Ps 15 -- The immaculate

O Yhwh / who may reside / in your tent

                Who may dwell / on your holy mountain

The psalmist begins by posing a question to Yhwh. He wants to know who can reside in Yhwh’s tent and dwell on his holy mountain. The key term here is ‘holy’. Throughout the scriptures, holiness is a dangerous thing. Moses has to remove anything covering his feet at the burning bush because it is holy ground. When Israel approaches Sinai, the holiness is so intense that they must avoid even touching the mountain. The improper offering of sacrifices in the temple is an act of sacrilege and can, and does, destroy the officiant. The stories surrounding the arc are replete instances of the power and danger of holiness. When Isaiah is lifted up into Yhwh’s heavenly temple, it is so charged with holiness that he falls down, and is terrified by his uncleanliness. The point in all of this is that the psalmist is justly concerned if he intends or desires to “reside in Yhwh’s tent” or “dwell on his holy mountain.”

For many of the instances of that speak to the danger of holiness, they occur almost by accident, or, at least, not intentionally. A main exception to this is the officiating within the Temple—those regulations are clearly laid out and the priest intends to fulfill them.

I think a point of departure here, then, is the story of Sinai and the priesthood. At Sinai, the people are told to stay away from the mountain and to purify themselves, which they do. However, Moses does ascend the mountain where he stays with Yhwh for forty days, which is when he is given the Torah along with the specifications of the sanctuary and liturgical rites. Notably, this is not a momentary stay. In a very real sense, Moses is the first ‘priest’ in this regard because he ‘resides’ and ‘dwell’s with Yhwh ‘on his holy mountain’. He is, in other words, the ideal of this psalm. It is important to recall that when Moses leaves Yhwh’s Presence and descends to the people, his face is radiating the light-of-the-presence. His contact with the holy of Yhwh made him, too, holy. He radiated Yhwh’s Presence-Holiness.

So, this is not an idol question. It was that seeks the psalmist own self-preservation. If he gets this answer correct, he may become like Moses and the burning bush—consumed with Yhwh’s glory but not destroyed. If he gets it wrong, he may become like the many who approach Yhwh improperly and are destroyed.

What follows is, perhaps unsurprising given the above, is a type of ‘ten commandments’ that permit the ‘dweller’ to be in Yhwh’s presence. They function like an examination of conscience, something the dweller can recite to himself in order to determine whether he can dwell in Yhwh’s holy presence.

He who walks blamelessly

                And does / what is right

And speaks / the truth / in his heart

The psalmist begins his ‘litany of the dweller’ with three positive statements, three things the dweller does.

First, the dweller ‘walks blamelessly’. This will be matched in the following negative three statements with “he has not tripped over his tongue”.

The statement appears to be generic and difficult to describe exactly what it means to “walk blamelessly”. The same can be said about doing “what is right”. We do know that that ‘walking’ is an image of a person’s entire life, of their choice-after-choice mode of living. In psalm 1, for example, the wise one does not “walk by the counsel of the wicked”. In other psalms, sin is described as ‘faltering’ or ‘tripping’, or straying off of the path. In the new covenant, discipleship is described as ‘walking on the way’. Perhaps what we can say, then, is that the term is general because of how broad its application is—the entirety of life. And that may be why it is the first on the list—it is the most all-encompassing of the positive statements. The pilgrim, then, would ask himself this very general and broad question to orient himself, to direct his attention toward what is being asked of him. And it is, in its most general, but also most demanding form—blamelessness. We could say, with Paul, that he must be ‘immaculate’, ‘spotless’. This what all of the following actions or inactions are to be oriented to—this utter purity; this ‘pure sacrifice’ without blemish. And in this we see something important—that just as the sacrifices offered to Yhwh must be perfect and without blemish, so too must the pilgrim, except that the pilgrim must not be only bodily free from defect but also morally free from defect. He must have acted like a sacrifice in order to be the ‘dweller’ in Yhwh’s presence.

Second, the dweller “does what is right”. This will be matched by “he has not done evil to his friend”.

Third, the dweller ‘speaks the truth in his heart’. This is matched by  “has not taken up reproach against his neighbor.”

