Abstract
Owing to the apparent topical disjunction of the final two verses of Psalm 51, many commentators consider them a later addition, particularly given the attitude toward sacrifice and the reference to Jerusalem’s walls. By taking a cognitive linguistic approach, particularly applying Fauconnier and Turner’s theory of conceptual blending, this article demonstrates the unity of the Psalm as a discourse unit. Additionally, this article builds upon literary structural analyses of others to suggest the complementarity of the cognitive linguistic and literary approaches. This analysis of Psalm 51 as a whole demonstrates that, not only do vv. 20–21 cohere with the entire psalm, they do so by interacting with vv. 18–19 to build meaning from a single conceptual blend network, one that depends upon the conceptual structures prompted by the narrative setting throughout the discourse. On this reading, David himself is Zion/Jerusalem whose damaged spiritual walls require restoration by Yhwh as a builder.
A considerable number of biblical scholars take the final two verses of Psalm 51 as late additions to an original text of only 19 verses or fewer. 1 This two-stage redaction view of the psalm’s compositional history is certainly plausible, owing both to the apparent topical shift of vv. 20–21 and to common critical assumptions about the history of ancient Israel. However, because the two-stage view has become so axiomatic, the conceptual unity of the psalm is widely dismissed de facto, and readings of Ps. 51 as a whole are rarely attempted.
This article undertakes just such a unified reading by approaching the psalm from a cognitive linguistic perspective, drawing upon the theory of conceptual blending. 2 This approach provides a linguistically informed means for analyzing how the text of Ps. 51 establishes mental spaces that populate three subsequent conceptual blend networks. As the discourse unfolds, these networks begin to overlap and interact in ways that facilitate and encourage reading the entire psalm as a conceptually cohesive unit. Notably, on this reading, v. 20 metonymically portrays David himself as Jerusalem—the very city whose inhabitants he represents as king—and his sinful spirit as the damaged city wall infrastructure. Thus, Yhwh is metaphorically portrayed as a builder who must repair King David’s broken spirit (v. 19) in order for David to present himself as cultically acceptable once more (vv. 18, 21).
This approach is essentially literary and synchronic, and thus does not necessarily bear upon the textual history of Ps. 51 or how it may have been originally composed. That is, redaction in some stage(s) cannot be ruled out as a result of this study. However, because this cognitive approach identifies the conceptual unity particularly between vv. 19 and 20 independent of the historical events of the fall of Jerusalem, it does model a reading of the entire psalm that would be consistent with a pre-exilic perspective. This approach also draws attention to the weaknesses of literary analysis based upon lexical patterning without also evaluating conceptual structure.
1. The question of Psalm 51’s compositional unity
Fundamentally, the question of the unity of Psalm 51 unity arises from the juxtaposition of the content in vv. 20–21 with the preceding material. At the end of over a dozen verses of personal confession and petition for forgiveness, the psalmist states that God is not interested in sacrifices or burnt offerings (עולה ... לא־תחפץ זבח, לא תרזה v. 18), but rather desires the ‘spiritual sacrifice’ of a broken spirit and contrite heart (רוח נשׁברה לב־נשׁבר ונדכה, v. 19). In light of these prevailing themes and fairly pointed statements, the psalm’s concluding content in vv. 20–21 seems quite a sudden shift in topic. First, v. 20 conveys a request that God would prosper Zion (היטיבה ברצונך את־ציון) and build the walls of Jerusalem (תבנה חומות ירושׁלם). That request is then followed in v. 21 by an affirmation of God’s subsequent pleasure in right sacrifices on his altar (אז 2 ×, v. 21). Longman is characteristic when he says these last two verses of Ps. 51 ‘go in a surprising direction’. 3 Similarly, Hossfeld asserts that up to this point ‘Jerusalem (and Zion) were nowhere in the picture’. 4 Thus, many commentators, both ancient and modern, consider the last two verses of Ps. 51 a secondary addition to an original composition. 5 Whether or not they are taken as contradictory to the preceding content of the psalm—or simply as unexpected—the statements in vv. 20–21 about sacrifices and the infrastructure of the walls of Jerusalem prompt commentators to explain whether and how these verses are original to the psalm or are part of a later addition.
1.1. Common arguments against unity
In addition to the apparent contrast in topics, many commentators who consider vv. 20–21 late redactional additions base their view upon the literary structure of vv. 3–19. Leaving aside the superscription, this structure is often divided into three sections:
6
vv. 3–8 Supplication and Confession vv. 9–14 Request for Forgiveness vv. 15–19 Vow of Duty
Within these sections, the psalm can also be divided roughly in half between vv. 3–11 and vv. 12–19 on the basis of word repetition and chiasmus. The word מחה frames the first section (vv. 3, 11) and the verbal sequence in vv. 3–4 (מחה ➔ כבס ➔ טהר) is inverted in vv. 9–11 and thus structures vv. 3–11 as a whole. The center of this first literary structure in v. 6 emphasizes God’s righteousness. The words לב and רוח frame the second section (vv. 12, 19), which also contains a repeated vocative אלהים at the beginning, center, and end of this section (vv. 12, 16, and 19). The center of the second literary structure in v. 16 also emphasizes God’s righteousness. Having established these literary structures based on lexical patterns, commentators often judge vv. 20–21 to be secondary in some way because they lie clearly outside of the literary structures. 7
Now, there is little reason to deny the existence of these lexical patterns and literary contours within Ps. 51. But to make them constitutive of the psalm’s conceptual unity—and, by extension, its compositional history—does not necessarily follow. Literary structure is not independently determinative of conceptual unity (or a lack thereof), particularly when such a structure is inferred primarily from apparent lexical patterns. To the contrary, the present analysis adopts and builds upon these lexical and thematic observations in vv. 3–19 to illustrate the very conceptual unity that is often denied (or ignored) in the psalm as a whole.
