Psalm 25, Parallelism, and Humility

Trusting in affliction… Humility.

What characteristics does the life of someone who trusts God demonstrate while undergoing affliction? Psalm 25 gives us some examples of the multi-faceted answer to this question. Certainly there are many themes that could be derived from this Psalm, but we are going to use parallelism (see parallelism) to focus on humility (see humility). True humility (as defined in David’s article) is determined by our view of our relationship to God; it is not how we treat other people, but how we submit ourselves to Him. Psalm 25 illustrates this truth and the centrality and importance of humility are demonstrated by parallel structure in verses 7-11 of the Psalm. Verses 1-6 set the context for verses 7-11:

Of David.
1 To you, O Lord, I lift up my soul.

2 O my God, in you I trust;
let me not be put to shame;
let not my enemies exult over me.

3 Indeed, none who wait for you shall be put to shame;
they shall be ashamed who are wantonly treacherous.

4 Make me to know your ways, O Lord;
teach me your paths.

5 Lead me in your truth and teach me,
for you are the God of my salvation;
for you I wait all the day long.

6 Remember your mercy, O Lord, and your steadfast love,
for they have been from of old.
(Psalm 25:1-6, ESV)

Focus on Humility

Now let’s consider the parallel structure in verses 7 – 11. I have arranged the verses to illustrate the parallelism:

 7 (A) Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions;
    according to your steadfast love remember me,
    for the sake of your goodness, O Lord!
            8  (B) Good and upright is the Lord;
               therefore he instructs sinners in the way.
                        9  (C) He leads the humble in what is right,
                           and teaches the humble his way.
           10  (B’) All the paths of the Lord are steadfast love and faithfulness,
                for those who keep his covenant and his testimonies.
11 (A’) For your name's sake, O Lord,
    pardon my guilt, for it is great.  (ESV)

Verses 7 and 11 focus on the difference between the Lord’s character (good and upright) and the psalmist’s (sinful and guilty). Notice how this dichotomy illustrates humility based on the psalmist’s perception of his relationship to God.

Verses 8 and 10 describe the Lord’s “way” or “paths.” Earlier in the psalm, the psalmist stressed how he wanted to know these paths (verses 4-5). In verses 6-8, the psalmist tells what kind of paths these are: they are paths of love and faithfulness, good and upright.

Verse 9 is in the center of this parallel structure, consequently it contains the main point or theme.¹ This verse continues to emphasize humility by stating it twice² and assuring that the Lord will guide those who show humility in “His ways.” But why is this verse at the center? Why should it be the center of our attention?

The psalmist desires a good and upright life and realizes that God’s paths are the only solution. He also recognizes that he is not capable of knowing or following these paths on his own, needing God’s help and teaching. But God can only lead those who will submit to Him, those who are humble. The opposite of humility is pride. A proud person tries to go his own way and does not willingly place himself under God’s guidance much less desire His paths.

There are other indications of the psalmist’s humility in Psalm 25: the Psalmist repeatedly admits his wrongdoings (verses 7, 11, 18) and repeatedly puts God above himself (verses 1, 2a, 5b, 14, 15, 21). These indirect references to humility give us additional insight into the character of the psalmist, and are examples of true humility. But why? Why does he desire God’s ways?

Benefits of Humility

By reading other portions of this Psalm we know that the psalmist is struggling with affliction (see verses 16-19, for example). Desiring help and hope in his time of need the psalmist turns to God. In the face of great struggle the psalmist recognizes the requirement of humility.

Verse 14 says, “The friendship of the Lord is for those who fear him, and he makes known to them his covenant.”³ The psalmist desires God’s friendship, in other words, knowledge of God’s covenant (God’s direction on how to live), which leads to integrity and uprightness (v 21) and to deliverance from affliction and sin (verses 5b, 15b, and 19-20). The challenge for us is to maintain our humility whether we are suffering or not. He stands ready to teach and guide us in paths of righteousness. But are we willing to assume humility, recognizing His place over us?

---

¹ The central portion of Hebrew parallelism contains the main (central) thought and the surrounding text is written to add to that focus.
² Verse 9 contains an embedded parallelism.
³ Verse 14 is another example of parallelism.