Having been oriented to a life that is blameless, the dweller now examines whether he has ‘done what is right’. This will be complimented by his asking whether he ‘speaks the truth in his heart’. These two need to be seen together because the first looks to the dwellers actions while the second looks to whether his speech is one of integrity. In both, the focus is on what the dweller does, what he accomplishes. He must look, not at this point to what he has avoided, but to the positive acts he has taken. Has he always ‘done what is right’ and has he always ‘spoken the truth in his heart’. In this way, the positive acts required of him are total—they move from his exterior acts of goodness, to his interior acts.

When the dweller looks at his interior speech—he must have in mind the fact that the wicked are divided. They say one thing but they intend another. They try and trap people by their speech because it is not unified with their interior goals. For the dweller, though, he must do what no one else can—he must police his interiority. He must analyze whether his speech is one that is unified with his ‘heart’. Does he speak the truth to himself, or does he only speak to others ‘what is true’ (and, hence, does he lie). But, again, this is not merely a negative examination. It is not simply whether he has avoided lying to himself. Speaking truth to himself is a positive act of unifying himself, of bringing himself into accord with his outer speech and actions. This is how he becomes this ‘blameless’ dweller, how he is presented, immaculate, to Yhwh.

In this we see something important about Yhwh’s own desires, his own heart we might say—because in this we see the ‘object of Yhwh’s delight’. This ‘blameless’ person is not simply being given admittance into Yhwh’s Presence. He is not simply free from fault (although he is). Rather, he positively radiates beauty to Yhwh. Yhwh desires to be with this person. Yhwh wants to be in their presence. Yhwh has made his Presence accessible to them, as the object of absolute and total desire, so as to draw them to himself, because he, too, wants to be in their presence. We don’t need, here, to qualify this with statements regarding the fact that Yhwh does not ‘need’ them; he doesn’t. But need is not the issue. The issue is one of beauty, glory and love. Those who ‘do what is right’ and who speak ‘truth in their heart’ are the people that Yhwh wants as dwellers ‘on his holy mountain’.

                He has not tripped / over his tongue

He has not done evil / to his friend

                He has not taken up reproach / against his neighbor

And here are the three negative acts—the acts that the dweller avoids doing so that he can be in Yhwh’s presence.

The psalmist formally does something interesting here. The immediately preceding line was about “speaking truth in the heart” whereas the first line was about “walking blamelessly”. This first negative, or prohibitive, statement, then, refers to both. This is important because on the one hand, it shows that “walking blamelessly” will entail not “tripping over this tongue”. But, when read in line with the immediately preceding statement, this also means speaking in a unified manner—not speaking double, representing one thing while the truth in the heart is another. It is an expertly developed image, incorporating both lines in a single image.

The second prohibition requires that dweller to have “not done evil to his friend”. In other words, that he does not betray the bond of friendship through evil. This will flow into the following prohibition that he has “not taken up reproach against his neighbor”. This line would seem to align closely with the positive description of “doing what is right”. The dweller, then, would first look at his life and determine whether has ‘done what is right’ but would have his attention drawn into his particular relationship with ‘his friends’. There, when his attention is more focused, he must ask himself whether he ‘done evil’ to his friend. The answer must be, “No”.

It is important to see that while the first three positive statements may imply goodness done toward another, it is only in these prohibitions that we explicitly find a third party mentioned—the friend and the neighbor. The social fabric is key; the dweller must not be responsible for tearing it, or causing it to fray. Again—central to this psalm—is that the dweller cannot be admitted to Yhwh’s presence if he has done these things. This tearing of social bonds makes him ‘blameworthy’, it makes him repugnant to the Presence. As such, the Presence desires and effects these bonds, the bonds of ‘friend and neighbor’. For Yhwh, these bonds are a good, a holy thing, and something that shows forth his Presence. They are transcendent, heavenly, holy and sacred goods. And if they are transgressed—if the dweller ‘does evil’ or ‘takes up reproach’—then he becomes profane, no longer able to be with Yhwh’s Presence.

In his eyes / the reprobate is despised

                But he honors those / who fear Yhwh

                He has sworn / to do no wrong / and does not falter

Two more positive actions—the despising and honoring gaze; and swearing to do no wrong. The heart, the tongue, and now the eyes. For the dweller, his gaze embodies the dynamic of positive act and prohibited act. It is the gaze of wisdom, that discerns and separates the good from the bad. It negatively despises the reprobate, and it positively honors those who fear Yhwh.

