Psalm 18 is an exceptional text compared to the Psalms we have read so far. It is a psalm of David, and it shows similar themes and structure with the other psalms, but it is unique nonetheless. What marks it as different is that Psalm 18 has a parallel textual transmission in 2 Samuel 22. This is one of only a handful of cases in the bible where we can study a long body of text two places in the bible and explore the textual variants to understand some of the history of these two respective books, as well as the transmission process that copied these books down through the centuries until we got the earliest physical copies of the Hebrew bible in the ~10th century CE.
My commentary will consist of two parts. First I will provide a brief summary of the textual variation between Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22, and then I will secondly provide a commentary on the content of the psalm itself. I would also encourage my readers to revisit my commentary on 2 Samuel 22 itself (available in this blog) since that will share a lot of similarity to the current reading. This psalm has multiple layers and I’ll try to explain them as well as I can.
First, the textual variations. In general, there are many variations between Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22, but most of the variations are either minor spelling differences or word replacement (i.e. replacing some word with a synonym). There are a handful of “additions without replacement”, where one version of the psalm contains an additional word or phrase that does not have an equivalent in the other.
The first conclusion we can draw is that there is no substantial difference in meaning or interpretation between the two copies of this psalm. For theological or even literary purposes, it makes little difference if the text uses deflective vs. plene spelling, just to give one out of many examples that I do not understand and could not possibly explain. These are difference related to particular choices in Hebrew grammar and for most people and most purposes, it should be sufficient to understand that such differences exist without scrutinizing the nature of those differences.
The second conclusion we can draw is that 2 Samuel 22 most likely represents an earlier tradition of the psalm. The primary reason is that Psalm 18 generally has more additions, and fewer subtractions, than 2 Samuel 22. In addition, the linguistic variations generally indicate a later date for Psalm 18. It’s not conclusive, but it’s generally suggestive of a later date.
Third, many of the changes in Psalm 18 seem to be a movement towards conformity with the Psalms as a whole. We see this especially with textual similarity between Psalm 18 and Psalm 116, but also with the minor linguistic variants I mentioned. Generally speaking, the variants in Psalm 18 align with the predominant style of Psalms. On the flip side, the textual variants observable in 2 Samuel 22 tend to align with the style of Samuel.
In both cases, it suggests that the text in Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 represent distinct copies of the same psalm (with the same original text) that have been gradually modified to conform to the larger body of the text in which they reside. This editing process is clearly ancient and predates any extant manuscripts that we possess.
My personal opinion, and I think the evidence generally supports this, is that Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 represent different textual traditions that existed independently for a long time before they were eventually combined into the Hebrew bible that we have today. Psalms, as its name implies, was a liturgical text centered on the temple in Jerusalem, and for at least a few hundred years it would have existed as an independent work for that purpose. Meanwhile, Samuel also was an independent book, gradually collected into the historical works together with Kings, Judges, Joshua and perhaps the Pentateuch, but not combined with Psalms until much later. As such, these two copies of the same psalm would have been preserved and copied independently for a long time until their eventual combination in the Hebrew bible. The differences in the text are the relics of those distinct traditions.
I will conclude this section by reiterating my first point: while the textual differences are interesting (to people like me) and they illustrate the two historical traditions nicely, they are not theologically substantial in the bigger picture and to most readers they can be ignored entirely with no consequence.
Second, I will now discuss the body of text itself.
For this part I will rely heavily on my commentary on 2 Samuel 22, because as I just mentioned the content of these two chapters is substantially equivalent.
The first thing I’d like to point out is that this psalm has possibly the clearest historical context out of any psalm in the entire book. Not only does this psalm tell us the moment in David’s life that he is praising God for, but the entire story is included in the book of Samuel. Samuel includes a copy of this psalm for that reason, confirming the relationship between the story and the song beyond any doubt. In spite of this, the psalm still follows the general pattern of decontextualization that we’ve seen throughout the Psalms.
For example, even though the title specifically tells us this is about David’s victory over Saul, Saul himself is not named anywhere in the psalm. Verse 17 refers to David’s “great enemy”, who is probably Saul, while the rest of the psalm talks about David’s “enemies” (for instance, v. 2). Both of these groups are mentioned in the title: David was delivered “from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul”. The psalm describes David’s “enemies” and his “great enemy” to refer to these groups respectively, and this language is generally evasive. David mentions himself only in the last verse. The overall style and general effect is consistent with the other psalms we have seen.
The second thing I’d like to discuss is the rule of the first verse. I have repeatedly shown that the first verse of a psalm generally reflects on the theme and purpose of the psalm as a whole, to the extent that we can topically categorize the psalms to a high degree of accuracy by looking strictly at the first verse of each psalm.
In the case of Psalm 18, it mostly holds. Verse 1 says “I love you, LORD, my strength.” This conveys the praise and worship aspect of the psalm, and to an extent it also conveys David’s dependence on God. However, it doesn’t clearly capture the theme of deliverance. Interestingly, verse 2 seems to do a much better job of capturing the theme of the psalm. This is particularly interesting because verse 1 of this psalm is absent from the Samuel rendition, which suggests that it may have been a later addition and not part of the original composition. The fact that verse 2 is a better representation of the theme of the psalm provides additional evidence that verse 1 was not part of the original composition, precisely because it does not summarize the content of the psalm in the same way that we find in the earlier Davidic psalms.
Third, this psalm is notably different from the earlier psalms by its great length. This psalm is 50 verses long, which makes it longer than the previous five psalms combined (which taken together have 44 verses total). Every other psalm we’ve read so far is shorter than this one, usually by a lot. The psalm after this one (Psalm 19) returns to the generally short pattern with 14 verses.
Fourth, as I mentioned in my commentary on 2 Samuel 22, there are several allusions to the Exodus story. This whole psalm is ostensibly about David, but it could easily be transferred to a description of Israel as a whole during the Exodus. They were in great distress, and from that distress God sent plagues on Egypt, plagues of hail and lightning (v. 12-13). Most importantly, crossing the Red Sea is implied in v. 15 when the breath of the LORD “lays bare” the foundation of the world, making channels in the water (i.e. walkable pathways). Similarly, verse 16 speaks of God “[drawing] me out of many waters”, which is a clear allusion to Moses, whose birth story describes him being drawn out of the waters and his name roughly means “drawn out” in Hebrew (Exodus 2).
Fifth, I find many similarities between the depiction of God in this chapter and the way God is described in Job, particularly Job 37. Job 37 uses the language of a thunderstorm to describe God’s power and glory; for instance, Job 37:2-5 describes God’s voice as being like thunder. Psalm 18 uses very similar language, with verses 11-12 describing the clouds surrounding God and verse 13 describing the thunder of his voice.
There are some differences, of course. While Job 37 does use thunder to describe God’s voice, the main theme of that chapter (and Job as a whole) is using the natural world as a demonstration of God’s power. The storm is not meant so much to signify the arrival of God’s presence as it signifies the glory of God’s creation (and by extension, the creator). In Psalm 18, the storm itself conveys God’s presence with God dwelling in thunderclouds, and thereby traveling along with storms as they move over the earth. That said, Job 38:1 clearly states that God speaks to Job out of the “whirlwind”, so in that instance it is as if God himself came to visit Job and his three friends in the approaching stormcloud. The notion of God “traveling” in the stormcloud is what unites these two chapters more than anything else, even though they have slightly differing emphases elsewhere.
Structurally, after a brief introduction (verses 1-3), the main “story” of this psalm is from verses 4-19. This section follows a simple three-part structure with an introduction to David’s crisis in verses 4-6, a description of God’s glory and impending intervention in verses 7-15, and a concluding statement of David’s deliverance in verses 16-19. Out of this three-part structure, the longest and most significant section is the middle, the description of God’s glory and movement towards David’s deliverance. I’ve already mentioned that this description uses the metaphor of a stormcloud, and also contains allusions to God’s deliverance in the Exodus from Egypt, so I won’t repeat those points here.
One other thing I would add is the overall sense of God’s power and fury. It is almost terrifying, if it weren’t friendly and a wrath that is acting on David’s behalf. The earth is shaking, there is smoke and fire, lightning and thunder; the imagery is really scary; once again, it contains allusions to Exodus 19:18-19 when God’s glory descended on Mount Sinai with earthquakes, fire and smoke, and a loud trumpet sound. It was so scary that people thought Moses died when he went up the mountain. They thought anyone who went into that stormcloud was certainly not coming back alive, because they feared God’s wrath. What we see in this psalm is that God’s wrath is terrifying, but it is a wrath that fights on our behalf because God “delights” in us (v. 19).
The deliverance in verses 16-19 is striking because it is so rapid. David was in the midst of these turbulent waters of doom, and God yanks him out in one swift verse (v. 16).
Beginning in verse 20, the deliverance continues but changes direction and theme several times, so I find it much harder to draw generalizations over the remainder of this psalm, especially because it is still so long. In fact, more than half the psalm is the “remainder” after the primary deliverance story.
Broadly speaking, the themes of this section (verses 20-50) are David’s righteous standing before God as a justification for his deliverance, and God’s power to deliver and destroy David’s enemies. The basic assumption behind all this is that God blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked. We see this on verses 20 and 24: “The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness.” Righteousness is the standard that justifies a reward from God.
Verses 25-26 continue on the same theme but in a more general way. In these verses, David is asserting that God’s response to people depend chiefly on the moral character of the person involved. God “shows himself” to the righteous as a reflection of that righteousness; to the “crooked”, he reflects that crookedness in how he deals with them. Verse 27 continues that God saves the “afflicted” but punishes the prideful. It’s not quite the same thing as the dichotomy between righteous and wicked, but the contrast between “afflicted” and wicked emerges regularly as part of the same social justice framework in the bible. In many cases “the wicked” is interchanged with “strong” or “prideful”, while “the righteous” are interchanged with poor, afflicted or weak. In many cases, God blesses the righteous, but we also see God bless or protect the poor, afflicted and vulnerable. These are obviously different concepts, but in the biblical text they are interchanged frequently.
Beginning in verse 30, David praises God for giving him strength to defeat his enemies. This is an extension of the social justice narrative, because David clearly views himself as a righteous person who is receiving this strength as a reward for his righteousness. It continues on this theme until the end of the psalm. I could add a few more comments but this is already long enough so I think I will stop here. For all of the details of the remaining verses, I leave it as an exercise for the reader.
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Sunday, December 9, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 17
This psalm is quite simply a prayer. In keeping with tradition, we should read the first verse first, and we will see that David is bringing some kind of request to God.
The conventional structure for prayers in the Psalms is to first state the nature of the problem, then to declare God’s faithfulness and salvation, and to close by offering thanksgiving in anticipation of God’s deliverance. Some examples of this pattern are Psalm 3 and Psalm 10. Though not every prayer follows this structure, it is common enough that I wanted to call it out.
Meanwhile, this psalm does not quite follow the conventional structure either, though it has some similarities. In broad strokes, this psalm begins with David’s “standing” to pray. Verses 3-5 describe the reasons why David thinks the LORD should answer his prayer, and it is because the LORD has “tested” David and David has held fast to do what is right and avoid “the paths of the violent”. In effect David is saying that God should answer his prayer because he has maintained his righteousness.
David also says he does not have “deceitful lips” (v. 1). Remember Psalm 12:2-4 that lament the flattering and deceitful words of the wicked? Here David is tying that to prayer. The same lips that speak deceitful words also speak prayers to God, and David is implying that God should not answer the prayers that come from those deceitful lips. However, the prayers that come from truthful lips should be answered.
After justifying his standing to pray to God, David gives his problem statement in verses 8-12. David’s core problem is that he is surrounded by deadly enemies, speaking proud words, determined to cast him down.
There are several statements of the prayer itself scattered throughout the psalm. Verse 2 is a request for God’s judgment, verses 7-8 request for God to hide and protect David from his adversaries, and verse 13 requests God to arise and confront the “young lion” that is seeking to destroy David. It’s three different prayers all in the same psalm, and largely directed towards the same “problem”, or adversity, that David is facing.
This psalm does not conclude with the usual doxology (declaration of praise). Instead, it concludes by describing the “portion” of the wicked. The “portion”, or destiny or inheritance or however you want to describe it, of the wicked is that they are satisfied to leave their wealth to their children. This is the ordinary human dream. Who doesn’t imagine having a pile of children and acquired wealth, eventually leaving said wealth to said children? Well in contrast, verse 15 says that the “portion” of David is that he would behold the face of God “when I awake”. It is not clear whether that means while David is still alive or when he “awakes” to a life after death. Either way, the contrast with the “portion” of the wicked could not be stronger.
David is saying that the wicked dream of having a great life, family and money. But David dreams of something even greater; David dreams of entering the presence of God and beholding God’s face. Remember when Moses asked to see the glory of God in Exodus 33, and God exclaimed that “no man can see me and live” (Ex 33:20)? David is saying that he can do the impossible: he can see the face of God and yet live. That is how this psalm ends, and it’s well enough that it end here because this is a stunning claim. Can we really behold the face of God while we live? I don’t know either way, but the fact that it’s here in the Psalms seems to open up the possibility.
Either way, one thing is clear. Verses 14-15 call us to dream bigger and seek more than perhaps we were seeking before. We should not be content, like the wicked, to a good life. We should seek more than children and an abundance of wealth to share with them. We should not be men of this world, whose portion is the things of this world. We should seek our portion in the presence of God; we should seek to behold the face of God, even while we live.
How do we seek the face of God? This psalm gives us few answers. Perhaps we simply focus on righteous living the way David described in verses 1-5. More likely we have to read the bible broadly and seek God by following his commands and laws throughout the entire book. We won’t find the answer in any one passage, any more than we could describe righteousness in any one phrase or sentence. Righteousness is following the ways of God, and we do that by first understanding God’s ways and then secondly following them. It defies summarization the same way that God himself defies summarization.
One thing is clear, however: it is a passion for God that empowers us to seek God and to find him in this way. We find him because we seek him, and we seek him because of a desire deep inside. It is a desire that refuses to give up in the midst of disappointment and discouragement. We see this persistence in the prayers of David where he acknowledges the difficult circumstances that he faces, but he refuses to give up. It is an iron will that is not motivated by material comforts, but only by a desire to see God. If it were material comforts that he sought, it would be far too easy for David to give up and submit to death because material comfort simply isn’t worth the suffering that he endured during his struggles with Saul and the foreign kingdoms surrounding him. Similarly, we will not find enough motivation to go through hardships if our dream is simply material comfort or the things of this world. Life is too hard and filled with too much sorrow to find meaning in such things.
The conventional structure for prayers in the Psalms is to first state the nature of the problem, then to declare God’s faithfulness and salvation, and to close by offering thanksgiving in anticipation of God’s deliverance. Some examples of this pattern are Psalm 3 and Psalm 10. Though not every prayer follows this structure, it is common enough that I wanted to call it out.
Meanwhile, this psalm does not quite follow the conventional structure either, though it has some similarities. In broad strokes, this psalm begins with David’s “standing” to pray. Verses 3-5 describe the reasons why David thinks the LORD should answer his prayer, and it is because the LORD has “tested” David and David has held fast to do what is right and avoid “the paths of the violent”. In effect David is saying that God should answer his prayer because he has maintained his righteousness.
David also says he does not have “deceitful lips” (v. 1). Remember Psalm 12:2-4 that lament the flattering and deceitful words of the wicked? Here David is tying that to prayer. The same lips that speak deceitful words also speak prayers to God, and David is implying that God should not answer the prayers that come from those deceitful lips. However, the prayers that come from truthful lips should be answered.
After justifying his standing to pray to God, David gives his problem statement in verses 8-12. David’s core problem is that he is surrounded by deadly enemies, speaking proud words, determined to cast him down.
There are several statements of the prayer itself scattered throughout the psalm. Verse 2 is a request for God’s judgment, verses 7-8 request for God to hide and protect David from his adversaries, and verse 13 requests God to arise and confront the “young lion” that is seeking to destroy David. It’s three different prayers all in the same psalm, and largely directed towards the same “problem”, or adversity, that David is facing.
This psalm does not conclude with the usual doxology (declaration of praise). Instead, it concludes by describing the “portion” of the wicked. The “portion”, or destiny or inheritance or however you want to describe it, of the wicked is that they are satisfied to leave their wealth to their children. This is the ordinary human dream. Who doesn’t imagine having a pile of children and acquired wealth, eventually leaving said wealth to said children? Well in contrast, verse 15 says that the “portion” of David is that he would behold the face of God “when I awake”. It is not clear whether that means while David is still alive or when he “awakes” to a life after death. Either way, the contrast with the “portion” of the wicked could not be stronger.
David is saying that the wicked dream of having a great life, family and money. But David dreams of something even greater; David dreams of entering the presence of God and beholding God’s face. Remember when Moses asked to see the glory of God in Exodus 33, and God exclaimed that “no man can see me and live” (Ex 33:20)? David is saying that he can do the impossible: he can see the face of God and yet live. That is how this psalm ends, and it’s well enough that it end here because this is a stunning claim. Can we really behold the face of God while we live? I don’t know either way, but the fact that it’s here in the Psalms seems to open up the possibility.
