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!

Bible Commentary - Psalms 40

The first question to ask when reading any psalm is, what kind of psalm is it?  Psalm 40 is a fascinating blend of praise and petition.

In nearly every case, the first verse tells us the purpose and general theme of the psalm.  In this case, I don’t think we get such a clear answer.  In the beginning of the psalm, I actually find verse 3 is the clearest  statement of purpose for this psalm.  The “new song” of verse 3 is most likely a reference to the psalm itself, and it is a “song of praise”.  What is the purpose of this song?  It was written so that “many will see and fear and will trust in the LORD” (v. 3).  It is, in fact, a testimony of deliverance, so that others will trust in God to deliver them in the same way.

Verses 4-5 continue with a similar tone, focusing on the theme of trust.  This is consistent with the tone of verse 1; the “man who has made the LORD his trust” is “blessed” (v. 4), and in fact David writes this psalm so that others would hear about his fortune and trust in God as well.  Verse 2 is a clear past-tense deliverance that has already happened, and David is praising God for it.

The imagery in this passage is remarkably similar to Psalm 18.  The notion of being “drawn out” of a pit of destruction is very similar to the “cords of Sheol” and “the snares of death” in Psalm 18:4.  Psalm 18:16 has David “drawn out” of the many waters, and Psalm 18:19 has David placed in a “broad place”, given a strong and secure dwelling place, much like the “rock” and the “firm footsteps” of v. 2 here.

Where things get a little strange is in v. 6-8.  This is a powerful passage, deeply reminiscent of 1 Samuel 15:22-23.  In that passage, Samuel himself poetically declares that obedience is better than sacrifice.  Verses 6-8 have the same meaning: after saying that God did not “desire” or “require” sacrifices, the psalmist says “I delight to do your will… your law is within my heart”.  Doing God’s will and obeying the law is better than sacrifices by far.  God doesn’t even desire sacrifices compared to obedience.

Why it’s strange to me is not the content of the message, which is powerful, but trying to understand why the psalmist places it here.  Why is David saying this now?  What does it have to do with his deliverance earlier in the psalm, or (as we will see) his continued trials and struggles later in the psalm?  I admire this passage while struggling to contextualize it.

Verses 9-12 seem to go together.  The way I read this passage is that there is an equivalence drawn between verses 9-10 and 11-12.  In 9-10, David says “I have not hidden your righteousness”, by which he means declaring the works of God and righteousness of God to the people around him.  In 11-12, David petitions for God to not “withhold your compassion”.  In other words, David is saying that he did not withhold the praise of God in the midst of the congregation, doing his part by declaring God’s wonders, and now he’s asking God to do God’s part by not withholding compassion and love to “preserve” David.  If David does not hold back, God should not hold back either.

In verse 12, David makes it quite clear that he is still in need of God’s deliverance and strength.  Quite apart from the “rock” of v. 2, David is in a lot of trouble.  That’s what I find so fascinating about this psalm.  In the beginning, David is so obviously triumphant, exulting over his enemies and declaring the praises of God that “many will see and fear”.  By the end of the psalm, “evils beyond number have surrounded me” (v. 12).  This simultaneous reality that David is surrounded by evils, overtaken by his iniquities, and yet God has already drawn him out of the pit and placed him on the rock.  You would think, if we analyzed this rationally, that David would first pray for the removal of his many enemies, and then secondly, perhaps at a later time, praise God for saving him from the aforementioned enemies.

This looks like a reversal of the typical prayer psalm.  A typical prayer psalm has three parts: the problem statement, the petition for deliverance, and praise in anticipation of God’s response.  This psalm, for no reason that I can easily discern, appears to reverse that flow.  It begins with praise, not in anticipation of God’s response, but seemingly as an outflow of God having already delivered David.  Then, after asking God to maintain his faithfulness (v. 11-12), David finally concludes with a petition for relief in v. 13-17.  An obvious question is why; why does David re-order things here?

I don’t think I can offer any definitive answers.  One possibility is that the deliverance of v. 1-5 is from a different problem as v. 13-17.  That is, maybe David is praising God for an earlier victory as a reminder that God can deliver him from his present struggles as well.  Another alternative is that the prayer psalm format is simply more malleable and fluid than I recognize, and that David reordered the elements of the psalm to suit his own literary preferences.  Or possibly there is some other explanation that I cannot identify.

Do you have any ideas?  If so, comment below and let me know what you think!

Bible Commentary - Psalms 39

This is an unusual psalm. It seems to most resemble a prayer, but it does not follow the typical formula of the prayer psalms.

A normal prayer psalm has three parts: the problem, the petition, and praise. The problem sets up the context and background for what is going wrong. The petition is asking for God’s miraculous intervention to bring some kind of resolution to the problem. Praise concludes the typical prayer psalm by thanking God in anticipation and belief that his intervention is forthcoming.

In this psalm, it opens instead with a peculiar resolution. David says that he resolved to himself to say nothing, either good or bad. In verse 1 he clarifies that it is only “while the wicked are in my presence”, but in other verses it seems that his resolution to speak nothing is possibly more general than that.

In either case, it’s not entirely clear the context or why David chooses to refrain from judgment. What did he hope to accomplish? What was he afraid of? In verse 2, he says he “refrained even from good”, suggesting that this might be some kind of vow of silence, not just avoiding criticism or condemnation of these “wicked” people.

What’s even more strange about this story is how David says that his vow is protecting him from sin: “That I may not sin with my tongue” (v. 1). Is David afraid that he will join in the plots of the wicked, or is he afraid that condemning the wicked is itself an act of sin? What sin is he afraid of? Perhaps he is using the word “sin” sarcastically. In a general sense, the word “sin” means fault, mistake or error. Perhaps David is suggesting that by condemning the wicked, the wicked themselves would become enemies of David, and ascribe David’s words as a “sin” to him. It might not be wrong or evil for David to judge the wicked, but the wicked themselves could view it as such.

