Bible Commentary - Psalms 46

Psalm 46 is another psalm of Korah, and it shares superficial structural similarity to Psalms 42 and 43.  The similarity I am referring to is the verse-and-chorus pattern where a particular chorus is repeated several times.  In the case of Psalms 42 and 43, they have three choruses (when combined together).  In this psalm, there are only 2 (in verses 7 and 11).

Besides that, I also want to point out how nearly every song of the sons of Korah has musical guidance “for the choir director” or “the director of music”.  In my opinion, this reinforces the evidence that these songs were liturgical and either originally written for temple worship, or repurposed in antiquity for temple worship (depending on whether we view the header notes as original or a later addition).  In any case, it’s clear that at some point it became liturgical and that is the form in which we receive it, as well as the likely reason it is part of the book of Psalms.

For the purposes of analyzing this psalm, I suggest dividing it into three pieces based on the three occurrences of the word “selah”, at the end of verses 3, 7 and 11.  It nearly aligns with the verse-and-chorus pattern I mentioned above.

The reason why “selah” is a good point to divide the psalm is because, although the exact meaning is unclear, “selah” is commonly used in the psalms as a stop word to indicate a moment of reflection or thoughtfulness, and in many cases denotes the end of a logical progression leading up to that point.  This makes it a good marker for dividing psalms, especially considering the original source material lacks punctuation and spacing that we would normally use for similar purposes.

With that said, my assessment is that all three sections of this psalm contain fairly similar themes and patterns.  The overall theme of this psalm is that God is in control, and no amount of churning or turbulence in “the nations” can disturb the works or plans of God.

Verse 1 sets out the general message: “God is our refuge and strength… in trouble”.  The rest of the psalm expands on what kind of “trouble” the sons of Korah are thinking about, and for the most part it is “the nations” they are concerned about.

Verses 2-3 paint a picture of natural turmoil and disaster, with mountains “falling” and “quaking”, and waters “roaring”.  I don’t personally take this at face value, however, mainly because of the following sections.  In particular, look at the language of verse 6.  In verse 3, it is the waters roaring; in verse 6, it is “the nations” roaring.  It also says that when God raises his voice, “the earth melted”.  In verse 11, the psalm directly equates the nations with “the earth”, when he says “I will be exalted in the nations, I will be exalted in the earth”.

In my opinion, this psalm is a classic example of Hebrew poetry where it is not words that are rhymed, but thoughts and ideas.  All three sections present a parallel concept: the earth (and the nations that constitute the earth) are in turmoil, roaring and foaming and boiling with wrath and warfare, and God is a constant rock through it all, the “stronghold” that Israel can cling to.  As verse 5 puts it, “God is in the midst of her, she will not be moved”.

This parallel construction means that the turmoil of nature in verses 1-3 is probably a literary allusion for the turmoil of peoples and nations that we see in the rest of the psalm, especially because similar language is used to describe all of them.  The consistency of the repeated chorus seems to drive home the consistency and reliability of God’s support for them, as their trustworthy foundation and helper.  I’m reminded of “ebenezer”, the “rock of help” in 1 Samuel 7:12, when God delivered Israel from the oppression of the Philistines.  This is a perfect example of the “turmoil” of the nations threatening Israel, and God being a “rock” for them by saving them in battle from their enemies.  The language of Samuel, calling God a “rock of help” is very similar to the language of this psalm, and while I don’t believe there is a direct literary connection between that story and this psalm, I believe they share similar language because of a common cultural tradition and because they have similar expectations for how God would interact with Israel.

We especially see God’s activity in verses 8-9, where he brings “desolation” and causes warfare to cease.  This focus on ending warfare and bringing peace to the earth emphasizes once again how “the nations” are the primary concern of the psalmist, and the anxiety and fears of the psalmist revolve around hostility of Israel’s neighbors.  The history of warfare present in the books of Samuel and Kings give us vivid demonstrations of why the psalmist’s concern was so frequently justified, with many hostile nations repeatedly invading both Israel and Judah and killing many.

This psalm does not have a direct petition, so it reads more like a psalm of praise than anything else.  Underlying the text is a general sentiment of encouraging the readers to trust in God.  In that sense, I once again find similarity to Psalms 42 and 43, which continuously refrained “put your hope in God”.  In this case, the refrain is “God is our stronghold”, which implies that we should trust in him.