Either way, one thing is clear. Verses 14-15 call us to dream bigger and seek more than perhaps we were seeking before. We should not be content, like the wicked, to a good life. We should seek more than children and an abundance of wealth to share with them. We should not be men of this world, whose portion is the things of this world. We should seek our portion in the presence of God; we should seek to behold the face of God, even while we live.
How do we seek the face of God? This psalm gives us few answers. Perhaps we simply focus on righteous living the way David described in verses 1-5. More likely we have to read the bible broadly and seek God by following his commands and laws throughout the entire book. We won’t find the answer in any one passage, any more than we could describe righteousness in any one phrase or sentence. Righteousness is following the ways of God, and we do that by first understanding God’s ways and then secondly following them. It defies summarization the same way that God himself defies summarization.
One thing is clear, however: it is a passion for God that empowers us to seek God and to find him in this way. We find him because we seek him, and we seek him because of a desire deep inside. It is a desire that refuses to give up in the midst of disappointment and discouragement. We see this persistence in the prayers of David where he acknowledges the difficult circumstances that he faces, but he refuses to give up. It is an iron will that is not motivated by material comforts, but only by a desire to see God. If it were material comforts that he sought, it would be far too easy for David to give up and submit to death because material comfort simply isn’t worth the suffering that he endured during his struggles with Saul and the foreign kingdoms surrounding him. Similarly, we will not find enough motivation to go through hardships if our dream is simply material comfort or the things of this world. Life is too hard and filled with too much sorrow to find meaning in such things.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 16
This psalm defies simple interpretations. If we follow my usual exercise of weighing the overall message by looking at the first verse, we should think that this psalm is a prayer for God’s protection or deliverance. To an extent, I think that it is. However, I don’t think it fits neatly into that category.
Structurally, it does not follow the usual prayer pattern of “problem statement”, followed by petition, followed by thanksgiving. Instead, this psalm has two distinct sections. The first section is verses 2-4, which is David’s claim of righteous behavior. It might not be obvious why this is a claim of righteous behavior, but when we look at similar passages in other psalms I hope it will become more clear.
In particular, it is very similar thematically to Psalm 15. David is declaring that first, he “delights” in the holy people (v. 3). Second, David is saying that he will not “take up the names” of those who “run after other gods” (v. 4). I see this as another way of saying that David does not want to have any association with idolaters (i.e. the wicked), while he rejoices in those who do good. It’s phrased differently, but the sentiment is similar to Psalm 15:4, where the righteous man “despises a vile man, but honors those who fear the LORD.” Earlier in Psalm 12:8, David was lamenting how the wicked “freely strut about when what is vile is honored by the sons of men.” This is something I discussed at length in my commentary on Psalm 15, but the basic idea is that honoring the righteous and despising the wicked are traits that David values as a characteristic of righteousness. Here, we can see that it is a trait that David claims for himself as well.
The second, and longer, section of this psalm is verses 5-11 where David colorfully praises God for his “counsel” (v. 7) and because God will not “abandon me” (v. 10).
In a sense, this section is a continuation of the theme from verse 1 which is that God is David’s refuge, but it also seems like more than that. Verses 5-6 establish that the LORD is the “portion” or “inheritance” of David. Interestingly, the last time this kind of language was used was all the way back in Deuteronomy 10:9 (repeated in Deut 18:2) when Moses said that the inheritance of the Levites was the LORD.
This made sense in their case because the Levites did not receive any inheritance in the promised land, besides the Levitical cities. Therefore in exchange for an inheritance of land, the Levites received an “inheritance” of the sacrificial offerings that the people bring to the temple to offer to God. The Levites also received a tithe from their fellow tribes, which was perhaps an even more significant amount of food and substituted for the agricultural work that the rest of the tribes would have engaged in (with their inheritance of land as the basis of that agriculture). In that sense, swapping out an inheritance of land for sacrifices and tithes for the Levites made sense, and it also conveniently freed up the Levites’ time such that they could administrate the temple worship system. They were, to put it simply, religious professionals, clerks, etc. in assistance to the Aaronic priesthood.
In the case of this psalm, it says that the LORD is “my portion”, but this is almost certainly intended metaphorically to mean that God’s presence or acceptance is the “portion” that we receive. It begs the question of who we receive this inheritance from. Does it come from our parents? For the Jews, it seems like a plausible answer as their faith was very clearly a national and ethnic faith. I think it’s more likely that the giver is God himself. I doubt that David was viewing God’s presence as an inheritance in any traditional sense. I doubt that David was thinking to himself, “when I die I will leave God’s presence for my children”, as you might otherwise leave a house or fields or other property.
Instead, I think David is using the term inheritance in an almost mystical sense to refer to the “good thing” that he possesses in his life, quite similar to verse 2. More often than not, the promised land itself serves as a metaphor for God’s dwelling in the midst of Israel, and I believe David is extending that into a personal sense by referring to God as his own inheritance, rather than the collective inheritance of his whole people.
Verses 7-8 discuss how God “counsels” David and instructs him, while David in turn keeps his “eyes always on the LORD”, both to receive his instruction as well as to maintain his personal connection to God’s presence (his inheritance).
Moving on to verses 9-11, this is where David offers thanksgiving in response to his initial prayer in v. 1. We see a contrast between life and death, with David spared from death and delivered into “the path of life” and the promise of “eternal pleasures” at the right hand of God.
Taking this psalm as a whole, I feel like this psalm as a whole is really about David’s central focus on God in his life. Verses 2 and 5 in particular carry a strongly exclusive tone where he says that God alone is his good thing, God alone is his portion and inheritance. God alone is his refuge (v. 1), and in this David rejoices because he knows that he can trust God to bring him through the challenges of life.
Structurally, it does not follow the usual prayer pattern of “problem statement”, followed by petition, followed by thanksgiving. Instead, this psalm has two distinct sections. The first section is verses 2-4, which is David’s claim of righteous behavior. It might not be obvious why this is a claim of righteous behavior, but when we look at similar passages in other psalms I hope it will become more clear.
In particular, it is very similar thematically to Psalm 15. David is declaring that first, he “delights” in the holy people (v. 3). Second, David is saying that he will not “take up the names” of those who “run after other gods” (v. 4). I see this as another way of saying that David does not want to have any association with idolaters (i.e. the wicked), while he rejoices in those who do good. It’s phrased differently, but the sentiment is similar to Psalm 15:4, where the righteous man “despises a vile man, but honors those who fear the LORD.” Earlier in Psalm 12:8, David was lamenting how the wicked “freely strut about when what is vile is honored by the sons of men.” This is something I discussed at length in my commentary on Psalm 15, but the basic idea is that honoring the righteous and despising the wicked are traits that David values as a characteristic of righteousness. Here, we can see that it is a trait that David claims for himself as well.
The second, and longer, section of this psalm is verses 5-11 where David colorfully praises God for his “counsel” (v. 7) and because God will not “abandon me” (v. 10).
In a sense, this section is a continuation of the theme from verse 1 which is that God is David’s refuge, but it also seems like more than that. Verses 5-6 establish that the LORD is the “portion” or “inheritance” of David. Interestingly, the last time this kind of language was used was all the way back in Deuteronomy 10:9 (repeated in Deut 18:2) when Moses said that the inheritance of the Levites was the LORD.
This made sense in their case because the Levites did not receive any inheritance in the promised land, besides the Levitical cities. Therefore in exchange for an inheritance of land, the Levites received an “inheritance” of the sacrificial offerings that the people bring to the temple to offer to God. The Levites also received a tithe from their fellow tribes, which was perhaps an even more significant amount of food and substituted for the agricultural work that the rest of the tribes would have engaged in (with their inheritance of land as the basis of that agriculture). In that sense, swapping out an inheritance of land for sacrifices and tithes for the Levites made sense, and it also conveniently freed up the Levites’ time such that they could administrate the temple worship system. They were, to put it simply, religious professionals, clerks, etc. in assistance to the Aaronic priesthood.
In the case of this psalm, it says that the LORD is “my portion”, but this is almost certainly intended metaphorically to mean that God’s presence or acceptance is the “portion” that we receive. It begs the question of who we receive this inheritance from. Does it come from our parents? For the Jews, it seems like a plausible answer as their faith was very clearly a national and ethnic faith. I think it’s more likely that the giver is God himself. I doubt that David was viewing God’s presence as an inheritance in any traditional sense. I doubt that David was thinking to himself, “when I die I will leave God’s presence for my children”, as you might otherwise leave a house or fields or other property.
Instead, I think David is using the term inheritance in an almost mystical sense to refer to the “good thing” that he possesses in his life, quite similar to verse 2. More often than not, the promised land itself serves as a metaphor for God’s dwelling in the midst of Israel, and I believe David is extending that into a personal sense by referring to God as his own inheritance, rather than the collective inheritance of his whole people.
Verses 7-8 discuss how God “counsels” David and instructs him, while David in turn keeps his “eyes always on the LORD”, both to receive his instruction as well as to maintain his personal connection to God’s presence (his inheritance).
Moving on to verses 9-11, this is where David offers thanksgiving in response to his initial prayer in v. 1. We see a contrast between life and death, with David spared from death and delivered into “the path of life” and the promise of “eternal pleasures” at the right hand of God.
Taking this psalm as a whole, I feel like this psalm as a whole is really about David’s central focus on God in his life. Verses 2 and 5 in particular carry a strongly exclusive tone where he says that God alone is his good thing, God alone is his portion and inheritance. God alone is his refuge (v. 1), and in this David rejoices because he knows that he can trust God to bring him through the challenges of life.
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 15
Studying Psalm 15, we find that once again, the first verse defines the tone and theme of the entire psalm. In the first verse, David asks “who may abide” and “who may dwell” in the presence of God. He spends the rest of the psalm answering those questions, describing the behavior and attitude of the righteous, who earn the privilege of entering God’s presence by their righteous deeds.
David uses several themes to describe the righteous, but the most important is honesty and integrity in words and business dealings. Verse 2 says that the righteous “walks with integrity” and “speaks truth in his heart”. “Speaking truth in your heart” is a peculiar expression whose meaning may not be self-evident, so I will take a few minutes to seek to clarify it. Previously in other psalms we saw the phrase “says in his heart” or “says to himself” repeatedly (Ps 10:6, Ps 10:11, Ps 14:1). This expression is a roundabout way of saying “he thinks”. When you say something in your heart, it is what you are telling yourself about the world or yourself or whatever it might be.
In this context, Psalm 14:1 (to take one example) is a wicked person telling a lie in his heart, because he is denying the reality of God. These lies are generally self-serving and intended to justify evil behavior. In contrast, speaking truth in your heart implies a level of emotional and moral integrity that David imagines is a hallmark of the righteous, in the same way that “speaking lies in your heart” is a defining characteristic of the wicked.
Verses 3-5 are more behavioral, but they continue the theme of honesty and integrity. In verse 3, David insists that the righteous must not slander, betray his friends, and more generally act with truthfulness. This is quite similar to Psalm 12 which repeatedly condemns the “flattering tongues” and “double-minded heart” of the wicked (Ps 12:3). Verse 3 places a heavy emphasis on the integrity and honesty of the righteous, which is a direct contrast with Psalm 12’s description of the dishonesty and deceitfulness of the wicked.
Verse 4 says that the righteous “despise” the wicked, while they “honor” those who fear the LORD (i.e. the righteous). Interestingly, this also paints a strong contrast with Psalm 12. In Psalm 12, David laments the prevalence of wicked men in society “when vileness is exalted among the sons of men” (Ps 12:8). This paints a picture of the wicked honoring each other and promoting evil values through the culture of David’s time. David says that the righteous should be the opposite of their evil culture, despising the wicked (and by extension, “vileness”) and honoring the righteous.
Lastly, in verses 4-5 David says that the righteous must act with integrity in their business dealings, adhering to Deuteronomy’s prohibitions against lending at interest (Deut 23:19) and taking bribes (Deut 16:19). The end of verse 4 says that the righteous “swears to his own hurt and does not change”, which is another way of saying that when the righteous man swears an oath, he fulfills it without “changing”. This is very similar to a commandment in Deuteronomy that Israelites should fulfill their vows to the LORD (Deut 23:21-23).
Although I can’t draw a direct connection between this psalm and Deuteronomy, it seems like they must at least share a common inspiration and a common moral framework for what defines “good” behavior.
This psalm is interesting because it doesn’t fall into any of the major categories I previously described (prayer, praise, thanksgiving, etc). In a sense, it is hard to see if this psalm really has a “point”. It appears to be purely descriptive, describing the righteous without directly commanding us to behave in the same way. A typical moral treatise is filled with commands, saying, “you should do this” or “you are forbidden to do that”. Deuteronomy itself is a great example, being home to an extensive array of moral prescriptions. Rather than moral commands, this psalm simply describes the righteous. I can only imagine that David assumed we would take these descriptions and seek to emulate them, modeling our behavior after his idealization of the righteous life.
Indeed, his definition of righteousness is so similar to earlier Psalms and Deuteronomy that I can easily find prior references. What’s distinct about this psalm is not so much the content as the descriptive style and phrasing, which has few parallels in earlier texts. Perhaps the closest parallel is Psalm 12 which also follows a mostly descriptive style.
David uses several themes to describe the righteous, but the most important is honesty and integrity in words and business dealings. Verse 2 says that the righteous “walks with integrity” and “speaks truth in his heart”. “Speaking truth in your heart” is a peculiar expression whose meaning may not be self-evident, so I will take a few minutes to seek to clarify it. Previously in other psalms we saw the phrase “says in his heart” or “says to himself” repeatedly (Ps 10:6, Ps 10:11, Ps 14:1). This expression is a roundabout way of saying “he thinks”. When you say something in your heart, it is what you are telling yourself about the world or yourself or whatever it might be.
In this context, Psalm 14:1 (to take one example) is a wicked person telling a lie in his heart, because he is denying the reality of God. These lies are generally self-serving and intended to justify evil behavior. In contrast, speaking truth in your heart implies a level of emotional and moral integrity that David imagines is a hallmark of the righteous, in the same way that “speaking lies in your heart” is a defining characteristic of the wicked.
Verses 3-5 are more behavioral, but they continue the theme of honesty and integrity. In verse 3, David insists that the righteous must not slander, betray his friends, and more generally act with truthfulness. This is quite similar to Psalm 12 which repeatedly condemns the “flattering tongues” and “double-minded heart” of the wicked (Ps 12:3). Verse 3 places a heavy emphasis on the integrity and honesty of the righteous, which is a direct contrast with Psalm 12’s description of the dishonesty and deceitfulness of the wicked.
Verse 4 says that the righteous “despise” the wicked, while they “honor” those who fear the LORD (i.e. the righteous). Interestingly, this also paints a strong contrast with Psalm 12. In Psalm 12, David laments the prevalence of wicked men in society “when vileness is exalted among the sons of men” (Ps 12:8). This paints a picture of the wicked honoring each other and promoting evil values through the culture of David’s time. David says that the righteous should be the opposite of their evil culture, despising the wicked (and by extension, “vileness”) and honoring the righteous.
Lastly, in verses 4-5 David says that the righteous must act with integrity in their business dealings, adhering to Deuteronomy’s prohibitions against lending at interest (Deut 23:19) and taking bribes (Deut 16:19). The end of verse 4 says that the righteous “swears to his own hurt and does not change”, which is another way of saying that when the righteous man swears an oath, he fulfills it without “changing”. This is very similar to a commandment in Deuteronomy that Israelites should fulfill their vows to the LORD (Deut 23:21-23).
Although I can’t draw a direct connection between this psalm and Deuteronomy, it seems like they must at least share a common inspiration and a common moral framework for what defines “good” behavior.
This psalm is interesting because it doesn’t fall into any of the major categories I previously described (prayer, praise, thanksgiving, etc). In a sense, it is hard to see if this psalm really has a “point”. It appears to be purely descriptive, describing the righteous without directly commanding us to behave in the same way. A typical moral treatise is filled with commands, saying, “you should do this” or “you are forbidden to do that”. Deuteronomy itself is a great example, being home to an extensive array of moral prescriptions. Rather than moral commands, this psalm simply describes the righteous. I can only imagine that David assumed we would take these descriptions and seek to emulate them, modeling our behavior after his idealization of the righteous life.
Indeed, his definition of righteousness is so similar to earlier Psalms and Deuteronomy that I can easily find prior references. What’s distinct about this psalm is not so much the content as the descriptive style and phrasing, which has few parallels in earlier texts. Perhaps the closest parallel is Psalm 12 which also follows a mostly descriptive style.
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 14
This psalm is difficult to review. It is a psalm of David, but if we just look at the first verse (as per tradition), this psalm does not easily fit into any of the categories I have described so far. The first verse says, “The fool says in his heart, there is no God”. If we consider psalms to be predominantly prayers for deliverance, or praise and thanksgiving to God, this doesn’t really fit into either category. Overall, this psalm is probably closest to a prayer, but it’s not obviously so.
The only reason I can find to call this a prayer is verse 7, when David asks that “salvation for Israel would come out of Zion”. The vast majority of this psalm is like a complaint about the wicked, which is consistent with the theme defined in v. 1. Verses 1-4 are almost entirely focused on the behavior and thoughts of the wicked. Perhaps the most important part is verse 3 when David says that everyone, in all of mankind, has turned to evil and become “corrupt”.