© 2011 – Kevin Fitting

A Double Healing

All three of the synoptic gospel accounts, Mathew, Mark and Luke, record the intertwined stories of Jesus’ healing of the synagogue ruler’s daughter and the healing of a woman with an issue of blood.¹ The three accounts differ somewhat in their details, which is not unusual in the gospels. Luke and Mark record the event as occurring immediately after Jesus returns from the east side of the Sea of Galilee and give the name of the synagogue ruler. Matthew’s gospel leaves the ruler unnamed and makes no reference to a recent journey. Apart from these minor differences and the three accounts are almost identical. For the sake of simplicity and clarity we will focus here on Luke’s account.

At first glance these two healings, though particularly poignant, seem to be just two accounts among many of Jesus’ miracle working power. When read at this level, the stories seem to hold little challenge or inspiration for the modern reader, apart from the obvious portrayal of the love and power of God demonstrated in the lives of two very different but equally needy people. Yet these linked events radiate with life-transforming truth.

Two Dying Women

The account begins with the appearance of the synagogue leader, Jairus, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Ya’ir. Ya’ir is desperate, for his only daughter, 12 years old, is dying. This synagogue ruler’s approach to Jesus with a request to heal is quite understandable, since the laying on of hands to pray for healing was practiced in the First Century Jewish world, especially in Galilee. Jesus had the reputation of being a healer with exceptional powers. When Ya’ir came to Jesus, Jesus seems Jesus seems ready to go to his house without delay.

At this point comes an unwanted intrusion, or so it seems. Though a great crowd surrounds Jesus, a woman, quite uninvited, pushes her way through to touch him. Who is this woman? We are given no name and no relationship, unlike the daughter to the respected synagogue leader. She is a woman, but not a “daughter.”

Ya’ir, a man of significant social status, has no trouble penetrating the crowd to come before Jesus to make his request; the crowd would part way for him out of respect for his position in the synagogue. This woman, however, would never get a chance to get near Jesus in these circumstances.

First of all, she is a woman, and public contact between women and men was limited. This is not to say, of course, that she could not speak to Jesus in public, but she certainly would not have the direct and clear access to him that Ya’ir had, especially with the crowd.

Beyond this relatively obvious obstacle there is a less obvious, seemingly insurmountable problem. Because she is bleeding, under the Law of Moses she is considered ritually unclean. If she would make pilgrimage to Jerusalem, for example, she would not be able to enter into the temple courts to worship with others. She is cut off from this access to God. In addition, and more relevant to the immediate problem of the crowd, if she touches any other person, they too are considered temporarily ritually unclean. Anyone contacting her would need to undergo a ritual immersion bath to restore ritual purity. As a result, devout people would not want her to touch them.

How could this woman for whom touch is taboo possibly push her way through a crowd of people? She is relegated to the fringe of the crowd, as indeed she is relegated to the fringe of society. Yet the isolation and rejection doesn’t stop at that level. She is touched with this disease down to the very core of her identity: “I am unclean, and I cannot go to worship God as can others.” For this woman, unlike Ya’ir’s daughter, suffering is not just physical. This deep pain of long term isolation, humiliation and rejection is destroying not just the body, but the soul.

The nameless woman’s arrival on the scene may at first appear as an irrelevant intrusion, but certain parallels between the two stories quickly emerge. The subject of the first story, Ya’ir’s daughter, is female and she is twelve years old. The nameless woman is, of course, female and has been suffering for twelve years. In fact, both are dying. We are told that Yair’s daughter is dying, but the woman has an issue of blood. The ancient Jewish world viewed life as being in the blood (Lev. 11:17); this woman’s life is slowly draining away. Moreover, as mentioned above, this woman is ritually unclean. The moment that Ya’ir’s daughter dies, she also becomes ritually unclean. All of these parallels are strong indicators that the appearance of the woman is not an intrusion. Rather, these intertwined stories are meant to be read together, and their true impact is to be found in the relationship between them.