The last point I want to address is verse 4, which says, “There is a river whose streams make glad the city of our God”.  In the midst of everything else I’ve discussed, which can be analyzed pretty clearly, this verse is a bit of an anomaly.  More to the point, I simply have no idea which river is being discussed here.  “The city of God” is probably Jerusalem or Zion, but there isn’t any major river going through or near Jerusalem.  Usually when the bible talks about “the river” without explanation, it is referring to the Jordan river (much less frequently, it could also mean the Euphrates river or the Nile river, which are both much more distant).  The Jordan river does not go to Jerusalem however, so I don’t know why it would be mentioned in connection with “the city of our God”.

Overall, my best guess at interpreting v. 4 is to say that the river is also symbolic rather than literal, and that it is symbolic of water and life, such as the water flowing out of the two rocks that Moses struck with his staff when Israel was wandering in the desert of Sinai.  It’s possible that by the time this psalm was composed, more symbolic and allusive interpretations were emerging to describe the incident of Moses and the rock.  It’s also possible that the river is simply a metaphor for bubbly, flowing water, and in the midst of a desert, that’s enough to make anyone joyful.

These explanations are not entirely satisfactory to me, but I don’t know much more than that.  Please comment if you have suggestions about what “the river” could refer to!

Bible Commentary - Psalms 45

Psalm 45 is another song of the “sons of Korah”, and this one is quite different from the other songs we have seen so far.  It is, as the title describes, a “wedding song”, and a plain reading of the text shows that it is indeed a wedding song.

Verse 1 sets the tone; this song is directly addressed to “the king”, who is getting married.

Verses 2-9 are addressed to the king, and the psalmist spends the entire time praising and glorifying the king.  Of course, if I were writing a wedding song for a literal king that was sung to his face, I would praise him too, for self-preservation if nothing else.  Looking more closely, we can see that much of this praise is martial in nature: verse 3 says “gird your sword on your side”; verse 5 wishes that “your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king’s enemies”.  Verse 7 insists that the king was exalted by God because he “loves righteousness and hates wickedness”.  This follows in the tradition of books like Job which emphasize God’s nature as the judge who punishes the wicked and blesses the righteous.  In the case of this psalm, it is the king who is adopting God’s royal nature by acting as a righteous judge for his people, and as a consequence of following in God’s footsteps, “God, your God, has set you above your companions”.  In other words, not only does God bless the righteous, but God blesses those who adhere to, and enforce, his principles of justice.

Some might suggest adhering to God’s principles of justice is simply what it means to be righteous, and therefore these are not distinct things.  While I don’t disagree with that, I do think it’s worth distinguishing between the sense of personal righteousness in a man like Job, who was righteous because of his integrity, kindness to others, and honesty, and the righteousness of a king.  The righteousness of Job is largely oriented around personal conduct and generosity, while the righteousness of a king is oriented around professional conduct and just administration.  In both cases, righteousness emerges from an inner desire to do “right”, but the sphere of conduct and influence differs between them, because a king is acting like a judge which is a smaller, human equivalent of God’s role as the divine judge.  Individual commoners like Job are considered a “subject” of God and are therefore held to a different standard of behavior.  Commoners are expected to faithfully obey the LORD and show kindness towards each other.  Kings are expected to mimic the LORD’s behavior, dealing with others the way the LORD would deal with them.  By doing this, the king is also assured to receive the LORD’s blessing and the promise of an eternal kingdom, that his heirs would reign on his throne after him for eternity.  We could perhaps view this as the king’s inheritance.

In verse 9, the focus shifts from the king to the royal bride standing next to him.  In verses 10 through at least 15, and possibly as far as 17 and the end of the psalm, the psalmist turns to address the new royal bride.

In verse 10-11, the psalmist offers advice to the bride, suggesting that she forget her old people and “honor” the king, her new husband.  After that, the remainder of the passage seems to drift back into the realm of praise, honoring the new bride for her “glory” (v. 13) and “joy and gladness” (v. 15) as she enters the palace of her new husband.

In v. 16, the psalmist honors their future children, and v. 17 closes it out by “perpetuating” their memory, which happened quite effectively when this psalm was included in the bible.

Now, after describing the contents of the psalm, the most obvious question I haven’t asked yet is why this psalm was included in the bible at all.  Although it contains moral elements that align well with the biblical text, it doesn’t have much in the way of overt religious content and, it’s also worth pointing out, only uses the word “God” and not “LORD” (i.e. elohim instead of Jehovah).  This second point suggests, but does not prove, that this song could be derived from non-Jewish sources.  That is, it may have been adapted from older wedding songs in the ancient near east.