Broadly speaking, this is one of the core messages of the OT as a whole, and there are few places where it is stated more concisely than here. In Genesis 3, we see that Adam sins and it brings death into the world. This was the beginning of sin and death, or “corruption” to use David’s word. However, that chapter alone does not show that all people forever will follow in Adam’s path and commit sins. Instead, we see the universality of sin as an emerging theme in later books, especially (but not only) in Numbers, Judges and Kings.
In Numbers, we see Israel rebel against God over and over in the wilderness, culminating in God’s judgment that the entire generation of Israel should die in the wilderness, because they rebelled against him and refused to enter the promised land (Numbers 13-14). In Judges, we saw what I called the “Judges cycle”, when Israel would get into sin and idolatry, God would sentence them to foreign domination, they would repent, and then God would send a “judge” to rescue them. And it repeated over and over throughout the book. Lastly, in Kings we see a steady progression of kings leading both Israel and Judah into sin and idolatry, with only a handful of righteous kings resisting the gradual tide sweeping them into first the Assyrian exile for Israel, and then later the Babylonian exile for Judah.
To summarize, the notion of universal sin is broadly demonstrated across the OT, especially in its depictions of Israel, who in spite of their chosen status, reject God repeatedly, rebel against him, commit idolatry, and follow sinful rulers. The destruction of a whole generation in the wilderness is a stark reminder that the entire nation turned away from God, and these are the chosen people! These are the ones who are supposed to be a light to the nations, the redeemed of God. If the chosen people themselves would entirely turn away from God, how much more do the pagans and idolaters turn away from God?
In this psalm, perhaps we can get a sense of David’s frustration with both his own people as well as the wicked men from other nations that stand against him. The language here really feels like complaining. In verse 2 David says that God looks down from heaven to see if there are any good men, but this feels much more like David looking around to see if there are any good men and he obviously doesn’t like what he finds.
In the end, David’s prays for deliverance, but his prayer is forlorn and nearly despairing. David looks for salvation to come from the LORD, but it’s clear that he feels overwhelmed by the darkness that he sees in the world.
The only reason I can find to call this a prayer is verse 7, when David asks that “salvation for Israel would come out of Zion”. The vast majority of this psalm is like a complaint about the wicked, which is consistent with the theme defined in v. 1. Verses 1-4 are almost entirely focused on the behavior and thoughts of the wicked. Perhaps the most important part is verse 3 when David says that everyone, in all of mankind, has turned to evil and become “corrupt”.
Broadly speaking, this is one of the core messages of the OT as a whole, and there are few places where it is stated more concisely than here. In Genesis 3, we see that Adam sins and it brings death into the world. This was the beginning of sin and death, or “corruption” to use David’s word. However, that chapter alone does not show that all people forever will follow in Adam’s path and commit sins. Instead, we see the universality of sin as an emerging theme in later books, especially (but not only) in Numbers, Judges and Kings.
In Numbers, we see Israel rebel against God over and over in the wilderness, culminating in God’s judgment that the entire generation of Israel should die in the wilderness, because they rebelled against him and refused to enter the promised land (Numbers 13-14). In Judges, we saw what I called the “Judges cycle”, when Israel would get into sin and idolatry, God would sentence them to foreign domination, they would repent, and then God would send a “judge” to rescue them. And it repeated over and over throughout the book. Lastly, in Kings we see a steady progression of kings leading both Israel and Judah into sin and idolatry, with only a handful of righteous kings resisting the gradual tide sweeping them into first the Assyrian exile for Israel, and then later the Babylonian exile for Judah.
To summarize, the notion of universal sin is broadly demonstrated across the OT, especially in its depictions of Israel, who in spite of their chosen status, reject God repeatedly, rebel against him, commit idolatry, and follow sinful rulers. The destruction of a whole generation in the wilderness is a stark reminder that the entire nation turned away from God, and these are the chosen people! These are the ones who are supposed to be a light to the nations, the redeemed of God. If the chosen people themselves would entirely turn away from God, how much more do the pagans and idolaters turn away from God?
In this psalm, perhaps we can get a sense of David’s frustration with both his own people as well as the wicked men from other nations that stand against him. The language here really feels like complaining. In verse 2 David says that God looks down from heaven to see if there are any good men, but this feels much more like David looking around to see if there are any good men and he obviously doesn’t like what he finds.
In the end, David’s prays for deliverance, but his prayer is forlorn and nearly despairing. David looks for salvation to come from the LORD, but it’s clear that he feels overwhelmed by the darkness that he sees in the world.
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 13
Psalm 13 is short and simple. Like many other psalms, it is a prayer for deliverance most purely expressed in the repeated phrase, “how long”. The core idea this expresses is David wondering how long before God will deliver him and answer his prayers. It calls itself a psalm of David, which is similar to most of the other early psalms we have read, but it does not give a historical context in the title, so we are left without a specific incident or event that David is praying about.
One thing we can see is the nature of David’s threat. It is “the enemy” (v. 2, 4), though v. 4 also ambiguously references “my adversaries”. The repeated phrase “the enemy” suggests that David may be thinking about Saul, since Saul was indeed David’s main enemy for several years of his life. It is somewhat speculative however, as no adversary is directly named in the body of the psalm. This is consistent with the generic nature of the psalms as a whole, which is a subject I have previously discussed.
Looking at this psalm broadly, we can discern a logical progression through three sections. It opens in verses 1-2 with a modified form of what I call the “problem statement”. It’s modified because David isn’t directly describing the crisis he faces, but I still think it is a form of a problem statement because the essential purpose of these two verses is to justify and explain why God needs to act and how he needs to act. They are ambiguous because the psalm is, I think intentionally, ambiguous about the problem that David is praying about. Like so many psalms, it is ambiguous so that it may be generally applicable and relevant to worshipers throughout time and circumstance, but that generality by definition makes the exact nature of the crisis less clear.
The closest it comes to a specific crisis is at the end of verse 2 when David’s “enemy [is] exalted over me”. However, while this passage lacks specificity, I nevertheless see these verses as the setup for the next section, which is David’s prayer for relief.
The prayer for relief in verses 3-4 is simple and to the point. Like the “help, LORD” of Psalm 12, the prayer in this psalm is “Consider, and answer me, Oh LORD”. He says some other things but I think “answer me” is really the core of this prayer, and I would also say that it is the center of this entire psalm. Especially if you view the three sections as an arc, then the prayer for relief is the central and most important part.
The final section is praise and thanksgiving for deliverance, which we see in verses 5-6. It’s also quite simple; David is rejoicing and singing because God “has dealt bountifully with me”. As with many other prayers, David concludes with thanksgiving under the presumption that God would answer his request and deliver him from the crisis he is now facing.
This structure is very similar to Psalm 10, where I broke the psalm into four parts that follow a very similar trajectory. I only split that psalm into four parts because I described the “problem statement” in two sections. If we consider the psalm to be “problem statement”, “plea for intervention”, and “praise and thanksgiving for resolution”, then both this psalm and Psalm 10 follow identical formulas.
Interestingly, Psalm 10 does not have a title but it is structurally very similar to this psalm, which gives further evidence in my opinion that Psalm 10 may also be a psalm “of David” but with the title missing for historical reasons unrelated to its original composition.
I’m not sure how often we will run into this tri-partite formula for prayer, but it is simple enough that I imagine it will show up at least a few more times in the book of Psalms. With all that said, let’s move on to Psalm 14.
One thing we can see is the nature of David’s threat. It is “the enemy” (v. 2, 4), though v. 4 also ambiguously references “my adversaries”. The repeated phrase “the enemy” suggests that David may be thinking about Saul, since Saul was indeed David’s main enemy for several years of his life. It is somewhat speculative however, as no adversary is directly named in the body of the psalm. This is consistent with the generic nature of the psalms as a whole, which is a subject I have previously discussed.
Looking at this psalm broadly, we can discern a logical progression through three sections. It opens in verses 1-2 with a modified form of what I call the “problem statement”. It’s modified because David isn’t directly describing the crisis he faces, but I still think it is a form of a problem statement because the essential purpose of these two verses is to justify and explain why God needs to act and how he needs to act. They are ambiguous because the psalm is, I think intentionally, ambiguous about the problem that David is praying about. Like so many psalms, it is ambiguous so that it may be generally applicable and relevant to worshipers throughout time and circumstance, but that generality by definition makes the exact nature of the crisis less clear.
The closest it comes to a specific crisis is at the end of verse 2 when David’s “enemy [is] exalted over me”. However, while this passage lacks specificity, I nevertheless see these verses as the setup for the next section, which is David’s prayer for relief.
The prayer for relief in verses 3-4 is simple and to the point. Like the “help, LORD” of Psalm 12, the prayer in this psalm is “Consider, and answer me, Oh LORD”. He says some other things but I think “answer me” is really the core of this prayer, and I would also say that it is the center of this entire psalm. Especially if you view the three sections as an arc, then the prayer for relief is the central and most important part.
The final section is praise and thanksgiving for deliverance, which we see in verses 5-6. It’s also quite simple; David is rejoicing and singing because God “has dealt bountifully with me”. As with many other prayers, David concludes with thanksgiving under the presumption that God would answer his request and deliver him from the crisis he is now facing.
This structure is very similar to Psalm 10, where I broke the psalm into four parts that follow a very similar trajectory. I only split that psalm into four parts because I described the “problem statement” in two sections. If we consider the psalm to be “problem statement”, “plea for intervention”, and “praise and thanksgiving for resolution”, then both this psalm and Psalm 10 follow identical formulas.
Interestingly, Psalm 10 does not have a title but it is structurally very similar to this psalm, which gives further evidence in my opinion that Psalm 10 may also be a psalm “of David” but with the title missing for historical reasons unrelated to its original composition.
I’m not sure how often we will run into this tri-partite formula for prayer, but it is simple enough that I imagine it will show up at least a few more times in the book of Psalms. With all that said, let’s move on to Psalm 14.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 12
It has become my tradition to provide an overview for each psalm by simply studying the first verse. In this case, verse 1 tells us that this is another prayer psalm, it is a psalm of David (from the title), and it expresses David’s concern that the righteous are suffering oppression and “disappearing” from society.
Interestingly, this psalm is almost entirely about words. Verses 2-5 describe the words of the wicked, who use “falsehood” and “flattering” (v. 2) to cause “devastation of the afflicted” (v. 5). It’s interesting because there is no overt description of violence in this entire psalm. We don’t see any murder or assault or whatever; it is only flattering and deceptive words that causes “the groaning of the needy” (v. 5).
In contrast, verses 6-8 describe the words of the LORD, which are pure like silver. Unlike the double-minded words of the wicked, the words of the LORD are trustworthy and dependable. One way this contrast is demonstrated is through the words of the wicked and the words of God in verses 4-5. In verse 4, the wicked speak words of pride, claiming that through their deception they would dominate and conquer others. In verse 5, God replies that he will arise to protect the afflicted. These two verses are put directly next to each other to strengthen the contrast.
I think it’s easy to read this psalm and to understand what David is saying. It is harder to read this psalm and to understand why David is saying it, though. It seems clear from both v. 1 and v. 7-8 that David feels some sense of isolation from the rest of society, and this is reflected both in his sense that the faithful are “disappearing from among the sons of men”, as well as his perception that “the wicked strut about on every side”. It’s as if David feels surrounded by evil men who are lying to him and seeking to betray him, and he is left wondering where are the good and faithful men?
I can’t help but wonder why. Was this song precipitated by a specific event? Did David recently experience some particular betrayal that triggered this emotion in him? Or is this an accurate reflection of the society he lived in and their moral character? This psalm is so emotional that I can’t help but question its objectivity. At the same time, I know that David would not have written this song if he didn’t have some reason to believe in the depravity of his culture at the time.
This psalm, much like the ones before it, highlights God’s role as the righteous judge, and it divides people into the camp of “the godly man” and the lying, deceiving masses (the wicked). In verse 5, we see the LORD arise to judge between these two groups and to deliver the afflicted and needy. That is the role of the righteous judge.
In other ways this psalm differs considerably, however. For one, David seems to be thinking of the wicked as members of his own society, rather than the foreign nations that were criticized in e.g. Psalm 9. It’s also unusual how pervasive the wicked appear to be in this psalm, where they have the godly ones surrounded and seemingly exterminated. There are many psalms where David feels surrounded or at a disadvantage to the wicked, but this is the first one where he seems to believe that the righteous are being wiped out entirely. For instance, in Psalm 11 we see the wicked threatening the righteous, and we see God as the righteous judge, but we don’t see David despairing over the seemingly overwhelming power of the wicked like what we see in this psalm.
In spite of the relatively grim imagery, David also says that God would preserve the righteous in the midst of these challenges. This chapter begins describing God by saying that his words are pure and faultless, but it doesn’t just talk about his words. In verse 7, David goes on to say that God would also preserve the righteous. This is true in both directions. The deceptive lying words are somehow resulting in “the devastation of the afflicted”, while on the other hand the “pure words” of the LORD result in the salvation of the “afflicted” and “needy”. Between these two, the word of God is stronger and prevails over the flattering words of evil men. The end result is at least somewhat hopeful, in keeping with the exaltation of God that we see throughout the bible.
However, the conclusion in v. 8 ends this psalm on a bit of a sour note. In the same way that the first verse is significant in defining the themes and tone of a given psalm, the ending verse is significant because that is the final thought we are left with and take away from the psalm. That’s why so many psalms ends with praise or thanksgiving. This psalm, however, ends with the wicked “strutting about” and “vileness exalted among the sons of men”. Both of these mean that mainstream culture has adopted and honors evil values, and this is obviously not a positive or uplifting conclusion. It’s a somewhat depressing conclusion that closely parallels the depressing introduction, and it sets a negative tone for the psalm as a whole, in spite of the somewhat positive middle section.
In the midst of all this negativity, David’s prayer becomes just one word: “help” (v. 1).
Interestingly, this psalm is almost entirely about words. Verses 2-5 describe the words of the wicked, who use “falsehood” and “flattering” (v. 2) to cause “devastation of the afflicted” (v. 5). It’s interesting because there is no overt description of violence in this entire psalm. We don’t see any murder or assault or whatever; it is only flattering and deceptive words that causes “the groaning of the needy” (v. 5).
In contrast, verses 6-8 describe the words of the LORD, which are pure like silver. Unlike the double-minded words of the wicked, the words of the LORD are trustworthy and dependable. One way this contrast is demonstrated is through the words of the wicked and the words of God in verses 4-5. In verse 4, the wicked speak words of pride, claiming that through their deception they would dominate and conquer others. In verse 5, God replies that he will arise to protect the afflicted. These two verses are put directly next to each other to strengthen the contrast.
I think it’s easy to read this psalm and to understand what David is saying. It is harder to read this psalm and to understand why David is saying it, though. It seems clear from both v. 1 and v. 7-8 that David feels some sense of isolation from the rest of society, and this is reflected both in his sense that the faithful are “disappearing from among the sons of men”, as well as his perception that “the wicked strut about on every side”. It’s as if David feels surrounded by evil men who are lying to him and seeking to betray him, and he is left wondering where are the good and faithful men?
I can’t help but wonder why. Was this song precipitated by a specific event? Did David recently experience some particular betrayal that triggered this emotion in him? Or is this an accurate reflection of the society he lived in and their moral character? This psalm is so emotional that I can’t help but question its objectivity. At the same time, I know that David would not have written this song if he didn’t have some reason to believe in the depravity of his culture at the time.
This psalm, much like the ones before it, highlights God’s role as the righteous judge, and it divides people into the camp of “the godly man” and the lying, deceiving masses (the wicked). In verse 5, we see the LORD arise to judge between these two groups and to deliver the afflicted and needy. That is the role of the righteous judge.
In other ways this psalm differs considerably, however. For one, David seems to be thinking of the wicked as members of his own society, rather than the foreign nations that were criticized in e.g. Psalm 9. It’s also unusual how pervasive the wicked appear to be in this psalm, where they have the godly ones surrounded and seemingly exterminated. There are many psalms where David feels surrounded or at a disadvantage to the wicked, but this is the first one where he seems to believe that the righteous are being wiped out entirely. For instance, in Psalm 11 we see the wicked threatening the righteous, and we see God as the righteous judge, but we don’t see David despairing over the seemingly overwhelming power of the wicked like what we see in this psalm.
In spite of the relatively grim imagery, David also says that God would preserve the righteous in the midst of these challenges. This chapter begins describing God by saying that his words are pure and faultless, but it doesn’t just talk about his words. In verse 7, David goes on to say that God would also preserve the righteous. This is true in both directions. The deceptive lying words are somehow resulting in “the devastation of the afflicted”, while on the other hand the “pure words” of the LORD result in the salvation of the “afflicted” and “needy”. Between these two, the word of God is stronger and prevails over the flattering words of evil men. The end result is at least somewhat hopeful, in keeping with the exaltation of God that we see throughout the bible.
However, the conclusion in v. 8 ends this psalm on a bit of a sour note. In the same way that the first verse is significant in defining the themes and tone of a given psalm, the ending verse is significant because that is the final thought we are left with and take away from the psalm. That’s why so many psalms ends with praise or thanksgiving. This psalm, however, ends with the wicked “strutting about” and “vileness exalted among the sons of men”. Both of these mean that mainstream culture has adopted and honors evil values, and this is obviously not a positive or uplifting conclusion. It’s a somewhat depressing conclusion that closely parallels the depressing introduction, and it sets a negative tone for the psalm as a whole, in spite of the somewhat positive middle section.