Most of these points are not clear: what is clear is that, as David remained silent, all of the words and thoughts built up more and more pressure in David’s heart, and “the fire burned” within him (v. 3). And how relatable is that! How many of us, having once vowed to speak nothing, to hold our peace, find the peace within us broken as “the fire burns”. I know for myself, having a sharp disagreement with one friend or another at one time or another, that many times I have resolved to say nothing. How many times I find my opinion raging unabated but unspoken, because I am living in the presence of people making (what I think are) mistakes. I can only imagine David finds himself in a similar contradiction, where his thoughts and feels are burning against the behavior that he sees, but he has resolved to say nothing. The pressure builds and builds until at last he speaks.

When David does speak, it’s hard for me to understand how his prayer relates to his earlier time of silence. David speaks a prayer, first that God would teach his heart the momentary briefness of life. Second, David prays that God would remove his punishment, that David may have joy for the few moments of his life before he dies and passes away forever.

Here’s what I don’t understand. When David was silent, it seemed like all his thoughts and energy were directed outward. He was burning because he had to remain silent in the presence of the wicked, because of his heart’s conflict with the wicked. When he finally speaks, it seems like all his thoughts and prayers are directed inward, towards his own life, suffering, and desire for joy. I don’t see how his thoughts in the first place lead to his words in the second place, unless perhaps I misunderstand the nature of his burning heart in verse 3.

Verses 4-6 clearly lay out David’s view that life is a brief and momentary thing. In verse 6, David specifically points out the folly of the wicked; they struggle and strive to accumulate wealth, but at the end of their lives, the wealth passes on to another and nobody knows who that might be.

In verses 7-11, David seems to shift direction quite a bit and asks God to “deliver” him from his sins and from God’s corresponding punishment. This whole section from v. 4-11 is why I consider this a prayer psalm, because David has a clear petition for God’s deliverance. Yet the other customary parts, the problem statement and praise, are suspiciously absent. Verses 1-3 seem to make up what is normally a problem statement, but as I previously mentioned I don’t really see how we can logically go from David’s silence before the wicked to David’s own transgressions and why David needs relief from God’s punishment.

If we viewed these sections as completely unrelated concepts, it would make a lot more sense; however, since it is all formed together as a single psalm, the nature of the text clearly relates them together. Perhaps the missing piece is the nature of David’s sin. What is David’s sin? And why does he choose to be silent before the wicked? The psalms are often decontextualized (stripped of any motivating incident) so that they can be more relatable, but in this case it’s simply confusing. Without knowing David’s sin, I don’t see why it would make him choose to be silent, or why, after his long silence, this is the prayer that bursts forth from his heart. I fear I cannot answer such questions for my readers, because I simply don’t know. If anyone has any ideas feel free to reply in the comments.

Bible Commentary - Psalms 38

This psalm is utterly depressing.

From beginning to end, it has just a single message: things are going really badly, and David is petitioning the LORD to help him.

Throughout our study of the Psalms, I have described some of the common formats, or styles, of the Psalter. This psalm is closest to a prayer psalm, which we learn by focusing on the purpose of the psalm.

A typical prayer psalm has three parts. It begins with a “problem statement”, a declaration of what’s going wrong in the author’s life. In the middle is a petition for deliverance, usually in an imperative tone: “save me, oh God!” In conclusion, prayer psalms generally end with praise in anticipation of God’s response. That is the basic formula, and individual psalms vary from this format on occasion, but they will usually have at least two out of three elements. Psalm 18 is a great example of a prayer psalm in “past tense”, i.e. a scenario where the deliverance has already occurred, and thus the problem statement, prayer for deliverance and God’s response have all happened, and David is telling us retrospectively what God has done in his life, but using the prayer formula.

In the case of Psalm 38, it differs from the typical formula because it has a problem statement and prayer for deliverance, but no corresponding praise in anticipation of God’s response. This is a bit surprising because in most cases David prays with considerable faith that God will respond to his need and bring deliverance.

In the case of this psalm, the omission of the typical “praise section” places more emphasis on David’s troubles. Coupled with the considerable lengthening of David’s “problem statement” and the absence of any description of God’s glory or righteousness, the overall tone of this psalm is very dark.

In this psalm, David highlights three particular problems that he is facing. The first and most obvious is physical suffering, injury or disease. Before going further, I want to emphasize that in some cases physical disease or suffering appears in the bible (and especially the psalms) as a metaphor for emotional suffering, grief or distress. For instance, Psalm 31:9-13 seems like it’s mostly a situational distress and David talks about his “strength failing”, and his “body [growing weak] with grief”. In this case it’s clear that he’s talking about his body suffering as a consequence of emotional pain or distress. Psalm 32:3-4 is a more ambiguous case, where David talks about his “bones wasting away” and his “strength was sapped” due to some otherwise undescribed sin. In this case, it could be either a metaphor or a real description of his physical decline. Like the present case, David viewed his physical suffering as a consequence of sin and probably as a manifestation of God’s wrath.

In the present psalm, David’s physical suffering is interwoven with two other sources of misery (which I have not yet described). It’s somewhat ambiguous whether this is a real suffering or purely metaphorical, but the fact that physical pain is such a recurring theme makes me view it as more likely to be a real thing. Simply put, if it were just a metaphor then I think David would be less persistent about it. In v. 5, David says “my wounds fester”. In v. 7, “my back is filled with searing pain”. In v. 11, “my friends and companions avoid me because of my wounds”. In v. 17, “my pain is ever with me”. As anyone who has experienced chronic pain would know, when enduring chronic pain it is difficult to think about anything else, and for such a religious person as David it would be easy to ascribe such pain as God’s punishment or wrath.