Turning now to the content of vv. 20–21 in particular, the common conclusion that these verses are later additions is also related to the influence of genre and form criticism, which typically categorize Ps. 51 as an individual penitential psalm. Accordingly, the tone of vv. 20–21 is considered to be entirely misaligned with the rest of the psalm. 8 Specifically, the comparatively individualistic and repentant expressions in vv. 3–19 are thought to conflict with the collective and cultic ideas in vv. 20–21. 9 The function of these final two verses is often understood from this standpoint to be liturgical, collectivizing, cult-critical, eschatological, or some combination thereof. 10
With respect to the cultic and liturgical content of the psalm, many scholars maintain that since the view of sacrifice in vv. 20–21 seems to contrast with that of the proceeding verses—especially v. 18—that difference is best understood in terms of the presence or absence of sacrificial activity at the time of composition, and so stratify the psalm into redactional layers. 11 Using this approach, some attribute vv. 20–21 to the exilic community and understand them as an expression of ‘longing for the renewal of the sacrificial cult’ after Jerusalem was sacked (cf. 2 Kgs. 14:13; 2 Chr. 25:23). 12 The reference in v. 20 to building the walls of Jerusalem is thus construed as re-building, in order that regular and proper sacrifices could begin again. 13 Others, however, find it more likely that the final two verses of Ps. 51 were added later still, by a restoration-era scribe during or after Nehemiah’s reconstruction and the reorganization of Israel under a renewed covenant with Yhwh (cf. Neh. 2:17–18; 9:5–10:39; 12:43). 14 From this perspective, vv. 20–21 are instead motivated by the concern to allay cultic confusion over the status of sacrifices communicated in vv. 18–19, and perhaps the desire to shore up the power of a centralized Jerusalem priesthood. 15
2. Reading Psalm 51 in light of cognitive linguistics
Most commentators, regardless of how they date Psalm 51 or whether they take vv. 20–21 as original, acknowledge its many figurative or metaphorical features. 16 Yet very few take the time to address them, much less attempt to account for their role in the discourse. Perhaps owing to personal familiarity with Ps. 51 and the fact that much of its figurative language is common throughout the Hebrew Bible—and in modern religious and scholarly parlance—other features of the text receive attention. But conceptual blending theory provides a linguistically based method for analyzing the structures within which the meaning of figurative and metaphorical language is construed and therefore offers a great deal of explanatory potential for better understanding this psalm.
2.1. Overview of conceptual blending theory
The present exploration of Ps. 51 is, most basically, an analysis of how it constructs meaning as a discourse. Space prohibits a detailed explanation of the cognitive linguistic school of thought, but some general introduction will set the stage for the ensuing discussion. Readers already familiar with this area may wish to move to the following subsection.
According to cognitive linguistics, language is intimately related to conceptual structure that is acquired by embodied experience in the external world. From this perspective, words are not viewed as ‘containers’ for meaning (as in some schools of formal linguistics), but rather understood to ‘prompt’ for meaning by providing points of access to culturally embedded encyclopedic knowledge. Words thus come to be associated with concepts acquired by categorizing one’s everyday experience, and these concepts can be elaborated and manipulated effortlessly in cognition. 17
In a discourse context, sentences provide ‘partial instructions’ to construct rich and temporary conceptual domains, known as mental spaces.
18
Mental spaces occur when the reader or hearer sets up a scenario beyond the ‘here and now’ in their mind.
19
Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner explain that mental spaces are ‘small conceptual packets constructed during thought and speech, for purposes of local understanding and action. [They] are very partial assemblies containing elements, and structured by [semantic] frames’.
20
For example, reading the sentence Kelli was still far away from the drug store cashier in a long line of shoppers.
constructs a mental space that is connected with long-term knowledge derived from memories of being in a similar scenario (or reading or watching movies about others who were, etc.). 21 The mental space contains information accrued through experience, which may be categorized as elements that have properties, roles, and relations. Elements are noun phrases (drug store, line), including proper nouns (Kelli) and pronouns. Properties and relations are assigned to elements (long) or between them (far away), respectively, while roles provide interactional structure (cashier). 22
The information in a mental space is also structured by semantic frames, as Fauconnier and Turner state. Semantic frames are ‘schematizations of experience ... represented at the conceptual level and held in long-term memory’ that relate ‘the elements and entities associated with a particular culturally embedded scene’. 23 Frames can be basic and primarily experiential/spatial, such as the Walking Along a Path frame. 24 But they can also be more sophisticated and culturally specific, such as the Commercial Event frame, which provides the background and structure for the lexical items sell, pay, money, and shopper that might be found within the mental space prompted in the example sentence above. 25
Importantly, a mental space can be modified as thought and discourse unfold by conceptually ‘mapping’ its various features with those of another mental space. Doing so results in a separate, conceptually integrated or ‘blended’ mental space (Figure 1). 26
Basic conceptual blend diagram.
In the representation of a conceptual blend network in diagram form, mental spaces are represented by circles, and their various features (elements, properties, roles, and relations) are given inside them. 27 The cross-space mapping or ‘projection’ of these features is represented by dashed lines. In a conceptual blend network, mental spaces are alternatively referred to as ‘Input Spaces’, the common features of which are explicated in the ‘Generic Space’ at the top of the network. In the process of selectively projecting and integrating features of the Input Spaces, the structure that emerges at the bottom is known as the ‘Blended Space’ or simply ‘the blend’.
2.2. Literary criticism and conceptual blending
By adopting and adapting the literary structural analyses of other scholars, the present analysis will demonstrate how conceptual blending occurs using the mental spaces prompted by the discourse in Ps. 51. Literary criticism and cognitive linguistics are complementary, since literary structures help organize the very narrative themes, figurative expressions, and lexical patterns that themselves establish mental spaces and conceptual blends. This complementarity is particularly profitable for ancient texts like Ps. 51, since a discourse unit always invokes background information that is broader than the text per se. 28 Yet such information is only partially available in the case of an ancient text because its precise historical provenance and circumstances are often uncertain. Thus, the cognitive linguistic approach to linguistic meaning in a discourse context finds a counterpart in the literary or narrative critical approach, in that the latter provides supplementary background information that is otherwise missing. That is, the text may prompt a body of situation-specific knowledge for the reader that arises from a broader narrative setting already known and which enables and economizes linguistic conceptualization. Dovetailing the cognitive and literary approaches intentionally assumes that the text of Ps. 51 is best understood by means of the encyclopedic knowledge that is native to the narrative setting prompted in the text itself. As discussed in section 3.1, that narrative setting is provided as a ‘base space’ in the superscription (vv. 1–2).