In the midst of all this negativity, David’s prayer becomes just one word: “help” (v. 1).
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 11
As with every other psalm, we can begin by studying verse 1 to understand the overall theme and direction of this relatively short, 7-verse psalm. In v. 1, the introduction to this psalm is quite simple: “In the LORD I take refuge”. This leaves the psalm roughly halfway between a prayer and thanksgiving. On the one hand, there is an obvious emphasis on God’s role as protector and his intercession into human affairs. On the other hand, David is not directly requesting help here, so we could also reasonably say that it is thanksgiving for God’s help and not a true prayer.
The rest of the psalm mostly bears this out, though prayer isn’t really emphasized at all, so I think the content is much more oriented around praise and thanksgiving.
That said, this psalm does share some structural similarity with the prayer psalms. More specifically, this psalm is divided into two parts. The first part in verses 1-3 is the problem statement. David is highlighting the difficulty of living in a world with wicked men who are busy committing crimes against the innocent and “upright in heart” (v. 2). David ends this part with a question: “what can the righteous do?”
In a sense, this feels like a very hopeless section. David begins with a question, “How can you say to my soul, Flee”, and he ends with a question, “what can the righteous do?” In both cases, the general tone is, what can a righteous person possibly do in the face of the schemes of wicked men?
The second part in verses 4-7 is David’s attempt to answer those questions, and more generally, answer the “problem statement” or the crisis of evil men acting against the upright and the innocent. That answer is not found in men, and would seem almost a non-sequitur to the modern mind. David’s answer is, “The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD’s throne is in heaven” (v. 4). In a nutshell, this answer is basically that God has sovereign authority and power over the whole earth, and the LORD is the one who will punish the crimes of the wicked and protect the innocent.
In Psalm 10:11, the wicked man says to himself, “God has forgotten… he will not see it”. In v. 4 in this psalm, David’s reply is, “his eyes behold, his eyelids test the sons of men”.
The rest of verses 5-7 are a long and strong declaration that God is the righteous judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked. I’ve described this as the theological background of the OT so many times I’m getting bored of saying it, and yet it continues to be true. In verse 5, David says that God judges between “the righteous and the wicked”, and then proceeds to describe in turn how God punishes the wicked (v. 6) and blesses the righteous (v. 7).
Bringing it back to the opening line, this is the reason why the LORD is David’s refuge. The LORD loves righteousness, the righteous will see his face, and implicitly, David understands himself to be one of the righteous who will receive that blessing. That is the reason for David’s confidence; he is confident in his own integrity before God, and he is confident that God will sincerely bless the righteous ones.
In a sense, David imagines himself as the righteous, who God will bless, and his enemies as the wicked who God will destroy. That is how David takes the relatively abstract theology of God as a judge and makes it personal for himself, especially in light of the crisis presented in v. 1-3. David is asking what the righteous can do, and then he answers: look to God for our deliverance, the destruction of our enemies, and ultimately look to God so that we may see his face.
The rest of the psalm mostly bears this out, though prayer isn’t really emphasized at all, so I think the content is much more oriented around praise and thanksgiving.
That said, this psalm does share some structural similarity with the prayer psalms. More specifically, this psalm is divided into two parts. The first part in verses 1-3 is the problem statement. David is highlighting the difficulty of living in a world with wicked men who are busy committing crimes against the innocent and “upright in heart” (v. 2). David ends this part with a question: “what can the righteous do?”
In a sense, this feels like a very hopeless section. David begins with a question, “How can you say to my soul, Flee”, and he ends with a question, “what can the righteous do?” In both cases, the general tone is, what can a righteous person possibly do in the face of the schemes of wicked men?
The second part in verses 4-7 is David’s attempt to answer those questions, and more generally, answer the “problem statement” or the crisis of evil men acting against the upright and the innocent. That answer is not found in men, and would seem almost a non-sequitur to the modern mind. David’s answer is, “The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD’s throne is in heaven” (v. 4). In a nutshell, this answer is basically that God has sovereign authority and power over the whole earth, and the LORD is the one who will punish the crimes of the wicked and protect the innocent.
In Psalm 10:11, the wicked man says to himself, “God has forgotten… he will not see it”. In v. 4 in this psalm, David’s reply is, “his eyes behold, his eyelids test the sons of men”.
The rest of verses 5-7 are a long and strong declaration that God is the righteous judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked. I’ve described this as the theological background of the OT so many times I’m getting bored of saying it, and yet it continues to be true. In verse 5, David says that God judges between “the righteous and the wicked”, and then proceeds to describe in turn how God punishes the wicked (v. 6) and blesses the righteous (v. 7).
Bringing it back to the opening line, this is the reason why the LORD is David’s refuge. The LORD loves righteousness, the righteous will see his face, and implicitly, David understands himself to be one of the righteous who will receive that blessing. That is the reason for David’s confidence; he is confident in his own integrity before God, and he is confident that God will sincerely bless the righteous ones.
In a sense, David imagines himself as the righteous, who God will bless, and his enemies as the wicked who God will destroy. That is how David takes the relatively abstract theology of God as a judge and makes it personal for himself, especially in light of the crisis presented in v. 1-3. David is asking what the righteous can do, and then he answers: look to God for our deliverance, the destruction of our enemies, and ultimately look to God so that we may see his face.
Monday, November 19, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 10
This psalm immediately breaks from its predecessors by not having a title. Nearly all of the previous psalms, and several following psalms, are attributed as “psalms of David”, generally also with musical directions and specific historical events that the psalm relates to. In this case, it omits the title entirely while remaining largely consistent with the other psalms in general tone and content. From these points, I suspect that this may also be a psalm of David, but where the title was inadvertently removed somehow.
Looking at the structure of this psalm as a whole, then, we can see roughly four parts. It opens with a problem statement: why do the wicked prosper? The second part expands on that problem statement, describing the wickedness of evil men at length, as well as the harm they cause to “innocent” men (v. 8). The third part is the call to action. Having described the harm that innocent men are suffering, the author calls for God to intervene, to protect the afflicted and break the power of the wicked. The fourth and final part is thanksgiving, thanking and praising God for his presumed answer to these prayers.
It is a simple, timeless formula for prayer. For this commentary, I will go into each of the four parts and describe them at greater length.
Beginning with verse 1, the first line of the psalm is the most important. As with the previous psalms we have read, the first line sets the overall theme and direction of the psalm. What v. 1 says in this case is a plea for God to intercede in “times of trouble”. From the rest of the psalm we can see that the author is thinking specifically about the wicked and why God does not punish them. From this perspective “times of trouble” should not be interpreted generically as natural disasters or general stress, but rather as persecution or warfare; basically, human-engineered misery.
The overall tone of this psalm reads very similarly to Job 24, when Job also found himself asking why the wicked prosper and why God did not punish them as their crimes deserve. In fact, Job 24:1 opens with a very similar line of questioning as v. 1 of this psalm. In Job 24:1, Job asks “Why are times not stored up by the Almighty, and why do those who know him not see his days?” Job is asking, when will God bring retribution upon the wicked, the times of judgment that he owes us? Meanwhile, in v. 1 the author of this psalm similarly finds himself questioning God’s apparent passivity in the face of wickedness and the “times of trouble” that wicked people bring.
After raising the question of unpunished wickedness in verse 1, verses 2-11 are an extended description of the behavior and attitude of wicked men, which demand the justice that the author is looking for in v. 1. This is basically the motivation for the author’s prayer. He is saying, “see, Lord, look upon all this evil stuff people are doing.”
I want to point out a few things in this middle section (verses 2-11). First, notice how verse 2 uses the same formula as Psalm 9:15-16 and Psalm 7:15-16, of the wicked man being caught in his own trap (or in this case, “caught in the plots which they have devised”). This is another way that we can see if not shared authorship, then at least shared structure or theology with the other, titled psalms.
Second, notice how this section (and the psalm in general) contains many of the same social justice themes that we see in the other psalms as well as Job. Wickedness is defined in part by pride (see verses 4, 6) but also substantially by social justice crimes like preying on the vulnerable members of society. We see that in v. 2 where the wicked “hotly pursue the afflicted”, v. 9 where they “catch the afflicted”, and verses 8 and 10 where the wicked seek to rob “the unfortunate”; my bible notes that the word “unfortunate” may also be translated “poor”.
Third, one part of this psalm that I find quite unique is the multiple references to what the wicked man “says to himself”. We see the wicked man talking to himself in verses 4, 6 and 11. The relatively consistent theme through all three of these thoughts is the pride of the wicked man, who alternately denies the reality and activity of God, or else exalts himself, claiming his own immortality. Denying God is an important part of wickedness because the essential theology of this psalm (and many other places in the bible like Job) is that God is the judge who punishes the wicked. If you really believed in God, fear of his punishment would keep you from wickedness. Therefore the essential theology is that in order to live an intentionally wicked life, you must either deny that God is real (v. 4), or else deny that God judges wickedness (v. 11). The wicked man in this psalm apparently does both, which is slightly contradictory. Verse 6 does not reference God, but in that case the wicked man is implicitly denying that he would ever be punished for his crimes; otherwise, he would not believe in his own perpetuity.
Having reviewed the evil thoughts and deeds of the wicked, verses 12-15 are pleading for God to act, to remember the suffering ones and to “break the arm of the wicked”, i.e. to break their strength so that they could no longer cause harm. Verse 12 in particular is another chiasmus. It follows an A-B-B-A pattern with “Arise” and “lift up your hand” as pairing elements A in this pattern, and “LORD” and “God” as pairing elements B in this pattern. Verse 12 is one of the most important verses in the psalm because this is really what the prayer is about. It is a call to action, for God to “arise” and act, to overthrow the wicked and protect the righteous.
As a brief aside, I think it is evident that this psalm follows the typical theological framing of God as the righteous judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked. Everything about this psalm is either an expression of the great crimes of the wicked, or a plea for God to remember and “vindicate the orphan and the oppressed” (v. 17). It doesn’t quite frame things as wicked vs. righteous though, it frames things as wicked vs. vulnerable. This is also a typical theological structure and we see strong elements of it in both Deuteronomy (where the vulnerable are the widows, orphans and foreigners), Job (widows and orphans) and here (“the orphan and the oppressed”, v. 17).
The concept of God as a righteous judge and the social justice themes are closely connected because generally speaking, God is perceived as “the judge” who upholds the principles of social justice. In this case, righteousness is effectively defined as protecting the vulnerable and punishing the wicked. This is principally a characteristic of God, but it is a characteristic that people are encouraged to emulate, inasmuch as we also desire to be righteous like God.
I remember in my commentary on Job 24 discussing the similarities between the “protect the vulnerable” moral imperative that is woven through the Pentateuch and a similar moral imperative, largely assigned to God, in Job. Interestingly, Job 24 is also where Job decries the unchecked abuses of the wicked and asks why God does nothing to punish evildoers, which is very similar to this psalm. In the same chapter, Job describes the actions of the evildoers as largely oriented around exploiting the vulnerable classes. We see the same structure here, as the author of this psalm is also asking why God does not act against the wicked, and then describes the wicked in terms of how they oppress the poor and vulnerable classes of society.
In the final section, verses 16-18, the author praises God for destroying “nations… from his land” (v. 16). I think it’s fair to say that this is implying they are the “wicked nations” like who David was railing against in Psalm 9. Verse 17 thanks God for hearing this prayer, and v. 18 concludes that God will help the “orphan and the oppressed”, so that wicked men “will no longer cause terror”. Given the structure of this psalm, I believe that verse 18 is meant to address the question raised in v. 1. In verse 1, the author asked why the LORD does not intervene in “times of trouble”. Here, at the end of the psalm, the author concludes that God would indeed hear “the desire of the humble”, and that he would silence the oppressors who are causing so much “trouble” to begin with. This closes the loop on this psalm and neatly wraps it up by bringing us back to the beginning.
Looking at the structure of this psalm as a whole, then, we can see roughly four parts. It opens with a problem statement: why do the wicked prosper? The second part expands on that problem statement, describing the wickedness of evil men at length, as well as the harm they cause to “innocent” men (v. 8). The third part is the call to action. Having described the harm that innocent men are suffering, the author calls for God to intervene, to protect the afflicted and break the power of the wicked. The fourth and final part is thanksgiving, thanking and praising God for his presumed answer to these prayers.
It is a simple, timeless formula for prayer. For this commentary, I will go into each of the four parts and describe them at greater length.
Beginning with verse 1, the first line of the psalm is the most important. As with the previous psalms we have read, the first line sets the overall theme and direction of the psalm. What v. 1 says in this case is a plea for God to intercede in “times of trouble”. From the rest of the psalm we can see that the author is thinking specifically about the wicked and why God does not punish them. From this perspective “times of trouble” should not be interpreted generically as natural disasters or general stress, but rather as persecution or warfare; basically, human-engineered misery.
The overall tone of this psalm reads very similarly to Job 24, when Job also found himself asking why the wicked prosper and why God did not punish them as their crimes deserve. In fact, Job 24:1 opens with a very similar line of questioning as v. 1 of this psalm. In Job 24:1, Job asks “Why are times not stored up by the Almighty, and why do those who know him not see his days?” Job is asking, when will God bring retribution upon the wicked, the times of judgment that he owes us? Meanwhile, in v. 1 the author of this psalm similarly finds himself questioning God’s apparent passivity in the face of wickedness and the “times of trouble” that wicked people bring.
After raising the question of unpunished wickedness in verse 1, verses 2-11 are an extended description of the behavior and attitude of wicked men, which demand the justice that the author is looking for in v. 1. This is basically the motivation for the author’s prayer. He is saying, “see, Lord, look upon all this evil stuff people are doing.”
I want to point out a few things in this middle section (verses 2-11). First, notice how verse 2 uses the same formula as Psalm 9:15-16 and Psalm 7:15-16, of the wicked man being caught in his own trap (or in this case, “caught in the plots which they have devised”). This is another way that we can see if not shared authorship, then at least shared structure or theology with the other, titled psalms.
Second, notice how this section (and the psalm in general) contains many of the same social justice themes that we see in the other psalms as well as Job. Wickedness is defined in part by pride (see verses 4, 6) but also substantially by social justice crimes like preying on the vulnerable members of society. We see that in v. 2 where the wicked “hotly pursue the afflicted”, v. 9 where they “catch the afflicted”, and verses 8 and 10 where the wicked seek to rob “the unfortunate”; my bible notes that the word “unfortunate” may also be translated “poor”.
Third, one part of this psalm that I find quite unique is the multiple references to what the wicked man “says to himself”. We see the wicked man talking to himself in verses 4, 6 and 11. The relatively consistent theme through all three of these thoughts is the pride of the wicked man, who alternately denies the reality and activity of God, or else exalts himself, claiming his own immortality. Denying God is an important part of wickedness because the essential theology of this psalm (and many other places in the bible like Job) is that God is the judge who punishes the wicked. If you really believed in God, fear of his punishment would keep you from wickedness. Therefore the essential theology is that in order to live an intentionally wicked life, you must either deny that God is real (v. 4), or else deny that God judges wickedness (v. 11). The wicked man in this psalm apparently does both, which is slightly contradictory. Verse 6 does not reference God, but in that case the wicked man is implicitly denying that he would ever be punished for his crimes; otherwise, he would not believe in his own perpetuity.
Having reviewed the evil thoughts and deeds of the wicked, verses 12-15 are pleading for God to act, to remember the suffering ones and to “break the arm of the wicked”, i.e. to break their strength so that they could no longer cause harm. Verse 12 in particular is another chiasmus. It follows an A-B-B-A pattern with “Arise” and “lift up your hand” as pairing elements A in this pattern, and “LORD” and “God” as pairing elements B in this pattern. Verse 12 is one of the most important verses in the psalm because this is really what the prayer is about. It is a call to action, for God to “arise” and act, to overthrow the wicked and protect the righteous.
As a brief aside, I think it is evident that this psalm follows the typical theological framing of God as the righteous judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked. Everything about this psalm is either an expression of the great crimes of the wicked, or a plea for God to remember and “vindicate the orphan and the oppressed” (v. 17). It doesn’t quite frame things as wicked vs. righteous though, it frames things as wicked vs. vulnerable. This is also a typical theological structure and we see strong elements of it in both Deuteronomy (where the vulnerable are the widows, orphans and foreigners), Job (widows and orphans) and here (“the orphan and the oppressed”, v. 17).
The concept of God as a righteous judge and the social justice themes are closely connected because generally speaking, God is perceived as “the judge” who upholds the principles of social justice. In this case, righteousness is effectively defined as protecting the vulnerable and punishing the wicked. This is principally a characteristic of God, but it is a characteristic that people are encouraged to emulate, inasmuch as we also desire to be righteous like God.
