Psalm 25 is clearly a prayer psalm, but it does not follow the pattern of the prayer psalms that I have previously described. In some important ways, Psalm 25 deviates from previous visions of God’s role as the great justice, and perhaps more closely follows the line of post-exilic Jewish thought. Allow me to explain these points in turn.
A typical prayer psalm that we have analyzed so far has three parts: a problem statement, a petition for relief, and thanksgiving in anticipation of God’s response. One strong example of this format, out of several I could offer, is Psalm 18. Psalm 25 differs in that it does not offer a clear problem statement, i.e. the situation that compels David to seek the LORD’s deliverance. He briefly mentions his enemies’ “violent hatred” (v. 19), but structurally it is not in the right place to justify David’s petition as per the usual format. Secondly, the prayer in Psalm 25 does not contain thanksgiving in anticipation of God’s deliverance.
Besides these structural differences, the psalm also modifies its depiction of God and even more starkly, it’s depiction of the petitioner and his relationship with God. In many other places, God is depicted as the great judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked. We see this moral framework in such places as Job and Deuteronomy, but also in Psalms 1, 5, 7, 9, and many others. In this framework, David typically places himself in the righteous category, his enemies in the wicked category, and then implores God to fulfill his role as the judge by delivering David (the righteous) and punishing or destroying his enemies (the wicked).
I really want to focus on Psalm 7 as a contrast. In Psalm 7:3-5, David specifically calls down a curse on himself and says that if he has done any wicked thing, then “let the enemy pursue my soul and overtake it”. In other words, if he has done anything wrong then it is right that God should destroy his life as fair punishment.
Psalm 25 could not be more different. In this case, even though David includes occasional references to his “enemies” as a source of distress, and he also petitions the LORD for deliverance, instead of focusing on the wickedness of his enemies he focuses on his own sins and wickedness and pleads the LORD for mercy and forgiveness. For examples, see v. 7, 11, 18. In a sense, verse 8 is the same thing where David is acknowledging that God leads “sinners”, such as himself.
David is not making a single claim anywhere that he is innocent, like what we found in Psalm 7. Perhaps David believes that his guilt is the reason why he is now suffering. Instead, David acknowledges his sins and asks for forgiveness. Furthermore, David argues that God should heal and restore him not because he is righteous, but because he places his faith in God. We see this theme throughout the psalm, in various forms, such as verses 1-3, 5, 10, 12, 14-15, 20-21. “My eyes are continually toward the LORD” (v. 15).
David is basically saying that he is not innocent; he has done things that are wrong and evil in God’s sight. However, he looks to God for healing and deliverance, and continues to hope that God will forgive him and restore him. I will also add in, verses 4-5 show that David wants to be taught God’s ways and God’s truth, so it’s not just that he wants to continue doing evil while God continues to forgive him (this is a common criticism by non-believers who see forgiveness as a mechanism to defer the punishment of sin while continuing the practice of sin). It shows that David wishes to break the cycle of sin and punishment, but he knows that only God has the power to do either: to lead David out of sin, and to forestall the punishment that David rightly deserves for previous sins.
Lastly, this psalm seems to have more in common with post-exilic Jewish thought than pre-exilic, for the simple reason that it focuses so much on Israelite guilt and forgiveness, themes that were greatly amplified after Israel’s national punishment in the Babylonian exile. For instance, consider the prayer of the Levites in Nehemiah 9, or the prayer of Ezra in Ezra 9. Not to say that there was no acknowledgement of guilt in pre-exilic Israel (such as the many rebellions and idolatries in the books of Numbers and Judges), but thematically it became more important and more frequent in post-exilic discourse for obvious reasons.
To me this prayer is significant because it shows that we can have faith in God, and yet have sin in our lives. Like David, we seek forgiveness for the things we have done wrong, we desire instruction from God to teach us how to be righteous, and we seek deliverance from our enemies and troubles, even if they are the punishment that we deserve. The key is in verse 12, to fear the LORD, and from that fear come the blessings of verses 13-15.
Friday, October 11, 2019
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Bible Commentary - Psalms 24
This psalm defies my standard interpretations. I feel like I’ve been saying that a lot recently. In my introduction, I mentioned that the psalms are very diverse or heterogeneous. Every time I am challenged to generalize a particular psalm, that is another data point showing the extensive variety of themes and structures in the book of Psalms.
Taking this psalm by its first verse, it would seem that this is a psalm of praise. “The earth is the LORD’s, and all that is within it”. However, in this case it defies standard convention because almost the entirety of the rest of this psalm is not really a praise psalm.
Instead, it splits into three parts. The first part is the introduction in verses 1-2. The second part in verses 3-6 is a description of the righteous. This is reminiscent of Psalm 15 which started with a very similar question: “Who may dwell on your holy hill?” (Psalm 15:1). In this case, verse 3 asks “Who may stand in his holy place?” Both Psalm 15 and verses 3-6 here answer the question by describing the characteristics of the righteous person.
The third part in verses 7-10 breaks off in a completely different direction, prophesying the entrance of God into … somewhere. That the gates and “ancient doors” should be opened up that God may enter. It doesn’t say where, but we can reasonably guess it’s referring to either the temple or Jerusalem. My inclination is to say it’s the temple, since that was the subject of verse 3, but it’s not a sure thing.
There are many questions for which I can offer few answers. The first question is why these three pieces are tied together in the same psalm? The second question is why verses 7-10 use a repeating structure with a recurring phrase “king of glory”. The third question is to look for meaningful differences between verses 3-6 and Psalm 15. I will try to address these questions as best as I can, in order.
First, why are these three parts in the same psalm? To be honest, I have no idea. In situations like this I typically look to other commentaries to enlighten my confusion, but Rashi says nothing and the NIV commentary does not offer much insight into the particular structure of this psalm or why these ideas are combined in this way. One thing I noticed while reading the NIV commentary is that both the second and third section contain the idea of “entering”. The second part describes the righteous people who can ascend the hill of God and enter the temple. The third part is a triumphant announcement of God’s entry into the city (or temple). That is one possible connection. I don’t see how either part is associated with God’s lordship over the world in verses 1-2, however.
The NIV commentary also mentioned that this psalm was plausibly composed when David returned the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, or as a commemoration of that event (see 2 Samuel 6). This is a bit speculative because the psalm does not itself mention the ark, only “the king of glory”. The triumphal entry in this psalm certainly reminds us of David and the ark, though.
For the second question, I would guess this is as least partly musical; remember that this was originally a song. In addition, the repeated phrase “king of glory” highlights the celebratory nature of the psalm. God is the “king of glory” because he is exalted, honored, praised, etc. I think it’s mostly musical though, because these are like choruses that would be repeated over and over. In modern music, Handel’s Messiah has a beautiful chorus based on this psalm, which sounds very much like how I imagine this psalm was originally intended.
