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.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
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.
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms Introduction
Welcome to Psalms! This is the second out of the five wisdom books. It’s easy to remember the wisdom books because they are all grouped together: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. We have just finished Job, the first wisdom book, and are now moving on to the second.
Despite their categorical grouping, the wisdom books are incredibly diverse in content and style. Job, for its part, was a 42-chapter book with an almost singular focus on just one topic, the question of human suffering and why bad things happen to good people. Furthermore, Job follows a single narrative line, structured around the dialogue between Job and his friends. The contrast with Psalms could not be starker.
Psalms is not so much a single book or composition as much as it is a compilation of hundreds of individual songs. In some ways we could correctly say that Psalms is not even a single book. Psalms has 150 chapters, and as a general rule each chapter is a distinct psalm (this is not always true, as we will see, but it usually holds), most of which were authored separately, though it is very likely that some psalms were written by the same person.
Even internally, the book of Psalms is actually divided into five books, and this division is ancient. Wikipedia suggests that the five book separation was “introduced by the final editors”, possibly to mimic the five-book organization of the Pentateuch. The book divisions are generally annotated in pretty much any bible, but they are after the following psalms: 41, 72, 89, 106 and Psalms ends at 150.
Psalms does not have a single author or date of composition because, as mentioned, it is an anthology and not a single work. Many psalms specify their author in the title, and these authors include (but are not limited to) King David, the “sons of Korah” and Asaph. Many other psalms are untitled, and for the psalms without titles, their authorship is a topic of guesswork and wild speculation. Some scholars have tried to pin down demographic characteristics of the anonymous psalmists by studying their choice of language and topic, and that is probably the most we will ever be able to know.
The “sons of Korah” and Asaph both refer to professional Levitical musicians who would have a prominent role in composing and performing religious music such as the psalms. David might seem a surprising composer (as one may have expected him to be more busy with political and military concerns), but descriptions of both him and Solomon emphasize their creative endeavors. 2 Samuel 23:1 calls David “the sweet psalmist of Israel”. 2 Chronicles 29:27 refers to musical instruments as “the instruments of David”. Chronicles in general seeks to establish a historical connection between David and the temple worship ceremonies, so his role as a musician is less surprising in that light.
Solomon, on the other hand, only rarely appears in the book of Psalms, but in 1 Kings 4:32 we are told that Solomon wrote 1,005 songs and authored 3,000 proverbs. This indirectly supports David’s role as a musician and author of psalms, because it shows a cultural tradition for kings of Israel to look beyond pragmatic political concerns and to pursue excellence in a variety of fields.
Consistent with the documentary hypothesis, there are modern theories that the Psalms were composed very late, after the exile and possibly even as late as the Maccabean period (i.e. ~160 BC). These theories generally argue based on linguistic traits such as the usage of Aramaic terms or expressions and the attempt to tie specific theological concepts to a later time period as textual evidence that the Psalms must be relatively late. I’m not going to discuss this at length because there are many other things to talk about and I don’t feel like this theory substantially changes our interpretation of the Psalms. We can have a consistent, meaningful interpretation regardless of when they were authored.
Just as Psalms has many authors, it was also authored over a long time period, probably well over a hundred years. A handful of psalms were clearly written after the destruction of the temple (for instance, Psalm 74:7), but many psalms show clear evidence of pre-exilic origin. I personally lean towards a pre-exilic origin for many psalms, because amongst other things the Psalms do not even once mention the Babylonians, Chaldeans, Persians or any other major post-exilic foe.
On the other hand, the Psalms contain many cultural and political relics of the pre-exilic period. The Edomites are mentioned eight times, the Moabites are mentioned three times, and the Canaanites are mentioned three times. While these are certainly not overwhelming numbers in a 150-chapter book, it shows a focus on national enemies from the pre-exilic period, while an absence of their post-exilic enemies. Several psalms also reference “the king” of Israel or Judah, which clearly places those individual psalms into a pre-exilic context; there was no king over Israel after the exile. The psalms “of David” and psalms “of Asaph” certainly point to a focus on pre-exilic traditions, if they do not directly refer to psalms of pre-exilic origin.