In conclusion, this psalm blends together the topic of physical pain with emotional guilt and sin. In part, the ambiguity between metaphor and real pain is because these two ideas (physical pain and emotional pain) are not clearly distinguished by David. Once again, anyone who has endured considerable emotional pain (such as the death of a loved one or a broken relationship) can attest that the emotional pain can manifest in the physical body, whether as insomnia, loss of appetite and sometimes even physical pain. Perhaps it is appropriate that David does not distinguish them, because suffering of the one kind so often produces suffering of the other.

This leads me to the second source of David’s misery: his pervading sense of guilt and awareness of his own sin. This is what takes an otherwise secular topic and makes it religious. David views both his physical and emotional suffering as the consequence of God’s wrath, itself a consequence of David’s sin. “I confess my iniquity; I am troubled by my sin.” (v. 18) The suffering that manifests in David’s body has its ultimate origin in David’s soul and broken relationship with God. David says that his “wounds fester and are loathsome” - physical suffering - “because of my sinful folly” - spiritual brokenness (v. 5). This psalm seeks to repair his spiritual condition, that his physical condition may also be restored.

The third and final source of misery is David’s fairweather friends evaporating in the midst of his trial, and the resurgence of his enemies. As he physically weakens, his enemies perceive an opportunity to bring about his downfall, and his erstwhile friends likewise see little advantage in maintaining their loyalty to the weakened king. Sadly, during the time that David needs his friends the most, the time when David has the least to offer them, is the time that he is abandoned as his friends (and enemies) pursue a Darwinian optimization of their own personal interests. This is the time when David’s friends reveal themselves for who they are. When their friendship finally has a price, when there is a cost with no corresponding benefit to oneself, but only to the friend, those friends conclude that they never really cared about David. They were only exploiting the friendship for their own benefit, and as the fortune of David declines, the friends subsequent divorce themselves from him. The fact that David’s enemies would attack him is perhaps not a surprise, but the fact that his friends and neighbors abandon him is sadly revealing.

In the midst of this darkness, David sees hope in his one consistent friend and support, the LORD. “Do not forsake me” (v. 21). This is the prayer for deliverance. David’s problems are many, his physical suffering, opportunistic enemies and friends, and an overwhelming sense of guilt at his “folly” ultimately driving all of his misery. In all of this, David finds a single answer to his problems: it is in the LORD’s presence, that the LORD would “not be far from me”, that David will be forgiven his sin, healed his pain and delivered from his enemies.

As I previously mentioned, this psalm does not have any praise in anticipation of God’s deliverance, perhaps because David is so overwhelmed with pain that he simply cannot see past his current problems. David’s biggest sin and the time of his greatest crisis was immediately after his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah the Hittite. This resulted in the immediate death of his son through Bathsheba (though his later son and heir Solomon comes from the same woman), and the later rebellion of his son Absalom causing David’s temporary exile from power.

However, this psalm does not actually contain any indication of what sin David is talking about. This is a common trend for nearly all of the psalms; I call this “decontextualization” (I talked about this when discussing Psalms 4, 7 and 18). Just as with those psalms, I believe that Psalm 38 is deliberately excluding any mention of David’s actual sin so that it can be more relatable to our own situations. By removing David’s context, the structure of the psalm, the process of grieving, suffering and ultimate healing, can more easily fit with our own lives. Although we will likely never have a man killed so that we can steal his wife and then be overthrown from our kingdom by our own son, and David’s life is especially dramatic in ways that we will never experience, yet we do experience grief and guilt, suffering and redemption in all our own ways. Though David’s situation and life will never match our own, yet the emotions are eerily reminiscent of our own experiences. This is the thread that binds us all together and gives the Psalms such a profound power to speak into modern life in spite of their ancient origins.

In the same way that we can relate to David’s suffering, we can also relate to his solution. God’s presence is the answer. When God is with us, when he is near to us, we can also experience God’s salvation. Our emotional health, sense of wellbeing and contentment will flow from our communion with God’s presence, and no matter what happens, whether we are delivered or continue through trials, we can also say with David that we will “see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living” (Ps. 27:13).

Bible Commentary - Psalms 37

Although this psalm has many themes and elements, the central message is to contrast the enduring prosperity of the righteous with the fleeting success of the wicked.

In many psalms, the first verse defines the overarching theme or message of the psalm as a whole. In the case of this psalm, the first verse only really covers half of the message. It says we should not worry or have envy for the wicked, because their destruction is assured. Verses 3-4 give us the second half of the psalm, telling us that those who “do good” and “delight in the LORD” will dwell in the land and enjoy the desires of their hearts.

This presents the first basic theme of contrast between the wicked and the righteous. We are told that, though the wicked may appear successful, their success is a mirage; here today and gone tomorrow. Like the grass of the field, like a “luxurious native tree”, like “the flowers of the field”, they may appear to be prosperous, secure and happy. Yet they pass away. However, the righteous have enduring prosperity. They have “a future” (v. 37), also translated as “posterity”. Not only are the righteous blessed, but their children are also blessed (v. 25-26). This is a multi-generational blessing that reinforces the second theme: endurance.

We see throughout this psalm the notion of blessing represented through endurance or posterity. The idea is that a righteous person is blessed through the persistence and blessing of their descendants. Consider David himself, of whom God says “you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel” (1 Kings 9:5). While in part this can be (correctly) construed as promising the line of kingship in particular, it can also be more generalized as a promise that David’s descendants would endure through all generations. Here in Psalm 37, there is of course no throne promised, but the idea of God blessing the descendants of the righteous has close parallels to David’s promises.

On the contrary, we see temporary blessing in the lives of the wicked, but then they are snuffed out. Like a flower blooming in spring but dead by fall, so is the lives of the wicked. The wicked have “no future” (v. 38). Their present appearance is like an illusion, presenting the appearance of blessing but lacking its substance.

Of course, this whole theme exists to present a contrast between the righteous and wicked; it does so in a very specific way. David is basically telling us to not be deceived; we might see the wicked prosper for a time, but their prosperity would be cut short.

