Ps. 5:8 (gates of the Temple)

Ps. 5.8

Diag.

But  /  I will  /  enter  /  your house  /  in the abundance  /  of your lovingkindness.

I will  /  worship  /  toward  /  your holy temple  /  in reverence  /  of you.

One thing we have noted time and again in these Psalms is a profound sense of confidence. Generally, we have spoken about in the sense of the Psalmist conviction that his prayer will not only be heard but that it will, unalterably, bring about what has been requested. I have often remarked that the word “hope” does not do justice to this deep seated sense of inevitability.

What we have seen, thus far, is that much of this conviction emerges from the sense of deliverance and protection, that God will change the present circumstances and bring (re)establish his care for the one praying. Here a new note is struck but it is no less shocking.

After cataloguing not only those whom Yhwh will not allow in presence but who will also be the subject of his active destruction, our petitioner, without hesitation, knows that he will be admitted to Yhwh’s presence. To him, the gates are open. The contrast could not be starker. We have moved from hatred and destruction to an abundance of lovingkindness. Can we explain this?

First, a proposal. For this man, understanding and entering into God’s hatred and loathing is not something that causes him to lose confidence or shrink back from his knowing that he will enter into Yhwh’s presence. Rather, it could very well be one of the ingredients that emboldens him and places him on surer footing, opening up to him Yhwh’s concern and care for him. Along these same lines, notice the small word “abundance”. He could have simply said he would be granted admission according to Yhwh’s lovingkindness (already a rather strong term, referring to the ground of the covenant between Yhwh and Israel). However, he says this lovingkindness is “abundant”. There is the sense here of an overflowing, an ‘always-more’ to Yhwh. This ‘abundance’ though has already been expressed, in the past few verses. Although not stated this way, Yhwh’s disdain has been nothing but ‘abundant’ toward those whom he hates and loathes. Just as profound as Yhwh’s hate is for these men is his love for our Psalmist.

It would seem that this is the case: the more one moves toward the heart of Yhwh the more one moves toward this “abundant” hatred and lovingkindness. Just as Yhwh is One, so too is his heart one. The ways Israel came to express this were not by saying this is simply “two sides of the same coin”. Rather, they expressed it in the sense of familial realities: either through a parental or spousal love. A parent’s love and a spouse’s love can be the most protective and dangerous modes of love possible; it can flare up more quickly than any fire. And, in this context, this ‘heart’ makes a great deal of sense.

This image can stumble, though, and I want to pause over why, as it does emerge from this Psalm. As we saw before, God’s hatred toward these evils was a hatred that was, in away, supra-personal; it wasn’t merely reactive. One sees in this categorical statement of disdain a glimpse of Yhwh as he is ‘in himself’. Likewise, this “abundant lovingkindness” is also coming, I sense, from a place deeper, so to speak, than what we have seen before. It is not simply responsive, as in a “delight” at this Psalmist. Until now in our meditations, Yhwh’s emotions have seemed to come from this ‘reactive’ place (either as a sense of fatherly protection or delight at those he had ‘chosen for himself’). However, in this Psalm one is catching a vision of this: that Yhwh is not only loving, but is Love. And, surprisingly, (and I’ve never heard it said this way) that Yhwh not only hates, but is Hate; it must be said here that in all of the prophetic visions that Yhwh’s hate is spent and what remains is his love (much more would need to be said about this). These emotions emerge from Him and are not merely responsive in the same way a father’s love and a spouse’s love is.

As this relates to this verse: this is the gate to the Temple. The more one contemplates both the covenant (lovingkindness) and Temple (‘your house’) the more one will come to see that entrance into Yhwh’s presence is through this ‘cloud’ of ‘ever-more’ or ‘abundance’. This man’s confidence that he be will granted an audience with his King is one founded upon his deep vision of Yhwh’s hatred and his love.  

It is not difficult to see how this ignites in him “worship” and “reverence”.

Ps. 5:5-7 (the loathing of Yhwh)

Ps. 5.5-7

Diag.

For you are not  /  a God  /  who takes pleasure  /  in wickedness

Evil  /  may not  /  sojourn  /  with you.

Boasters  /  may not  /  set themselves  /  before  /  your eyes

You hate  /  all workers  /  of iniquity.

You shall  /  destroy  /  those  /  who speak  /  falsehood.

You loathe  /  bloodthirsty  /  and deceitful men  /  O Lord.

First off, some formal observations. The first three categories appear to be more ‘passive’ in that they describe those whom God will not have in his presence. The final three become the object of God’s hate, destructing and loathing. For that reason I want to group these reflections along those lines.