For the third question, verses 3-6 and Psalm 15 are both mostly similar. One minor difference is that Psalm 15 places a strong emphasis on honesty and integrity in both our words and our business dealings. Verses 3-6, in contrast, mentioned integrity at the end of verse 4 (“and has not sworn deceitfully”), but it is much less of a focus. Instead, verses 3-6 seem to pay the most attention to the concept of purity.
“Clean hands and a pure heart” use the language of purity and cleanliness, but the meaning is relatively similar to Psalm 15. “Clean hands” means that one has not committed any crimes, that one’s hands are “innocent” in some sense. “A pure heart” means that one’s thoughts and intentions are good, pure and innocent.
The phrase taken as a whole means that a righteous person should be innocent in both thought and deed. Psalm 15, in contrast, says that a righteous person should have integrity in what they say and what they do. In conclusion, these are two subtly different ways of saying what amounts to roughly the same thing. As a righteous person, one is expected to be honest, pure and innocent in both thought, word and action. It’s not enough to be honest in your dealings if you lie and slander, and it’s not enough to be honest in your words if your thoughts and intentions (your “heart”) are bad. You must have honest and good intentions, honest and good words, and honest and righteous deeds.
Finally, I want my readers to think about the placement of this psalm after Psalms 22 and 23. If we look at them broadly, Psalm 22 is a desperate cry for help, which ends in praise but begins in despair. Psalm 23 is a very quiet psalm, confident in God’s salvation. Psalm 24 is much more boisterous, with a joyful declaration of God’s imminent entry into Jerusalem and/or the temple.
Psalm 23 ends with “I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever” (Psalm 23:6), and Psalm 24 begins by asking “Who may ascend the hill of the LORD?” From this point of view, Psalm 24 continues from the exact place Psalm 23 left off. Furthermore, if we look at these three psalms together, Psalm 22 is like the beginning of a prayer psalm with its “problem statement”, and Psalms 23 and 24 feel like the declaration of God’s help and the resulting praise and thanksgiving.
I would try to take this further but the connection is not that strong. I would describe this as a “general sense” that the psalms may be tied together in this way, but it’s not conclusive and I could potentially be over-interpreting the situation. I will leave further analysis as an exercise for my readers, because it exceeds my capabilities.
Taking this psalm by its first verse, it would seem that this is a psalm of praise. “The earth is the LORD’s, and all that is within it”. However, in this case it defies standard convention because almost the entirety of the rest of this psalm is not really a praise psalm.
Instead, it splits into three parts. The first part is the introduction in verses 1-2. The second part in verses 3-6 is a description of the righteous. This is reminiscent of Psalm 15 which started with a very similar question: “Who may dwell on your holy hill?” (Psalm 15:1). In this case, verse 3 asks “Who may stand in his holy place?” Both Psalm 15 and verses 3-6 here answer the question by describing the characteristics of the righteous person.
The third part in verses 7-10 breaks off in a completely different direction, prophesying the entrance of God into … somewhere. That the gates and “ancient doors” should be opened up that God may enter. It doesn’t say where, but we can reasonably guess it’s referring to either the temple or Jerusalem. My inclination is to say it’s the temple, since that was the subject of verse 3, but it’s not a sure thing.
There are many questions for which I can offer few answers. The first question is why these three pieces are tied together in the same psalm? The second question is why verses 7-10 use a repeating structure with a recurring phrase “king of glory”. The third question is to look for meaningful differences between verses 3-6 and Psalm 15. I will try to address these questions as best as I can, in order.
First, why are these three parts in the same psalm? To be honest, I have no idea. In situations like this I typically look to other commentaries to enlighten my confusion, but Rashi says nothing and the NIV commentary does not offer much insight into the particular structure of this psalm or why these ideas are combined in this way. One thing I noticed while reading the NIV commentary is that both the second and third section contain the idea of “entering”. The second part describes the righteous people who can ascend the hill of God and enter the temple. The third part is a triumphant announcement of God’s entry into the city (or temple). That is one possible connection. I don’t see how either part is associated with God’s lordship over the world in verses 1-2, however.
The NIV commentary also mentioned that this psalm was plausibly composed when David returned the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, or as a commemoration of that event (see 2 Samuel 6). This is a bit speculative because the psalm does not itself mention the ark, only “the king of glory”. The triumphal entry in this psalm certainly reminds us of David and the ark, though.
For the second question, I would guess this is as least partly musical; remember that this was originally a song. In addition, the repeated phrase “king of glory” highlights the celebratory nature of the psalm. God is the “king of glory” because he is exalted, honored, praised, etc. I think it’s mostly musical though, because these are like choruses that would be repeated over and over. In modern music, Handel’s Messiah has a beautiful chorus based on this psalm, which sounds very much like how I imagine this psalm was originally intended.
For the third question, verses 3-6 and Psalm 15 are both mostly similar. One minor difference is that Psalm 15 places a strong emphasis on honesty and integrity in both our words and our business dealings. Verses 3-6, in contrast, mentioned integrity at the end of verse 4 (“and has not sworn deceitfully”), but it is much less of a focus. Instead, verses 3-6 seem to pay the most attention to the concept of purity.
“Clean hands and a pure heart” use the language of purity and cleanliness, but the meaning is relatively similar to Psalm 15. “Clean hands” means that one has not committed any crimes, that one’s hands are “innocent” in some sense. “A pure heart” means that one’s thoughts and intentions are good, pure and innocent.
The phrase taken as a whole means that a righteous person should be innocent in both thought and deed. Psalm 15, in contrast, says that a righteous person should have integrity in what they say and what they do. In conclusion, these are two subtly different ways of saying what amounts to roughly the same thing. As a righteous person, one is expected to be honest, pure and innocent in both thought, word and action. It’s not enough to be honest in your dealings if you lie and slander, and it’s not enough to be honest in your words if your thoughts and intentions (your “heart”) are bad. You must have honest and good intentions, honest and good words, and honest and righteous deeds.
Finally, I want my readers to think about the placement of this psalm after Psalms 22 and 23. If we look at them broadly, Psalm 22 is a desperate cry for help, which ends in praise but begins in despair. Psalm 23 is a very quiet psalm, confident in God’s salvation. Psalm 24 is much more boisterous, with a joyful declaration of God’s imminent entry into Jerusalem and/or the temple.
Psalm 23 ends with “I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever” (Psalm 23:6), and Psalm 24 begins by asking “Who may ascend the hill of the LORD?” From this point of view, Psalm 24 continues from the exact place Psalm 23 left off. Furthermore, if we look at these three psalms together, Psalm 22 is like the beginning of a prayer psalm with its “problem statement”, and Psalms 23 and 24 feel like the declaration of God’s help and the resulting praise and thanksgiving.