I remember in my commentary on Job 24 discussing the similarities between the “protect the vulnerable” moral imperative that is woven through the Pentateuch and a similar moral imperative, largely assigned to God, in Job. Interestingly, Job 24 is also where Job decries the unchecked abuses of the wicked and asks why God does nothing to punish evildoers, which is very similar to this psalm. In the same chapter, Job describes the actions of the evildoers as largely oriented around exploiting the vulnerable classes. We see the same structure here, as the author of this psalm is also asking why God does not act against the wicked, and then describes the wicked in terms of how they oppress the poor and vulnerable classes of society.
In the final section, verses 16-18, the author praises God for destroying “nations… from his land” (v. 16). I think it’s fair to say that this is implying they are the “wicked nations” like who David was railing against in Psalm 9. Verse 17 thanks God for hearing this prayer, and v. 18 concludes that God will help the “orphan and the oppressed”, so that wicked men “will no longer cause terror”. Given the structure of this psalm, I believe that verse 18 is meant to address the question raised in v. 1. In verse 1, the author asked why the LORD does not intervene in “times of trouble”. Here, at the end of the psalm, the author concludes that God would indeed hear “the desire of the humble”, and that he would silence the oppressors who are causing so much “trouble” to begin with. This closes the loop on this psalm and neatly wraps it up by bringing us back to the beginning.
Sunday, November 18, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 9
In many cases, the first verse of each psalm tells us what kind of psalm we are reading. I mentioned how Psalms 3-7 were all prayers for relief, while Psalm 8 is a psalm of praise, declaring the glory of God.
Psalm 9 is also a psalm of praise, which we see in the very first verse: “I will give thanks to the LORD with all my heart; I will tell of all your wonders”. This really sets the tone for the rest of the psalm, and even though it may share common themes with the prayer psalms, the intent is fundamentally different.
Similar to Psalm 8, this psalm also lacks a specific historical context. It is a psalm “of David”, but does not otherwise give us a specific incident when this psalm was composed. It leaves us relatively unmoored from the biblical histories, so instead we must focus our study on the structure and theological content of the psalm.
In terms of content, this psalm places a strong emphasis on God as the righteous judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked. In that sense it shares some parallels with Psalm 7. Rather than asking God to come in and punish the wicked, this psalm is a bit of a past-tense, “thank you God for having destroyed the wicked”, but it nevertheless follows a very similar theological framework. Verses 7-8 in particular highlight God’s role as judge, but the rest of the psalm feels built around the same theme. We see God destroying the wicked in verses 3-6, and on the other hand we see God delivering the oppressed and afflicted in verses 9-14.
What makes this psalm somewhat unique compared to previous descriptions of the “righteous judge” is how this psalm emphasizes God’s judgment as resting upon evil nations. For the most part, previous descriptions of God’s role as the righteous judge describe him destroy wicked individuals. Even Psalm 7 followed that formula, describing at length how an evil man would be destroyed by his own wickedness (Psalm 7:12-16).
In contrast, Psalm 9 seems to be focused almost exclusively on wicked nations. We see this in verses 5, 6 (the “cities” of the wicked imply they are an evil people, not an evil person), 15, 17, 19 and 20. Verse 15 in particular uses the “wicked will fall into their own pit” metaphor that is almost literally identical to Psalm 7:15. The only difference is that Psalm 7:15 talks about an evil person falling into his own pit, while Psalm 9:15 describes “the nations” falling into the pit that they made.
We can infer from this that David likely wrote this psalm in the later half of his life, once he was already king. My intuition is that when Saul was still alive, David would have thought much more about “the evil man” such as Saul and Saul’s men who were trying to kill him. After becoming king, David’s conflicts became much less personal and a lot more focused on fighting wars with the surrounding nations (whom he routinely defeated). It’s not a sure thing, since David did fight against the Philistines even during his exile, and before his exile he was one of Saul’s chief commanders, but the longest period David spent fighting foreign nations was as the king of Israel.
From a theological point of view, this is basically an adaptation of the existing “righteous judge” concept. David takes the idea of God being a righteous judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked, and extends it to God blessing righteous nations and punishing wicked nations. This is a simple idea and we will see it repeatedly throughout the Psalms and later in the prophets as well.
This is not an entirely new idea, however. We can point to several other cases in the bible where God has inflicted punishment for “wickedness” of differing kinds upon nations. The most prominent example is the plagues of Egypt during the Exodus. This was effectively God “judging” or “punishing” the Egyptians collectively for their treatment of the Israelites (collectively). While that is the most prominent example, we could point to many other cases, especially in Pentateuch, when God “punished” offending nations who attacked Judah, or conversely we can occasionally see God punish Judah or Israel for the times when they do things wrong. I’ll point to one example and leave the rest as an exercise for the reader: in Numbers 11, “the people” complained about the trials of desert life and their desire for meat (rather than manna), and God punished them for their collective sin by sending a plague and fire to burn in their midst.
Since I mentioned it, I do think this psalm seems to share characteristics of the Pentateuch, namely the emphasis on nations. So much of the Pentateuch is built around national identity. The covenant, for instance, is called the covenant of Moses but it is not a covenant WITH Moses. Instead, it is a covenant between Israel, as a nation, and God. The plagues I mentioned struck Egypt, God’s dealings with Israel in the desert generally (but not always) involved national sins and corresponding national punishments. For instance, the twelve spies entered the promised land and came back with a bad report, but it is the nation was wept and “the whole congregation” criticized Moses and planned to return to Egypt (Numbers 14:1-5).
At the same time, the enemies of Israel are also nations. The nations of the promised land are one of the most commonly recited lists: the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites and so on (Exodus 23:23, Deut 7:1 and others). To state the obvious, these are not individual people; these are nations set in opposition to the Israelites, and by framing things in these ways the conflict is framed as a conflict between nations. The justification for this invasion was partially a blessing for Abraham (the righteous man of faith), but also partially a punishment for “the sin of the Amorites” who were previously dwelling in the land (Gen 15:16).
While this isn’t exactly identical to calling God a righteous judge who judges between good and bad nations, it does show in some cases God blessing good nations and punishing evil ones, in much the same way that we see God treat individuals in e.g. Job. Another great example of this is the grand dichotomy of Deut 28, when Moses lays out blessings and curses before the people based on their conduct. Once again these are national blessings or curses based on national behavior, not something that devolves to the individual (though we can possibly reason that there was a similar scheme at the individual level). The whole system of Deuteronomy is fundamentally predicated on group behavior, group rewards and group punishment, both for Israel and for the foreign nations. Psalm 9 takes it in a different direction compared to Deuteronomy, but I think it’s fair to say they are both starting in the same place and both put God in a very similar role as judge of the nations.
This psalm is pretty dense so it would take me a lot longer to unpack everything. I’ve already written at some length however, so I will conclude with one final point. One other broad theme of this psalm appears to be the subject of remembrance and memory. In verses 5-6, David says that the punishment of the wicked is the destruction of their “name” and their “memory”. In contrast, verse 7 says that God lives forever and in verse 12 God remembers the oppressed (“he does not forget the cry of the afflicted”).
In verse 17, it is the wicked who forget God, though ironically they will be the ones forgotten by the world (v. 5-6). In contrast, while the wicked forget God, God remembers the needy and afflicted, who are being oppressed by evil nations (v. 18). So basically the punishment of the wicked is that they will be forgotten by everyone (after they are destroyed), while God remembers the oppressed (who will be saved). At the same time, the wicked forget God and that is part of their crime (because they have no shame or fear to do what is right). So uhh, yeah, it’s kinda complicated, but that is basically what’s going on here. :) Let’s move on to Psalm 10.
Psalm 9 is also a psalm of praise, which we see in the very first verse: “I will give thanks to the LORD with all my heart; I will tell of all your wonders”. This really sets the tone for the rest of the psalm, and even though it may share common themes with the prayer psalms, the intent is fundamentally different.
Similar to Psalm 8, this psalm also lacks a specific historical context. It is a psalm “of David”, but does not otherwise give us a specific incident when this psalm was composed. It leaves us relatively unmoored from the biblical histories, so instead we must focus our study on the structure and theological content of the psalm.
In terms of content, this psalm places a strong emphasis on God as the righteous judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked. In that sense it shares some parallels with Psalm 7. Rather than asking God to come in and punish the wicked, this psalm is a bit of a past-tense, “thank you God for having destroyed the wicked”, but it nevertheless follows a very similar theological framework. Verses 7-8 in particular highlight God’s role as judge, but the rest of the psalm feels built around the same theme. We see God destroying the wicked in verses 3-6, and on the other hand we see God delivering the oppressed and afflicted in verses 9-14.
What makes this psalm somewhat unique compared to previous descriptions of the “righteous judge” is how this psalm emphasizes God’s judgment as resting upon evil nations. For the most part, previous descriptions of God’s role as the righteous judge describe him destroy wicked individuals. Even Psalm 7 followed that formula, describing at length how an evil man would be destroyed by his own wickedness (Psalm 7:12-16).
In contrast, Psalm 9 seems to be focused almost exclusively on wicked nations. We see this in verses 5, 6 (the “cities” of the wicked imply they are an evil people, not an evil person), 15, 17, 19 and 20. Verse 15 in particular uses the “wicked will fall into their own pit” metaphor that is almost literally identical to Psalm 7:15. The only difference is that Psalm 7:15 talks about an evil person falling into his own pit, while Psalm 9:15 describes “the nations” falling into the pit that they made.
We can infer from this that David likely wrote this psalm in the later half of his life, once he was already king. My intuition is that when Saul was still alive, David would have thought much more about “the evil man” such as Saul and Saul’s men who were trying to kill him. After becoming king, David’s conflicts became much less personal and a lot more focused on fighting wars with the surrounding nations (whom he routinely defeated). It’s not a sure thing, since David did fight against the Philistines even during his exile, and before his exile he was one of Saul’s chief commanders, but the longest period David spent fighting foreign nations was as the king of Israel.
From a theological point of view, this is basically an adaptation of the existing “righteous judge” concept. David takes the idea of God being a righteous judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked, and extends it to God blessing righteous nations and punishing wicked nations. This is a simple idea and we will see it repeatedly throughout the Psalms and later in the prophets as well.
This is not an entirely new idea, however. We can point to several other cases in the bible where God has inflicted punishment for “wickedness” of differing kinds upon nations. The most prominent example is the plagues of Egypt during the Exodus. This was effectively God “judging” or “punishing” the Egyptians collectively for their treatment of the Israelites (collectively). While that is the most prominent example, we could point to many other cases, especially in Pentateuch, when God “punished” offending nations who attacked Judah, or conversely we can occasionally see God punish Judah or Israel for the times when they do things wrong. I’ll point to one example and leave the rest as an exercise for the reader: in Numbers 11, “the people” complained about the trials of desert life and their desire for meat (rather than manna), and God punished them for their collective sin by sending a plague and fire to burn in their midst.
Since I mentioned it, I do think this psalm seems to share characteristics of the Pentateuch, namely the emphasis on nations. So much of the Pentateuch is built around national identity. The covenant, for instance, is called the covenant of Moses but it is not a covenant WITH Moses. Instead, it is a covenant between Israel, as a nation, and God. The plagues I mentioned struck Egypt, God’s dealings with Israel in the desert generally (but not always) involved national sins and corresponding national punishments. For instance, the twelve spies entered the promised land and came back with a bad report, but it is the nation was wept and “the whole congregation” criticized Moses and planned to return to Egypt (Numbers 14:1-5).
At the same time, the enemies of Israel are also nations. The nations of the promised land are one of the most commonly recited lists: the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites and so on (Exodus 23:23, Deut 7:1 and others). To state the obvious, these are not individual people; these are nations set in opposition to the Israelites, and by framing things in these ways the conflict is framed as a conflict between nations. The justification for this invasion was partially a blessing for Abraham (the righteous man of faith), but also partially a punishment for “the sin of the Amorites” who were previously dwelling in the land (Gen 15:16).
While this isn’t exactly identical to calling God a righteous judge who judges between good and bad nations, it does show in some cases God blessing good nations and punishing evil ones, in much the same way that we see God treat individuals in e.g. Job. Another great example of this is the grand dichotomy of Deut 28, when Moses lays out blessings and curses before the people based on their conduct. Once again these are national blessings or curses based on national behavior, not something that devolves to the individual (though we can possibly reason that there was a similar scheme at the individual level). The whole system of Deuteronomy is fundamentally predicated on group behavior, group rewards and group punishment, both for Israel and for the foreign nations. Psalm 9 takes it in a different direction compared to Deuteronomy, but I think it’s fair to say they are both starting in the same place and both put God in a very similar role as judge of the nations.
This psalm is pretty dense so it would take me a lot longer to unpack everything. I’ve already written at some length however, so I will conclude with one final point. One other broad theme of this psalm appears to be the subject of remembrance and memory. In verses 5-6, David says that the punishment of the wicked is the destruction of their “name” and their “memory”. In contrast, verse 7 says that God lives forever and in verse 12 God remembers the oppressed (“he does not forget the cry of the afflicted”).
In verse 17, it is the wicked who forget God, though ironically they will be the ones forgotten by the world (v. 5-6). In contrast, while the wicked forget God, God remembers the needy and afflicted, who are being oppressed by evil nations (v. 18). So basically the punishment of the wicked is that they will be forgotten by everyone (after they are destroyed), while God remembers the oppressed (who will be saved). At the same time, the wicked forget God and that is part of their crime (because they have no shame or fear to do what is right). So uhh, yeah, it’s kinda complicated, but that is basically what’s going on here. :) Let’s move on to Psalm 10.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 8
This psalm breaks sharply from the tone and content of the preceding five psalms. Each one of those psalms was a prayer for deliverance from David’s enemies. We see several of these psalms opening with requests for the LORD’s audience, and it really defines that particular genre. Psalm 8, in contrast, is a psalm of praise through and through.
Psalm 8 is a psalm “of David”, but it is not contextualized into any specific time or occasion. Prayers or petitions are often tied to specific occasions because the prayer itself is for God to change one’s circumstances relating to a specific need or crisis. In contrast, praise is timeless.
Structurally, this psalm begins and ends with the same refrain, that God’s name is majestic and should be honored in the whole world. In my opinion, the primary thought of this psalm is expressed in verses 3-8. Verses 1 and 9 are the refrain, which expresses the purpose of this psalm as one of praise.
The core message of verses 3-8 contains two related ideas. The first is the grandeur of creation. Verse 3 states it outright, eloquently phrasing David’s awe at the glory of the heavens. Verses 7-8 express David’s awe in a more circumspect way, but I think it’s still there. The second idea is that God has chosen to place man as the master and center of creation. We are the deputy of God in the same way that Joseph was the deputy of Pharaoh.
This psalm expresses David’s surprise and awe by contrasting the weakness and smallness of man against the greatness and glory of creation. This is the central dichotomy of verses 3-4, where creation is this glorious, beautiful thing and yet “what is man” that God would pay attention to us?
Yet in spite of this, God has elevated us to be rulers of all creation. This raises a number of interesting questions.
Why does David think that man is the lord of creation? This is actually quite a new thought that does not have many parallels in the rest of the OT. Generally speaking, the theology of the OT tends to emphasize the lordship and greatness of God over all creation, not the lordship of man. For instance, consider God’s response to Job in Job 39-41. In those chapters, God was challenging Job specifically on his LACK of mastery over creation. The behemoth and leviathan are both specifically named as creations that man can neither kill nor tame, and by extension that creation itself is uncontrollable and untameable by man.
Elsewhere, we see famines and droughts striking Israel repeatedly, seemingly beyond their control and yet within God’s control. For instance, when Elijah prayed to end the drought in 1 Kings 18, it was very much at God’s direction (1 Kings 18:1). Furthermore, Elijah’s prayer itself demonstrates a subservience and dependency on God to change the weather, rather than Elijah showing mastery or lordship over it (1 Kings 18:42-43). A remarkable miracle, but one flowing from God’s power and lordship, not Elijah’s.
In contrast, this psalm imagines man as “ruling over the works of your hands” (v. 6). The closest prior evidence we have for man’s lordship is, in my opinion, Genesis 1-2 when God creates man, places us in the garden and commands us to fill the earth and subdue it. Man was also made last in the creation narrative, on the sixth day, and in that regard also stands as the greatest and most important part of creation.
I wonder if David was thinking about the creation story when he wrote this psalm? If not, what was his inspiration? It is possible this psalm is simply prophetic, establishing a new theological principle out of David’s direct revelation from God. Or, like I mentioned previously, it is taking from early Genesis a theological framework in which man is the center of creation. Either way, it is quite distinct from the rest of the OT in this regard, and very important for that reason.
Astute readers may notice that I skipped over verse 2. The reason why is that compared to the rest of the psalm, verse 2 doesn’t really fit in. It helps establish the overall tone of praise and the greatness of creation, but I still find it perplexing. In what way has God brought praise (or strength, depending on the translation) out of the mouths of infants? Even more importantly, who are the adversaries and enemies that are supposed to be ashamed or silenced by this? It doesn’t make much sense, and it fits in with the later themes even less.
As I often do in moments of confusion, I checked my NIV study bible to see what theologians have to say about this verse. Unfortunately, in this case my study bible was not much help. They pointed out the interesting contrast between the greatness and glory of God and the weakness of the children who praise him, as well as the irony of children and infants being the ones who silence “the enemy”. However, they have little insight into the nature of these enemies or how it relates to the broader themes of this psalm. They suggest the enemies could possibly be demonic forces, but have little evidence to justify that position, so unfortunately I think I will remain confused about this point. If my readers can offer additional insight, feel free to comment below.