Going back to the first question, the most obvious reason it might have been included is if the king in question was one of the kings of Judah who simply ordered that this song be included in the psalter.  If we stopped here, we would have a pretty neat origin narrative that would be accepted by most non-scholars and close down discussion pretty quickly.  I think we would miss some evidence that suggests deeper religious undertones, however.

Consider first the authorship.  This is a psalm by the sons of Korah who are most definitely a group of Levites in the temple worship service.  Why would they be writing secular wedding music?  Again we could imagine the king ordering it, but I’m skeptical because the history of the bible itself shows us that in many ways the priesthood operated independently from the king and generally resisted royal influence.  Furthermore, there aren’t any clear reasons why the king would do that.

Secondly, the Psalter was most likely organized as part of the musical liturgy of the temple worship.  That means these songs would have been performed repeatedly as part of the temple worship for possibly hundreds of years, and then as part of synagogue worship for much longer than that.  Even if a king had mandated the authorship or inclusion of this song at some point in the past, it could have easily been stripped out in the proceeding decades long after that king died.  The fact that it remains in the Psalter to this day all but guarantees us that no matter why it was initially composed, later generations of priests and worshippers have been able to find religious meaning in it, which itself gives us strong reason to believe that the meaning later generations have found corresponds to some degree with the meaning the initial author intended.  It’s not conclusive (as so few things in biblical studies are), but it’s evidence.

Instead, I propose as an alternative that this psalm was intentionally composed by the Levites as a religious song and it was included in the Psalms because of its theological content.  Let’s examine it from this perspective.

Once we start examining this psalm from a theological perspective, the first question we have to ask is who, symbolically, the king and the bride refer to.  As I discussed at length earlier, the king stands in as an earthly example of God.  The king is an earthly judge, while God is the heavenly judge.  It’s not difficult to imagine that this psalm is symbolically discussing God’s relationship to … a bride.

Who is the bride, then?  One obvious suggestion is that the bride is Israel.  I don’t think there is anything in the text of the psalm itself to suggest this, but the general pattern of the bible suggests it.  More specifically, the covenant between God and Israel is sometimes compared to a marriage, and Israel’s disobedience to the LORD is compared to adultery.  In the original text of Deuteronomy, the covenant is framed in terms of political allegiance (lord/vassal).  However, the nature of that relationship gradually tightened in future generations with it eventually adopting marital undertones, and this trend continued even stronger in the Christian era, with the church described as the “bride of Christ”.

Let’s assume for a moment that I am correct that the king refers to God, and the bride refers to Israel.  If that’s the case, how should we interpret this psalm?

It is similar to how we interpreted it previously.  The king is a strong, majestic figure, fighting hard to defeat his enemies and achieve “truth, humility and justice”.  The king has an eternal kingdom, and will use his power to bless the righteous and destroy the wicked.  I would dig into this more, but it’s highly consistent with all the descriptions of God we’ve seen so far and I don’t think it really treads new ground in that respect.

The description of Israel (as the bride) seems to emphasize loyalty and faithfulness towards her husband, as well as her beauty and glory.  This certainly seems like a picture of Israel during her apex (the reigns of David and Solomon).  In that time Israel was indeed very wealthy, glorious, triumphant over their neighbors (like Tyre, v. 12), and served God faithfully.  In later times, Israel diminished in all of these respects, and perhaps this psalm is meant to remind and invite Israel to return to that glorious past, when faithfulness and power blended together.  Chronicles was also such an invitation, describing David and Solomon in idealized terms to remind Israel of what they had once possessed.  This psalm reads like a companion to Chronicles, this time describing Israel in idealized terms and inviting them to return to that glory.

Even if we read this psalm literally as describing a king and queen of Israel, that too has a great deal of idealization and longing for the past, as the Babylonian exile ended Judah’s line of kings (it was subsequently only ruled by governors on behalf of foreign powers).

Either way, I believe this psalm would have called the people of Israel and Judah to think of their history, of better times when they faithfully served the LORD and gloriously ruled themselves and their neighbors.  By linking together their faithfulness and their power and independence, the psalm reminds Israel that only by returning to the LORD and serving him only can they hope to achieve their political dreams of dwelling in safety, “everyone under their own vine and their own fig tree” (1 Kings 4:25).  To be free from the threat of foreign domination is only possible by clinging to “the king”, but not a natural king: Israel and Judah must remain faithfully by the side of the King of the whole earth, the LORD.