There are three literary sections within the main body of the psalm (vv. 3–19), each of similar length, bracketed by the superscription and conclusion (Figure 2). These three sections propagate three conceptual blend networks. As the discourse unfolds, the networks become increasingly dense and dynamic.
Literary structure and conceptual blend networks in Ps. 51.
Networks I and II split all three literary sections in half (vv. 3–11 and 12–19), and Networks II and III then overlap part of the third section (vv. 18–19) with the conclusion (vv. 20–21). Furthermore, as discussed below, the structure of Network III emerges by ‘re-blending’ the blended spaces of Networks I and II as its input spaces. In this manner, vv. 18–21 contribute to and participate in the meaning construction of Ps. 51 as a whole, which, once recognized, illustrates the psalm’s conceptual coherence as a textual unit.
3. Analysis of the Psalm
While not every verse will be examined in this analysis, each literary section of the psalm will be discussed in broad strokes. Focus falls on the mental spaces and conceptual blend network(s) that are constructed in each literary section.
3.1. Superscription as a base space (vv. 1–2)
The first two verses of Psalm 51 provide important linguistic expressions—the ‘building instructions’—that will guide meaning construction through the rest of the discourse. The superscription functions as an initial mental space builder that prompts the reader to set up a (narrative) scenario within which conceptualization will continue. 29 Verses 1–2 index a vast amount of background knowledge containing elements and frames that are propagated in the mental spaces constructed in the verses that follow (Figure 3). 30 This information forms part of what will be called the ‘David and Bathsheba’ base space, which subsequently configures and optimizes other mental spaces in the psalm. 31
The superscript base space.
Many elements present in this space, along with their roles, properties, and relations, are extra-textual from the perspective of Ps. 51 per se. But the superscription both prompts and delimits a range of pre-existing, encyclopedic knowledge for its ancient (and modern) readers by supplying a narrative setting, namely, the episode of King David’s adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:1–12:14). For example, the elements of the base space include proper nouns (David, Bathsheba, Nathan), descriptions (the prophet), and pronouns (he, her). These linguistic expressions in vv. 1–2 induce an internally structured narrative setting, thereby recruiting only presuppositional information that is contextually relevant to the following discourse. 32
3.2. Network I: Sinful David is a ceremonially impure entity
Following the superscription, the first mental space is built by sentences using a range of lexical items and constructions in vv. 3–11 that prompt the Legal Judgment frame. As this mental space is built, the scope of attention in the plotline of the David and Bathsheba narrative is focused upon David’s recognition of his errors (cf. 2 Sam. 12:13). 33 The result is what will be called the ‘David Confessing Sin’ space, which is one input in the network. This space arises effortlessly in cognition due to the ‘access principle’ in cognitive linguistics, whereby elements in one mental space—in this case the base space prompted in the superscription—are mapped to a counterpart in the same or other mental spaces and so guide meaning construction (Figure 4). 34
The access principle.
For example, the personal pronouns throughout this literary section are associated with the David element from the base space (e.g. חנני, פשׁעי v. 3; אני v. 5, etc.). Furthermore, the lexical items and constructions in vv. 3–8 that recruit the Legal Judgment frame are also mapped to the elements, properties, values, roles, and relations in the new ‘David Confessing Sin’ space (e.g. מחה, חנני, כחסדך, רחמיך, פשׁעי, מעוני, חטאתי, הרע … עשׂיתי, תצדק בדברך תזכה בשׁפטך). 35
A second mental space is built simultaneously by many of the same sentences in this literary section, for which certain background knowledge is recruited. Some of the pronouns mapped to the David element from the base space are suffixed to finite verbs that prompt a Ceremonial Purification frame, namely, כבס and טהר (v. 4).
36
These sentences thus construct a ‘Cultic Activity’ space, which has default, internally structured information with its own elements, values, roles, and relations. This information is made available to the discourse context by the narrative encyclopedic background knowledge in the base space. While both כבס and טהר recruit the Ceremonial Purification frame, these two lexical items are structured by different image schemas.
37
While כבס prompts the concept clean [x] by means of a
Crucially, several of the sentences of the first literary section of Ps. 51 require the construction and blending of both mental spaces in order for conceptualization to occur. The resulting blend network is depicted in Figure 5: 40
Network I.
In Network I, the elements, roles, and relations from the ‘David Confessing Sin’ space are mapped to the ‘Cultic Activity’ space, such that the various features of the Legal Judgment frame are conceptualized in terms of the Ceremonial Purification frame. Thus, the blended space that emerges from this network can be called ‘Sinful David is a Ceremonially Impure Entity’. In the blend, David’s sins—initially recruited from the base space into the first mental space discussed above—are mapped as features of ceremonial impurity, which may only be cleansed by God as a priest so that David’s judicial innocence is conceived as ceremonial purity.
In particular, the meaning of sentences (1) and (2) below arises within the blended space of Network I and also influences (3) and (4) later in the psalm’s discourse, since there the implied impurity is likewise mapped to the sin element:
41
(1) Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity (v. 4a) (2) And cleanse me from my sin (v. 4b) (3) Purify me with hyssop and I shall be clean (v. 9a) (4) Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow (v. 9b)
As depicted in Figure 2, the mental spaces of this conceptual blend network are constructed in the first literary section of this psalm (vv. 3–8), but also in the first two verses of the second section (vv. 9–14). Sentences (3) and (4) above, which rely upon the blended space of Network I, appear in v. 9. Then in v. 11, the repeated lexical item מחה recruits the Legal Judgment frame just as in v. 3. In this manner, from a literary perspective, there is an inclusio structure of sentences that rely upon either the ‘David Confessing Sin’ input space or Blend I, as shown in Figure 6.