Interestingly, this theology is similar to what’s offered by Job’s three friends. They have a strongly held belief that the LORD punishes the wicked and blesses the righteous, and see Job’s suffering as evidence of the LORD’s punishment (and implicitly, Job’s sin). The difference is that Psalm 37 allows for what I call a “time of confusion”. There is a time when we might see the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer. There is a time when the wicked will hunt the righteous like prey (v. 14), plotting against them and preparing disasters for good people (v. 12). However, this is only temporary. The psalm assures us that in the end, things will return to the correct and just order, with the righteous blessed and enduring in the land, and the wicked being cut off and destroyed.

The blessing of the righteous flows from their relationship with the LORD. Verses 3-4 tell us to “trust in the LORD” and “delight in the LORD” as the way to experience God’s blessing. The rest of the psalm continues to repeat this pattern as well, such as verse 5 (“commit your way to the LORD”), verse 7 (“Be still before the LORD”), verse 9 (“hope in the LORD”), verse 18 (“The blameless spend their days under the LORD’s care”) and on and on.

A third key theme is the concept of inheriting the land as a symbol of divine blessing. This relates to the overall message of the psalm in two ways. First, inheriting or possessing the land is symbolic of the LORD’s blessing and punishment to righteous and wicked people respectively. Many verses refer to inheritance of the land, such as v. 9, 11, 18, 22, 24, 29 and 34. I could probably find more if I looked more carefully but that should be enough to prove my point. Across all of these verses, possessing or inheriting the land is a blessing from God directed at the righteous and withheld from the wicked. Second, inheriting the land is another way of expressing multi-generational continuity, which I previously discussed. Beyond just having children or security in time of famine, possessing the land is another way to “abide forever” as v. 27 says.

More generally, the promised land is deeply symbolic of God’s covenant with Abraham and Israel. Possessing the promised land and one’s tribal inheritance is another way of connecting with God’s manifest presence and maintaining the covenantal relationship with God. Deuteronomy 28:63-64 makes it clear that if Israel sinned they would be torn from the land. They would be separated from the temple built on that land, separated from the LORD’s presence that dwells in the temple, and as a result they would “serve other gods”. Being torn from the land was the final punishment for disobedience because it was the most severe.

A fourth key theme is borrowing and lending. This borrows (no pun intended) from the language of Deuteronomy 28, which says that if Israel obeys God they will “lend to many nations but will borrow from none” (Deut 28:12). Contrariwise, Deuteronomy 28 also tells us that if Israel is disobedient and sins against the LORD, “they will lend to you, but you will not lend to them”. In essence, the lender is blessed because the lender has extra possessions that he or she can afford to invest. The lender has an abundance. The lender gets to make decisions, choosing who to share with. The lender is in a position of power and overflow.

Finally, the last key theme is understanding the LORD’s role. God’s role in all this, if you observe how he is actually described, is primarily upholding and defending the righteous. Implicitly he does other things, like destroying the wicked, but what the text says most often is that the LORD “upholds” the righteous (v. 24) in one way or another. Although we understand that God is the great judge, upholding his righteous judgments over all people, both good and bad, this psalm emphasizes God’s special relationship with the righteous. While God is distant and hostile towards the wicked, he is caring and loving towards the righteous. This is reflected in the many ways that God helps the righteous: the LORD “sustains” the righteous (v. 17), he “establishes” them and “delights” in them (v. 23), the LORD “holds [the] hand” of the righteous person (v. 24), a particularly intimate expression of affection and blessing. Ultimately, the psalm concludes that the LORD “delivers” the righteous out of the hands of the wicked, and “saves” the righteous (v. 40). The LORD is our salvation from any kind of trouble, “because [the righteous] take refuge in him”.

Bible Commentary - Psalms 36

This psalm does not neatly fall into any of the categories I have previously identified.  Major categories of psalms include the prayer psalms and praise and worship songs.  This is perhaps closest to a prayer psalm given the closing petition in the last few verses, but structurally it is distinct as it does not contain the usual tripartite formula of problem, petition and praise.

Usually the first verse establishes the themes or topic of the psalm, and everything else follows that.  In this psalm, it doesn’t seem to follow the typical structure.  It seems like this psalm can be broken into three sections, and the first verse only really sets the topic for the first section.

The first section, in verses 1-4, is a brief discussion of the nature of evil men.  It describes evil men in a couple ways.  First, it says that evil men have “no fear of God”.  Fear of God, or a concern about God’s opinion of us, will keep us from evil.  If we truly believed that God was always present and always watching us, it would be much harder to sin.  We would not have any sense of anonymity or freedom to sin.  Second, it says that the wicked man “flatters himself in his own eyes”, and as a result he cannot see his own sin.  This is the blindness of pride.  When we cannot see our sin, then we sin all the more freely.  The conclusion of all this is that the wicked man speaks evil (v. 3), plans evil (v. 4), and then “sets himself on a path” of evil.  This is a progression of activity that begins with words, then to thoughts (the “plans”) and finally actions.  This is a common pattern, where people first speak of a deed (but perhaps do not intend to do it), but once spoken they give it consideration, and once considered, they act.  The reason that a wicked man travels on an evil path is because he feels at liberty to do whatever he wants, what the book of Judges calls “doing what is right in his own eyes”.  It is making judgements based on his own will instead of obeying the will of God.

The second section, in verses 5-9, changes topics suddenly.  It is a description of the glory of God. It emphasizes the vast expanses of God’s moral character and holiness, using analogies from the natural world to demonstrate the greatness of God; not the greatness of his power, but of his character and behavior.  Notice the highlight of this section: “How priceless is your unfailing love” (v. 7).  Once again the emphasis is not on the power or capabilities of God, but rather on his loving and caring nature.  Following that, this section moves on to discuss how “the children of men” depend on God.  We take refuge under his wings, drink from his rivers, and see light in his light (v. 7-9).  It’s a picture of a God of abundance, a loving parent sheltering his children.  God’s overwhelming power is implied but never stated; instead, the psalmist chooses to focus on God’s abundant provision and sustenance for those he loves.