I would try to take this further but the connection is not that strong. I would describe this as a “general sense” that the psalms may be tied together in this way, but it’s not conclusive and I could potentially be over-interpreting the situation. I will leave further analysis as an exercise for my readers, because it exceeds my capabilities.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Bible Commentary - Psalms 23
Psalm 23 is so popular and so widely quoted it’s almost difficult to look at it objectively. Phrases like “the LORD is my shepherd” are so commonly repeated it’s hard to even think about separately from how it’s used by popular culture. Nevertheless, I will do my best.
Psalm 23 is quite distinct from the psalms we have read so far. It is a gentle, pastoral psalm with a lot of soothing imagery. David, who historically was a shepherd in his youth, envisages God as a shepherd and himself as the sheep. Verses 2, 3 and 4 all contain various allusions to David as a sheep. In verse 2, David is lying down in green pastures and led besides water. In verse 3 David is guided by God, and in verse 4 David is comforted by the rod and staff, which are common shepherd tools.
First of all, David’s role as a sheep emphasizes his own passivity and God’s activity. In verses 2-3 David is the recipient of God’s leadership, which is highlighted by the repetition of the word “he”. “He makes me,” “he leads me”, “he restores me”, “he guides me”.
Verses 4-5 continue this in a more direct way, using the second person pronoun “you”. “You are with me”, “your rod and staff comfort me”, “you prepare”, “you anointed”. It changes to second person which makes the activity much more personal and less abstract: David is speaking directly to God now, and not talking about God to someone else. Nevertheless, the overall tone is similar because it continues to emphasize God’s protective influence surrounding David.
There are four uses of the word “I” in this psalm; first in verse 1, then twice in verse 4, and then once in verse 6. He says, “I shall not want”, “I walk through the valley,” “I shall not fear”, “I will dwell in the house of the LORD”. The only one of these that really constitutes an action is the second one, when David “walks through the valley of the shadow of death”.
The only thing that David needs to do is walk; he walks through the valley of the shadow, and God is the one who guides him, leads him, comforts him, restores him, and anoints him. Most of the activity is God’s, and as long as David continues to walk, God will lead him and bring him through the darkness.
Psalm 23 draws a stark contrast with Psalm 22, which immediately precedes it. In Psalm 22, we see evidence of David’s anxiety and doubts of God’s saving power. Psalm 22 also expresses David’s hope and confidence in God, giving it an emotionally mixed character that is typical of “the waiting”, the moments between when a prayer is offered and when it is answered, when his faith is tried and tested.
In Psalm 23, there are no hints of this anxiety. Instead, the psalm is characterized by confident declarations of God’s faithfulness and his protective nature. Once again the first verse of the psalm typifies its whole message: God is my shepherd. David can trust that God, his shepherd, will guide him, lead him, protect him and feed him. The shepherd protects and cares for the sheep, almost like a parent would protect and care for a young child. Even though verse 4 has David walking through the “valley of the shadow of death”, rather than being a source of anxiety this is yet another opportunity for David to announce his trust in God: “I fear no evil, for you are with me”. Notice once again the simple, declarative sentences that leave no room for doubts or questions.
I’m not sure why these two psalms are put next to each other, but after the fears and doubts of the previous chapter, this psalm clearly has a calming influence, reminding us of God’s faithfulness and protection in all circumstances. David’s final thought is that he will dwell in the house of the LORD forever. In David’s own life, he started out in the Judean wilderness as a shepherd himself, and ended his life as the king in Jerusalem. In some ways the Psalm itself mimicks this progression, as David describes himself as a sheep wandering through green pastures and lakes, and ends by placing himself in the temple, which was located in Jerusalem. In spite of the pastoral origin, David chooses his forever home, the place he would spend the rest of his life, to be the house of the LORD where he could dwell in the presence of God always.
Psalm 23 is quite distinct from the psalms we have read so far. It is a gentle, pastoral psalm with a lot of soothing imagery. David, who historically was a shepherd in his youth, envisages God as a shepherd and himself as the sheep. Verses 2, 3 and 4 all contain various allusions to David as a sheep. In verse 2, David is lying down in green pastures and led besides water. In verse 3 David is guided by God, and in verse 4 David is comforted by the rod and staff, which are common shepherd tools.
First of all, David’s role as a sheep emphasizes his own passivity and God’s activity. In verses 2-3 David is the recipient of God’s leadership, which is highlighted by the repetition of the word “he”. “He makes me,” “he leads me”, “he restores me”, “he guides me”.
Verses 4-5 continue this in a more direct way, using the second person pronoun “you”. “You are with me”, “your rod and staff comfort me”, “you prepare”, “you anointed”. It changes to second person which makes the activity much more personal and less abstract: David is speaking directly to God now, and not talking about God to someone else. Nevertheless, the overall tone is similar because it continues to emphasize God’s protective influence surrounding David.
There are four uses of the word “I” in this psalm; first in verse 1, then twice in verse 4, and then once in verse 6. He says, “I shall not want”, “I walk through the valley,” “I shall not fear”, “I will dwell in the house of the LORD”. The only one of these that really constitutes an action is the second one, when David “walks through the valley of the shadow of death”.
The only thing that David needs to do is walk; he walks through the valley of the shadow, and God is the one who guides him, leads him, comforts him, restores him, and anoints him. Most of the activity is God’s, and as long as David continues to walk, God will lead him and bring him through the darkness.
Psalm 23 draws a stark contrast with Psalm 22, which immediately precedes it. In Psalm 22, we see evidence of David’s anxiety and doubts of God’s saving power. Psalm 22 also expresses David’s hope and confidence in God, giving it an emotionally mixed character that is typical of “the waiting”, the moments between when a prayer is offered and when it is answered, when his faith is tried and tested.
In Psalm 23, there are no hints of this anxiety. Instead, the psalm is characterized by confident declarations of God’s faithfulness and his protective nature. Once again the first verse of the psalm typifies its whole message: God is my shepherd. David can trust that God, his shepherd, will guide him, lead him, protect him and feed him. The shepherd protects and cares for the sheep, almost like a parent would protect and care for a young child. Even though verse 4 has David walking through the “valley of the shadow of death”, rather than being a source of anxiety this is yet another opportunity for David to announce his trust in God: “I fear no evil, for you are with me”. Notice once again the simple, declarative sentences that leave no room for doubts or questions.