Bible Commentary - Psalms 44

Psalm 44 is another song “of the sons of Korah”, similar to psalms 42 and (probably) 43.  It’s too early for me to start drawing common patterns across their musical style, so I’ll just focus on the contents of this psalm alone.

Psalm 44 is somewhat difficult to identify using my standard analysis, but overall it appears to be an extended prayer psalm.  It begins in verses 1-8 with two simple points.  The first one, established in verses 1-3, is that God supported the ancestors of Israel and granted them success in battle.  Israel’s success did not come from “their sword” (v. 3) but the “right hand” of God that they won victories.  The second point, most thoroughly established in verses 5-8 but really infused through the whole psalm, is that victory does not come from the “bow” or “sword” of soldiers (v. 6), but from the LORD.

The psalmist is drawing a comparison between how his ancestors “won the land” (v. 3) and victory over their enemies by the LORD, and in the same way the psalmist and the Israelites of his generation also win their victories through the LORD.  The fact that Israel depends on God to win their battles sets up the context for what follows next, but verse 8 really caps the thought because of its exclamation of praise (the logical conclusion of God’s support for Israel) and the “selah” that encourages us to pause and meditate in this attitude of praise.

The beginning of this psalm has much the same feel as a psalm of praise, and verse 1 seems to set up that particular context by calling the reader back to think of the LORD’s deliverance in crossing the Red Sea, freedom from slavery in Egypt, and so many other things that God did for Israel “in days long ago”, as the psalmist listens to his parents or the older generation tell him the stories of the Passover.  This is one case where the first verse does not seem to summarize the psalm as a whole, because once we reach verse 9 we see the tone shift quite suddenly.

The psalm maintains the same underlying premise throughout: the LORD is the source of our victory.  What changes is that in “days long ago” (v. 1) God was with Israel and brought them victory; in the time of the psalmist, the LORD has “rejected and humbled us; you no longer go out with our armies” (v. 9).  By the psalmist’s reasoning, Israel is facing defeat before their enemies, and since victory does not come by the sword, defeat doesn’t come by the sword either.  Victory is when God grants it, and defeat is when God abandons them.

After several paragraphs of elaborating on their present suffering and shame, verses 17-22 present something of a defense.  The psalmist explains that if Israel had turned their backs on the LORD and worshiped other gods, then he can understand in that case if God might choose to punish or abandon them.  However, he bluntly denies that this happened; verse 17 simply says, “we had not forgotten you; we had not been false to your covenant”.

Overall, it’s somewhat difficult to evaluate this claim objectively because we don’t know the time period when this psalm was written.  From the history of Israel presented in the book of Kings, I think it’s fair to say that Israel’s devotion to the LORD ebbed and flowed in different seasons, sometimes rising to tremendous heights such as during the reigns of David, Hezekiah or Josiah, and sometimes falling to terribly dark places such as the reigns of Athaliah, Manasseh or Amon.  And that’s focusing on the kings of Judah (where this psalm was most likely composed); if we include the kings of Israel, the northern kingdom, there are many worse kings we could choose from.  Beyond the kings themselves, it’s also fair to say the people themselves varied in the devotion from one king to another.  I won’t go through the evidence but even a plain reading of the book of Kings shows vast numbers of people worshiping Baal (how else could the kingdom support 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah in 1 Kings 18?).

Although devotion to the LORD varied over time, it also seems fair to say that the overall trend was negative and even during the good times it’s pretty likely that Baal and Asherah worship persisted in rural areas, away from the influence of the king.  As such, the psalmist’s claim that Israel never turned away from the LORD is mostly false, even at the time of composition.  It’s likely that the psalmist is, shall we say, speaking poetically or figuratively here.  I would like to remind my readers that this psalm is not intended as a history lesson.  Since this is a prayer directed at the LORD, I suspect the psalmist is attempting to paint Israel in the best possible light; furthermore, since it was likely part of the temple psalter, we could reasonably suspect that the people singing or listening to this psalm were indeed wholly devoted to the LORD, and therefore it is “locally true”, even if it’s not the case for Israel or Judah as a national entity.

In any case, the psalm ends with a strong petition for deliverance.  This gives us two parts out of three for a prayer psalm; the defeats suffered by Israel constitute the problem statement, and verses 23-26 are the petition.  This psalm abruptly ends without anticipatory praise.

