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.
No comments:
Post a Comment