A parallel relationship

I used the term “parallel” to describe the relationship between the two stories. In one of our earlier articles we looked at Hebrew parallelism and gave simple examples of this common Hebraic literary form, found in both Old and New Testaments. These two accounts also have a parallel structure, but a much more complicated form than we considered before. The parallel relationship could be diagrammed this way:

          DAUGHTER ------------------------------- WOMAN
               12 YEARS ----------------------- 12 YEARS 
                    DYING ------------------ DYING (Bleeding)

The one notable difference in the parallel relationship is that one of the main characters is a beloved “daughter,” while the other is a nameless, isolated and rejected “woman.”

We return to the drama. The woman presses her way through the crowd. She has done the unthinkable! She has touched and defiled countless number of people. For the first time in twelve years she experiences abundant human contact, but not warm, loving contact. Had they noticed, those whom she touched would have sternly rebuked her. How could she be so thoughtless as to knowingly make them religiously unclean?

She passes unnoticed through the threatening crowd. And then…. What follows is almost inconceivable: she touches the “fringe” of Jesus’ garment.

The “fringe” of the garment

The “fringe” of the garment refers to the tassel on the edge of the garment worn by Jewish men in the time of Jesus. In the Law of Moses God commanded all Israelite men to wear such tassels:

“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by going after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes. Then you will remember to obey all my commands and will be consecrated to your God.  (Num. 15:38-40)

Two details in this passage are worth noting. First, the tassels, which were white, were to include one blue thread. Secondly, the Israelite, upon looking at his tassel was to remember to keep the commands of God. At first glance it might seem that the tassel with its blue thread was simply a device to aid the memory, like tying a string on a finger. The blue thread, however, had a particular significance that would have been well understood by the ancient Israelites.

This particular shade of blue in the tassel was the same as was used for the robe which the High Priest wore when conducting his duties in the temple (Exod. 28:31). In Israel, there was only one High Priest, and only a limited number of other priests. Yet upon looking at his blue tassel, every Israelite man was to remember that he was a member of a nation that in its entirety was called to be a royal priesthood and a holy nation (Exod. 19:6).

The tassel apparently had an additional significance beyond that of symbolizing the Divine calling to priestly godliness. In David’s early years, before he became king, King Saul was unjustly pursuing David to kill him. At one point, Saul entered into the cave where David was hiding (1 Sam. 24). David had the perfect chance to kill his enemy, in what seemed like a perfectly justifiable act. However David chose only to cut off a tassel from his garment, a choice which seemingly displays remarkable forbearance and forgiveness under the circumstances. Even so, David’s conscience struck him for cutting off this fringe.  Both from this passage and from other sources there is reason to believe that the tassel worn by each man symbolized the identity and value of the man himself. David may have spared Saul’s physical life, but by cutting off Saul’s tassel he was expressing the highest disdain for the man. By putting the knife to the tassel, it is as if David was putting a knife to Saul’s character, for to touch the tassel was to touch the essence of the man himself.

Healing the Woman

Now the woman has touched the “fringe” or tassel of Jesus’ garment. What in the world has she done! She, who is woman, has touched a man. She, whom the law declares unclean, has touched a symbol of God’s holiness and priestly purity. She who is unclean has touched a man who works miracles by the power of God. How will this man respond?

She feels the healing power. Her body is healed! But then come the words:

“Who touched me?”

The words of Jesus must have struck her with the fear of impending rebuke and terrible humiliation.

There is a moment’s distraction as the disciples remind Jesus that people are crowding, pressing, touching Jesus from every direction. But the terrifying declaration comes:

“Someone touched me.”

The woman confesses. She is the guilty one. She touched him.

At this point I’d like to jump ahead for a moment and look at the parallel story, the healing of Ya’ir’s daughter.

Healing a daughter

By the time Jesus arrives at Ya’ir’s home the girl is dead. The situation is now seemingly hopeless, but Jesus restores the young girl to life.² Certainly the miracle of restoring her to life and the love motivation behind the act are the most notable elements of the event. Yet to a reader of Jesus time the very fact that he touches her would have been astounding. According to The Law of Moses, if something clean touches something unclean then the clean becomes defiled. Touching a dead body is one of the worst forms of ritual impurity and was something those who strove to be pure and holy were careful to avoid.³ Yet Jesus touches this dead body. Contrary to the perspectives of the religious world of his day, Jesus made unclean the clean, not the reverse. Jesus touches the ruler’s daughter, raising her up. As in the story of the woman with an issue of blood, the touch is central.