I’m not sure why these two psalms are put next to each other, but after the fears and doubts of the previous chapter, this psalm clearly has a calming influence, reminding us of God’s faithfulness and protection in all circumstances. David’s final thought is that he will dwell in the house of the LORD forever. In David’s own life, he started out in the Judean wilderness as a shepherd himself, and ended his life as the king in Jerusalem. In some ways the Psalm itself mimicks this progression, as David describes himself as a sheep wandering through green pastures and lakes, and ends by placing himself in the temple, which was located in Jerusalem. In spite of the pastoral origin, David chooses his forever home, the place he would spend the rest of his life, to be the house of the LORD where he could dwell in the presence of God always.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Bible Commentary - Psalms 22
I’ve read Psalm 22 several times before starting this commentary, and I have really struggled to understand this psalm. While a superficial rendering of the psalm is pretty straightforward, I find myself constantly questioning whether I truly understand what this psalm is about.
If we follow the same pattern as nearly every other psalm, we can identify the central theme by looking at just the first verse. In it, David says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The key word here is “forsaken”. David feels that God has abandoned him, and in verse 2 he explains why. “Forsaken” in this case means unanswered prayer. David depends on God and cries out to him, “but you do not answer”.
Verses 3-5 introduce the basic tension of this psalm, which isn’t really captured by the first verse. The basic tension is that David is comparing his own unanswered prayer to the deliverance of “our fathers”. “Our fathers” trusted in God “and you delivered them”. At its most basic level, David is calling God faithful, God answers prayers, and yet he sees his own time of need and is not getting the answer from God that he desires.
This is a really fundamental challenge that every person of faith will face at least once in their life, but more likely they will face it many times. Perhaps even more than David, we have the entire bible filled with extravagant promises, seemingly impossible promises, that God will heal every disease, fulfill every desire in our hearts, it’s just crazy stuff. And then more times than I can count, I offer up some simple prayer and wait for God’s answer. And wait, and wait, and wait…
For many of these prayers I am still waiting, and I find myself crying out like David, asking why God “does not answer” when the bible is filled with so many stories of God’s faithfulness. Even in my own life I have stories of God’s faithfulness, and yet still I wait for God to answer more of my prayers.
This is all in verses 1-5. Beginning in verse 6, the thoughts get a bit more confused and it changes direction a couple times. In verses 6-8 he describes how the people around him criticize and mock him. This is somewhat difficult to understand because it is only loosely contextualized. Who are these people, and why are they mocking him? Perhaps it is only broadly characterized because it is meant to be broadly understood. Anytime we are in a place of need, there are going to be people who mock or criticize, especially if we have confidently declared that God is going to protect or deliver us.
In verses 9-10, David returns once more to the subject of trust. This time, instead of “our fathers” trusting in God, David asserts that he trusts in God, and has trusted God since the day of his birth.
From verse 11, the remainder of the psalm hews much closer to the traditional formula of a prayer psalm. David gives the “problem statement” in verses 11-18, a plea for help in verses 19-21, and praise and thanksgiving in anticipation of God’s deliverance in verses 22-31.
I think if this psalm had started in verse 11 and simply skipped the first ten verses, I would have said that this is completely typical, traditional prayer psalm. With those first ten verses, the overall tone of the psalm is radically changed. For instance, how should we read David’s praise and thanksgiving in verses 22-31, in light of his confusion and anxiety in verses 1-5? David is certainly putting on a confident front, but is it just a front when his very first thought is asking why God has forsaken him?
A typical prayer psalm maintains a position of what I would call, for lack of a better description, desperate confidence. Psalm 18 is a great example of this, because we see David in a desperate situation, surrounded by raging waters and trapped in the mud, on the verge of death. And yet out of that desperation we see a confidence that God is going to deliver him after his prayer. Since that psalm (and most other prayer psalms) end with praise and thanksgiving, the general tone of the prayer psalms is optimistic. Things might start off badly, in a difficult situation, but they always end with confidence that God will deliver his people.
Psalm 22 ends similarly, with a deep optimism that God will save David from “the bulls” that are surrounding him.
I don’t think it’s a front, per se. First of all, I mentioned before that the fundamental tension in this psalm is that David does not see God’s answer to his prayer, and yet he believes in God’s faithfulness. More than anything else David appears confused by his circumstances and God’s apparent delay. He is upset because his deliverance has not yet come, but he praises God because he still believes in God’s support for him.
Second, I think David praises God because of his faith. Even though he is confused and distraught over his present danger, he still believes that God will save him and it’s from this belief that he praises God. It’s not “a front” because I believe David is sincere. David sees the difference between his present struggles and his belief in God’s deliverance. David knows the promises that God made to Israel in the covenant, and when he sees a difference between his present reality and God’s promises, he trusts in God’s promises.
In conclusion, this is a prayer psalm that has many things in common with the other prayer psalms. What makes it different is the unusual insight it gives us into David’s emotions and feelings in the difficult moments when he is still waiting for God’s deliverance. We can see that in spite of the confidence David shows here and in the other prayer psalms, he faces an inner emotional turmoil while waiting for God to show up in a big way.
If we follow the same pattern as nearly every other psalm, we can identify the central theme by looking at just the first verse. In it, David says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The key word here is “forsaken”. David feels that God has abandoned him, and in verse 2 he explains why. “Forsaken” in this case means unanswered prayer. David depends on God and cries out to him, “but you do not answer”.
Verses 3-5 introduce the basic tension of this psalm, which isn’t really captured by the first verse. The basic tension is that David is comparing his own unanswered prayer to the deliverance of “our fathers”. “Our fathers” trusted in God “and you delivered them”. At its most basic level, David is calling God faithful, God answers prayers, and yet he sees his own time of need and is not getting the answer from God that he desires.
This is a really fundamental challenge that every person of faith will face at least once in their life, but more likely they will face it many times. Perhaps even more than David, we have the entire bible filled with extravagant promises, seemingly impossible promises, that God will heal every disease, fulfill every desire in our hearts, it’s just crazy stuff. And then more times than I can count, I offer up some simple prayer and wait for God’s answer. And wait, and wait, and wait…
For many of these prayers I am still waiting, and I find myself crying out like David, asking why God “does not answer” when the bible is filled with so many stories of God’s faithfulness. Even in my own life I have stories of God’s faithfulness, and yet still I wait for God to answer more of my prayers.
This is all in verses 1-5. Beginning in verse 6, the thoughts get a bit more confused and it changes direction a couple times. In verses 6-8 he describes how the people around him criticize and mock him. This is somewhat difficult to understand because it is only loosely contextualized. Who are these people, and why are they mocking him? Perhaps it is only broadly characterized because it is meant to be broadly understood. Anytime we are in a place of need, there are going to be people who mock or criticize, especially if we have confidently declared that God is going to protect or deliver us.
In verses 9-10, David returns once more to the subject of trust. This time, instead of “our fathers” trusting in God, David asserts that he trusts in God, and has trusted God since the day of his birth.
From verse 11, the remainder of the psalm hews much closer to the traditional formula of a prayer psalm. David gives the “problem statement” in verses 11-18, a plea for help in verses 19-21, and praise and thanksgiving in anticipation of God’s deliverance in verses 22-31.
