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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)