One final thing I would like to point out is to contrast this psalm with Psalm 18.  In particular, verse 3 of this psalm says that God delivered Israel’s ancestors “because you loved them”.  Similarly, verse 26 ends this psalm by saying, “rescue us because of your unfailing love”.  In both cases it calls upon God’s love, but what I found interesting is how it talks about God’s love for “them”, i.e. the ancestors; or perhaps Israel as a whole.  What I don’t see is an expression of God’s love for “me”, i.e. the author of this psalm himself.  In contrast, Psalm 18 is much more personal; in Psalm 18:19, David says, “[The LORD] rescued me because he delighted in me.  Similarly, Psalm 18:21 says, “For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God”.  Once again, this is a personal expression of how David has kept the Law of the LORD and maintained faithful obedience (and was blessed as a result).  In contrast, Psalm 44:20-22 consistently refers to “we”.  “If we had forgotten”, “spread out our hands”, etc.  The difference may seem subtle, but it’s clear that in some important respects Psalm 44 is basically a prayer by the community and for the community.  The sons of Korah, as priestly or Levitical intercessors, are praying on behalf of the nation.  On the other hand, David was writing deeply personal psalms, praying about his own issues and speaking on his own behalf.

This is perhaps consistent with David’s deeply personal relationship with God, and it also shows some possible evidence of the underlying authorship and origin for these psalms, but I don’t think we can necessarily read much into it beyond the points made above.  David tends to have a strong focus on the personal relationship with the LORD and personal struggles, while this psalm is clearly focused on the nation and their relationship with the LORD.  We’ll have to continue reading to see if the sons of Korah maintain this kind of national focus or if they also have more “personal” material in the psalter.

Bible Commentary - Psalms 43

The first thing we can clearly say about Psalm 43 is that it is a direct continuation of Psalm 42.  This is clearly evident from the structure of the two psalms.  Psalm 42 has a repeating phrase, “why my soul, are you downcast? ... my savior and my God” that occurs twice (Psalm 42:5, 11).  This phrase marks the conclusion of a particular section, reminding the hearer (and the psalmist’s own heart) to trust in God.  Simply put, Psalm 43 contains this exact same phrase, repeating it in verse 5 at the end of the psalm.  In that sense Psalm 43 can be viewed as a third “section” of Psalm 42.  In addition to this textual evidence, the NIV notes that in many Hebrew manuscripts Psalms 42 and 43 are merged into a single psalm.  This constitutes additional proof.  Finally, note that Psalm 42 has a title or header note, while Psalm 43 does not.

The two major possibilities are that it was originally a single psalm, composed at one time, and later broken into two psalms.  The other major possibility is that Psalm 42 was written first, and at some later time another composer wrote Psalm 43 as an addition to it.  At this point it is difficult to tell the difference.

However, by reading the content of these two psalms I think we can find reason to believe that they were originally a single composition and broken into two psalms in antiquity.  To wit, consider how Psalm 42 has certain elements of a “prayer psalm”.  It describes the heartbreak and struggles of the author.  Rather than follow the usual pattern of petitioning God for deliverance, it instead contains the refrain that his soul should “put your hope in God”.  In that sense, it’s more a declaration that we should focus our attention upward, to God, rather than asking God to focus his attention downward to us.  The fact that God will deliver him is assumed.

Psalm 43 seems to change that focus in a much more conventional direction.  The central focus on Psalm 43 is to petition God for deliverance, followed by a brief refrain of praise towards the end.  We can note that Psalm 43 clearly depends on Psalm 42, because it assumes we already know the topic of the prayer (what I usually call the “problem statement”).  Furthermore, if we follow the conventional prayer structure, then Psalm 42 depends on Psalm 43 to complete the thought.  That is, Psalm 42 contains the problem statement and Psalm 43 completes it by petitioning God to deliver the psalmist from his problem.

The question we are left with, then, is whether Psalm 42 was intended to be conventional or not.  If it was meant to follow this convention, then Psalms 42 and 43 are inextricable from each other.  If Psalm 42 was meant to violate convention by excluding the standard petition for deliverance, then Psalm 43 represents a possible late addition by another author who wanted to bring Psalm 42 into a more standard direction.

Unfortunately this leaves the question undecidable, since we cannot determine from the text alone what was the original author’s intention, whether to follow the convention of a prayer psalm or to deliberately alter and redirect that convention in a unique way.  Psalm 43 also cannot be determined, whether it represents a completion of the author’s original intent, or a later “correction” by some other composer who is trying to return the psalm to that conventional form.  Either view is plausible without some knowledge of the composer or history of the composition.

