We haven't talked about this much in this series, but Psalm 116 is one of those psalms that create the different numbering of the Psalms in Catholic Bibles versus Protestant Bibles. I expect most Protestants aren't aware of this, but if you've ever picked up a Catholic Bible you might have noticed how the Psalms, in some spots, seem to be off by one or two numbers.
The difference has to do with the role of the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate in the Catholic tradition. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Old Testament made by Jewish scholars in Alexandria in the 3rd century BC. This Greek text was the basis of St. Jerome's initial Latin translation of the Psalms, though he later produced a Hebrew-based version as well. We should also note that the Septuagint contained the Deuterocanonical books (also called the Apocrypha). The Vulgate functioned as the Bible of the church until the Protestant Reformation.
After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, rabbinic Judaism worked to standardize the Hebrew text of the Tanakh (what Christians call "the Old Testament" or "the Hebrew Scriptures"). This work was safeguarded and preserved during the 6th–10th centuries by the Masoretes, Jewish scribes in Tiberias, Babylonia, and Palestine. Their work produced what is called the Masoretic Text. This text had different numbering for the Psalms compared to the Septuagint and Vulgate. The Masoretic Text also did not contain the Deuterocanonical books. During the Protestant Reformation, the Reformers began to base their translations of the Old Testament on the Masoretic Text rather than the Latin Vulgate. Consequently, Protestant Bibles have different numbering for the Psalms and do not contain the Deuterocanonical books.Basically, it boils down to the Septuagint versus the Masoretic Text as the basis for the Old Testament.
The different numbering of the Psalms in the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text are due to four splits/combinations. These are:
Masoretic Text Psalms 9–10 = Septuagint Psalm 9
Masoretic Text Psalms 114–115 = Septuagint Psalm 113
Masoretic Text Psalm 116 = Septuagint Psalms 114–115
Masoretic Text Psalm 147 = Septuagint Psalms 146–147
As you can see, Psalm 116 is one of those places where the split/combination occurs. In Protestant Bibles, Psalms 116 is a whole. But in Catholic Bibles Psalm 116 is split into two. Where does that split occur in the poem? It happens between verses 9 and 10. In Catholic Bibles, Psalm 114 ends with:
I will walk before the Lord
in the land of the living.
Which is verse 9 in Psalm 116. Psalm 115 in Catholic Bibles then begins with verse 10 of the Psalm 116:
I believed, even when I said,
“I am severely oppressed.”
///
Psalm 116 is an expression of thanksgiving for deliverance. Recall, again, how Psalm 116 is a part of the Hallel psalms used during Passover. The poet finds himself in a dire situation and cries out:
The ropes of death were wrapped around me,The Lord hears and rescues:
and the torments of Sheol overcame me;
I encountered trouble and sorrow.
Then I called on the name of the Lord:
“Lord, save me!”
The Lord is gracious and righteous;
our God is compassionate.
The Lord guards the inexperienced;
I was helpless, and he saved me.
One of my concerns with how salvation is described in progressive and conservative Christian spaces is how moralized they are. To be sure, they are moralized in different ways, but both focus upon some vision of moral purity.
For conservatives, the moral purity is achieved juridically, being "justified" before God due to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. I am "clean" because Jesus' righteousness is imputed to me. Downstream of justification, we also see conservative concerns about moral purity in places like evangelical purity culture.
For progressives, moral purity is more performative than juridical. (Progressive Christians hate penal substitutionary atonement.) This is the moral influence view of atonement. We are saved by emulating the love of Jesus. And insofar as we love, we are saved. The purity aspect of this moral performance shows up in what I've described, way back in 2015, as the "purity culture" of progressive Christianity. In progressive Christian spaces being complicit in oppressive structures creates an experience of moral contamination. This causes progressives to embrace puritanical displays of moral purity and social quarantine. Cancel and callout culture are examples. Progressives leaving Twitter/X because of Elon Musk is another example, fleeing a morally contaminated space for the purer Bluesky. It's the social media version of social distancing. Recently, I've seen progressives leaving Substack for Ghost because Substack hosts Nazis. Since Substack is morally contaminated, purity is regained via social quarantine. All this is purity culture behavior, fearing contamination through contact. A pursuit of moral purity in a world where “everything is problematic” is also what drives the radicalization of progressive spaces, where purer and purer expressions of solidarity and commitment drive the community toward extremism and individuals to moral exhaustion. If you’re trying to be 100% free of complicity in a world where being morally compromised is unavoidable you’ll never be fully or wholly clean. See Unclean for more about purity psychology.
My point, again, is how both progressive and conservative Christians define salvation as moral purity.
But as I've argued in this space, what moral purity misses is our need for help and assistance. As the recovery community puts it, our lives have become unmanageable and we need to rely upon a power that can restore us to sanity. And that is the vision of Psalm 116.
I was helpless and he saved me.