Psalm 8 is a psalm “of David”, but it is not contextualized into any specific time or occasion. Prayers or petitions are often tied to specific occasions because the prayer itself is for God to change one’s circumstances relating to a specific need or crisis. In contrast, praise is timeless.
Structurally, this psalm begins and ends with the same refrain, that God’s name is majestic and should be honored in the whole world. In my opinion, the primary thought of this psalm is expressed in verses 3-8. Verses 1 and 9 are the refrain, which expresses the purpose of this psalm as one of praise.
The core message of verses 3-8 contains two related ideas. The first is the grandeur of creation. Verse 3 states it outright, eloquently phrasing David’s awe at the glory of the heavens. Verses 7-8 express David’s awe in a more circumspect way, but I think it’s still there. The second idea is that God has chosen to place man as the master and center of creation. We are the deputy of God in the same way that Joseph was the deputy of Pharaoh.
This psalm expresses David’s surprise and awe by contrasting the weakness and smallness of man against the greatness and glory of creation. This is the central dichotomy of verses 3-4, where creation is this glorious, beautiful thing and yet “what is man” that God would pay attention to us?
Yet in spite of this, God has elevated us to be rulers of all creation. This raises a number of interesting questions.
Why does David think that man is the lord of creation? This is actually quite a new thought that does not have many parallels in the rest of the OT. Generally speaking, the theology of the OT tends to emphasize the lordship and greatness of God over all creation, not the lordship of man. For instance, consider God’s response to Job in Job 39-41. In those chapters, God was challenging Job specifically on his LACK of mastery over creation. The behemoth and leviathan are both specifically named as creations that man can neither kill nor tame, and by extension that creation itself is uncontrollable and untameable by man.
Elsewhere, we see famines and droughts striking Israel repeatedly, seemingly beyond their control and yet within God’s control. For instance, when Elijah prayed to end the drought in 1 Kings 18, it was very much at God’s direction (1 Kings 18:1). Furthermore, Elijah’s prayer itself demonstrates a subservience and dependency on God to change the weather, rather than Elijah showing mastery or lordship over it (1 Kings 18:42-43). A remarkable miracle, but one flowing from God’s power and lordship, not Elijah’s.
In contrast, this psalm imagines man as “ruling over the works of your hands” (v. 6). The closest prior evidence we have for man’s lordship is, in my opinion, Genesis 1-2 when God creates man, places us in the garden and commands us to fill the earth and subdue it. Man was also made last in the creation narrative, on the sixth day, and in that regard also stands as the greatest and most important part of creation.
I wonder if David was thinking about the creation story when he wrote this psalm? If not, what was his inspiration? It is possible this psalm is simply prophetic, establishing a new theological principle out of David’s direct revelation from God. Or, like I mentioned previously, it is taking from early Genesis a theological framework in which man is the center of creation. Either way, it is quite distinct from the rest of the OT in this regard, and very important for that reason.
Astute readers may notice that I skipped over verse 2. The reason why is that compared to the rest of the psalm, verse 2 doesn’t really fit in. It helps establish the overall tone of praise and the greatness of creation, but I still find it perplexing. In what way has God brought praise (or strength, depending on the translation) out of the mouths of infants? Even more importantly, who are the adversaries and enemies that are supposed to be ashamed or silenced by this? It doesn’t make much sense, and it fits in with the later themes even less.
As I often do in moments of confusion, I checked my NIV study bible to see what theologians have to say about this verse. Unfortunately, in this case my study bible was not much help. They pointed out the interesting contrast between the greatness and glory of God and the weakness of the children who praise him, as well as the irony of children and infants being the ones who silence “the enemy”. However, they have little insight into the nature of these enemies or how it relates to the broader themes of this psalm. They suggest the enemies could possibly be demonic forces, but have little evidence to justify that position, so unfortunately I think I will remain confused about this point. If my readers can offer additional insight, feel free to comment below.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 7
In this psalm, the title once again gives us a specific situational context for this prayer of deliverance, when David fought with a Benjamite named Cush.
Similar to the previous contextualized psalms we have seen, the text does not make any specific references to the event that it supposedly commemorates. Furthermore, I should add that the person called “Cush, a Benjamite” is not referenced anywhere in Samuel or Chronicles, meaning that this conflict is not in the recorded biblical history. It suggests that this psalm, or the events it describes, likely come from a separate historical tradition such as the book of the kings of Judah or one of the other lost books of Israelite history. Alternatively, perhaps this psalm was itself written by David or one of David’s contemporaries about a specific event that was simply never recorded. It’s tough to say.
As I mentioned, this psalm tends towards the general pattern of referencing a specific event in the title, but then the text of the psalm is decontextualized, presumably to make it more generic and relatable to future readers such as ourselves.
Even though we do not know anything else about Cush, we can compare this psalm to David’s recorded history to figure out a reasonable window for when this conflict may have occurred. David’s greatest conflict with Benjamin was during the reign of Saul, who was himself a Benjamite and garnered strong support from his relatives. During Saul’s reign, Saul employed his army specifically to find and kill David, who was hiding in the wilderness. It is easy to imagine roving groups of Benjamite soldiers hunting for David in this context, and this psalm may be referring to a specific battle or chase during that time period.
A secondary possible window is during David’s conflict with Ish-Bosheth, who was Saul’s son and briefly reigned as king after Saul’s death. The Ish-Bosheth period is somewhat less likely because David was much stronger after the death of Saul and while David was certainly still fighting the Benjamites, his stronger position would reduce the urgency of his prayers and petitions such as this psalm. That said, since the psalm doesn’t really touch on any of these events, the specific historical context doesn’t change our interpretation meaningfully.
Reviewing the content of this psalm, my first reaction is that it has a strong emphasis on God as the righteous judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked, similar to the theological context of Job.
In verses 1-2 David first prays for relief, but then in verses 3-5 we can see David affirming that God’s deliverance can and should be conditional on David’s righteous behavior. David believes that any injustice or evil he may have performed would disqualify him for God’s support.
In verse 8 there is a similar theme, with David seeking “vindication”, i.e. that God’s deliverance would prove to everyone his righteous and innocent character.
Verses 6-11 repeatedly highlight God’s role as the “righteous judge… who saves the upright”. There are a few references to the wicked in this block but the main emphasis is on God’s treatment of the righteous, who are “saved”, “vindicated” and “established”.
Meanwhile, verses 12-16 suggest that the wicked are busy making lots of dangerous weapons and traps, but in the end they find themselves caught in the trap they were preparing for someone else; he “has fallen into the hole which he made” (v. 15). This kind of justice is intentionally ironic, mostly based on the self-destructive tendencies of sin and wickedness. It is exemplified by a wicked man digging a pit to trap someone else, but then falling into his own trap.
One obvious parallel elsewhere in the bible is the story of Haman, who constructed a gallows with which to kill Mordecai, but ended up being hanged on his own gallows (Esther 7:9-10). This framework emphasizes the agency of the wicked person himself being responsible for his own downfall. However, since it’s placed within the larger narrative of God as the righteous judge, we can infer that God is somehow involved behind the scenes. Once again the parallel to Esther is quite apt because in the book of Esther, God is never mentioned even once, and yet we are left imagining that there, too, God was a driving force behind the scenes bringing about so many “ironic” outcomes such as Haman’s death on his own gallows. More generally, Esther as a whole reinforces the notion that God blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked, and we see that through the inversion of fates throughout the story, as the wicked Haman is brought from greatness to destruction, while the righteous Esther and Mordecai are exalted from slavery into royalty.
Esther is clearly a post-exilic book, while the book of Job is generally considered one of the oldest books in the bible. Yet between them, the theological framework is very consistent as both books imagine God to be an enforcer of heavenly justice that aligns happiness and material prosperity with one’s inner moral condition. This psalm has the same theological framework and therefore shares elements with both books.
Similar to the previous contextualized psalms we have seen, the text does not make any specific references to the event that it supposedly commemorates. Furthermore, I should add that the person called “Cush, a Benjamite” is not referenced anywhere in Samuel or Chronicles, meaning that this conflict is not in the recorded biblical history. It suggests that this psalm, or the events it describes, likely come from a separate historical tradition such as the book of the kings of Judah or one of the other lost books of Israelite history. Alternatively, perhaps this psalm was itself written by David or one of David’s contemporaries about a specific event that was simply never recorded. It’s tough to say.
As I mentioned, this psalm tends towards the general pattern of referencing a specific event in the title, but then the text of the psalm is decontextualized, presumably to make it more generic and relatable to future readers such as ourselves.
Even though we do not know anything else about Cush, we can compare this psalm to David’s recorded history to figure out a reasonable window for when this conflict may have occurred. David’s greatest conflict with Benjamin was during the reign of Saul, who was himself a Benjamite and garnered strong support from his relatives. During Saul’s reign, Saul employed his army specifically to find and kill David, who was hiding in the wilderness. It is easy to imagine roving groups of Benjamite soldiers hunting for David in this context, and this psalm may be referring to a specific battle or chase during that time period.
A secondary possible window is during David’s conflict with Ish-Bosheth, who was Saul’s son and briefly reigned as king after Saul’s death. The Ish-Bosheth period is somewhat less likely because David was much stronger after the death of Saul and while David was certainly still fighting the Benjamites, his stronger position would reduce the urgency of his prayers and petitions such as this psalm. That said, since the psalm doesn’t really touch on any of these events, the specific historical context doesn’t change our interpretation meaningfully.
Reviewing the content of this psalm, my first reaction is that it has a strong emphasis on God as the righteous judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked, similar to the theological context of Job.
In verses 1-2 David first prays for relief, but then in verses 3-5 we can see David affirming that God’s deliverance can and should be conditional on David’s righteous behavior. David believes that any injustice or evil he may have performed would disqualify him for God’s support.
In verse 8 there is a similar theme, with David seeking “vindication”, i.e. that God’s deliverance would prove to everyone his righteous and innocent character.
Verses 6-11 repeatedly highlight God’s role as the “righteous judge… who saves the upright”. There are a few references to the wicked in this block but the main emphasis is on God’s treatment of the righteous, who are “saved”, “vindicated” and “established”.
Meanwhile, verses 12-16 suggest that the wicked are busy making lots of dangerous weapons and traps, but in the end they find themselves caught in the trap they were preparing for someone else; he “has fallen into the hole which he made” (v. 15). This kind of justice is intentionally ironic, mostly based on the self-destructive tendencies of sin and wickedness. It is exemplified by a wicked man digging a pit to trap someone else, but then falling into his own trap.
One obvious parallel elsewhere in the bible is the story of Haman, who constructed a gallows with which to kill Mordecai, but ended up being hanged on his own gallows (Esther 7:9-10). This framework emphasizes the agency of the wicked person himself being responsible for his own downfall. However, since it’s placed within the larger narrative of God as the righteous judge, we can infer that God is somehow involved behind the scenes. Once again the parallel to Esther is quite apt because in the book of Esther, God is never mentioned even once, and yet we are left imagining that there, too, God was a driving force behind the scenes bringing about so many “ironic” outcomes such as Haman’s death on his own gallows. More generally, Esther as a whole reinforces the notion that God blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked, and we see that through the inversion of fates throughout the story, as the wicked Haman is brought from greatness to destruction, while the righteous Esther and Mordecai are exalted from slavery into royalty.
Esther is clearly a post-exilic book, while the book of Job is generally considered one of the oldest books in the bible. Yet between them, the theological framework is very consistent as both books imagine God to be an enforcer of heavenly justice that aligns happiness and material prosperity with one’s inner moral condition. This psalm has the same theological framework and therefore shares elements with both books.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 6
This psalm is another prayer of David, and it maintains the rather generic tone of the prayers so far. We can sense that David has perhaps sinned in some way, such that he pleads for mercy and for God to withhold his wrath (v. 1-2).
Otherwise, the rest of the psalm seems like a prayer for relief from whatever is distressing him, and it doesn’t really get any more specific than that. Verse 7 gives us a hint that David is concerned about “his adversaries” and verse 10 refers to “his enemies”. This suggests that David’s prayer has something to do with political or military opponents of some kind. David had many of them over many years, from foreign kings to his own sons trying to usurp the throne.
Besides that, the only clear message we really get here is David’s grief. David is “dismayed” (v. 2-3) and swimming in a bed of tears (v. 6-7).
Structurally, this psalm follows a progression through three different thoughts. The first thought in verses 1-5 is David’s core prayer. This is where David is asking for the LORD’s assistance. Notice the recurring use of the LORD’s name five consecutive times, opening each of five consecutive couplets beginning in verse 1. He says, “Be gracious to me, oh LORD”, “heal me, oh LORD”, “but you, oh LORD”, “return, oh LORD”. This is the structural backbone of the prayer, with repeated invocations of the divine name and pleas for mercy, healing and the LORD’s presence to return to him.
In verse 5, he gives more or less the rationale for his prayer; if God does not save him and David dies, then David would not be able to praise God in sheol, therefore denying God the honor and praise that he deserves. This is an interesting twist on the more common “save us for your name’s sake” that we saw in e.g. Exodus or Numbers when Moses was praying for God’s mercy towards Israel. It’s a similar concept in that David is appealing for mercy not for his own sake, but for the sake of God’s glory.
The second thought is David’s expression of personal grief, in verses 6-7. This is perhaps the nadir of the psalm when David reaches his lowest moment. This is also the moment that stands between his prayer requested and his prayer granted. We could also possibly group this together with verse 5 and call this “the why”. Why should God grant David his request? And his answer is first, for your glory, and second, to assuage his grief and suffering at his present circumstances.
The third and final thought is the prayer granted, in verses 8-10. This is when David asserts that “the LORD has heard the voice of my weeping”, and as a consequence all of David’s enemies will be ashamed and embarrassed by their sudden defeat whenever God presumably comes in and strikes them down.
This final section also has a brief chiasmus. It begins with, “depart from me all you who do iniquity”. Then it has three statements asserting that God hears David, and then it concludes with David’s enemies being ashamed and depending on your translation, it may also say that they “turn back”. This is another A-B-A pattern where it begins by talking about David’s enemies, then in the middle is David’s answered prayer, and then in the end it talks about David’s enemies.
Otherwise, the rest of the psalm seems like a prayer for relief from whatever is distressing him, and it doesn’t really get any more specific than that. Verse 7 gives us a hint that David is concerned about “his adversaries” and verse 10 refers to “his enemies”. This suggests that David’s prayer has something to do with political or military opponents of some kind. David had many of them over many years, from foreign kings to his own sons trying to usurp the throne.
Besides that, the only clear message we really get here is David’s grief. David is “dismayed” (v. 2-3) and swimming in a bed of tears (v. 6-7).
Structurally, this psalm follows a progression through three different thoughts. The first thought in verses 1-5 is David’s core prayer. This is where David is asking for the LORD’s assistance. Notice the recurring use of the LORD’s name five consecutive times, opening each of five consecutive couplets beginning in verse 1. He says, “Be gracious to me, oh LORD”, “heal me, oh LORD”, “but you, oh LORD”, “return, oh LORD”. This is the structural backbone of the prayer, with repeated invocations of the divine name and pleas for mercy, healing and the LORD’s presence to return to him.
In verse 5, he gives more or less the rationale for his prayer; if God does not save him and David dies, then David would not be able to praise God in sheol, therefore denying God the honor and praise that he deserves. This is an interesting twist on the more common “save us for your name’s sake” that we saw in e.g. Exodus or Numbers when Moses was praying for God’s mercy towards Israel. It’s a similar concept in that David is appealing for mercy not for his own sake, but for the sake of God’s glory.
The second thought is David’s expression of personal grief, in verses 6-7. This is perhaps the nadir of the psalm when David reaches his lowest moment. This is also the moment that stands between his prayer requested and his prayer granted. We could also possibly group this together with verse 5 and call this “the why”. Why should God grant David his request? And his answer is first, for your glory, and second, to assuage his grief and suffering at his present circumstances.
The third and final thought is the prayer granted, in verses 8-10. This is when David asserts that “the LORD has heard the voice of my weeping”, and as a consequence all of David’s enemies will be ashamed and embarrassed by their sudden defeat whenever God presumably comes in and strikes them down.
This final section also has a brief chiasmus. It begins with, “depart from me all you who do iniquity”. Then it has three statements asserting that God hears David, and then it concludes with David’s enemies being ashamed and depending on your translation, it may also say that they “turn back”. This is another A-B-A pattern where it begins by talking about David’s enemies, then in the middle is David’s answered prayer, and then in the end it talks about David’s enemies.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 5
My NIV bible called the previous psalm the “evening prayer”, because of its references to sleep and rest. Psalm 4 also shares “restfulness” as a theme with Psalm 3, so they could both perhaps be considered “evening prayers”. Psalm 5, in contrast, is a “morning prayer”. We see in verse 3, and only verse 3, an emphasis on morning prayer. This is again thin evidence; if we removed verse 3 from the psalm there would be no other reason at all to call this a “morning prayer”. That said, it is possible that ancient Israelites would take verse 3 as reason enough to sing this in the morning, probably as part of the temple worship service, or more specifically the morning sacrifice.