Just before touching the daughter and bringing her back to life, Jesus says, “Don’t be afraid, just believe and she [the daughter] shall be healed” (Lk 8:50). Jesus then touches her, taking her by the hand, and this beloved daughter returns to life.

Let’s return to “the woman” of the other story. We return to the woman physically healed but probably gripped with fear expecting rebuke for touching this holy man. Instead, in exact parallel with his words to the beloved daughter’s family, Jesus tells the woman that she may go in peace, for her faith has healed her. We may expand our former diagram:

    DAUGHTER -------------------------------------------------- WOMAN
         |     12 YEARS ----------------------- 12 YEARS          |
         |          DYING ------------------ DYING (Bleeding)     |
         |                        TOUCH                           |
         |          FAITH ------------------ FAITH                |
         |     HEALED ------------------------ HEALED             |
    DAUGHTER ------------------------------------------------- (_______)

I left something out. It was intentional.

“Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.”

Jesus calls the woman:“DAUGHTER.”The nameless one came as a woman; she departs, in peace, as a daughter.

I might add that in the language that Jesus used to address her, it is most likely that a person would not just say “daughter.” That would sound awkward. He would more likely say, “My daughter.”

Final Reflections

There is indeed a double healing here, but I don’t have in mind the healing of two women. There was a woman who to this day remains anonymous, who came to Jesus diseased physically and suffering emotionally, scarred from rejection and humiliation. In that state she came, but she departed healed and whole, as a beloved, accepted and in every way a healed daughter.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not reject any who come to Him, and indeed, in Him can be found the healing for every wound of rejection and all sense of abandonment.

The religious world of Jesus day misunderstood the point of the law and its requirements for holiness. The ordinances of purity of the Mosaic Law were necessary to keep the temple and its worship free from degrading pagan idolatrous practices. Yet in their own efforts to be holy, the religious world caused great pain and rejection representing the woman’s greatest obstacle to reaching Jesus: the Messiah who could – and did – heal her. They projected the message that God thoroughly rejected those who were not as perfect or pure as they were. The God who longed to reach out his loving arms through these people suffered as he watched His law misunderstood in such a way as to sow rejection and reap pain.

Perhaps things have not changed much in the last two millennia. To what extent today do Christians, the people who “surround” Jesus, sometimes project distorted images of God that drive away the hurting and needy?  Are our complex theological beliefs about God getting in the way of His love for others?  Do our interactions with and comments about other beliefs project disdain?

****

I’d like to close with a personal note, a true story. As a licensed guide in Israel I spent many days in Galilee with Christian groups. On one of these groups, there was a woman, whose name I no longer remember, who seemed to be particularly hurting. I had only conversed with her briefly so I had no idea of the nature of the hurt, but I sensed that it involved a deep sense of rejection.

The evening before we were to tour around the Sea of Galilee I sensed that God wanted to speak to her through this story. Since I had only recently learned about parallelism, I had not considered these two accounts together. But that evening I looked carefully and saw the parallelism as I’ve outlined it here.  The next day, I taught the stories much as I have here.

I witnessed a miracle. As He did for an unnamed woman long ago in a place close to where we then stood, Jesus set a woman free from years of emotional suffering. Although this woman had known Jesus as savior for many years, yet that day she saw Jesus in a new and radiant light. She “touched” him in a more intimate and personal way. She saw Jesus in his life-world setting, and the truth she saw there became the key that unlocked her own prison doors.

---

¹ Mt 9:18-26, Mk 5:21-43, Lk 8:40-53.
² All three accounts record Jesus saying that the girl is asleep. Sleep was a commonly used euphemism for death. In saying that the girl is “not dead but sleeping,” perhaps Jesus is indicating that the state of death at this time is not permanent. All accounts make it plain that the girl indeed is dead.
³ Lev 21:11; Num 5:6, 6:2,11 9:6,7,10 and others.