Beyond its immediate authors, there is also the question of who compiled it and when it was compiled together into a single anthology. This question faces many of the same challenges as assigning authorship and a date to the individual psalms. In some ways identifying the editor is even more difficult, because the role of the editor was selecting and organizing the Psalms. We can only discern their identity indirectly, by the choice of what material is included in the Psalms. From this basis we can only draw the broadest of generalizations; the editor was probably from Judah and probably a priest. My NIV bible commentary suggests that the first two books of psalms have a likely pre-exilic origin, while the other three books are mixed or uncertain. It seems very likely that the final editor is post-exilic, but anything beyond that I cannot say.
While the content of the Psalms is wildly diverse, as I mentioned before, we can draw some generalities. Psalms generally fall into several categories. There are psalms of praise, petition, mourning; really the Psalms cover pretty much every human emotion and the range of possible interactions that we can have with God at an emotional level.
The emotional descriptions are one of the best parts about the Psalms. I had mentioned long ago that the OT can feel very dry emotionally. It has a lot of neutral language, many descriptions of what people were doing but without talking much about their reactions to it or how we should feel about it. Places like the second half of Exodus, with the tabernacle schematics, or Leviticus with its sacrifice rituals. Theologically significant as they may be, they are not generally considered interesting or engaging writing. On the other hand, Psalms is a very emotional collection, since this is literally Jewish worship music from the temple period.
There is a lot of speculation about why the Psalms got organized in the particular way that they did. Given that it was an anthology, the selection and organization of the Psalms was the primary contribution of the editor. Detailed study makes it clear that the Psalms are indeed organized in particular ways, but apart from really obvious things (like the choice of introductory and concluding psalms), it is not usually evident to a casual reader. Even to someone like me who is reasonably familiar with the bible, analyzing the structure of Psalms is not an easy thing to do, so I am mostly going to ignore it for the purposes of this commentary. One thing I do want to mention is that the division of the five “sub-books” of Psalms is ancient and textual analysis shows significant variation in language (for instance, usage of “elohim” vs. “yahweh”), topic and other factors. This strongly indicates, but does not prove, that the five books come from distinct origins; different authors or groups of authors, different time periods, or different locations. One possibility is that the five sub-books were composed or compiled independently and then merged together at some later phase; once again this is impossible to prove but the evidence vaguely hints at it, so I will vaguely hint at it too.
I will wrap up my introduction here. As long as my introduction already is, there is so much more I could write about Psalms that I want to just stop here and spread out some of that analysis into the chapter-by-chapter breakdown.
With all that said, let’s move on to chapter 1 of the book of Psalms!
Despite their categorical grouping, the wisdom books are incredibly diverse in content and style. Job, for its part, was a 42-chapter book with an almost singular focus on just one topic, the question of human suffering and why bad things happen to good people. Furthermore, Job follows a single narrative line, structured around the dialogue between Job and his friends. The contrast with Psalms could not be starker.
Psalms is not so much a single book or composition as much as it is a compilation of hundreds of individual songs. In some ways we could correctly say that Psalms is not even a single book. Psalms has 150 chapters, and as a general rule each chapter is a distinct psalm (this is not always true, as we will see, but it usually holds), most of which were authored separately, though it is very likely that some psalms were written by the same person.
Even internally, the book of Psalms is actually divided into five books, and this division is ancient. Wikipedia suggests that the five book separation was “introduced by the final editors”, possibly to mimic the five-book organization of the Pentateuch. The book divisions are generally annotated in pretty much any bible, but they are after the following psalms: 41, 72, 89, 106 and Psalms ends at 150.
Psalms does not have a single author or date of composition because, as mentioned, it is an anthology and not a single work. Many psalms specify their author in the title, and these authors include (but are not limited to) King David, the “sons of Korah” and Asaph. Many other psalms are untitled, and for the psalms without titles, their authorship is a topic of guesswork and wild speculation. Some scholars have tried to pin down demographic characteristics of the anonymous psalmists by studying their choice of language and topic, and that is probably the most we will ever be able to know.
The “sons of Korah” and Asaph both refer to professional Levitical musicians who would have a prominent role in composing and performing religious music such as the psalms. David might seem a surprising composer (as one may have expected him to be more busy with political and military concerns), but descriptions of both him and Solomon emphasize their creative endeavors. 2 Samuel 23:1 calls David “the sweet psalmist of Israel”. 2 Chronicles 29:27 refers to musical instruments as “the instruments of David”. Chronicles in general seeks to establish a historical connection between David and the temple worship ceremonies, so his role as a musician is less surprising in that light.