As mentioned, the content of this psalm as a whole has very little to do with the “morning” thematically or otherwise. Instead, this seems like yet another prayer of David, beginning with a fairly standard prayer invocation asking for God to consider his request.
Verses 1-3 are the “standard invocation” where David is setting the stage for his request to God. The core message begins in verse 4 through verse 10.
This psalm follows a poetic structure called “chiasmus”. It’s something I discussed a long time ago beginning in Genesis 1 I think, but repeated in many other places. This psalm is clearly another chiasmus. A chiasmus is any place where the material follows an “A-B-B-A” or “A-B-A” pattern, where there is a balanced symmetry in the text (whether in concepts or actual word usage).
In this psalm, the chiasmus begins in verses 4-6 with a description of the wicked. David lists many different kinds of sins that God “hates”, “destroys” and “abhors” amongst other things. Then in verses 7, David contrasts these sins of the wicked with God’s blessing and love poured out on the righteous. We see that God hates the wicked, but the righteous are safe to enter into God’s temple, to bow before him. This contrast highlights the differences between the righteous and the wicked in terms of how God reacts to them. We see that God hates the wicked but blesses the righteous, and this is seen by God’s response to sin and righteous deeds.
Verse 8 continues his remarks on the righteous, but reframes God’s blessing in terms of God’s leadership, that God would “lead” David and “make his way straight”.
Continuing in verse 9-10, the chiasmus is completed by returning to descriptions of the wicked. This time, the wicked are described by their falsehood, which is essentially a kind of false leadership. Through their lies and flattery, they guide themselves and others into the “open grave” (v. 9). This is drawing a contrast with God’s leadership, where David is petitioning God to lead him on the straight path, which we assume is a path to life and good things.
So there are basically two patterns in this part of the psalm. The first pattern is the A-B-B-A chiasmus where David describes the wicked, then the righteous, and then returns to descriptions of the wicked again. This places the righteous in the middle, as though they are surrounded by wickedness on all sides. However, being in the center means that the righteous are also placed at the thematic center of this psalm, with the greatest emphasis on God’s blessings that are prepared for the righteous.
The second pattern is how the chiasmus is composed of two distinct halves. The first half from verses 4-7 describes God’s reaction to good and evil deeds. The evil are “abhor”ed or “destroy”ed, while the righteous are brought into God’s presence. The second half from verses 8-10 contrasts the “straight” path of the righteous, who are led by God, against the crooked lies of the wicked, who lead themselves to death and destruction.
The split between the first half and second half corresponds exactly with the middle point of the chiasmus. It’s really a beautiful poem.
The psalm concludes in verses 11-12, which don’t fit the chiastic structure, so that’s why I ignored them until now. This conclusion returns to God’s blessings for the righteous. It has two interlocking ideas. The first is that God is a “refuge”, “shelter” and “shield” for the righteous, emphasizing the concept of God’s protection over us. The second is that we can “sing for joy” and “exult” in God, emphasizing the concept of celebration and praise for God. These two concepts alternate in an A-B-A-B pattern, which is also common in Hebrew poetry.
In conclusion, this psalm feels like an encouragement to the righteous. It feels like David is encouraging us to continue with righteousness knowing that God will bless us, draw us into his presence, lead us on a straight path to good things, and in conclusion that God would be our shield in whom we can rejoice. Amen! :)
As mentioned, the content of this psalm as a whole has very little to do with the “morning” thematically or otherwise. Instead, this seems like yet another prayer of David, beginning with a fairly standard prayer invocation asking for God to consider his request.
Verses 1-3 are the “standard invocation” where David is setting the stage for his request to God. The core message begins in verse 4 through verse 10.
This psalm follows a poetic structure called “chiasmus”. It’s something I discussed a long time ago beginning in Genesis 1 I think, but repeated in many other places. This psalm is clearly another chiasmus. A chiasmus is any place where the material follows an “A-B-B-A” or “A-B-A” pattern, where there is a balanced symmetry in the text (whether in concepts or actual word usage).
In this psalm, the chiasmus begins in verses 4-6 with a description of the wicked. David lists many different kinds of sins that God “hates”, “destroys” and “abhors” amongst other things. Then in verses 7, David contrasts these sins of the wicked with God’s blessing and love poured out on the righteous. We see that God hates the wicked, but the righteous are safe to enter into God’s temple, to bow before him. This contrast highlights the differences between the righteous and the wicked in terms of how God reacts to them. We see that God hates the wicked but blesses the righteous, and this is seen by God’s response to sin and righteous deeds.
Verse 8 continues his remarks on the righteous, but reframes God’s blessing in terms of God’s leadership, that God would “lead” David and “make his way straight”.
Continuing in verse 9-10, the chiasmus is completed by returning to descriptions of the wicked. This time, the wicked are described by their falsehood, which is essentially a kind of false leadership. Through their lies and flattery, they guide themselves and others into the “open grave” (v. 9). This is drawing a contrast with God’s leadership, where David is petitioning God to lead him on the straight path, which we assume is a path to life and good things.
So there are basically two patterns in this part of the psalm. The first pattern is the A-B-B-A chiasmus where David describes the wicked, then the righteous, and then returns to descriptions of the wicked again. This places the righteous in the middle, as though they are surrounded by wickedness on all sides. However, being in the center means that the righteous are also placed at the thematic center of this psalm, with the greatest emphasis on God’s blessings that are prepared for the righteous.
The second pattern is how the chiasmus is composed of two distinct halves. The first half from verses 4-7 describes God’s reaction to good and evil deeds. The evil are “abhor”ed or “destroy”ed, while the righteous are brought into God’s presence. The second half from verses 8-10 contrasts the “straight” path of the righteous, who are led by God, against the crooked lies of the wicked, who lead themselves to death and destruction.
The split between the first half and second half corresponds exactly with the middle point of the chiasmus. It’s really a beautiful poem.
The psalm concludes in verses 11-12, which don’t fit the chiastic structure, so that’s why I ignored them until now. This conclusion returns to God’s blessings for the righteous. It has two interlocking ideas. The first is that God is a “refuge”, “shelter” and “shield” for the righteous, emphasizing the concept of God’s protection over us. The second is that we can “sing for joy” and “exult” in God, emphasizing the concept of celebration and praise for God. These two concepts alternate in an A-B-A-B pattern, which is also common in Hebrew poetry.
In conclusion, this psalm feels like an encouragement to the righteous. It feels like David is encouraging us to continue with righteousness knowing that God will bless us, draw us into his presence, lead us on a straight path to good things, and in conclusion that God would be our shield in whom we can rejoice. Amen! :)
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 4
This is another fairly short psalm, only 8 verses, and it is another psalm “of David”.
Unlike the previous psalm, this one is not anchored to a specific event from David’s life. More to the point, this psalm doesn’t really seem to place it in any particular context, place or time. It calls itself a psalm of David, but it could just as much be a psalm of anyone else. Like I mentioned in my commentary for Psalm 3, I suspect this decontextualization is intentional. By avoiding any specific context, it is much easier for us to relate this psalm to events or situations in our own life. In a sense, that is the whole point of Psalms. I mean, why bother writing down all these songs if they are only meaningful to their author and we can’t apply them to our own lives? Of course, there are many other books that are firmly placed in a specific historical context and we can still learn from those stories and apply the lessons into our lives thousands of years later, so it’s not like this is strictly binary. That said, it appears likely that the Psalms were intentionally constructed to limit their references to specific historical events for this reason.
On the one hand, this makes the Psalms more relatable to us. On the other hand, it also makes the psalm much more difficult to assign to a specific time or author, which is why my introduction to Psalms was so ambiguous.
Moving on, the actual content of this psalm is somewhat diverse. To be honest, I found this psalm really confusing. It seems like David is praying for “relief”, and then talking about how men love deceptions and “his honor” has become a reproach? Somehow that transitions to “tremble, but do not sin” and “offer the sacrifices of righteousness”. I was not able to follow the logical progression here.
As I often do when I am confused, my reaction was to look up this psalm in my NIV study bible to see what other scholars thought about it. What my NIV study bible said was that this psalm is a prayer of David, probably due to people slandering him during some period of stress like a famine or drought. It said that people were challenging his leadership and suggesting that someone else should replace him as king. The NIV commentary supported this narrative by picking quotes from various places through the psalm. Verse 2 is supposedly people slandering David himself; verse 6 is supposedly people asking for a replacement king; verse 7 becomes evidence of a famine because of David’s comparison to “when their grain and new wine abounded”.
Having read that commentary, my reaction is that their story feels plausible but not entirely convincing. They were able to construct a rendering of this psalm that fits many details. However, I’m not convinced by their story because while they fit many of the details in the psalm, I feel like it struggles to capture the emotional center of this psalm.
For instance, suppose we assumed the NIV study bible rendering was fully correct, and that David was praying because he felt persecuted during a famine. Why would that prayer end up in the book of Psalms? Why would that be something that I can relate to, or sing regularly as part of the temple worship (as it was for many generations of Israelites)? I don’t feel like this rendering of the psalm gives us an emotional core that we can connect with.
That said, I can’t really think of a better analysis to tie everything in this psalm together. What we can say for sure is that David was in some sort of distress (v. 1), and that he was turning to the LORD. He had confidence that God would answer him (v. 3), and he wanted to encourage everyone else to “offer sacrifices of righteousness” and trust God as well (v. 5). Lastly, David had confidence that God would bring him through this distress, and that in God he could have peace and rest (v. 8), even more than when he was in times of plenty (v. 7). More than this, I cannot say.
This is a psalm about going through hardship, trusting in God and finding peace through our trust in God. Perhaps that is enough.
Unlike the previous psalm, this one is not anchored to a specific event from David’s life. More to the point, this psalm doesn’t really seem to place it in any particular context, place or time. It calls itself a psalm of David, but it could just as much be a psalm of anyone else. Like I mentioned in my commentary for Psalm 3, I suspect this decontextualization is intentional. By avoiding any specific context, it is much easier for us to relate this psalm to events or situations in our own life. In a sense, that is the whole point of Psalms. I mean, why bother writing down all these songs if they are only meaningful to their author and we can’t apply them to our own lives? Of course, there are many other books that are firmly placed in a specific historical context and we can still learn from those stories and apply the lessons into our lives thousands of years later, so it’s not like this is strictly binary. That said, it appears likely that the Psalms were intentionally constructed to limit their references to specific historical events for this reason.
On the one hand, this makes the Psalms more relatable to us. On the other hand, it also makes the psalm much more difficult to assign to a specific time or author, which is why my introduction to Psalms was so ambiguous.
Moving on, the actual content of this psalm is somewhat diverse. To be honest, I found this psalm really confusing. It seems like David is praying for “relief”, and then talking about how men love deceptions and “his honor” has become a reproach? Somehow that transitions to “tremble, but do not sin” and “offer the sacrifices of righteousness”. I was not able to follow the logical progression here.
As I often do when I am confused, my reaction was to look up this psalm in my NIV study bible to see what other scholars thought about it. What my NIV study bible said was that this psalm is a prayer of David, probably due to people slandering him during some period of stress like a famine or drought. It said that people were challenging his leadership and suggesting that someone else should replace him as king. The NIV commentary supported this narrative by picking quotes from various places through the psalm. Verse 2 is supposedly people slandering David himself; verse 6 is supposedly people asking for a replacement king; verse 7 becomes evidence of a famine because of David’s comparison to “when their grain and new wine abounded”.
Having read that commentary, my reaction is that their story feels plausible but not entirely convincing. They were able to construct a rendering of this psalm that fits many details. However, I’m not convinced by their story because while they fit many of the details in the psalm, I feel like it struggles to capture the emotional center of this psalm.
For instance, suppose we assumed the NIV study bible rendering was fully correct, and that David was praying because he felt persecuted during a famine. Why would that prayer end up in the book of Psalms? Why would that be something that I can relate to, or sing regularly as part of the temple worship (as it was for many generations of Israelites)? I don’t feel like this rendering of the psalm gives us an emotional core that we can connect with.
That said, I can’t really think of a better analysis to tie everything in this psalm together. What we can say for sure is that David was in some sort of distress (v. 1), and that he was turning to the LORD. He had confidence that God would answer him (v. 3), and he wanted to encourage everyone else to “offer sacrifices of righteousness” and trust God as well (v. 5). Lastly, David had confidence that God would bring him through this distress, and that in God he could have peace and rest (v. 8), even more than when he was in times of plenty (v. 7). More than this, I cannot say.
This is a psalm about going through hardship, trusting in God and finding peace through our trust in God. Perhaps that is enough.
Saturday, October 13, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 3
This psalm changes tone dramatically from Psalm 2. In Psalm 2, the material is vaguely messianic, but also very … proud. It is based on a firm assurance of victory. The central theme of Psalm 2 is that the enemies of Israel should be very afraid. Israel has the power of God behind them and all the other nations are assured defeat and perhaps even total destruction if they do not submit.
Psalm 3, in contrast, is a prayer of David “when he fled his son Absalom”. This ties it to a specific historical event, when Absalom sought to take control of Israel and David was driven into the wilderness. The story is told in 2 Samuel 15-18, and it makes this psalm deeply personal and much more plaintive compared to Psalm 2. Psalm 2 is a triumphant psalm of victory (or future victory). Psalm 3 is a prayer for God’s assistance and prayer for victory.
In spite of the title associating it with this historical event, the psalm itself does not reference David himself, Absalom, or any of the direct events from David’s interaction with Absalom. Instead, the psalm is quite generalized, framed in terms that nearly anyone could relate to during a period of oppression or adversity. Even though the psalm calls us back to a specific historical event, it is written in a timeless way that is ideal for its placement in the liturgy.
As part of the book of Psalms, this would be sung or prayed over and over for generations. If it was narrowly tailored to David in his situation with Absalom, it would be much less relatable. Instead, the language specific to that situation is removed (or was never present) and this makes it much more relatable and applicable to people in different situations that are similar, but distinct, from what David experienced. This style is going to be repeated many times, where a psalm title calls us to a specific situation but the body of the psalm is generalized and non-specific.
This psalm can be divided into three sections. The first section is verses 1-2. In this section the central theme is David’s adversity; the enemies that have gathered against him and have declared his imminent doom.
The second section is verses 3-6. In this central portion, David is declaring God’s protection over himself. David may be surrounded by enemies, but he can sleep with confidence knowing that God is the shield around him and the strength sustaining him. This is the heart of the psalm, a faith declaration of God’s protection.
The concluding section is verses 6-7, which is David’s petition and closing blessing. It feels a little odd to have a prayer following the faith declaration. It’s as if David is saying, “God you are my shield and protector. Now save me!” In some ways the faith declaration feels like it is contrary to the later prayer, depending on how you read it. I don’t think there is any contradiction here, though. David is basically saying that 1) God is his protector and 2) he needs God to save him. God is his helper and he is in need of help. The middle section is a statement of David’s confidence, and the final section is a statement of need.
Interwoven through this psalm is three uses of the word “selah”. This is a word that is used many times in the Psalms and the exact meaning is heavily debated but not precisely known. It is most commonly interpreted as a “pause” or “rest” moment in the psalm for reflection on the previous verse or idea. I’m not going to provide an interpretation or description for every “selah” in the Psalms, but I would encourage my readers to note the places where “selah” is denoted and to study the passages before each selah with additional consideration. These are likely to be the most important concepts in the given psalm.
In the case of Psalm 3, there is a “selah” after verse 2, 4 and 8. In a sense, each selah corresponds with the distinct sections that I previously laid out, so that is a small bit of extra confirmation that my analysis is consistent with the psalmist’s intent.
Psalm 3, in contrast, is a prayer of David “when he fled his son Absalom”. This ties it to a specific historical event, when Absalom sought to take control of Israel and David was driven into the wilderness. The story is told in 2 Samuel 15-18, and it makes this psalm deeply personal and much more plaintive compared to Psalm 2. Psalm 2 is a triumphant psalm of victory (or future victory). Psalm 3 is a prayer for God’s assistance and prayer for victory.
In spite of the title associating it with this historical event, the psalm itself does not reference David himself, Absalom, or any of the direct events from David’s interaction with Absalom. Instead, the psalm is quite generalized, framed in terms that nearly anyone could relate to during a period of oppression or adversity. Even though the psalm calls us back to a specific historical event, it is written in a timeless way that is ideal for its placement in the liturgy.
As part of the book of Psalms, this would be sung or prayed over and over for generations. If it was narrowly tailored to David in his situation with Absalom, it would be much less relatable. Instead, the language specific to that situation is removed (or was never present) and this makes it much more relatable and applicable to people in different situations that are similar, but distinct, from what David experienced. This style is going to be repeated many times, where a psalm title calls us to a specific situation but the body of the psalm is generalized and non-specific.
This psalm can be divided into three sections. The first section is verses 1-2. In this section the central theme is David’s adversity; the enemies that have gathered against him and have declared his imminent doom.
The second section is verses 3-6. In this central portion, David is declaring God’s protection over himself. David may be surrounded by enemies, but he can sleep with confidence knowing that God is the shield around him and the strength sustaining him. This is the heart of the psalm, a faith declaration of God’s protection.