© 2011 – David Miller

Forms of Expression: Parallelism, Part 1

We all know our native tongue. We know it so well, in fact, that we take its forms of expression for granted. For example, the limerick:

‘Tis a favourite project of mine,
A new value of pi to assign.
I would fix it at 3,
For it’s simpler, you see,
Than 3 point 1 4 1 5 9.’
(Author unknown. www.freewebs.com accessed 16 November 2010)

After the first line or two, we know what to expect. We know what its rhythm will be and we know to expect it to be humorous and perhaps surprising or lewd. However, what about someone from a completely different culture, one where the limerick was an unknown “art” form (if we can call it that!)? They wouldn’t know what to expect and quite likely would not appreciate the humor.

The same is true for the use of language in biblical times. There are forms of expressions that every individual in that culture understood that are not familiar to us. Yet just a bit of insight into how different language forms were used can open up new horizons for understanding the scripture. One of the most common, most important and easiest to understand forms of language in the Bible is parallelism.

Simple Positive Parallelism

Parallelism in its simplest form is merely the restating of point.  For example:

May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight,
O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. (Psalms 19:14)

When reading this, we might tend to emphasize the difference between the words of our mouths and the meditations of our hearts, emphasizing the need to speak what we really are thinking and not to be deceptive. However in the minds of the writer and original readers, the intent is not to emphasize the difference, but to show that those two things are actually one and the same. It has this idea:

May the words of my mouth, that is to say,
the meditations of my heart . . .

Jesus said that the mouth speaks out of the overflow of the heart (Matthew 12:34). That is the idea that is presented by the parallelism in Psalm 19:14.

Parallelism can also be used to clarify terms that otherwise might be misunderstood. This usage helps explain verses that might be difficult to understand. The Prophet Isaiah writes,

For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. (Isaiah 2:3, NKJV)

Again, we might at first get the impression that the law and the word of the Lord are two different things. We also might not be clear as to what Zion is. The idea is much clearer, though, if we understand it this way:

For out of Zion shall go forth the law, that is to say,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Zion, in this passage, means Jerusalem. The law is the word of the Lord. The second line is easier to understand and it explains the first line by saying the same thing, but in different words. In parallel verses, the Hebrew word that is usually translated “and” is a connector that has a very broad range of meanings and, in the case of parallelism, can best be understood as the phrase “that is to say” or just a semi-colon. In the verse below, most English translations connect the lines with the word “and,” but a semi-colon perhaps aids understanding the connection.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10)

Simple Negative Parallelism

Another simple form is the negative parallelism, which is easily understood:

The wise woman builds her house,
but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down.
Proverbs 14:1

“Wise woman” and “foolish one” are opposites, as are the actions of building and tearing down.

Introduction to Complex Parallelism

Now for some fun with parallelism that is a bit more complex. Seeing the parallel structure in a passage can often help us as readers to catch the sense or the tone of a passage   The Book of Isaiah has some examples of masterful language usage, especially direct and offensive language. The book opens with the following words:

I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me.
The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” (Isaiah 1:2-3)

Let’s structure the passage so we can see the parallelism and catch the sarcasm of the words.

I reared children and brought them up,
but they have rebelled against me:
The ox knows his master,                (dumb animal knows)
the donkey his owner’s manger,       (dumber animal knows)
but Israel does not know,                (dumber people do not know)
my people do not understand.”         (EVEN DUMBER people do not know)

To paraphrase, without being too rude, the prophet is saying that God’s people are even more stupid than a donkey. In that culture, to liken someone to a donkey is about as rude as you can get. The prophet’s words are absolutely shocking, and it seems that it is the writer’s intent to shock the people into awareness through this unbelievably direct speech.

Taking time to see parallelism in biblical passages is well worth the effort. Just as today’s authors use literary patterns and language rhythms to dress up their writing, so too did the Biblical authors.  Understanding and looking for parallel structures often makes the author’s main point easier to see.  We will return to the subject of parallelism with examples in future entries. But for now, try structuring Genesis 12:1-3.  This passage is much harder to structure than the simple examples we gave above.  Give it a try! We’ll consider this passage next time we post a blog about parallelism.

© 2011 – David Miller