I think if this psalm had started in verse 11 and simply skipped the first ten verses, I would have said that this is completely typical, traditional prayer psalm. With those first ten verses, the overall tone of the psalm is radically changed. For instance, how should we read David’s praise and thanksgiving in verses 22-31, in light of his confusion and anxiety in verses 1-5? David is certainly putting on a confident front, but is it just a front when his very first thought is asking why God has forsaken him?
A typical prayer psalm maintains a position of what I would call, for lack of a better description, desperate confidence. Psalm 18 is a great example of this, because we see David in a desperate situation, surrounded by raging waters and trapped in the mud, on the verge of death. And yet out of that desperation we see a confidence that God is going to deliver him after his prayer. Since that psalm (and most other prayer psalms) end with praise and thanksgiving, the general tone of the prayer psalms is optimistic. Things might start off badly, in a difficult situation, but they always end with confidence that God will deliver his people.
Psalm 22 ends similarly, with a deep optimism that God will save David from “the bulls” that are surrounding him.
I don’t think it’s a front, per se. First of all, I mentioned before that the fundamental tension in this psalm is that David does not see God’s answer to his prayer, and yet he believes in God’s faithfulness. More than anything else David appears confused by his circumstances and God’s apparent delay. He is upset because his deliverance has not yet come, but he praises God because he still believes in God’s support for him.
Second, I think David praises God because of his faith. Even though he is confused and distraught over his present danger, he still believes that God will save him and it’s from this belief that he praises God. It’s not “a front” because I believe David is sincere. David sees the difference between his present struggles and his belief in God’s deliverance. David knows the promises that God made to Israel in the covenant, and when he sees a difference between his present reality and God’s promises, he trusts in God’s promises.
In conclusion, this is a prayer psalm that has many things in common with the other prayer psalms. What makes it different is the unusual insight it gives us into David’s emotions and feelings in the difficult moments when he is still waiting for God’s deliverance. We can see that in spite of the confidence David shows here and in the other prayer psalms, he faces an inner emotional turmoil while waiting for God to show up in a big way.
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Bible Commentary - Psalms 21
This is a psalm of thanksgiving for God’s salvation and answered prayer. Like so many other psalms, this psalm is well-characterized by the first verse, which establishes the overall tone of the chapter as a whole. Even in the first verse, we see the praise themes with David “rejoicing” and being “glad” at the salvation of God.
Remember how I explained that the psalms of prayer had three parts? A prayer psalm is a problem statement, a request for deliverance, and then praise and thanksgiving for God’s presumed response. This psalm basically takes that last third of the prayer and stretches it out to fill up an entire song.
I can identify two parts in this psalm. The first part is from verses 1-7, and this is, for lack of a better word, the “positive” section. This is the part where David describes how wonderful God is to him, how God has “given him his heart’s desire” (v. 2). He continues to describe the “blessings of good things”, “a crown of fine gold”, “life”, “glory”, “splendor and majesty”, and “joyful with gladness in your presence” as a choice selection of God’s blessings for the king.
These are all wonderfully positive things and de-emphasize the adversarial nature that many other prayers in the psalms can take. For example, you don’t need to defeat an enemy to have a crown of gold, or life or glory or joyfulness or any of those things. Those are blessings that come from a bit of hard work and the favor of God. In contrast, many other psalms focus on victory over his enemies as both the goal and the object of praise and thanksgiving (for one example, see Psalm 18).
The second part is verses 8-12 (excluding the brief concluding verse 13). This is the part where David praises God for destroying all his enemies. Interestingly, if you carefully parse the pronouns here David is not talking about his own enemies, he is talking about God destroying God’s enemies. I know this because throughout the entire psalm, David has an entirely consistent usage of pronouns: “he/him” refers to “the King” (with one minor exception in v. 9, where it is God), “they/them” refers to the enemies, while “you/your” refers entirely to God. Every single place it says “you” or “your”, in both the first and second part, it is referring to God. This means that “your enemies” (v. 8) are God’s enemies, not David’s. It’s also interesting how David describes himself in the third person, referring to himself as “the king” rather than using first person pronouns.
Again this is an interesting, if minor, shift from the typical narrative. Typically the “enemies” in Psalms are either wicked men, exploiting the poor and vulnerable and generally running contrary to social justice values, or they are evil men seeking to destroy David or the righteous more generally (these groups contain some overlap of course and are not always easily distinguishable). In this chapter, the crimes of these “enemies” are not clearly described, but since they are called the enemies of God I would suspect it could include either group.
Anyone who breaks the laws of God is considered, in some vague fashion, an enemy of God, because God’s laws and God himself are somewhat conflated in the biblical text. What is the difference between obeying God and obeying his laws? Or in the same way, what is the difference between disobeying God and disobeying his laws? From there, it’s only a small jump to get from disobeying God to being his enemy.
Similarly, David and the righteous more generally carry a strong association with God throughout the bible. Therefore seeking to kill or destroy the righteous is generally equivalent to attacking God himself. In conclusion, I think David would equate any kind of wicked person, regardless of the nature of their crimes, as an enemy of God inasmuch as their wickedness stands in rebellion against God’s nature and God’s law. Even though I called this a minor shift, it seems like this is just a slightly different way of talking about the same general group of people.
Between these two sections, then, we see the righteous (such as the king) uplifted, and we see the simultaneous downfall of the wicked. This reminds me of Job and elsewhere in the OT where God is the righteous judge, blessing the righteous and punishing the wicked. This seems to be the basic narrative structure of the psalm, where “the king” is the righteous and the “enemies” of God are the wicked.
The centerpoint of this whole structure is trust. “For the king trusts in the LORD” (v. 7), and that is the reason we can believe in both deliverance of the king and destruction of those who do evil. It begins and ends with praise (v. 1, 13), but in the center is trust, believing that God will do what he has promised and help his people.
Remember how I explained that the psalms of prayer had three parts? A prayer psalm is a problem statement, a request for deliverance, and then praise and thanksgiving for God’s presumed response. This psalm basically takes that last third of the prayer and stretches it out to fill up an entire song.
I can identify two parts in this psalm. The first part is from verses 1-7, and this is, for lack of a better word, the “positive” section. This is the part where David describes how wonderful God is to him, how God has “given him his heart’s desire” (v. 2). He continues to describe the “blessings of good things”, “a crown of fine gold”, “life”, “glory”, “splendor and majesty”, and “joyful with gladness in your presence” as a choice selection of God’s blessings for the king.
These are all wonderfully positive things and de-emphasize the adversarial nature that many other prayers in the psalms can take. For example, you don’t need to defeat an enemy to have a crown of gold, or life or glory or joyfulness or any of those things. Those are blessings that come from a bit of hard work and the favor of God. In contrast, many other psalms focus on victory over his enemies as both the goal and the object of praise and thanksgiving (for one example, see Psalm 18).