Personally, my belief is that there is more evidence it was a single composition than an original song with a later addendum.  The fact that ancient manuscripts contain them joined into a single psalm and the structural and thematic unity (according to the conventional structure) all point towards a single origin.  While all of these points can be debated, I believe the weight of the evidence points in that direction.

With all that in mind, Psalm 43 is quite short and direct.  We see that, similar to Psalm 42, the primary challenge facing the author is “deceitful and wicked” men, and the primary source of protection and deliverance is the LORD.

The central focus of the psalmist’s desire is to go to the “holy mountain” and to “the altar of God”, seeking the presence of God and in God’s presence, to praise him.  Once again I am reminded of Psalm 42:4 where the author has this deep, longing remembrance of going to “the house of God” and praising him in the midst of the “festive crowd”.  Although there is a clear problem and the psalmist wants to get delivered from his enemies, we can see his focus invariably turn back to “the altar” and “the house”, signifiers of God’s presence and worship.

In my opinion, the emphasis on altar and temple provides evidence that this psalm has priestly or Levitical origin.  Of course, the title of Psalm 42 establishes a Levitical authorship, as the sons of Korah are a group of Levitical musicians that would have most likely served in the temple after the worship service was established by David.  The thematic elements of the psalm support that claim of Levitical authorship.

Nonetheless, the author of this psalm shows that his devotion to the LORD is more than a formality or religious obligation.  The psalmist shows a clear emotional connection to the LORD and his presence in the temple.  In fact, the emotions of this psalm in general are strong and varied.  The psalmist is “mourning” at one time (v. 2), holding God as his “joy and my delight” at another (v. 4), and noting his disturbed and downturned heart towards the end (v. 5), only to conclude that his hope and his praise will be in God (v. 5).  The range of emotion is striking and shows that just as strongly as he perceives the oppression of the wicked, the psalmist also perceives tremendous joy and glory in God’s presence.

Bible Commentary - Psalms 42

Psalm 42 is the first psalm of the second book, and already we can see a subtle difference from Book 1.  Notably, in Book 1 there are 4 anonymous (untitled) psalms, 37 psalms “of David”, and 0 psalms ascribed to any other author.  There can be no doubt that Book 1 was intended to be a book of Davidic psalms, perhaps following a specific musical tradition.  Book 2 breaks this pattern immediately, with the very first psalm assigned to “the sons of Korah”.

Besides that, this psalm certainly has a lot of the same deeply emotional language and imagery that we see in Davidic psalms.  In terms of structure, this psalm is perhaps most akin to a prayer psalm, but ultimately the differences seem greater than the similarities.  The similarity is that the psalm contains a desperate longing for God to break in and work some kind of deliverance from a vague oppression and “adversaries” (v. 10).

The differences, however, are numerous.  Perhaps most significantly, the psalm doesn’t have a central prayer or petition clause.  The point of the prayer is not to ask, “God, deliver me!  Save me!  Rescue me!”  Instead, the central focus of the psalm is defined in verse 1, as it is for so many other psalms.  The central focus is the longing and desire of the psalmist to enter the presence of God.  His soul longs for God, even the way that a deer longs and thirsts for water.

Another repeated element of this psalm is the question, “where is your God”?  Although the question is asked by the “adversaries”, we can imagine the psalmist is asking the same question of himself: in the midst of these troubles, where is my God?  Although deliverance from the adversaries is certainly part of this, we can also see that the presence of the LORD itself is the object of the psalmist’s desire.  In the same way that we need water to survive, we need the presence of God to survive.  We can’t live without it.

One thing that amazes me about this psalm is the emotional progression that we follow through the psalm.  After the initial expressions of grief in v. 1-3, we see verse 4 recall the former times of joy when the psalmist was leading a joyful multitude in “procession towards the house of God”.  It reminds me of David leading the ark of the covenant and the people as they marched towards the tabernacle in Jerusalem.  In that case, David stripped off his clothes and danced in a linen robe with all his might.  This psalm, while unlikely to be referring to the same historical event, is very likely referring to something with a similar emotional character.  The important things I would point out in this recollection are: 1) it was a whole crowd acting together in pursuit of God, and 2) it was a movement towards the house of God, i.e. a movement towards the presence of God.  In contrast, in the psalmist’s present life we see that “the crowd” is now a group of adversaries and we feel a greater sense of isolation in the psalmist’s attitude.  His desire for God is the same, but he feels threatened and isolated, and he does not feel that his desire for God is reaching fulfillment.