The third and final section, in verses 10-12, is a concluding prayer that builds off the themes of the previous two sections.  Having established God’s eternal love and profound righteousness in the second section, David asks God to “continue” both his love and his righteousness “to those who know you”, “the upright in heart” (v. 10).  Having established the depths of evil in the first section, David asks for God’s protection against “the foot” and “the hand” of evildoers, that they would not be able to harm him (v. 11).  In this case, both the foot and the hand are symbolic of the activity and the power of evildoers.  Finally, in verse 12, David makes one final plea for “the evildoers” to be cast down, so that they would no longer be capable of harming others.  This is expanding on verse 11 where David only asks for protection for himself; now he is wishing for the evildoers themselves to be thrown down so that no one would suffer under their evil deeds.

Bible Commentary - Psalms 35

Psalm 35 is yet another prayer psalm.  This time, it is a prayer of deliverance from David’s enemies, which is clearly indicated in verse 1.

This psalm contains many elements we have seen before.  First, and perhaps most significantly, it contains some of the elements of a typical prayer psalm.  However, it does not follow the pattern exactly.  Instead, it appears that the “problem statement” is largely missing.  It can be inferred from context, however.  David has a distinctly martial focus in this psalm.  In verses 2-3 David asks for God to take up his “buckler”, “spear” and “battle axe” to strike down his enemies.  It’s obvious that David is facing a threat against his life and desires for God to fight against his enemies.

The nature of the problem becomes more clear in verses 11-21.  David describes at length how his enemies are repaying evil for good.  In this case, he defines his “good” as how he prayed and fasted for his enemies when they suffered illness and possibly other problems (v. 13).  David believes that he genuinely treated them well, and yet when David himself “stumbled”, his enemies rejoiced and gathered together to attack him (v. 15).  I can’t exactly call this hypocrisy, but it’s clear that these are men who David treated well, and they respond by taking advantage of David’s earliest vulnerability to attempt to destroy him.  As David says in v. 12, “they repay me evil for good”.  Verses 19-21 expand on this point by clarifying that these are people who speak evil against David as well, similar to Psalm 31 which emphasizes even more strongly how the wicked fight against David through evil rumors and lies.

Nevertheless, verses 1-8 open with a request for deliverance.  The rest of the psalm has a fairly complex structure. There are some additional prayers (e.g. v. 17-26), declarations of thanksgiving and praise (v. 9-10, 27-28), and an interesting passage where David explains his own righteous conduct towards his enemies (v. 11-16).  It’s kind of a mashup of several different things.  It clearly has some prayer elements, but it does not follow the typical structure.

Second, verses 7-8 convey a wish of ironic self-destruction upon David’s enemies.  We have seen this pattern before, the notion that David’s enemies are setting traps for him, and that they will plunge into their own traps, with their behavior and trickery resulting in their own deaths rather than their intended target.

Beyond these points, it’s difficult for me to think of what else to say.  I can certainly spend a few minutes pointing out interesting details, but I struggle to grasp the overall structure and intent (beyond the obvious and conventional prayer for deliverance).  It’s clear that David sees many threats coming from people who he feels he treated well, and that David is ultimately looking to God for justice and deliverance from these wicked adversaries.  It’s also clear that while David suggests in the early verses that he faces a physical threat, the later part of the psalm seems to focus much more on destructive rumors, slander and questions (v. 11, “they ask me of things that I do not know”).  Perhaps that is all there is to it; it’s a prayer of deliverance from David’s adversaries and nothing more.

Bible Commentary - Psalms 34

Psalm 34 is another psalm “of David”.  This is very common in the first book.  Since Psalm 33 was untitled, Psalm 34 returns us to the normal pattern for this book through its claim of Davidic authorship.

Psalm 34 is also unusual in that it gives us the specific historical situation when the psalm was composed.  The only other psalms composed for specific situations are Psalm 3 which was composed when David was driven out by Absalom and in desperate need, Psalm 18 when David was saved from Saul’s threats, and Psalm 30 which was for the dedication of the temple.

The story of David and Achish is recorded in 1 Samuel 21, and it is a peculiar story to say the least.  Before going into the details, I want to address one minor inconsistency.  The title of this psalm says that David feigned madness before “Abimelech”, but 1 Samuel 21 names the king of Gath “Achish”.  There are many possible explanations for this inconsistency; it’s possible that Abimelech is an alternative title, or Achish could also be a nickname.  Either one of these names could be an abbreviation.  Regardless of which explanation is correct, what we can say for sure is that both names refer to the same person and the same story.

It’s a strange story.  This moment in 1 Samuel 21 comes right when David is driven away by Saul’s own madness and attempted murder.  David fled to the king of Gath, and when he appeared before the king he was frightened by the king’s recognition.  The king of Gath recalled David’s battle against Goliath, who was a Philistine hero.  Since Gath is also part of the Philistine confederacy, David quite reasonably suspected that the king would see him as an enemy and kill him.

In this context, David decided to “act like a madman” (1 Sam 21:13) so that the king would not perceive him as a threat and let him go.  It worked, but it’s hardly consistent with the faith and boldness that we normally associate with David.  The hero of Israel, slayer of Goliath, acted like a madman to evade the threat of Achish/Abimelech.  It really feels like an act of cowardice, and that makes this psalm even stranger.

The overall theme of this psalm, established in the first verse, is praise.  David writes this psalm to praise God for his deliverance from Saul and from Achish.  Even though David’s behavior was dubious, he nevertheless turns this moment into an opportunity for praise, showing that he ascribes his success and protection to the LORD.

