Ah, Not Quite
Save me from the guilt of bloodshed, God, the God of my salvation;
Then my tongue will joyfully sing of Your righteousness. Psalm 51:14 NASB
Guilt of Bloodshed – Notice how Chabad translates this Hebrew verse:
Save me from blood, O God, the God of my salvation; let my tongue sing praises of Your charity. Chabad
There is a significant change from “guilt of bloodshed” to “blood.” Chabad is actually more literal, since the word is dām, “blood.” But literal translation isn’t quite what is needed here. Why? Because, as we have discovered, David is employing terms that are directly related to sacrifice. There’s quite a bit of debate about how we should understand this term here.
The theological debate today centers around the significance of what is symbolized by the biblical word, “blood” in a context of sacrifice. Briefly, two suggestions have been made. One is that blood symbolizes life. The blood of the victim is the life that has passed through death. Thus, to say that one is saved by “the blood of Christ” means that we are saved by Christ’s life, by participating in his life. Much emphasis is placed here on several ot verses which all say substantially the same thing: “The life of the flesh is in the blood” (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11,14; Deut 12:23).
The second interpretation and the one adhered to in this article, emphasizes that blood in the ot denotes not life, but death, or more accurately, life that is offered up in death. Having said this, it should be pointed out that there is absolutely nothing in the ot akin to the morbid preoccupation with the sinister deities of the netherworld such as one finds in the blood rituals of Israel’s neighbors where the emphasis is also on “blood-death.”
The three passages quoted above should present no problem. Rather than saying that blood is life they simply say that blood is the source of life, the means by which life is perpetuated. To remove the blood is to terminate life. Hence, in the ot a threefold prohibition emerges from this: (1) the sanctity of life; a man may not shed the blood of another man. In such cases of homicide it is the responsibility of one of the kinsmen to act as a “blood redeemer” (gôʾēl hā-ʾādām) for the deceased by killing the slayer (Num 35:19; Deut 19:12). In such cases where God is the avenger of blood the verb used is never gāʾal but nāqam–take vengeance (Deut 32:43); or dāraš–seek, require (Gen 9:5). Related to this are those instances where an individual has committed an infraction of the moral law that necessitates the death penalty. The expression used in the Bible to describe such a person is, “His blood is upon him” (Lev 20:9,11–13,16,27) or “his blood shall be upon his head” (Josh 2:19; I Kgs 2:37).[1]
Hamilton’s last remark is the justification for treating dām as “guilt of bloodshed” because David is responsible for the death of Uriah. He has committed a capital offense, and although no kinsman of Uriah is likely to seek David’s death, God certainly holds David guilty. So, even though the actual word means only “blood,” David employs it in the judicial/sacrificial sense.
All of this raises a moral question, namely, why was David not punished? Even if he is forgiven by God, we have to consider Jonathan Sacks’ insight that forgiveness for infractions against another human being can only be granted by the victim, and in this case, the victim is dead. Does God step in for Uriah? And if God does, that doesn’t remove the consequences of David’s sin. What we know is that shedding the blood of another human being requires a life for a life. Uriah was the innocent victim of David’s adultery, and although David is forgiven, a price must still be paid. That seems to be the reason for the death of another innocent victim, the child conceived through adultery. David doesn’t die. The child does.
We may protest that this form of “justice” seems completely unfair and arbitrary. What did the child do to deserve this? The answer, of course, is “Nothing.” But that’s the same answer if we ask about Uriah. While we may not understand why God chose this path, we certainly understand its impact on David. The narrative tells us. Perhaps most importantly, David experienced the emotional trauma of his act. We might find forgiveness for our deeds, but sometimes someone else will be innocently caught in our sins and suffer for them. Sobering, isn’t it?
Topical Index: dām, blood, guilt, sacrifice, forgiveness, Psalm 51:14
[1] Hamilton, V. P. (1999). 436 דָּם. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., pp. 190–191). Moody Press.