The psalmist “remembers” a second time in v. 6, remembering the LORD from the land of the Jordan and mount Hermon.  I don’t know exactly what that means but I suspect it’s referring to the distance the psalmist feels from the LORD’s presence in Jerusalem and the temple.  It’s worth pointing out that Mount Hermon is far outside the traditional lands of Israel, in the transjordan region near Syria.  As such, the psalmist is probably indicating that the physical distance from Jerusalem is symbolic of the spiritual distance between the author and God, and his “remembrance” of the LORD means that in the absence of the LORD’s presence, the author has not and will not forget the LORD.

Interestingly, the first time the psalmist “remembers”, he is remembering the insults and mockery of his enemies, asking him, “where is your God?”  He “remembers” this as he cries out in prayer.  The second time the psalmist “remembers”, he is remembering God in the land far away from the LORD’s presence, but still believing and trusting in him.  In some sense, his first “remembrance” is the trouble and adversity that he faces, and the second “remembrance” is the answer to those troubles.  This is what makes it so similar and yet so different from a prayer psalm.  Although the psalmist lays out a problem statement, his answer isn’t for God to rise up and pluck him out of the watery depths or the mire and place him on a solid rock, in the style of Psalm 18.  It is not some work of God or act of God that he desires.  Rather, the psalmist places his desire on the presence of God itself.

Verses 7-8 are also tremendously powerful.  “Deep calls to deep” means that in the deep places of the psalmist’s heart, he is calling out to the deep of God’s heart.  The breakers and waves of v. 7 mean that the adversity and challenges the psalmist faces are battering and discouraging him, but he remains committed to the LORD: he believes in the lovingkindness and the “song” of the LORD surrounding him day and night, much like the pillars of fire and smoke covered the nation of Israel day and night as they wandered through the wilderness of Sinai.

Although this psalm contains few overt references to Israel’s journey through the wilderness, we can easily imagine such parallels.  In the midst of many difficulties, and in a dry and barren land, the psalmist pursues the presence of God (represented by the promised land) and even when God feels distant, the psalmist nevertheless acknowledges that God’s presence is around him day and night.

That particular duality seems poignant and I believe it is relevant for our lives.  The promised land signifies the covenant, the law, and the presence of God.  Wandering in the desert, the people of Israel were symbolically separated from God’s presence.  Generations later, during the exile, the people are taken away from God’s presence, only to be restored to the land and to God during the reign of Cyrus.  For example, 2 Kings 7:23 makes this connection directly, stating that “the LORD removed Israel from his sight” in the Babylonian exile.

However, at the same time that Israel is marching towards the promised land, they have the presence of God going with them, signified by the fire and the cloud.  The presence of God encompassed the tabernacle during their journey.  In this way, they had God’s presence going with them even while they were journeying to the land that itself embodies the presence of God.  Although this feels like a contradiction, I think we actually experience something like this in much of our ordinary lives.  As believers in God, we live in pursuit of God’s presence.  We are not yet in heaven, do not yet see the face of God, but that is our destiny.  While we live on the earth and long to behold God, much like Moses prayed in Exodus 33:18, we also have God’s presence with us and surrounding us.  How can we have God’s presence with us, and yet seek to find God’s presence in a greater way?  Oftentimes, our knowledge of God’s presence is merely intellectual, an acknowledgement that God is with us without perceiving or living by that fact.  The psalmist therefore calls us to remember God, and to hope in him.

“For I shall yet praise him” (v. 5, 11).  There is praise that is coming, because a deliverance is coming.  I will yet praise him because in the future, I will see God overcome these challenges in my life.  The psalmist has confidence, he has placed his hope, and he believes in what he has not yet seen.

In other places, I have mentioned that the bible frames God as a great judge, who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked.  In this sense God is an arbiter in whom the righteous place their hope, because they can have a firm expectation that God will judge them well and protect them from their enemies.  God is just, righteous, merciful and fair, but he is not particularly close.  David says that God “delights in me” (Psalm 18:19), and while this expresses affection, it does not express a bonding of hearts or longing like what we see in Psalm 42.