Note that it is not simply a matter of avoidance, of despising. The gaze must also be drawn toward someone in order to be a dweller, in order to dwell on Yhwh’s holy mountain. It must, in other words, be an aesthetic gaze, one that appreciates the beauty of holiness. The flip side of this appreciation is the ‘despising’ of the reprobate. One cannot truly honor those who fear Yhwh without also despising its reverse. The dweller, then, must look at his loves and his hates. He must analyze whether he engages in this ‘despising’ and ‘honoring’, because these are acts that mirror Yhwh’s own heart. Is he, like David, after Yhwh’s heart? Does he only despise but not honor, or does he honor and not despise? He must engage in the full spectrum if he wishes to be one who dwells on Yhwh’s “holy mountain”.

He has not lent his money / on interest

                Nor taken a bribe / against the innocent

And two concluding negative acts—does not lend money on interest and does not take a bribe against the innocent.

Both of these involve economic transactions. The first speaks to the prohibition of chagrining interest—something that was prohibited between ‘neighbors’ (fellow Israelites) but not between Israelites and Gentiles. The purpose, seemingly, was because those seeking a loan were already destitute and to charge interest on top of that would be exploitative, taking advantage of their weakness. He is supposed to loan money, however, just not with interest. The second speaks to something similar—not taking a bribe against “the innocent”. In the first, the person is in a position to aid the poor, but, instead, exploits that position and adds an additional burden to it. In the second, the person is in a position to give justice, but, instead, takes a bribe in order to skew justice. In the first, money goes ‘out’ (in order to come back, in act of oppression). In the second, money comes ‘in’. In both, the transaction is exploitative and is aimed at purchasing from the individual what should not be subject to purchase—mercy and justice. The dweller, then, is one who gives these, properly. They cannot be bought.

These two prohibitions are the most particular and easily measured of all the ‘ten commandments’. The first was the most general; the last is the most particular. And yet, as we saw with the most general (being ‘blameless’), it was not without content. Its generality does not dilute its demand. Rather, it is all encompassing, and therefore able to hold an incredible variety of acts. Something similar is at work here, in the reverse. Although it is particular, it, too, should move toward the general. In other words, the literal level of these prohibitions are essential, but the dweller should understand them also as meditative centers—as ways of asking himself whether he ‘charges interest’ or ‘takes bribes’ in other ways as well. One thing we see here is that the dweller does not occupy places where to do so would mean to exploit another person’s weakness. He avoids those ‘spaces’ of vulnerability and taking advantage of them. He avoids selling what should not be sold, but given freely.

The one doing these things / shall not be shaken forever.

The concluding line is curious. The litany has be aimed at determining who can be admitted into Yhwh’s presence and abide on “his holy mountain”. And yet, here at the end, the psalmist says that the one doing these things “shall not be shaken forever”, which seems to have no connection with the Presence.

Read without reference to the opening, the line seems to mean that those who are ‘blameless’ and abide by the litany will have an abiding stability, even in the face of being ‘shaken’. In other words, this is not a promise that the individual will not be shaken, but that it will not result in his being abidingly or perpetually shaken. The time will end, and he will return to stability.

Now, the one ”doing these things” is the one can “reside in your tent” and “dwell on your holy mountain”. The residing and dwelling are similar to the ‘not being shaken forever’ in that they both (re)turn to an abiding security. Perhaps the answer is this—that the one who lives his life in accordance with the litany (one who is ‘blameless’, or ‘immaculate’) is one who will, eventually, come to ‘reside in your tent’ and ‘dwell on your holy mountain’, not necessarily in an ‘after-life’ but in the sense of a firm and secure end or goal of that life. He will not be ‘shaken forever’ from that path; he will be rewarded; he will come to Yhwh’s holy mountain; his pilgrimage, his exodus, will end and he will come to Zion and the Temple. We could, furthermore, say this—that no matter how ‘shaken’ such a righteous person is, he can always maintain a firm conviction that it will end and that he will persist through it because Yhwh has promised his Presence to him.