Conceptual inclusio structure I.
The Legal Judgment frame sits at the center of this ‘conceptual inclusio’, prompted by the assertion of God’s righteous judgment in v. 6b: תזכה בשׁפטך למען תצדק בדברך. 42 Thus, Blend I constitutes the emergent cognitive structure in this network within which David’s sin is conceptualized. That conceptualization is also less prominent at points in the first and second literary sections, as shown below, as other sentences profile elements from within the ‘David Confessing Sin’ space.
3.3. Network II: King David is a damaged structure
Now for the second blend network in Ps. 51. From a discourse perspective, the second literary section (vv. 9–14) resumes the online argument after the offline, supporting information in vv. 5–8. But starting in v. 12, new mental spaces are built that are not involved in Network I. These new mental spaces in turn populate a second network and produce another blended space to facilitate conceptualization. Like the first, this second network bisects the second literary section of the psalm and extends through the third section (vv. 15–19) as shown in Figure 2. Network II is depicted in Figure 7.
Network II.
The first mental space constructed is the ‘David as God’s King’ space. Owing to the elements that map from the ‘David and Bathsheba’ base space, the meaning prompted by certain linguistic expressions is supplemented with salient background knowledge from the narrative context. After Saul had been rejected as king due to his egregious sin against God (1 Sam. 13:13–14a), the prophet Samuel specifies that Saul’s successor would be a man with a heart like God’s (כלבבו; 1 Sam. 13:14b). When David is identified as a man with such a heart (1 Sam. 16:7), he is anointed as God’s king and immediately endowed with the spirit of Yhwh, which simultaneously departs from Saul (1 Sam. 16:7–14). Against this narrative background, the lexical item לב in v. 12 and the repetition of רוח three times in vv. 12–14 prompt characteristic properties from the Israelite Kingship frame onto David and thus establish the new ‘David as God’s King’ input space in v. 12. Additionally, in v. 13, the construction אל־תשׁליכני מלפניך, ‘do not cast me from before you [God]’, prompts the more specific Davidic Covenant frame because of the contextually relevant divine promise to establish David’s kingdom לפניך, ‘before you [God]’ (2 Sam. 7:16; cf. 7:26). 43
There is also a literary pattern to the construction of mental spaces in vv. 12–19 similar to the one noted above in vv. 3–11 (Figure 8).
Conceptual inclusio structure II.
This time, the ‘David as God’s King’ space forms a ‘conceptual inclusio’ and again the Legal Judgment frame appears at its center prompted by the assertion תרנן לשׁוני צדקתך, ‘my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness’, just as was the case in v. 6b (cf. Figure 6).
As previously, many of the sentences with which the ‘David as God’s King’ space is built have elements that are selectively mapped to another mental space for conceptualization. The second input space in Network II will be called the ‘Building Activity’ space, since it is prompted by a range of lexical items that recruit the Physical Construction frame throughout vv. 12–19, as well as in other contexts in which they are used. These items include the following: 44
v. 12a ברא create 45
v. 12b כון establish, erect, be structurally sound 46
v. 12b חדשׁ refurbish, rebuild 47
v. 14a שׁוב restore 48
v. 14b סמך support, reinforce 49
v. 19a, b שׁבר demolish, tear down 50
v. 19b דכה break, crush 51
The result of these sentences is the blended space that emerges in Network II depicted in Figure 7. When these conceptualizations are made more prominent in English translation, the sentences might read as follows: (5) create a clean heart for me (v. 12a) (6) rebuild a sturdy spirit in me (v. 12b) (7) do not scrap me (v. 13a) (8) do not tear your holy spirit out of me (v. 13b) (9) refurbish the joy of your salvation for me (v. 14a) (10) reinforce me with a willing spirit (v. 14b) (11) the sacrifices of God are a demolished spirit (v. 19a) (12) a demolished and wrecked heart (v. 19b)
In Blend II, the elements, roles, and relations from the ‘David as God’s King’ space receive the organizing frame of the ‘Building Activity’ space, such that the various features specifically of the Davidic Covenant frame are conceptualized in terms of the Physical Construction frame. Thus, the blended space of Network II can be called ‘King David is a Damaged Structure’. In the emergent blended space, David’s sins are represented as manifestations of structural weakness or incompletion, which may only be rectified and maintained by God as a builder or architect.
Again, the sentences of Ps. 51 with which Network II is constructed (vv. 12–19) overlap two literary sections (Figure 1). Furthermore, as was the case above, other sentences within this section (vv. 15–18) profile different elements, yet the ‘King David is a Damaged Structure’ blended space remains in the background. 52
3.4. Network III: ceremonial purity is structural integrity
As the psalm comes to a close in the final four verses, a third mental blend network is constructed in vv. 18–21 that employs the blended spaces of Networks I and II as its input spaces. Consequently, the blended space of Network III is very conceptually dense, as the various organizing frames coincide, interact, and facilitate (potentially novel) meaning construction. The blend network constructed by these final verses thus relies upon and coheres with the rest of the psalm, demonstrating the psalm’s remarkable conceptual unity (Figure 9).
Network III.
The first input space is a reappearance in v. 18 of Blend I from Network I, ‘Sinful David is a Ceremonially Impure Entity’. In the statement כי לא־תחפץ זבח ואתנה, ‘For you do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it’, David is again mapped to the pronoun element from the base space. The expression לא־תחפץ זבח, ‘you will not delight in sacrifice’, also recruits information from the ‘Cultic Activity’ input space in Network I and the Ceremonial Purification frame. Against this conventional background knowledge, v. 18 entails that God will not delight in sacrifice from David precisely because he is ceremonially impure and therefore unfit to offer sacrifice.