Psalm 42 feels like a psalm written by someone in a depression.  It abounds with statements of profound grief, longing and unfulfilled desire.  Yet at the same time, woven between each question, “where is your God”, there is a proclamation of hope.  In a prayer psalm the imperative statement is directed towards God: “Save me!  Help me!  Deliver me!”  In this psalm, the imperative is directed towards the psalmist’s own heart: “Hope in God!  Trust in him!  Remember him!”  In some sense the psalmist is taking his deliverance for granted, or else he would not “praise him” in some future time.  Rather, the psalmist is adjuring his own heart to not give up, to not lose faith or trust in the midst of the trials, and to stay strong and continue believing in God in the midst of the trials, knowing both that God’s presence is still with him in the wilderness, and that a promised land awaits in his future.

Bible Commentary - Psalms 41

This psalm is basically a prayer psalm, though it doesn’t follow a typical structure.

Beginning in verse 1, David lays out his overall plan for this psalm.  David’s righteousness, expressed through his concern for the poor and helpless, invites God’s protection over David’s life.  This is similar to a theme we see expressed in much of the Old Testament, that God is a judge who blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked.  In this case, David lays out a very clear balance of consequences, that the person who “considers the helpless” will be delivered and protected by God in the time of trouble.

That time of trouble is, apparently, now.  In one of the clearest statements of a prayer psalm topic anywhere in the Psalms, v. 3 tells us that the particular trouble being faced here is “illness”.  Verse 8 confirms the theme of sickness, suggesting that when David lies down, he won’t get up again.

Having established that David is in the midst of a time of trouble, and he is clearly petitioning the LORD for healing, I was next interested to discover the basis for David’s prayer.  In many other prayers, David commonly gives a rationale for why God should answer his prayer and deliver him from whatever crisis he is facing.  This psalm is no exception.

David basically lays out two explanations for why God should heal him.  First, he says in verse 1 that “he who considers the helpless” should receive God’s protection.  Second, he says at the very end of the psalm in verse 12 that God “upholds me in my integrity”.

Between this first and last verse, verses 4-9 are a long and emotional description of the enemies that are eager to see David’s destruction and triumph over him.  Opposite David’s description of his own good intentions, he spends much more energy describing the foul intentions of his enemies.  They are “speaking evil” against him (v. 5), “speaking falsehoods” towards him (v. 6), “gathering wickedness” (v. 6), “devising hurt” for David (v. 7), and to cap it all off, even David’s “close friend in whom I trusted” has betrayed him (v. 9).  This is someone “who ate my bread”, meaning that they shared a meal.  We have seen many times in the OT that sharing a meal is a ceremony to seal a covenant (for one example of this, check out Exodus 24:11), and it is clear that David sees their shared meal as a further aggravation of his subsequent betrayal.

One interesting topic is to figure out the identity of this betrayer.  There are several people who betrayed David during his life, many who were close to him, and the most obvious are Saul, Adonijah and Absalom.  Between these three, I would say the least likely is Saul (because Saul did not exactly betray David), and the most likely is Adonijah.  I think Adonijah is the most likely because his betrayal, unlike Absalom, was towards the very end of David’s life when David’s health was most likely to be faltering and in question.  My suspicion is that verses 4-9 could be a reference to the conspiracy organized by Adonijah, Joab, Abiathar and others to overthrow David.  And since I mentioned it, Joab and Abiathar are two other candidates for the “close friend” of v. 9.  If anything, Abiathar might be more plausible since he spent much more time with David including during the long years in the wilderness hiding from Saul.

Although I don’t usually mention future bible passages, it is worth noting that verse 9 is quoted in the New Testament to prophetically describe Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus.

Verses 10-12 conclude with a prayer for relief.

Verse 13 seems like an especially strong conclusion to the psalm, and that’s because this is not just the end of the psalm, but also the end of Book 1 of the book of Psalms.  Psalms is internally divided into 5 books, and this is the end of the first one.  This verse almost certainly exists to provide a conclusion to the first book, which implies one of several possibilities.

One possibility is that the final verse, 13, was added by a later editor, after the psalm was written, and at the time that the book was being composed.  Another possibility is that this psalm was written intentionally to be the last psalm of the book, and this verse was added to provide a fitting conclusion to that book.  There are a handful of other, less likely possibilities that I won’t mention.  Between these two possibilities, the first one seems most plausible.  The main reason is that, in all likelihood, the psalms were composed independently and then combined into the book of Psalms at a later time.

And that will be the end of the first book!  Next up, we will continue with the Book 2 of the Psalms!