It’s an interesting contrast.  On the one hand, his behavior does not reflect faith or trust in God; on the other hand, praising God is itself an expression of faith.  In a sense, this is an application of Psalm 33:16-19.  In the same way that kings are not protected by the size of their armies, David is implying that he was not saved by his behavior, but rather his salvation came from the LORD.  If David thought that his cunning or deceit was what saved his life, he would not thank God for saving him.  The fact that David is crediting God for his deliverance (e.g. verse 4) means that David does not credit his own actions for protecting himself.

In my commentary on Psalm 31, I mentioned that the prayer psalm is an expression of faith.  A standard prayer psalm has a problem statement, a petition for deliverance, and thanksgiving in anticipation of God’s response.  A typical prayer psalm is written before salvation occurs, because the petition for deliverance only makes sense if the problem is still there.  As such, the praise and thanksgiving in a prayer psalm is anticipatory; it looks forward to the moments after deliverance when praise becomes appropriate, and praises in expectation of that moment.

Psalm 34, in contrast, is clearly a praise psalm.  This means that it is basically the third part of a prayer psalm, but extended to greater length.  It is also no longer anticipatory; David has already been saved, and the problem has already been solved.  I claim that Psalm 34 is still an expression of faith.  Praising God in anticipation of deliverance is an expression of faith because it shows a belief that God’s deliverance is coming before the deliverance is ever visible or apparent to the ordinary human senses.  Faith is virtually defined as a belief in the invisible and the unseen, and that belief is expressed through praise.

After deliverance has occurred, it is no longer possible to have “anticipation” of deliverance.  However, as described above it is still possible to have faith through our belief that deliverance came from the LORD.  There are some situations where belief in a “natural” deliverance is virtually impossible.  Miracles like the division of the Red Sea or manna coming down from heaven leave no room for earthly, natural explanations with which we can steal God’s glory.  However, in the same way that they have no natural explanation they also leave us no room for faith.  Because deliverance from God is the only possibility when a clearly supernatural event occurs, it does not require the exercise of any faith to believe the supernatural in those cases.

Supernatural deliverance is remarkable when it occurs, but it robs us of the opportunity to exercise faith by our praise and worship.  However, in the case of “natural deliverance”, faith becomes a choice.  By natural deliverance, I mean instances when a supernatural origin for our deliverance is not obvious.  To demonstrate my point, consider David’s victory over Goliath.  Goliath’s defeat is not obviously supernatural; David cast a slingstone and struck Goliath in the head, killing him in one blow.  A fortuitous shot, to be sure, but not necessarily supernatural in any way.  Slings are incredibly deadly and a well-trained slinger could easily kill a man with a single stone and a lucky shot.  They were a standard issue weapon for hundreds of years in ancient times, and it’s quite possible that their ubiquity and simplicity are the reasons that David used a sling at all.

In these cases, faith becomes a choice.  We can either choose to believe that David was saved by the strength of his arm and the skill of his throw, or we can believe that he was saved by the strength of the LORD and the might of the LORD’s hand.  One choice is a belief in ourselves, the other is a belief in God.  To believe in God is to live by faith.  To praise God is to believe in him, and thus it is also faith.

We can imagine any moment of praise to be an expression of faith for some particular deliverance.  This psalm takes it even further: in verse 1, it tells us that the psalmist will continuously bless God, and will be praising him in every moment.  This is a stunning claim.  Rather than treating praise (and by extension, faith) as a momentary habit, David treats it as a lifelong expression of continuous adoration.

Many people view praise as a response to particular circumstances.  Even people of great faith will praise God as a reaction to individual moments, as if they are living their lives traveling from one island of faith to another, through barren seas of normalcy.  This is not the faith that David imagines.

Instead, David proclaims a faith that praises God continuously, because David believes that God is continuously saving and continuously delivering us.  God’s intervention in our lives is not fragmentary; it is perpetual and ongoing, and our continual praise should be a reflection of God’s continual activity.

This is an amazing thing.  Even though Psalm 34 was composed in response to a particular moment, David’s reflection is that praise (and by extension, God’s activity) should last forever.

The rest of the psalm is great, so I encourage reading and reflecting on all of it, but I’m only going to write about two other verses.

Verse 8 says that we should “taste and see that the LORD is good”.  This is a fascinating verse because of the remarkable intimacy and immediacy that it assumes.  I’ve been heavily emphasizing the faith in this psalm, how it is a belief in God, the spiritual realm, and things unseen.  In spite of that, David tells us that not only should we see that the LORD is good, we can even taste it.  Taste is one of the most intimate senses, and while it doesn’t directly say that we should taste the LORD, it does say that through what we taste we can arrive at the knowledge of God’s goodness.  Many people draw a contrast between the immediacy and directness of sensual experience and the abstraction of spiritual experience; David defies this contrast by bringing sensual experience and spiritual experience together.  We can taste and see the LORD’s goodness.

Through experience, we can come to know God’s nature and character.  Through our experiences in daily life, we can come to know God more and more.  Our knowledge of God does not have to be abstract or purely “spiritual”.

Finally, I want to briefly discuss verse 19.  Verse 19, like the book of Job, challenges “conventional” wisdom that the righteous will never faces affliction.  Job’s three friends had a belief that bad things would never happen to good people, and that Job’s suffering was positive proof that he had sinned in some way.  In verse 19, we see that righteous people really do suffer afflictions, but that the power of God “delivers” them from what they have been suffering.

For example, think about the Israelites living in slavery in Egypt.  They were living in terrible suffering for a long time, but when they cried out to the LORD, he sent Moses who brought ten plagues on Egypt and split the Red Sea so that they might escape to freedom in the promised land (eventually).  Without going into all the details of that story, it is sufficient to show this as a model for how any righteous person might suffer for a time, but in the right moment the LORD breaks in and brings them to freedom.