Verse 19 prompts the blended space that emerges from Network III, as the salient sacrifice element within the background knowledge prompted in the first input space is mapped to elements in the second input space: ‘King David is a Damaged Structure’. Thus, in sentences (13) and (14) below the sacrifice role is occupied not by the conventional ox or lamb values, but rather with the values ‘demolished spirit’ (רוח נשׁברה) and ‘demolished and wrecked heart’ (ונדכה לב־נשׁבר) from the ‘King David is a Damaged Structure’ input space: (13) The sacrifices of God are a demolished spirit (14) a demolished and wrecked heart, O God, you will not despise (v. 19)
In the blended space of Network III, these sacrifice values remain integrated properties mapped to King David as a damaged structure. They can function as conceptual values in Blend III because of the different relationships between the property and entity, respectively, invoked by the organizing frames involved in the input spaces in the network. That is, in the Ceremonial Purification frame in one input space, the properties pure or impure are binary and universal for the entity: there is no tertium quid, and what is true of part is true of the whole. But in the Physical Construction frame in the other input space, the property damaged is graded and localized for the entity: there are degrees of severity, and the property may apply to only part of the whole. 53 Because conceptual projection is governed by principles that optimize the blended space of a network, the property constraints are relaxed in v. 19 in order to avoid conceptual disintegration of the blend. 54 Put differently, the sin element from the base space that contributes the impure property to David as an entity is construed as the force element that contributes the damage property to parts of King David as a built structure. Thus, in v. 19, King David is portrayed as able to become pure again by offering as a sacrifice the very parts of himself that are essential to his structure as Israel’s king, but which are damaged by sin.
Importantly, however, two sentences in v. 20 also rely upon Blend III for meaning construction. First, in sentence (15) below, the background information related to cultic activity in one input space in Network III again supplies the Ceremonial Purification frame, in which the lexical item רצון prompts the relational concept acceptance.
55
Second, although it is a more schematic viewpoint, the lexical item ‘Zion’ (ציון) recruits knowledge of built structures from the ‘King David is a Damaged Structure’ input space so that the verb יטב is conceptualized in the Physical Construction frame. In Blend III, then, the sinful David value that already fills the offerer role is integrated with the Zion value, and the acceptance relationship is conceptualized as structural upkeep: (15) Do good for Zion by your acceptance
Thus, (15) in v. 20a expresses the hope that by offering as sacrifices the damaged structural components of himself as Israel’s king, those very components will be repaired by God as a builder. This construal is possible because King David is already portrayed as a built structure in Network III and also due to the conventional metonymical association of a king with his city. Put simply, David is Zion. The elements King David and Zion are conceptually integrated so that (15) constitutes David’s request for divine mercy upon himself as the representative king of Israel.
Similar integrated elements appear again in (16) from v. 20b: (16) Build the walls of Jerusalem
Set in poetic parallel to (15), the Jerusalem value fills the same role as Zion and is likewise integrated with King David. Thus, David is Jerusalem. The expression חומות ירושׁלם, ‘walls of Jerusalem’, relies upon part of Blend III in which structural components are associated with properties of God’s king. In particular, ירושׁלם is metonymical for David according to his divinely granted royal status in Israel. His structural integrity—conceived in terms of cultic purity—is essential to the spiritual and physical wellbeing of God’s city and the people who live in it.
Because the acceptance relationship is integrated with structural upkeep, the implication is that the ‘demolished spirit’ (רוח נשׁבר) and ‘demolished and wrecked heart’ (לב־נשׁבר ונדכה) properties of King David as Jerusalem will be repaired by God as a builder. 56 In the blended space of Network III, because the damage to the heart and spirit of David caused by sin is resolved, so is the impurity of David as an entity. The conceptual logic of this blend plays out in v. 21: ‘Then (אז) you will delight in righteous sacrifices ... then (אז) bulls will be offered’. In the conceptually rich blended space, because in his repentance David has offered the damaged components of himself as a built structure, they are repaired, his role as king and his covenant relationship with God are also restored, and David is personally cleansed from sin and made pure to again facilitate right sacrifices in Israel.
4. Conclusion
Not every sentence of Psalm 51 constructs meaning from one of the mental spaces discussed above. Despite the dense complexity of the structures involved in the three blend networks surveyed, there are yet other conceptual projections throughout the psalm that could be considered in more detail. Nevertheless, this analysis of Ps. 51 from a cognitive linguistic perspective demonstrates the complex unity of the text’s meaning by means of the three interrelated conceptual blend networks. Not only do vv. 20–21 cohere with the entire psalm, contrary to the position of many commentators, they do so by interacting specifically with vv. 18–19 to build meaning from the emergent space of a single network (III), one that depends upon the conceptual structures and associated encyclopedic knowledge prompted throughout the text of Ps. 51 as a discourse.
Although various modern critical assumptions tend to encourage understanding vv. 20–21 as a late textual development, this analysis has shown that the primary reason for doing so—their apparent topical disjunction with the rest of the psalm—is not as compelling as is often supposed. To be sure, as mentioned at the outset, the present approach is essentially synchronic, and therefore cannot be the sole basis of diachronic proposals about the psalm’s original form or any later developments. Nevertheless, the analysis above demonstrates that conceptualizing the meaning of vv. 18–21 (Network III) does not rely upon encyclopedic knowledge restricted to the post-exilic context and the besieged walls of Jerusalem. Rather, not only does this portion of the psalm prompt meaning within a single conceptual blend network that would be possible in a pre-exilic setting, but vv. 18–21 also interact and cohere with the rest Ps. 51 in a way that clarifies and enriches the meaning of the discourse as a whole.
Footnotes
1.
The versification of Ps. 51 differs in the English and Hebrew due to the psalm’s superscription (vv. 1–2). Versification here follows the Hebrew, which has twenty-one verses in total.
2.
Specifically that of Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books, 2002). See especially pp. 39–57.
3.