The concluding section is verses 6-7, which is David’s petition and closing blessing. It feels a little odd to have a prayer following the faith declaration. It’s as if David is saying, “God you are my shield and protector. Now save me!” In some ways the faith declaration feels like it is contrary to the later prayer, depending on how you read it. I don’t think there is any contradiction here, though. David is basically saying that 1) God is his protector and 2) he needs God to save him. God is his helper and he is in need of help. The middle section is a statement of David’s confidence, and the final section is a statement of need.
Interwoven through this psalm is three uses of the word “selah”. This is a word that is used many times in the Psalms and the exact meaning is heavily debated but not precisely known. It is most commonly interpreted as a “pause” or “rest” moment in the psalm for reflection on the previous verse or idea. I’m not going to provide an interpretation or description for every “selah” in the Psalms, but I would encourage my readers to note the places where “selah” is denoted and to study the passages before each selah with additional consideration. These are likely to be the most important concepts in the given psalm.
In the case of Psalm 3, there is a “selah” after verse 2, 4 and 8. In a sense, each selah corresponds with the distinct sections that I previously laid out, so that is a small bit of extra confirmation that my analysis is consistent with the psalmist’s intent.
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 2
Psalm 2 is clearly related to Psalm 1 in terms of composition and organization. The closing verse, v. 12, ends with “Blessed are all who take refuge in him”. The opening verse of Psalm 1 is “blessed is the one who does not…”. These two verses enclose both psalms into a single coherent thought, which serves as the introduction to Psalms. Furthermore, they are both untitled psalms which is uncommon in the first book, so that also sets them apart from the psalms that immediately follow.
The content feels starkly different, however. Psalm 1 was very individualistic; it focused on the path of a righteous person and a wicked person, contrasting those distinct lifestyles. Psalm 2 is quite different to say the least.
This psalm has four distinct sections, that carry it through a logical progression from beginning to end. The first section is verses 1-3. This describes the attitude of earthly rulers and nations. More to the point, these are people who are “conspiring” to overthrow the LORD “and his anointed”. We are supposed to imagine all the people of the world plotting to overthrow the LORD and perhaps more to the point, the LORD’s earthly representative who is the “anointed”.
In context, the most reasonable interpretation is that the “anointed” refers to the king of Israel (like David, who was anointed) and that this conspiring refers to Israel’s neighbors plotting to destroy them.
The second section is God’s response in verses 4-6. God responds with five verbs: he laughs, he scoffs, he rebukes, he terrifies and lastly he says. The most important part is what he says, because it tells us about God’s sovereign plan for the earth: “I have installed my king on Zion”. It is clear that the “king” here is the same as the anointed from the first section. God is laughing, rebuking and terrifying the nations because they are hopelessly standing against his divine authority, which is now manifest in the “king on Zion”. I don’t remember if we’ve discussed Zion before but the summary is that it’s another name for Jerusalem or perhaps a specific hill in Jerusalem. In the Psalms, as here, it is used as a poetic name to refer to Jerusalem.
Anyway, what’ clear from this second section is that the rebellious, conspiring nations have no chance of success because they are resisting God’s authority, God is enthroned in heaven, and God is in turn planting the king of Israel on his throne in Zion, respectively.
The third section is the LORD’s proclamation, in verses 7-9. From verse 7 we can see that the psalmist himself is the king of Israel, because he writes “[The LORD] said to me”. At this point it becomes first person about the author himself. I would be willing to bet this was written by David, though of course I cannot prove it. In any case, it is clearly written as though it were written by some king of Israel, and clearly the same person as the “anointed” “king in Zion” described in verses 2 and 6 respectively. The decree is God’s decree about this same king, who is also writing the psalm.
The decree says, “you are my son, today I have become your father”. This reminds me of Solomon though I can’t think of what passage talks about this. It’s a statement of relationship between the king and God, but also informally it is another statement of God’s strong support for the king.
Verses 8-9 go back to the topic of the nations, which is the subject for most of this psalm, establishing that the king must only ask, and God would grant the king authority over all the nations of the world to rule them, inherit them and if he chooses to smash them into pieces. Not only does God have power and authority over the nations, that power flows down to God’s chosen king.
Finally, in verses 10-12 the psalmist speaks directly to the hostile nations, warning them to cease from their dissent and to serve the LORD rather than rebel. Furthermore, the nations should “kiss the son” and show deference and fealty to God’s chosen king, or else they will be risking destruction.
Overall, this psalm has many layers. There is a strong nationalistic layer, contrasting Israel’s favor and protection under God with the rebellion and hostility of the surrounding nations. We see Israel bound together with her God in the midst of a sea of anger and wrath against them. Yet in spite of her isolation, we know that Israel will inherit the land of the nations and smash them to pieces because of God’s strong support.
This psalm, more than many others, is based on a theology of Israel’s greatness on the earth. In that sense it is more reminiscent of Deuteronomy and some of the early Pentateuch. A primary theme of the Pentateuch is that Israel would be blessed with material prosperity and dominate all their neighbors as a direct consequence of their covenant with God. Much of that theology predated the emergence of a king in Israel, however. This psalm appears to combine that earlier doctrine of Israelite greatness with the later king-centric political views.
We also see a strong royalist layer, with God’s deep relationship not to Israel writ large but to the king directly and only through the king does God support the rest of the nation. This is definitely a psalm about “the anointed” of God, who is God’s earthly representative.
Lastly, modern readings tend to focus on the messianic expectations of this psalm. Many people interpret “the anointed” or the “king in Zion” to refer to a future savior-king. Verse 8 encourages this interpretation because we can read this as predicting a future king in Israel who will conquer the entire world, making all the nations “his inheritance” and ushering in world peace under God’s sovereignty and the savior-king’s leadership. Verse 8 is commonly seen as an unfulfilled promise or prophecy and that is how it fits into messianic expectations. In this messianic vision, both the earlier “great Israel” doctrine and the later significance of the Davidic line are combined into a single theology, where the “son of David” brings about a resurgence in Israel as a political power and in their religion. This resurgence is supposed to bring about the fulfillment of the original covenantal promises, but under the leadership of the Davidic line. This psalm combines both, promising Israel a future greatness but under the leadership of their anointed and chosen king.
The content feels starkly different, however. Psalm 1 was very individualistic; it focused on the path of a righteous person and a wicked person, contrasting those distinct lifestyles. Psalm 2 is quite different to say the least.
This psalm has four distinct sections, that carry it through a logical progression from beginning to end. The first section is verses 1-3. This describes the attitude of earthly rulers and nations. More to the point, these are people who are “conspiring” to overthrow the LORD “and his anointed”. We are supposed to imagine all the people of the world plotting to overthrow the LORD and perhaps more to the point, the LORD’s earthly representative who is the “anointed”.
In context, the most reasonable interpretation is that the “anointed” refers to the king of Israel (like David, who was anointed) and that this conspiring refers to Israel’s neighbors plotting to destroy them.
The second section is God’s response in verses 4-6. God responds with five verbs: he laughs, he scoffs, he rebukes, he terrifies and lastly he says. The most important part is what he says, because it tells us about God’s sovereign plan for the earth: “I have installed my king on Zion”. It is clear that the “king” here is the same as the anointed from the first section. God is laughing, rebuking and terrifying the nations because they are hopelessly standing against his divine authority, which is now manifest in the “king on Zion”. I don’t remember if we’ve discussed Zion before but the summary is that it’s another name for Jerusalem or perhaps a specific hill in Jerusalem. In the Psalms, as here, it is used as a poetic name to refer to Jerusalem.
Anyway, what’ clear from this second section is that the rebellious, conspiring nations have no chance of success because they are resisting God’s authority, God is enthroned in heaven, and God is in turn planting the king of Israel on his throne in Zion, respectively.
The third section is the LORD’s proclamation, in verses 7-9. From verse 7 we can see that the psalmist himself is the king of Israel, because he writes “[The LORD] said to me”. At this point it becomes first person about the author himself. I would be willing to bet this was written by David, though of course I cannot prove it. In any case, it is clearly written as though it were written by some king of Israel, and clearly the same person as the “anointed” “king in Zion” described in verses 2 and 6 respectively. The decree is God’s decree about this same king, who is also writing the psalm.
The decree says, “you are my son, today I have become your father”. This reminds me of Solomon though I can’t think of what passage talks about this. It’s a statement of relationship between the king and God, but also informally it is another statement of God’s strong support for the king.
Verses 8-9 go back to the topic of the nations, which is the subject for most of this psalm, establishing that the king must only ask, and God would grant the king authority over all the nations of the world to rule them, inherit them and if he chooses to smash them into pieces. Not only does God have power and authority over the nations, that power flows down to God’s chosen king.
Finally, in verses 10-12 the psalmist speaks directly to the hostile nations, warning them to cease from their dissent and to serve the LORD rather than rebel. Furthermore, the nations should “kiss the son” and show deference and fealty to God’s chosen king, or else they will be risking destruction.
Overall, this psalm has many layers. There is a strong nationalistic layer, contrasting Israel’s favor and protection under God with the rebellion and hostility of the surrounding nations. We see Israel bound together with her God in the midst of a sea of anger and wrath against them. Yet in spite of her isolation, we know that Israel will inherit the land of the nations and smash them to pieces because of God’s strong support.
This psalm, more than many others, is based on a theology of Israel’s greatness on the earth. In that sense it is more reminiscent of Deuteronomy and some of the early Pentateuch. A primary theme of the Pentateuch is that Israel would be blessed with material prosperity and dominate all their neighbors as a direct consequence of their covenant with God. Much of that theology predated the emergence of a king in Israel, however. This psalm appears to combine that earlier doctrine of Israelite greatness with the later king-centric political views.
We also see a strong royalist layer, with God’s deep relationship not to Israel writ large but to the king directly and only through the king does God support the rest of the nation. This is definitely a psalm about “the anointed” of God, who is God’s earthly representative.
Lastly, modern readings tend to focus on the messianic expectations of this psalm. Many people interpret “the anointed” or the “king in Zion” to refer to a future savior-king. Verse 8 encourages this interpretation because we can read this as predicting a future king in Israel who will conquer the entire world, making all the nations “his inheritance” and ushering in world peace under God’s sovereignty and the savior-king’s leadership. Verse 8 is commonly seen as an unfulfilled promise or prophecy and that is how it fits into messianic expectations. In this messianic vision, both the earlier “great Israel” doctrine and the later significance of the Davidic line are combined into a single theology, where the “son of David” brings about a resurgence in Israel as a political power and in their religion. This resurgence is supposed to bring about the fulfillment of the original covenantal promises, but under the leadership of the Davidic line. This psalm combines both, promising Israel a future greatness but under the leadership of their anointed and chosen king.
Monday, October 8, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 1
Psalm 1 is only six verses long, but as the opening psalm of this entire collection it plays a significant role in setting the overall tone of the book.
In fact, even just the first two verses highlight one of the most commonly recurring themes of Psalms: Blessed are those who meditate on the word of God and live by the word of God.
At a high level, Psalm 1 is broken down into two contrasting choices. There is the path of the righteous person, who is described in verses 1-3, and then there is the path of the wicked person who is described in verses 4-6. In a different way, this psalm is echoing the thought of Deuteronomy 30:19. Deuteronomy framed the choice of good and evil as “life” and “death”. Psalm 1, on the other hand, frames things in terms of “the wicked” and “the righteous”.
What I find really interesting about Psalm 1 is that in some important ways it describes the wicked and righteous in terms of what they are not. Verses 1-3 are talking about the blessing of the righteous, but it doesn’t call them righteous; it says “blessed is the man who does not”, and then lists a bunch of things that a good person should not do. Similarly, the wicked is described not by what they do but in the way that they do not “stand in the judgment, nor … in the assembly of the righteous”.
In any case, the “blessed” are described in three ways: they avoid “counsel”, “the path” and “the seat” of evil men. While in some ways this is poetic parallelism, it also speaks to three different aspects of life that we have to control to avoid evil. Counsel obviously refers to advice; when we receive advice from others, we must avoid or ignore the advice of “wicked” people. This means we need to be careful who we listen to. When we are making decisions, who gets to shape our opinions and judgments for those decisions? We are likely to make similar decisions to the people that we listen to. If we are listening to wicked or godless people, then we are likely to make the same mistakes as them.
This naturally ties into the second point, which is “the path of sinners”. If we listen to the advice of the wicked, then we will make the same decisions as them and find ourselves on their path. “The path” refers to our lifestyle, habits and decisions. Just as we avoid the advice of the wicked, we must also choose a different lifestyle.
The third and last point is that we cannot “sit in the seat of scoffers”. The seat can be interpreted in different ways, but the way the NIV translates it is “sit in the company of mockers” and I think that word “company” is accurate. It means that we cannot be regular compatriots, “buddies”, of wicked men. Importantly, this does not mean we need to avoid wicked people entirely, because we are supposed to have a positive influence on others. It’s an acknowledgement that just as we seek to positively influence others, there is the possibility that those “others” could influence us back. Verse 1 is cautioning us to not spend so much time with wicked people that we begin to adopt their habits, customs or attitudes. We can spend time with wicked people, but it has to be moderated, controlled and intentional.
To summarize, those who are blessed should avoid the counsel, the lifestyle and the close friendship and dependence on wicked people.
What the righteous should do is meditate on the word of God and delight in it. In contrast to what we avoid, we seek counsel from the word and we try to find habits and guidance on our lifestyle from the word. Rather than let our choices be shaped by wicked friends or advisors, we shape our choices around the word of God and his commands. The result is blessing and prosperity through all seasons; “whatever they do prospers” (v. 3).
In contrast, verse 4 does not describe the wicked; it describes the consequences of wickedness. The consequence is also a direct contrast to the righteous; unlike the constancy, prosperity and endurance of the righteous, the wicked are blown away like chaff. Verse 5 describes the wicked by their exclusion from the proper domain of the righteous. Whatever the righteous do, the wicked are the opposite of that.
In conclusion, the LORD watches over the path of both the righteous and the wicked, but he watches over the righteous to protect them while the wicked travel on a road to destruction alone.
In fact, even just the first two verses highlight one of the most commonly recurring themes of Psalms: Blessed are those who meditate on the word of God and live by the word of God.
At a high level, Psalm 1 is broken down into two contrasting choices. There is the path of the righteous person, who is described in verses 1-3, and then there is the path of the wicked person who is described in verses 4-6. In a different way, this psalm is echoing the thought of Deuteronomy 30:19. Deuteronomy framed the choice of good and evil as “life” and “death”. Psalm 1, on the other hand, frames things in terms of “the wicked” and “the righteous”.
What I find really interesting about Psalm 1 is that in some important ways it describes the wicked and righteous in terms of what they are not. Verses 1-3 are talking about the blessing of the righteous, but it doesn’t call them righteous; it says “blessed is the man who does not”, and then lists a bunch of things that a good person should not do. Similarly, the wicked is described not by what they do but in the way that they do not “stand in the judgment, nor … in the assembly of the righteous”.
In any case, the “blessed” are described in three ways: they avoid “counsel”, “the path” and “the seat” of evil men. While in some ways this is poetic parallelism, it also speaks to three different aspects of life that we have to control to avoid evil. Counsel obviously refers to advice; when we receive advice from others, we must avoid or ignore the advice of “wicked” people. This means we need to be careful who we listen to. When we are making decisions, who gets to shape our opinions and judgments for those decisions? We are likely to make similar decisions to the people that we listen to. If we are listening to wicked or godless people, then we are likely to make the same mistakes as them.
This naturally ties into the second point, which is “the path of sinners”. If we listen to the advice of the wicked, then we will make the same decisions as them and find ourselves on their path. “The path” refers to our lifestyle, habits and decisions. Just as we avoid the advice of the wicked, we must also choose a different lifestyle.
The third and last point is that we cannot “sit in the seat of scoffers”. The seat can be interpreted in different ways, but the way the NIV translates it is “sit in the company of mockers” and I think that word “company” is accurate. It means that we cannot be regular compatriots, “buddies”, of wicked men. Importantly, this does not mean we need to avoid wicked people entirely, because we are supposed to have a positive influence on others. It’s an acknowledgement that just as we seek to positively influence others, there is the possibility that those “others” could influence us back. Verse 1 is cautioning us to not spend so much time with wicked people that we begin to adopt their habits, customs or attitudes. We can spend time with wicked people, but it has to be moderated, controlled and intentional.
To summarize, those who are blessed should avoid the counsel, the lifestyle and the close friendship and dependence on wicked people.
What the righteous should do is meditate on the word of God and delight in it. In contrast to what we avoid, we seek counsel from the word and we try to find habits and guidance on our lifestyle from the word. Rather than let our choices be shaped by wicked friends or advisors, we shape our choices around the word of God and his commands. The result is blessing and prosperity through all seasons; “whatever they do prospers” (v. 3).
In contrast, verse 4 does not describe the wicked; it describes the consequences of wickedness. The consequence is also a direct contrast to the righteous; unlike the constancy, prosperity and endurance of the righteous, the wicked are blown away like chaff. Verse 5 describes the wicked by their exclusion from the proper domain of the righteous. Whatever the righteous do, the wicked are the opposite of that.
In conclusion, the LORD watches over the path of both the righteous and the wicked, but he watches over the righteous to protect them while the wicked travel on a road to destruction alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)