Solomon, on the other hand, only rarely appears in the book of Psalms, but in 1 Kings 4:32 we are told that Solomon wrote 1,005 songs and authored 3,000 proverbs. This indirectly supports David’s role as a musician and author of psalms, because it shows a cultural tradition for kings of Israel to look beyond pragmatic political concerns and to pursue excellence in a variety of fields.
Consistent with the documentary hypothesis, there are modern theories that the Psalms were composed very late, after the exile and possibly even as late as the Maccabean period (i.e. ~160 BC). These theories generally argue based on linguistic traits such as the usage of Aramaic terms or expressions and the attempt to tie specific theological concepts to a later time period as textual evidence that the Psalms must be relatively late. I’m not going to discuss this at length because there are many other things to talk about and I don’t feel like this theory substantially changes our interpretation of the Psalms. We can have a consistent, meaningful interpretation regardless of when they were authored.
Just as Psalms has many authors, it was also authored over a long time period, probably well over a hundred years. A handful of psalms were clearly written after the destruction of the temple (for instance, Psalm 74:7), but many psalms show clear evidence of pre-exilic origin. I personally lean towards a pre-exilic origin for many psalms, because amongst other things the Psalms do not even once mention the Babylonians, Chaldeans, Persians or any other major post-exilic foe.
On the other hand, the Psalms contain many cultural and political relics of the pre-exilic period. The Edomites are mentioned eight times, the Moabites are mentioned three times, and the Canaanites are mentioned three times. While these are certainly not overwhelming numbers in a 150-chapter book, it shows a focus on national enemies from the pre-exilic period, while an absence of their post-exilic enemies. Several psalms also reference “the king” of Israel or Judah, which clearly places those individual psalms into a pre-exilic context; there was no king over Israel after the exile. The psalms “of David” and psalms “of Asaph” certainly point to a focus on pre-exilic traditions, if they do not directly refer to psalms of pre-exilic origin.
Beyond its immediate authors, there is also the question of who compiled it and when it was compiled together into a single anthology. This question faces many of the same challenges as assigning authorship and a date to the individual psalms. In some ways identifying the editor is even more difficult, because the role of the editor was selecting and organizing the Psalms. We can only discern their identity indirectly, by the choice of what material is included in the Psalms. From this basis we can only draw the broadest of generalizations; the editor was probably from Judah and probably a priest. My NIV bible commentary suggests that the first two books of psalms have a likely pre-exilic origin, while the other three books are mixed or uncertain. It seems very likely that the final editor is post-exilic, but anything beyond that I cannot say.
While the content of the Psalms is wildly diverse, as I mentioned before, we can draw some generalities. Psalms generally fall into several categories. There are psalms of praise, petition, mourning; really the Psalms cover pretty much every human emotion and the range of possible interactions that we can have with God at an emotional level.
The emotional descriptions are one of the best parts about the Psalms. I had mentioned long ago that the OT can feel very dry emotionally. It has a lot of neutral language, many descriptions of what people were doing but without talking much about their reactions to it or how we should feel about it. Places like the second half of Exodus, with the tabernacle schematics, or Leviticus with its sacrifice rituals. Theologically significant as they may be, they are not generally considered interesting or engaging writing. On the other hand, Psalms is a very emotional collection, since this is literally Jewish worship music from the temple period.
There is a lot of speculation about why the Psalms got organized in the particular way that they did. Given that it was an anthology, the selection and organization of the Psalms was the primary contribution of the editor. Detailed study makes it clear that the Psalms are indeed organized in particular ways, but apart from really obvious things (like the choice of introductory and concluding psalms), it is not usually evident to a casual reader. Even to someone like me who is reasonably familiar with the bible, analyzing the structure of Psalms is not an easy thing to do, so I am mostly going to ignore it for the purposes of this commentary. One thing I do want to mention is that the division of the five “sub-books” of Psalms is ancient and textual analysis shows significant variation in language (for instance, usage of “elohim” vs. “yahweh”), topic and other factors. This strongly indicates, but does not prove, that the five books come from distinct origins; different authors or groups of authors, different time periods, or different locations. One possibility is that the five sub-books were composed or compiled independently and then merged together at some later phase; once again this is impossible to prove but the evidence vaguely hints at it, so I will vaguely hint at it too.
I will wrap up my introduction here. As long as my introduction already is, there is so much more I could write about Psalms that I want to just stop here and spread out some of that analysis into the chapter-by-chapter breakdown.
With all that said, let’s move on to chapter 1 of the book of Psalms!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)