Tremper Longman III, Psalms (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014), p. 222.
4.
Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), p. 16.
5.
This idea goes back at least as far as the medieval Jewish exegete Ibn Ezra. Note that most commentators dismiss the originality of the superscription, such that the supposedly original text of Ps. 51 was constituted only by what is now vv. 3–19. Also, while not all commentators take vv. 20–21 as later additions, defending the unity of the psalm is not necessarily an endorsement of Davidic authorship or any particular time of composition. See Henk Leene, ‘Personal Penitence and the Rebuilding of Zion: The Unity of Psalm 51’, in Give Ear to My Words: Psalms and other Poetry in and around the Hebrew Bible. Essays in Honour of Professor N.A. van Uchelen (ed. Janet Dyk; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), p. 61 n. 2 for a list of those who reject the two-stage view, as he does. However, see Michael Goulder, The Prayers of David (Psalms 51–72): Studies in the Psalter II (JSOTSup 102; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), who finds that the superscription accurately represents the historical situation of composition (see pp. 24–30, 51–69). A defense of Davidic authorship of at least parts of Ps. 51 is made by A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of the Psalms with Introduction and Notes (vol. 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), pp. 284–295 and by H. C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), pp. 398–409.
6.
Some subdivide the first section into two sections. Cf. Leene, ‘The Unity of Psalm 51’, pp. 65–66.
7.
For several variations on this structure, see Hossfeld, Psalms 2, pp. 16–17; Pierre Auffret, ‘Note Sur La Structure Littéraire De Ps Li 1–19’, VT 26 (1976), pp. 142–47, here pp. 42–47; Jean Magne, ‘Répétitions de mots et exégèse dans quelques psaumes et le Pater’, Bib 39 (1958), pp. 177–97; A. R. Ceresko, ‘The Function of Chiasmus in Hebrew Poetry’, CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 1–10; Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC 20; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), p. 12.
8.
See E. S. Gerstenberger, Psalms: Part 1 with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL 14; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 215; Tate, Psalms 51–100, pp. 8–9. But some compare Ps. 51 with other psalms to contest this approach, pointing out, first, that other psalms have apparent additions to their ending (e.g., Ps. 25:22; 34:23 do not align with the acrostics), and, second, that some individualistic psalms were later read collectively (e.g., Pss. 69, 102). See Leene, ‘The Unity of Psalm 51’, p. 71 n. 29.
9.
So Alphonso Groenewald, ‘Psalm 51 and the Criticism of the Cult: Does this Reflect a Divided Religious Leadership?’, OTE 22 (2009), pp. 47–62; B. Weber, Werkbuch Psalmen I. Die Psalmen 1 bis 72 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), p. 235. Against this approach, some commentators take the ‘I’ figure throughout vv. 3–19 as collective. E.g., Charles A. Briggs and Emilie G. Briggs, The Book of Psalms (ICC; vol. 2 Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907), p. 3; R. Press, ‘Die eschatologische Ausrichtung des 51. Psalms’, TZ 11 (1955), pp. 241–49; Jean L.-Duhaime, ‘Le verset 8 du Psaume 51 et la destruction de Jérusalem’, Eglise et théologie 13 (1982), pp. 35–56; Jacques Vermeylen, ‘Une Priere Pour Le Renouveau Du Jerusalem. Le Psaume 51’, ETL 68 (1991), pp. 257–83.
10.
On eschatology in particular, see, e.g., Lloyd Neve, ‘Realized Eschatology in Psalm 51’, ExpTim 80 (1968/69), pp. 264–66; W. H. Schmidt, ‘Individuelle Eschatologie im Gebet – Psalm 51’, in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. FS. W. Beyerlin (Herders Biblische Studein 1; ed. K. Seybold and E. Zenger; Freiburg: Herder, 1994), p. 345–360.
11.
E.g., R. J. Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (JSOTSupp 188; transl. J. E. Crowley; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), pp. 171–172; D. Jones, ‘The Cessation of Sacrifice after the Destruction of the Temple in 586B.C.’, JTS 14 (1963), pp. 12–31 (p. 30); J. Becker, Israel deutet seine Psalmen (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 18; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966), pp. 68; Schmidt, ‘Individuelle Eschatologie’, p. 346. For a thoroughgoing redaction critical analysis of Ps. 51, see Gerstenberger, Psalms, pp. 212–115.
12.
Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms (The Expositors Bible Commentary: Revised Edition 5; eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), pp. 439–40, here p. 439. See also Jan Ridderbos, De Psalmen (vol. 2; Commentaar op het Oude Testament; Kampen: Kok, 1958), p. 86; Tate, Psalms 51–100, 29; Aubrey R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet and Israel’s Psalmody (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1979), pp. 430–31; Derek Kidner, Psalms 1–72 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), p. 212. Along these lines, Herman N. Ridderbos (De Psalmen [vol. 2; Korte Verklaring; Kampen: Kok, 1973], p. 183) argues for a Davidic era vv. 3–19, while Edward R. Dalglish (Psalm Fifty-One in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Patternism [Leiden: Brill, 1962], pp. 223–32) argues for the Josianic provenance of vv. 3–19.
13.
Some scholars use the destruction of Jerusalem and Nehemiah’s reconstruction as termini post and ante quem, respectively, such as Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100 (AB 17; New York: Doubleday, 1968), p. 9.
14.
See Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen übersetzt und erklärt (GHKAT II 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), p. 226; Briggs and Briggs (Psalms, pp. 3–4, 9–10), who date the Ps. 51 as a whole to the restoration period; William R. Taylor et al., The Book of Psalms (IB 4; ed. G. A. Buttrick et al.; 12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1955), pp. 267, 272, although their position is somewhat vague; Robert Alter, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007), p. 183; Hossfeld, Psalms 2, pp. 18, 22–23; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Commentary (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), pp. 501, 506. Gerstenberger (Psalms, p. 215) defends an origin of vv. 3–17 in the context of the ‘early synagogue’, after which vv. 18–9 and vv. 20–21 were added in stages.
