A.L.H.M. van Wieringen, «Psalm 65 as Non-Appropriation Theology», Vol. 95 (2014) 179-197
The biblical perspective that a receiver of God's promises is not allowed to claim these promises is called non-appropriation theology. Psalm 65 can be read as an example of this non-appropriation theology. The 'I'- character does not claim the fertile Land but can only speak about the abundance of the harvest of their wheat (v. 10). The heading of Psalm 65, identifying the 'I'-character as David, preserves the non-appropriation theology. This non-appropriation theology is retained in the receptionhistory of Psalm 65, as can be found in the Septuagint and the liturgical use of Psalm 65 in the funeral Mass.
02_VanWieringen_179_197 15/07/14 12:15 Pagina 187
PSALM 65 187
This universal position of “all flesh”, into which the text-internal
reader is invited, is supported by the word #ra used in verse 10. The
addressed “you” has visited the #ra. This Hebrew word, however,
can indicate both the “land”, namely the Land Israel, and the “earth”,
namely all lands. From the perspective of the “I”-character, the Land
is in focus here: the movement of zooming out and zooming in around
God’s location, namely Zion, evokes the Promised Land Israel. How-
ever, from the perspective of the text-internal reader’s access, all flesh
is involved. By this, the Promised Land of the “I”-character is ex-
panded to include the entire earth, and in doing so the mechanism of
non-appropriation is expanded to include the entire world.
The second possible access to the text for the text-internal reader
is the use of the first person plural in Psalm 65. The first person
plural starts with the forgiveness of “our transgressions” in verse 4
and, subsequently, takes shape in the wish “let us satisfy ourselves”
concerning God’s sanctuary in verse 5 and in the indication of God
as “God of our deliverance” in verse 6. The text-internal reader may
consider himself to be a part of the “we”, i.e. the community which
arises in the development of the “I”-character.
This implies that the text-internal reader also has access to the text
after the “I”-verse (= verse 4). The text-internal reader is present in
the text after the “I”-character has taken up his position. Because of
that, the “I”-character is ahead of the text-internal reader, which means
that the “I”-character already knows about the non-appropriation.
On the basis of both accesses to the text, the text-internal reader
will never expect “our wheat” instead of ~ngd “their wheat” in verse
10d. This is an enormous difference compared to the easy-going
modern translations 17 and exegeses found on the Internet 18, in
which a direct link is made between praying Psalm 65 and the abun-
dant harvest of wheat.
17 For example, the so-called Dutch Bronkhorst-translation of 1969, which
was the translation used in the first post-conciliar breviary in the Netherlands:
“You have cared and irrigated our land / and made it rich and fertile // the
rainwaters stream down over the fields: / so you make them ready for the har-
vest” (my translation). See also the adopted translation of the NKJV: “you
visit and care for the earth and water it, you greatly enrich it; your river is
full of water; you provide our grain, for so you have prepared it”.
18 For example, among many other websites: www.hurtingchristian.org,
which interprets the text as “it is God that prepares abundance for us”.