The second part is verses 8-12 (excluding the brief concluding verse 13). This is the part where David praises God for destroying all his enemies. Interestingly, if you carefully parse the pronouns here David is not talking about his own enemies, he is talking about God destroying God’s enemies. I know this because throughout the entire psalm, David has an entirely consistent usage of pronouns: “he/him” refers to “the King” (with one minor exception in v. 9, where it is God), “they/them” refers to the enemies, while “you/your” refers entirely to God. Every single place it says “you” or “your”, in both the first and second part, it is referring to God. This means that “your enemies” (v. 8) are God’s enemies, not David’s. It’s also interesting how David describes himself in the third person, referring to himself as “the king” rather than using first person pronouns.
Again this is an interesting, if minor, shift from the typical narrative. Typically the “enemies” in Psalms are either wicked men, exploiting the poor and vulnerable and generally running contrary to social justice values, or they are evil men seeking to destroy David or the righteous more generally (these groups contain some overlap of course and are not always easily distinguishable). In this chapter, the crimes of these “enemies” are not clearly described, but since they are called the enemies of God I would suspect it could include either group.
Anyone who breaks the laws of God is considered, in some vague fashion, an enemy of God, because God’s laws and God himself are somewhat conflated in the biblical text. What is the difference between obeying God and obeying his laws? Or in the same way, what is the difference between disobeying God and disobeying his laws? From there, it’s only a small jump to get from disobeying God to being his enemy.
Similarly, David and the righteous more generally carry a strong association with God throughout the bible. Therefore seeking to kill or destroy the righteous is generally equivalent to attacking God himself. In conclusion, I think David would equate any kind of wicked person, regardless of the nature of their crimes, as an enemy of God inasmuch as their wickedness stands in rebellion against God’s nature and God’s law. Even though I called this a minor shift, it seems like this is just a slightly different way of talking about the same general group of people.
Between these two sections, then, we see the righteous (such as the king) uplifted, and we see the simultaneous downfall of the wicked. This reminds me of Job and elsewhere in the OT where God is the righteous judge, blessing the righteous and punishing the wicked. This seems to be the basic narrative structure of the psalm, where “the king” is the righteous and the “enemies” of God are the wicked.
The centerpoint of this whole structure is trust. “For the king trusts in the LORD” (v. 7), and that is the reason we can believe in both deliverance of the king and destruction of those who do evil. It begins and ends with praise (v. 1, 13), but in the center is trust, believing that God will do what he has promised and help his people.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Bible Commentary - Psalms 20
Psalm 20 is a little different from most of the other psalms we have read so far. This psalm could best be described as a royal benediction, with David declaring the blessings of God upon the anonymous recipient of this prayer. It’s as if this psalm were a prayer, but unlike the earlier prayers David is not praying for himself; rather, he is praying for us, the listeners to this song. This most reminds me of the Aaronic blessing that was given back in Numbers 6:22-27, since they both use second person pronouns (e.g. “may the LORD bless you”) and because they are both calls for God to bless the recipient of the prayer in some fashion.
The Aaronic blessing in Num 6 is quite generic, while the prayer in Psalm 20 is more narrowly targeted as a prayer for victory. Verses 1-5 continue on this theme pretty much continuously, beginning with a request for help “in the day of trouble” (v. 1) and ending with a song “of joy over your victory” (v. 5).
In keeping with the many psalms we’ve read so far, Psalm 20 does not place this prayer into any specific context. One way it’s different however is that most of the prayer psalms have what I call a “problem statement”, where David describes at length the crisis he was facing before issuing his specific request for deliverance from the LORD. Examples of this type include Psalm 10 and, to an extent, Psalm 18 as well. Since the prayer in Psalm 20 is not for David but for his listeners, it is a natural consequence that David would not know the circumstances of the difficulties they were facing and therefore this psalm is slightly more generic than the usual prayer psalms.
Lastly, verse 7 reinforces one of the major themes of the OT, contrasting the power of God and the power of human strength (or horses). We’ve seen this show up several times already, with one early example being the Law’s prohibition on the king’s accumulation of horses (Deuteronomy 17:16). Even though the passage in Deuteronomy associates that prohibition with returning to Egypt (which is also forbidden), it’s clear from here and elsewhere in the OT that God doesn’t want Israel to accumulate horses because that is a form of human power that can be substituted for their dependence on God.
Here in verse 7, David is saying that rather than trust in the power of horses and chariots, he and the people of Israel would “boast” or depend on the power of God to save them. A good example of this in action is 2 Chronicles 20, when the LORD destroyed the enemies of Judah in a situation when they would have been hopelessly outnumbered if they fought by human strength. More generally, there are many places in the OT where we see Israel vastly outnumbered both in soldiers as well as chariots, and where Israel is nonetheless victorious because God gives them the victory against their stronger enemies. David himself won several battles in this way (2 Samuel 5:17-25), so he would undoubtedly believe in the supremacy of the power of God over human strength.
Thematically, the saving power of God is the primary topic of this psalm. In the prayer of verses 1-5 it was the strength of God that would deliver those who are in trouble, and in the later half of the psalm (verses 6-9) David is praising God and God’s ability to save those who call upon him.
Structurally this follows some of the patterns of a typical prayer psalm. The tripartite structure of a typical prayer psalm is problem statement, prayer for relief, and praise and thanksgiving for deliverance. This psalm seems to omit the first part and instead it only contains a prayer for relief (v. 1-5) and praise for deliverance (v. 6-9). As I previously mentioned, the problem statement is left out because this prayer is not focused on himself (the author), but rather upon the recipients or listeners to whom this psalm is delivered. This seems like the minimum modification necessary to make the standard prayer structure fit with the context of a second person, benedictory prayer.
Verse 6 is the only hint in the psalm that David might be talking about himself, when he refers to the LORD’s “anointed”. Verse 9 contains a reference to “the king”, but it’s ambiguous whether this king is David himself or the great King who rules over the world (God). Otherwise, the psalm is entirely written to us and for us, that we might receive the blessing of God in our day of trouble and our time of need.
The Aaronic blessing in Num 6 is quite generic, while the prayer in Psalm 20 is more narrowly targeted as a prayer for victory. Verses 1-5 continue on this theme pretty much continuously, beginning with a request for help “in the day of trouble” (v. 1) and ending with a song “of joy over your victory” (v. 5).
In keeping with the many psalms we’ve read so far, Psalm 20 does not place this prayer into any specific context. One way it’s different however is that most of the prayer psalms have what I call a “problem statement”, where David describes at length the crisis he was facing before issuing his specific request for deliverance from the LORD. Examples of this type include Psalm 10 and, to an extent, Psalm 18 as well. Since the prayer in Psalm 20 is not for David but for his listeners, it is a natural consequence that David would not know the circumstances of the difficulties they were facing and therefore this psalm is slightly more generic than the usual prayer psalms.