15.
Kraus, Psalms, p. 506; Marko Marttila, Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms: A Study of the Redaction History of the Psalter (FAT II/13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), p. 158.
16.
Already in 1900, Kirkpatrick noted that the reference to the walls of Jerusalem was understood by others ‘in figurative language’, although he himself disagrees (Book of the Psalms, p. 285). Leene, not at all working from a cognitive perspective, nevertheless makes sense of Ps. 51 against what he calls the ‘conceptual universe’ of Isa. 56–66 and the metaphors employed there (‘The Unity of Psalm 51’, here p. 76). Rudolf Mosis (‘Die Mauern Jerusalems: Beobachtungen zu Psalm 51,20f’, in Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie: Festschrift für Horst Dietrich Preuß zum 65. Geburstag [eds. Jutta Hausmann and Hans-Jürgen Zobel; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1992], pp. 201–15), takes v. 20 to include a metonymical prayer for spiritual restoration, as does Leupold (Psalms, p. 408). J. H. Eaton also acknowledges the possibility of ‘figurative meaning’ in v. 20, and points to the importance of grasping ‘the nuances which the original listeners would understand’ (Psalms: Introduction and Commentary [London: SCM Press, 1967], p. 142 n. 3). Hossfeld (Psalms 2, p. 20) praises the ‘pointed metaphors’ by which ‘the poet evokes a truly wonderful counter-world over against the lamentable present’. Allen Ross (A Commentary on the Psalms: Volume 2 (42–89) [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2013], pp. 199) comes closest to my proposal, taking v. 20 figuratively, either as a synecdoche for the city’s physical defenses, or a metonymy for ‘everyone and everything inside the walls’. He maintains that the verse is an ‘implied comparison’ between physical defenses implying divine favor, a kind of ‘moral defense’, specifically through the ‘king’s forgiveness and spiritual renewal’.
17.
An excellent overview of Cognitive Linguistics is given by Dirk Geeraerts, ‘A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics’, in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (ed., Dirk Geeraerts; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), pp. 1–28. For more in-depth discussion of image-schemas, semantic frames, mental spaces, and conceptual blending, etc. see the handbooks by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007; Peter Robinson and Nick C. Ellis, eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (New York: Routledge, 2008); Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (HSK 39; Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015); Barbara Dancygier, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017). On Cognitive Semantics in particular see Dirk Geeraerts, Theories of Lexical Semantics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 182–272, and for resources in the discipline as a whole see pp. 267–72.
18.
Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green, Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), p. 363.
19.
Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, p. 371.
20.
‘Conceptual Integration Networks’, Cogn Sci 22 (1998), pp. 133–87, here p. 137.
21.
Fauconnier and Turner, The Way We Think, p. 40.
22.
A role is non-specific as to its “occupant”, but it can be filled with a value that is specific. For example, President is a role that at one time was filled by the value Abraham Lincoln. See Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 372–82 for further detail on describing the information in mental spaces.
23.
Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, p. 222. See also Barbara Dancygier and Eve Sweetser, Figurative Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 17–21.
24.
See Fauconnier, The Way We Think, p. 40. Semantic frames are typographically denoted in different ways in the literature. Here the name of the frame is simply capitalized, as in Dancygier and Sweetser, and always followed by the word “frame” for clarity.
25.
Charles Fillmore, ‘Frame Semantics’, in Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981 (ed. The Linguistics Society of Korea; Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, 1982), pp. 111–37, here 116–17.
26.
The diagram and discussion that follows is based on Fauconnier and Turner, The Way We Think, pp. 40–50. See also Gilles Fauconnier, ‘Mental Spaces’, in Oxford Handbook, pp. 351–76.
27.
The names of mental (or blended) spaces are capitalized, italicized, placed in quotation marks, and are always followed by the word “space” for clarity. E.g., the “David Confessing Sin” space. The elements, properties, roles, and relations within a mental space are denoted using italicized font.
28.
Fauconnier and Turner note that conceptual structure is ‘highly motivated’ by, among other things, ‘independently available background and contextual structure’ (‘Conceptual Integration Networks’, p. 136).
29.
Gilles Fauconnier, Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Constrution in Natural Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 16–18; Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, p. 371. This section employs some of Fauconnier’s earlier work in mental spaces in addition to that of his later theory of conceptual blending developed with Turner. Although there are distinctions between them, the approaches are complementary since conceptual blending theory is an extension of and relies upon mental space theory (Ibid., p. 400; Dancygier and Sweetser, Figurative Language, pp. 76–8).
30.
Ibid., pp. 371–72. While v. 1b (מזמור לדוד) functions as a space builder that concisely prompts the construction of the base space, v. 1a (למנצח מזמור לדוד) might be construed as a kind of “meta space builder” in that, like a metacomment, it directs how the subsequent discourse is to be understood and the author’s own stance towards it.
31.
Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 374–75.
32.
Ibid., p. 378. Elements in a mental space can have a ‘definite’ interpretation, as is the case with the proper names David, Bathsheba, and Nathan, which entails that they are functioning in the ‘presuppositional mode’. That is, these elements presuppose existing (narrative) knowledge. Ibid., pp. 371–72.
33.
The ‘David and Bathsheba’ base space is chronologically oriented in terms of the Prophetic Confrontation frame (v. 2), but the new mental space further focuses upon David’s recognition of his guilt. For a discussion of the cognitive phenomena of attention and salience, see William Croft and D. Alan Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 46–54.
34.
Also called the ‘Identification (ID) Principle’, on which see Fauconnier, Mental Spaces, pp. 3–16. Cf. idem, ‘Mental Spaces’, especially p. 353; idem, Mappings in Thought and Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 41.
35.
