Ps. 36.1 (transgression is only a whisper)

Transgression belongs / to the wicked person; - it is in the midst / of his heart.” Although not entirely clear in this opening line, there will steadily develop in this psalm the sense that ‘transgression’ is a type of invisible power over those in whom it dwells or operates. We will see how disturbing this image becomes. Firstly, though, why start with the word ‘transgression’? It seems to denote a crossing of a boundary that shouldn’t be crossed. When creation is first established Yhwh ‘separates’ everything: light from darkness, water from water, water from land. This ‘separation’ is crossed, however, when the ‘sons of god’ come to mate with women on earth (producing ‘heroes’)—the consequence/judgment is a dissolution of the separation as the earth returns to its pre-created state (the flood engulfs the earth). Likewise, when it comes to dietary laws those animals that display a type of ‘boundary confusion/crossing’ are declared ‘unclean’ (for example, you can not eat birds that can’t fly, or shellfish because they have legs, etc…). We might say that in the ‘flood’ the ‘transgression’ of heaven and earth was met by its counterpoint in judgment: the dissolving of the boundary; in dietary laws, the transgression of a boundary is declared ‘unclean’. We might summarize it this way: for the Jew, eating involves a recognition of the form-creating power of Yhwh. His creation, which is itself “good”, is an act of separating categories of things. To eat something that exhibits a crossing of this boundary would be similar to engaging in the ‘transgression’ of the ‘sons of god’ with the women of earth—it would be a type of mocking of Yhwh’s established order, a participation within the ‘chaos’ from which creation emerged. To eat only ‘clean’ animals, on the other hand, would be to enter into Yhwh’s creative, and ‘good’, action in creation and to observe those boundaries he set up in order to make the world an inhabited realm for man (and himself). One would be ‘eating’ creation; being nourished by the very order that delights Yhwh. What is the point as it applies to our psalm? Here, the very first word of the psalm is this ‘transgression’: and it “belongs to the wicked person”. This ‘border crossing’, this force that seemingly mocks the created order of ‘separation’, is here not something merely performed by the wicked person; it ‘belongs’ to him like some purchased object. It is not a conquering, alien force to the wicked. Here we approach the mystery of the psalm: transgression is here likened to an object ‘owned’ by the wicked; and yet, it is something so intimately involved with him that the psalmist combines two images—ownership and it being “in the midst of his heart”. Transgression never remains merely an ‘object’ that one can discard at will; rather, it encamps itself; it digs down roots, it hides within the brambles—of the heart. One does not dislodge transgression with any ease (as we will see more clearly later) without doing potentially serious damage to the individual’s heart. “The heart”: we have seen throughout many of our psalms the fact that the ‘heart’ is the seat of all reason and power. What is ‘in the heart’ is what motivates, enlivens and powers the individual. What would it mean then to have ‘transgression’ in the ‘midst of the heart’? It would seem to mean that this ‘form destroying’ mocking of Yhwh the Creator dwells within the root of the wicked person’s being. Recall what the original temptation of man was: to ‘eat’ something that transgressed a boundary established by Yhwh by commandment (while the fruit itself was not ‘unclean’, to eat it would be an act of transgression and uncleanliness).  This very whispering of the serpent is now understood to be ‘in the midst’ of the wicked person’s heart; the serpent has, in a way, latched itself onto the heart, delivering its venom into the central circulatory organ of the body.  Understood in this way, this opening line is incredibly dark: the wicked person is an agent of chaos and death. I would imagine to those familiar with the whole range of associations of ‘transgression’, this opening line would have not only been frightening but would have also made the ‘wicked man’ himself into a type of ‘serpent’. One final thought: what would it mean to ‘own transgression’? Can ‘transgression’ be ‘owned’? It seems as if, on the one hand, it could not because its only goal is to tear down, to undo the fabric of creation and of Yhwh’s commandments. How does one own rebellion? As we have said before, transgression emerges “unaware”, it has no source in and of itself (just as the serpent seems to just ‘appear’), but is purely responsive and parasitical to the good of Yhwh’s created order. In this way ‘transgression’ can only be a whisper, an innuendo, and a perversion (just as the serpent’s speech can operate in no other way). It is ghost-like and a mockery. It is an unraveling and a tearing. One wonders then if to speak of ‘owning’ transgression is more akin to ‘becoming sick’, or diseased.