Lastly, verse 7 reinforces one of the major themes of the OT, contrasting the power of God and the power of human strength (or horses). We’ve seen this show up several times already, with one early example being the Law’s prohibition on the king’s accumulation of horses (Deuteronomy 17:16). Even though the passage in Deuteronomy associates that prohibition with returning to Egypt (which is also forbidden), it’s clear from here and elsewhere in the OT that God doesn’t want Israel to accumulate horses because that is a form of human power that can be substituted for their dependence on God.
Here in verse 7, David is saying that rather than trust in the power of horses and chariots, he and the people of Israel would “boast” or depend on the power of God to save them. A good example of this in action is 2 Chronicles 20, when the LORD destroyed the enemies of Judah in a situation when they would have been hopelessly outnumbered if they fought by human strength. More generally, there are many places in the OT where we see Israel vastly outnumbered both in soldiers as well as chariots, and where Israel is nonetheless victorious because God gives them the victory against their stronger enemies. David himself won several battles in this way (2 Samuel 5:17-25), so he would undoubtedly believe in the supremacy of the power of God over human strength.
Thematically, the saving power of God is the primary topic of this psalm. In the prayer of verses 1-5 it was the strength of God that would deliver those who are in trouble, and in the later half of the psalm (verses 6-9) David is praising God and God’s ability to save those who call upon him.
Structurally this follows some of the patterns of a typical prayer psalm. The tripartite structure of a typical prayer psalm is problem statement, prayer for relief, and praise and thanksgiving for deliverance. This psalm seems to omit the first part and instead it only contains a prayer for relief (v. 1-5) and praise for deliverance (v. 6-9). As I previously mentioned, the problem statement is left out because this prayer is not focused on himself (the author), but rather upon the recipients or listeners to whom this psalm is delivered. This seems like the minimum modification necessary to make the standard prayer structure fit with the context of a second person, benedictory prayer.
Verse 6 is the only hint in the psalm that David might be talking about himself, when he refers to the LORD’s “anointed”. Verse 9 contains a reference to “the king”, but it’s ambiguous whether this king is David himself or the great King who rules over the world (God). Otherwise, the psalm is entirely written to us and for us, that we might receive the blessing of God in our day of trouble and our time of need.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Bible Commentary - Psalms 19
This psalm can be neatly divided into two parts. The first part, from verse 1-6, describes God’s glory in creation. This is clearly summarized in verse 1, which says that “the heavens are telling of the glory of God”. The second part, from verse 7-14, suddenly changes course and praises the word of God, which “is perfect” according to v. 7. I will discuss each section in turn, but for now I want to focus on the structure of the psalm as a whole.
It’s such a sudden divergence from the first topic to the second, so sudden and yet so absolute, that one of two possible conclusions seems inevitable. The first possibility is that these two sections came from originally separate psalms and, at some point in antiquity beyond memory or written record, they were combined together into the psalm we now possess. This is possible but unlikely for various reasons which I will not discuss. The second possibility is that, in spite of their apparent differences, there is a deeper symmetry or connection between these two sections. This will be my present focus: how do we find a connection between these two halves of the psalm, if such a connection exists?
The glory of God and the word of God. The glory of God is reflected in natural creation, in the things that God has made. Verses 2-4 are instructive: in verses 2 and 4 we see the “speech” and “utterances” of the heavens filling the whole world. In verse 3, dividing them, we see that “there is no speech”. This is an apparent contradiction with a simple explanation. David is saying that the sun and moon and stars aren’t saying anything, we don’t hear the sun cry out “glory to God!” or anything at all. However, it “speaks” to us in the metaphorical sense that art or music or a movie of any kind can “speak” to people about something. This is still a common figure of speech in english, and David is using this figure of speech in a similar way.
The natural world and the heavens speak to us about the glory of God because they teach us about God’s nature, and they are a reflection of God’s nature.
Going right into verse 7, David says “the law of the LORD is perfect”, or to put it differently, the word of God is perfect. Before David was saying that natural creation speaks about the glory of God, and now he is saying that the word of God is perfect. One clear thread is speech. Before it was the natural world speaking, and now it is God speaking, and David exults in that word.
In verses 7-9 David makes six declarations in turn. Depending on the translation, he describes the law, the testimony, the precepts, the commandment, the fear and the judgments of the LORD. Each one is good, and four of them are described in terms of how they positively affect the people who adhere to them, giving us wisdom, joy and enlightenment. David places a particular emphasis on the value of God’s word to guiding our lives. In verse 10, they are “desirable”, more so than gold (wealth) and honey (sweetness or food). In verse 11 David sees “great reward” in following the law of God, and he also sees the avoidance of catastrophe.
Verses 12-14 shift to a tone of prayer, but it has obvious connections to the preceding description of God’s law. David seeks to be blameless, to be pleasing in God’s sight, by living in accordance with God’s law. David desires to live with God’s blessing as a consequence of his obedience to God’s law. As such, David’s prayer in verses 12-14 is essentially, “help me to live in a way that pleases you by obeying your laws and commands”, such that David might receive all the blessing he just described.
I would like to return to the subject of the connection between the two halves of this psalm. I already mentioned one connecting theme is the concept of speaking. Nature first speaks, and then God speaks. There is another connecting theme that is somewhat more obscure, but still quite powerful. For those who have been following my commentary, remember back to the book of Job. In Job 38-39 I mentioned that God was using the power and glory of nature creation as an argument by proxy.
Job was questioning God’s justice and fairness, because Job felt punished for some sin that he didn’t believe he committed. Job was demanding for God to prove Job’s guilt, to show what he did wrong. God, in turn, answered in a very indirect way, by pointing out the complexity and the glory of the natural world, that far exceeded Job’s power, understanding and wisdom. It’s not clear to most modern readers, but this is an argument by proxy. By showing his wisdom and understanding in the natural world, God was establishing in a tangible way his wisdom and understanding of the intangible realm of justice and fairness. Since we can see God’s great wisdom in the natural world, we can understand by extension that God is also wise and understanding in matters of justice.
The point is that this chapter shares very similar dynamics. First David shows the glory of God in the natural world. Admittedly, it is vastly different in style and vocabulary compared to Job, but the general concept is similar. Then in the second half, he is logically extending from the glory of God in creation to describe and affirm the wisdom and goodness of God’s law. To put it another way, we see the glory of God in creation so that we can understand and believe the glory of God is also manifested in his laws.