It should be noted that there are extremely intricate conceptual structures associated with religious language. For example, the “David Confessing Sin” space is itself the blended space of another conceptual blend network in which the “David and Bathsheba” space is one input, and the “Legal Arbitration” space as another input. In this blend, various elements, roles, and values are mapped, such that the roles guilty party, judge, and offense are mapped to the David, Yhwh, and sin elements from the “David and Bathsheba” input space, resulting in the “David Confessing Sin” blended space. But these more elaborate structures, while legitimate and interesting in their own right, need not distract us here.
36.
It is worth noting that מחה recruits a Forgiveness frame. This lexical item is prototypically associated with the concept wipe off, and occurs in two frames, namely Cleaning an Object (e.g., Prov. 30:20; Isa. 25:8; 2 Kings 21:13) and Wiping a Parchment (e.g., Num. 5:23; Exod. 32:32). It is in the latter frame that the lexical item prompts the meaning “erase”, which by metaphorical extension can refer to “acquittal” of an offense (or “revocation” of some status) that is recorded on a legal document. In the mental blend network in which it occurs, discussed in footnote 35 above, the expression מחה פשׁעי recruits the Forgiveness frame in that the פשׁע is construed as the offense element recorded on a legal record to be erased, and thus acquitted.
37.
An image schema is an extremely abstract concept that emerges in human cognition from repeated embodied experience (Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 177–91, 337–39). Examples include, among others that have been proposed by cognitive linguists,
38.
כבס appears primarily in the Pentateuch in ritual and cultic contexts, especially of cleansing clothes: Lev. 6:20; 11:25, 28, 40 [×2], 13:6, 34, 54, 55, 56, 58 [×2]; 14:8, 9, 47 [×2]; 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17, 21, 22, 27; 16:26, 28; 17:15, 16; Num. 8:7, 21; 19:7, 10, 19, 21; 31:24. As for the
39.
Conceptual blending relies upon three component processes that give rise to the emergent structure. One of these is completion, in which background frames and schemas are unconsciously and effortlessly induced in order to complete information projected from each input, here the “Cultic Activity” space in particular. Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 409–10.
40.
Because it is the “Cultic Activity” space that supplies the organizing frame for the “David Confessing Sin” space, this network is called a one-sided (or single-scope) shared topology network. That is, the conceptually organizing structure of the blended space is derived from only one input space, which as the source input carries its linguistic expressions over into the target input in the blended space. See Fauconnier and Turner, ‘Conceptual Integration Networks’, pp. 165–66. Note that for graphical simplicity only one dashed line connects the Generic Space to Input Spaces in the figures for the three blend networks discussed.
41.
The metaphorical portrayal of sin as impurity has been noted by Lesley DiFransico, ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusion through Metaphor: Washing Away Sin in Psalm 51’, VT 65 (2015), pp. 542–57, especially pp. 546–51.
42.
Hossfeld, Psalms 2, pp. 16–17. Cf. Auffret, ‘Note Sur La Structure Littéraire’.
43.
That is, while Israelite Kingship is the organizing frame topology of this mental space, there is also a finer, or more specific, topology from the Davidic Covenant frame that specifies values and roles in the organizing frame. These differing levels of an organizing frame are called TF and TS, respectively. See Fauconnier and Turner, ‘Conceptual Integration Networks’, p. 164.
44.
All glosses derived from ad loc., HALOT.
45.
The meaning of the lexical item ברא is notoriously difficult to determine more precisely than the traditional gloss ‘create’. Nevertheless, it does occasionally appear in contexts in which a Physical Construction frame seems present, implying the conceptual metaphor
46.
Cf. Num. 21:27; Josh. 3:17; Judg. 16:26, 29; Isa. 2:2; 54:14; 62:7; Mic. 4:1; Hab. 2:12; Ezra 3:3; Ps. 24:3; 28:9; 87:5; 107:36; 2 Chr. 33:16; cf. K/Q at 2 Chr. 33:16.
47.
1 Sam. 11:14; 2 Chr. 15:8; 24:4, 12; Isa. 61:4
48.
Gen. 29:3; Isa. 58:12; Dan. 9:25; Ezek. 16:55.
49.
Judg. 16:29.
50.
Gen. 19:9; Isa. 30:14; Lev. 11:33; Ezek. 26:2; Isa. 24:10; 2 Chr. 20:37.
51.
Ps. 38:9; 44:20. All of these words are used metaphorically, which is to say the conceptualization prompted by the expressions in which they appear relies upon projection of conceptual representations derived from experience onto more abstract concepts. See Croft and Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 194–204.
52.
The ‘Vow of Duty’ literary section in vv. 15–19, like the latter portion of the ‘Supplication and Confession’ section in vv. 5–8, contains sentences in which other blends and conceptual projection processes prompt meaning. It is not my contention that Blend I and II account for all of the meaning construction in the discourse, but that they are the most productive, conceptually speaking, throughout the psalm.
53.
For example, it is impossible to have a cultically impure hand but a pure body otherwise. Rather, the entire body is defiled at once. But in the Physical Construction frame it is possible for the damaged or undamaged property to pertain to only part of the whole.
54.
Fauconnier and Turner, ‘Conceptual Integration Networks’, pp. 176–78.
55.
רצון refers to a property attributed to (לְ) those whose cultic offerings restore the divine/human relationship, such that the offerer receives רצון and is thus accepted, and God gives רצון and thus accepts. E.g., Exod. 23:38; Lev. 1:3; 19:5; 22:19, 21, 29; 23:11; Isa. 56:7; 60:7; Jer. 6:20. Cf. רצון, BDB, p. 953.2; HALOT, pp. 1282–83.2.a.
56.
Similar conceptual integration and metaphor occurs throughout the Hebrew Bible. Often, a person is conceptualized as a city, the spirit as a wall, the heart as an upright structure, etc. (Prov. 21:23; 25:28; 2 Chr. 29:34; Ps. 7:10; 34:18). In the Israelite Kingship frame, a king is often metonymically associated with his house or kingdom (Prov. 29:14), particularly prominent in the ‘House exchange’ and construction language of the Davidic Covenant frame in 2 Sam. 7 (esp. v. 13, ‘He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever’ [NASB]). The