arts, moral sensitivity, and experience in the ways of the Lord.”^[2]

What’s most important is the distinction between the Hebrew view of wisdom and our Greek view.

The ethical dynamic of Greek philosophy lay in the intellect; if a person had perfect knowledge he could live the good life (Plato). Knowledge was virtue. The emphasis of ot wisdom was that the human will, in the realm of practical matters, was to be subject to divine causes. Therefore, Hebrew wisdom was not theoretical and speculative. It was practical, based on revealed principles of right and wrong, to be lived out in daily life.^[3]

Wisdom is practical demonstration of moral commitment.  God desires integrity.  That desire is a reflection of His own reliability.  And it manifests itself in behavior.  As Jonathan Sacks would have pointed out, “The truth will set you free to do what is right—and that is wisdom.”

Personal.  Yes.  Private. Not quite.  Practical.  By all means.

Topical Index: truth, ʾĕmet, ṭūḥôt, inner being, ḥokmâ, wisdom, Psalm 51:5

^[1] Alexander, R. H. (1999). 795 תּוַּח. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 347). Moody Press.

^[2] Goldberg, L. (1999). 647 חָכַם. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 282). Moody Press.

^[3] Ibid.