The context is completely different, and the conclusion is different, but the structure of the argument between here and Job is remarkably similar. In both cases, the nature of God manifested in creation becomes the logical predicate of some conclusion about an intangible, abstract concept that is otherwise difficult or impossible to prove. With Job, the logic is “we see the wisdom of God in creation, and therefore believe the wisdom of God in justice and fairness.” In Psalm 19, the logic is “we see the glory of God in creation, and therefore believe in the perfection, truth and beauty of God’s laws.” While one could never mistake the first sentence for the second, the similarities are striking nonetheless.
The similarities are all the more striking given the obvious linguistic and historical differences between Job and Psalm 19. It suggests an undercurrent of philosophy or theology that remained over potentially hundreds of years across two books that have no overt literary connection. While I don’t want to overemphasize the point, one of the most likely reasons why we find the argument repeated between such different historical works is that it is leveraging a well-understood, if not common, cultural trope regarding creation. More specifically, that creation is a source of truth regarding God’s nature. This belief is still present in modern society, but not nearly to the same extent or in the same deeply intuitive nature as what is implied by the biblical text.
On the other hand, adoration of the law of God is one of Psalms’ unique characteristics, beginning from the very first psalm. In that sense Psalm 19 is a quintessential Psalmic text. The only way it cuts differently from the other psalms is by the structure and implicit argument presented.
In conclusion, Psalm 19 is clearly consistent with the other psalms throughout the book, but its structural connection to Job shows an implicit cultural argument that is undoubtedly much older. In this way, Psalm 19 shows itself to be a mixture of both new and old, with the old argument from creation redesigned to emphasize the perfection of God’s law.
It’s such a sudden divergence from the first topic to the second, so sudden and yet so absolute, that one of two possible conclusions seems inevitable. The first possibility is that these two sections came from originally separate psalms and, at some point in antiquity beyond memory or written record, they were combined together into the psalm we now possess. This is possible but unlikely for various reasons which I will not discuss. The second possibility is that, in spite of their apparent differences, there is a deeper symmetry or connection between these two sections. This will be my present focus: how do we find a connection between these two halves of the psalm, if such a connection exists?
The glory of God and the word of God. The glory of God is reflected in natural creation, in the things that God has made. Verses 2-4 are instructive: in verses 2 and 4 we see the “speech” and “utterances” of the heavens filling the whole world. In verse 3, dividing them, we see that “there is no speech”. This is an apparent contradiction with a simple explanation. David is saying that the sun and moon and stars aren’t saying anything, we don’t hear the sun cry out “glory to God!” or anything at all. However, it “speaks” to us in the metaphorical sense that art or music or a movie of any kind can “speak” to people about something. This is still a common figure of speech in english, and David is using this figure of speech in a similar way.
The natural world and the heavens speak to us about the glory of God because they teach us about God’s nature, and they are a reflection of God’s nature.
Going right into verse 7, David says “the law of the LORD is perfect”, or to put it differently, the word of God is perfect. Before David was saying that natural creation speaks about the glory of God, and now he is saying that the word of God is perfect. One clear thread is speech. Before it was the natural world speaking, and now it is God speaking, and David exults in that word.
In verses 7-9 David makes six declarations in turn. Depending on the translation, he describes the law, the testimony, the precepts, the commandment, the fear and the judgments of the LORD. Each one is good, and four of them are described in terms of how they positively affect the people who adhere to them, giving us wisdom, joy and enlightenment. David places a particular emphasis on the value of God’s word to guiding our lives. In verse 10, they are “desirable”, more so than gold (wealth) and honey (sweetness or food). In verse 11 David sees “great reward” in following the law of God, and he also sees the avoidance of catastrophe.
Verses 12-14 shift to a tone of prayer, but it has obvious connections to the preceding description of God’s law. David seeks to be blameless, to be pleasing in God’s sight, by living in accordance with God’s law. David desires to live with God’s blessing as a consequence of his obedience to God’s law. As such, David’s prayer in verses 12-14 is essentially, “help me to live in a way that pleases you by obeying your laws and commands”, such that David might receive all the blessing he just described.
I would like to return to the subject of the connection between the two halves of this psalm. I already mentioned one connecting theme is the concept of speaking. Nature first speaks, and then God speaks. There is another connecting theme that is somewhat more obscure, but still quite powerful. For those who have been following my commentary, remember back to the book of Job. In Job 38-39 I mentioned that God was using the power and glory of nature creation as an argument by proxy.
Job was questioning God’s justice and fairness, because Job felt punished for some sin that he didn’t believe he committed. Job was demanding for God to prove Job’s guilt, to show what he did wrong. God, in turn, answered in a very indirect way, by pointing out the complexity and the glory of the natural world, that far exceeded Job’s power, understanding and wisdom. It’s not clear to most modern readers, but this is an argument by proxy. By showing his wisdom and understanding in the natural world, God was establishing in a tangible way his wisdom and understanding of the intangible realm of justice and fairness. Since we can see God’s great wisdom in the natural world, we can understand by extension that God is also wise and understanding in matters of justice.
The point is that this chapter shares very similar dynamics. First David shows the glory of God in the natural world. Admittedly, it is vastly different in style and vocabulary compared to Job, but the general concept is similar. Then in the second half, he is logically extending from the glory of God in creation to describe and affirm the wisdom and goodness of God’s law. To put it another way, we see the glory of God in creation so that we can understand and believe the glory of God is also manifested in his laws.
The context is completely different, and the conclusion is different, but the structure of the argument between here and Job is remarkably similar. In both cases, the nature of God manifested in creation becomes the logical predicate of some conclusion about an intangible, abstract concept that is otherwise difficult or impossible to prove. With Job, the logic is “we see the wisdom of God in creation, and therefore believe the wisdom of God in justice and fairness.” In Psalm 19, the logic is “we see the glory of God in creation, and therefore believe in the perfection, truth and beauty of God’s laws.” While one could never mistake the first sentence for the second, the similarities are striking nonetheless.
The similarities are all the more striking given the obvious linguistic and historical differences between Job and Psalm 19. It suggests an undercurrent of philosophy or theology that remained over potentially hundreds of years across two books that have no overt literary connection. While I don’t want to overemphasize the point, one of the most likely reasons why we find the argument repeated between such different historical works is that it is leveraging a well-understood, if not common, cultural trope regarding creation. More specifically, that creation is a source of truth regarding God’s nature. This belief is still present in modern society, but not nearly to the same extent or in the same deeply intuitive nature as what is implied by the biblical text.
On the other hand, adoration of the law of God is one of Psalms’ unique characteristics, beginning from the very first psalm. In that sense Psalm 19 is a quintessential Psalmic text. The only way it cuts differently from the other psalms is by the structure and implicit argument presented.
In conclusion, Psalm 19 is clearly consistent with the other psalms throughout the book, but its structural connection to Job shows an implicit cultural argument that is undoubtedly much older. In this way, Psalm 19 shows itself to be a mixture of both new and old, with the old argument from creation redesigned to emphasize the perfection of God’s law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)