Our challenge is to simply live by faith.  We bring our struggles before the LORD, we petition him for deliverance, and we praise him both before and after we are freed from slavery and brought into the place that he has promised us.  We praise him because we believe.  We believe that God will set us free, and when we are freed we do not recant our belief and we continue to hold that God freed us rather than praise and glorify our own strength or wisdom.  We always praise God because we hold by faith that God is always working in our lives in every moment.

Whether we are still in the midst of trials or whether we are living in freedom, God is working in our lives in every moment.

Bible Commentary - Psalms 33

Psalm 33, as the first verse tells us, is a psalm of thanksgiving.

First, note that this is an untitled psalm.  It seems like almost all of the last 20 or 30 psalms have all been psalms “of David”.  Although the title “of David” does not necessarily imply Davidic authorship (scholars debate this point), it does clearly indicate a common grouping of psalms, perhaps coming from a particular collection with a common origin or thematic ties.  The fact that this is not a Davidic psalm therefore indicates that it may have structural differences with the Davidic psalms we have read so far.

This psalm is defined by several ideas.  I’m going to say a few words that I see in this psalm: praise, the word of the LORD, the eyes of the LORD, and creation.  We praise God because he created, by the power of his word, and that he is constantly watching the earth with a special focus on the righteous ones whom he watches for their protection and blessing.

In verses 1-5, we praise.  The praise is centered on verse 4 which declares the goodness of the LORD in both word and action.  This is a common pair of ideas in the bible; when combined, words and actions represent the entirety of one’s behavior and activity.  In this context it means that everything about the LORD is good.

In verses 6-9 the psalmist zooms in on God’s creation of the world.  Since the overall theme is praise and thanksgiving, we are still thinking about the LORD in a mindset of thankfulness.  By describing the creation of the world, our praise is directed and focused on God’s creative nature, authority and supremacy over the world, which he expressed through creation.  This passage repeatedly describes creation as the result of God’s spoken word.  Talking about creation as the result of God’s word highlights God’s authority and power.  There is one extra thing worth pointing out here.  The power of words is implicitly a royal characteristic.

This connection may not be obvious, so let me make a hypothetical example.  Imagine you are living in an absolute monarchy, where the king is the ultimate authority who can issue any law or decision he wants without any checks and balances.  In this situation, the king rarely “does” anything; if he wants somebody killed, he doesn’t grab a sword and go chase that person.  Instead, he will issue a declaration or edict, simply ordering that the person should be killed, and his soldiers or administrators will carry out the command.  The power of a king is in his authority, and his authority is expressed through his words.

Let’s take this analogy back to the creation story.  In this story, God issued a “command” that the world should exist.  Because the LORD is the great king who rules over the whole world, his command was carried out and the world was created as a result.

These verses echo the creation narrative of Genesis 1, which also described creation as a product of God’s word.  It is likely that the psalmist was aware of the Genesis narrative and indirectly referencing it.

In verses 10-12, it continues emphasizing the power of God’s word but instead of directing it towards creation, it stands in opposition of the words and plans of “the nations”.  In verse 10 we see “the plans of the peoples” are frustrated, and verse 11 tells us that it is “the plans” of God that override them.  The nations have “plans”, but the LORD is greater and stronger, and the LORD’s plans are imposed upon the nations against their will.  Verse 12 calls the nation of Israel “blessed” because the LORD’s plans is to bless them.

Now that the psalmist has described God’s authority and power to impose his will upon the world, verses 13-19 show us how God watches all the people in the world to enforce his will.  The reason God is watching is to ensure that his “plans” are fulfilled in every person’s life.  God’s diligence in observing everyone means that God is always ready to act.  He is always aware of exactly what is happening in every person’s life, and he will intercede to bring about his will every moment that it is necessary.

Verses 16-17 point out that we cannot be saved by strength or might of any kind.  It might not be obvious, but this is intentionally contrasted with verses 18-19.  The contrast is that earthly strength cannot save, but the strength and power of God can save us.  This contrast follows from the previous sections.  Because God has “plans” for everyone, because God has ultimate authority and because he is watching everyone, he is the sole power that is capable of delivering anyone because there is no earthly power that can resist his will.  The reason why God is the only one who can save is because his decisions about your life cannot be overruled by anyone else.

Finally, in verses 20-22, we are reminded to “wait”, “trust” and “hope” in the LORD.  This is a logical conclusion of the preceding sections.  Because God is the only one who can deliver, we should trust in him for our deliverance.  Even though it might feel like a circuitous path, this actually follows from the previous thoughts in this psalm, from verse 6-19.  Beginning from the creation of the world, we understand that God has authority over all things, and therefore he is the only source of deliverance and salvation from trouble, because his will and his plans are enacted in every person’s life by his power.

In conclusion, I hope my readers understand that while this psalm is meant to praise God, it also contains a latent theology; a theology of God’s power and goodness, our relationship to him and dependence upon him, and the immutability of God’s will and plans for our lives no matter what the “mighty armies” of the world seek to do.  There is no power that can overrule the LORD, and this is a great blessing because ultimately God desires to “deliver” the righteous “from death”.

Bible Commentary - Psalms 32

Psalm 32 is a psalm of thanksgiving for God’s forgiveness.  We see this clearly defined in the first verse, when David says “How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven”.  This makes a couple things clear.  First, it is not a prayer, it is a declaration of praise or thanksgiving.  David is not asking for forgiveness, he is declaring the “blessing” of forgiveness.  Second, he sets the topic very clearly to be forgiveness in particular.  David is not talking about the blessings of God in general or anything like that.  In this way the psalm is very specific.  In other ways, this psalm shares the generalities that we find in nearly every psalm.  For instance, David does not describe forgiveness for any particular thing, it is only “my sin” or “my transgressions” (v. 5).  In this way, Psalm 32 is specific in some ways and generic in others.

Structurally, I would divide this psalm into three sections.  The first section is verses 1-2, which constitutes the introduction.  This introduces the general themes and summarizes the message of the psalm as a whole.

The second section is verses 3-5.  Some commentators extend the second section from v. 3-7, based on the three “selahs” in verses 4, 5 and 7.  Certainly I think these three selahs suggest some kind of thematic grouping of these verses between 3-7.

In my opinion, verses 3-5 are more narrowly focused on David’s own story.  In these verses he is describing his own moment of crisis, when his unresolved personal sin resulted in physical distress.  “When I kept silent, my body waste away” (v. 3), but when David confessed his sin, “you forgave the guilt of my sin” (v. 5) and the pressure and physical suffering was resolved.  This is David’s own story of sin and forgiveness, highlighting the wonders of God’s forgiveness.

The third section is verses 6-11.  This is the section where David takes his own personal story and encourages other people to follow his example and seek God’s forgiveness.  The language is not entirely clear and some sections are actually pretty confusing, but we see David’s conclusion in verse 6: “Therefore let everyone who is godly pray to you”.  The conclusion is that we should all pray and seek forgiveness in the same way that David sought forgiveness.  In verses 8-9 David says “I will instruct you and teach you”, and that is speaking of the message we have already received.  The instruction of David is from his story in verses 3-5, that we suffer from our sin until we pray to God and seek forgiveness.  Verses 10-11 are a fairly standard conclusion, with David offering a final moment of praise and joy on behalf of the righteous and an admonition to fear the LORD and avoid wickedness.

Even though this is a psalm about forgiveness, I noticed that the word “forgive” in any form only appears twice in the psalm: first in verse 1, and second in verse 5.  The sparsity of the word “forgive” in a psalm that is clearly about forgiveness is interesting.  The overall effect is to place the focus squarely on verse 5, “and you forgave the guilt of my sin”.  This is what the psalm is all about; when David petitioned God for forgiveness, it was granted to him.  This is what we are supposed to learn from, this is what we are supposed to emulate in our own life.  This is the blessing that was described in verse 1: when we make mistakes and sin against the LORD, we can turn to him and he will forgive us.

I would also like to direct my readers to view the three sentences that immediately precede the “selahs”.  These three sentences form the central story and message of the psalm as a whole.  Read them in order: “my vitality was drained away”, “you forgave the guilt of my sin”, “you surround me with songs of deliverance”.

The first one is the “problem statement”.  It’s not a problem statement in the same way as what we see in prayer psalms, where the psalmist is specifically praying for the relief of some particular crisis, but it is a problem statement in the sense of David describing some of the trouble in his life at the time.  Throughout verses 3-4, David is emphasizing the connection between his unforgiven sin and physical problems of an undefined nature.

Forgiveness is once again at the center, and its position in the middle makes it the most “active” part of the psalm.  If we divide the psalm into three parts (which we can easily do), then effectively it breaks down into background, middle and conclusion.  The background is basically the “problem statement”, it is the motivation behind the psalm, what justifies the “action”.  The conclusion is praise and thanksgiving, which is the result of the “action”.  What goes in the middle is the active part of the psalm, which transforms us from the background into the conclusion.  The action is what turns the problems into praise.  In the case of prayer psalms, the action is the act of prayer or petition.  It is the moment of crying out for help, and it turns our problems into praise through God’s intervention.  In the case of this psalm, prayer is not at the center.  Instead, the center of this psalm is acknowledging our guilt and receiving forgiveness from God.  Forgiveness is the activity at the “center” and like the prayer or petition, forgiveness i what transforms David’s “wasting away” into “songs of deliverance”.

As I just mentioned, the third section is the conclusion, which is “songs of deliverance”.  This is the moment of David’s praise that God has forgiven him, God has healed him and restored him.

After David’s story concludes, he urges us to follow him and follow his example.  It is a strangely didactic moment that we don’t normally see in many of the other psalms.  For example, the prayer psalms rarely have these moments of “you should pray too and God will help you also”.  The notion that we should learn from the psalms and follow their example is typically implicit and the narrative is given to us without additional commentary.  In this case, the “narrative” refers to the three-part structure of problem statement, action, and praise for deliverance.

Not only does this psalm have a didactic conclusion, the action is mostly past-tense; at the time the psalm was written, David had already asked for forgiveness; he had already been healed and restored.  This loss of immediacy heightens the didactic nature of the psalm.  If David’s plea for forgiveness was present tense, then that becomes the focus or purpose of the psalm.  In other words, if David still needed forgiveness then that is what he would care about the most, and that’s what he would be thinking about.  Since he’s already been forgiven, the focus shifts to outside of the immediacy of his problems and towards the rest of us, the ones reading or listening to this psalm.  It becomes less about David and more about us.

Every psalm does this to some degree.  Since the psalms were written down and transmitted for other people and for later generations, every psalm is at least a little bit for others.  However, every psalm also has an author and a motivation and for psalms written in the moment of crisis, the motivation shifts more heavily towards that immediate situation and the author himself.  For psalms written after the fact, the focus shifts towards the audience for whom it was written.  This psalm is past tense, which shifts the focus towards the audience, and this tendency is reinforced by the didactic conclusion in verses 8-11.

In conclusion, it should be evident by now to my readers that this psalm utilizes much of the structure and organization of the prayer psalms even though the motivation is different.  I have made similar comments before, such as e.g. Psalm 11 and especially Psalm 20.  In both of those cases, I described in my commentary how the psalms utilized elements of the standard prayer psalm formula, but reorganized and adapted for the specific purpose at hand.  I would say that Psalm 32 is very much the same kind of thing, where the basic formula of the prayer psalm has been adapted to the purpose of highlighting God’s forgiveness.  What this shows is a common literary tradition, if not a shared authorship, between these psalms and the prayer psalms.  It shows a conventional pattern that was deeply understood by the psalmist(s), who could use the same general pattern to express different kinds of thought beyond the original design.  Of this tradition, Psalm 32 shows us another example of a unique evolution, still showing the hallmarks of the pattern behind it even as it is repurposed to bring us new ideas.