Group 1 (wicked pleasure-evil-boasters)

“Not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness”: upon first reading, this verse could easily be forgotten. It seems so obvious that it is almost invisible to us. Someone may ask though, is it that obvious? Is it obvious that God does not take pleasure in wickedness? And, if that is the case, from where does the power of such an ‘obvious’ statement come from? To some, with less pious eyes, the opposite may be plainly obvious: that God does take pleasure and delight in wickedness; that it is, for him, a source of joy and exuberance. I do not want to enter into a long reflection on this, because, in large part, this is not where the Psalmist is. I do not sense that this proposition is questionable to him. This may not seem like the best approach, in that one could gain a lot by reflecting on what it would actually mean if God did take pleasure in wickedness. However, that approach would begin in a place of abstraction. Of attempting to enter into this Psalm by way of reasoning into it. Such an approach could be fruitful, of course. But there is, I think, a different language being employed here. And I think it is one more along the lines of familial or intimate knowledge. In a way, if one had a feel for how a good drama or novel or painting or piece of music ‘works’ one would be better disposed to approaching this Psalmist than by the way of philosophy. The philosophical approach might allow us to know much about God, but I sense that this Psalmist actually knows God. And it is from there that I think we would need to begin.

1)       takes pleasure: just based on what we have observed thus far in our Psalms, we have not been provided much as to God’s pleasure. There have been, however, a few indications. Ps. 1 spoke a great deal of the ‘blessed man’, that man who shown forth the light of blessing and lived in that light. He was described as being ‘transplanted’ next to running waters, of having ‘fruit in season’ and whose delight was in Torah. While this Psalm focused on the blessed man, we are given a glimpse into the heart of God, for it is from God that this man would derive his blessing. The image of ‘fruitfulness’ as we saw, is a central (if not the central) image of the bible used to describe what God “looks for” in his people. It is the active bringing forth, from the midst of the covenant, something entirely natural but also something entirely ‘new’, ‘delightful’ and pleasing. There is also this sense of the blessed man being actively ‘transplanted’ when he delights in Torah, which is the revelation of God. We therefore see God as this hidden but very active gardener, both preparing the soil, moving the plant, and watching for it to bear fruit. Likewise, in Ps. 2, we saw the amazing intimacy between the anointed and his father, the Enthroned One. In their private conversation we heard how Yhwh said to his, “Just ask and I will grant you nations”. Again, we are given a glimpse into Yhwh’s heart, in this desire to lavish the entire world upon his son. In Ps. 3, we saw how Yhwh would answer his son, David, ‘from Zion’ even though his son had been exiled from Jerusalem (his Father’s dwelling). And in Ps. 4 we saw a God who would put “more joy” in this righteous man than any other blessing might provide.

a.       It might seem as if it would have been better to catalogue how we have seen God’s anger in these Psalms. However, that active sense of displeasure is addressed in the next few verses. Here, it merely states that wickedness is not a source of pleasure.

b.       Therefore, unlike the blessed man, who delights in Torah, the anointed son, David and the righteous man, those who perform wickedness do not draw the attention of Yhwh. They cannot ‘prick’ his interest. And, importantly for what we have seen thus far: God’s ‘taking pleasure’ in these men is his ‘hearing’ of his prayers.  This is an important point. God’s ‘pleasure’ in these men has been expressed, most fundamentally, in his ear being attuned to their voices. It is as if their prayers catch his attention and he then turns his face towards them.

c.       The voice of a wicked man, on the other hand, is mute to Yhwh. He doesn’t notice it; he is entirely indifferent to their sounds. Just as certain forms of music are do not bring “pleasure” to some, so too does the wicked man to the Lord.

2)       “Evil may not sojourn”: evil is no companion to Yhwh. Again, the previous Psalms have shown us Yhwh’s companions. They are men who are not merely special objects of Yhwh’s devotion. They also give to him joy and companionship. Remember those amazing words in Ps. 2 Yhwh addresses to his son, “Just ask….”. Nowhere have we been given the impression that Yhwh does not seek out, eagerly, his faithful, that he is not only ready to hear, but wants to.

a.       Recall Enoch, in Genesis, who “walked with God” and then was taken up. This was a man who ‘sojourned’ with God. And, the two most central ‘sojourners’ of the OT: Abraham, who lived his life in a continuous readiness with his God; and Moses, who wandered with his God’s people (and with God) until he died in the midst of that journey.

b.       Evil is never extended this invitation. Just as wickedness does not draw Yhwh’s attention, so too can evil not provide companionship for Yhwh. In a sense, evil is the antithesis of Enoch, Abraham and Moses. When Yhwh moves forward, or when he seeks to bring people into his blessing: evil cannot be included on the roster.

3)       “Boasters…before your eyes”: We are beginning here to sense a type of active repulsion by Yhwh. term ‘boasters’ may refer either to arrogance or to idol worshippers. Interestingly, both interpretations fit nicely here.

a.       Boasters as idol worshippers: those have set themselves “before the eyes of idols” cannot now set themselves before “the eyes of Yhwh”. In this context, I wonder if the “eyes of Yhwh” means entering into the Temple, the place of God’s presence. If that is the case, these “boasters” are to be excluded from participating in the worship and sacrificial life of Israel.

b.       Boasters as arrogance: it is important to note that these men are attempting to “set themselves before” Yhwh’s eyes. They are taking the initiative, as apparently they do in all forms of life in their ‘boasting’. They lack the humility exemplified by this Psalmist’s opening prayer (of pleading). One is reminded here of the Pharisee who was “happy he was not like all the other men” and the tax-collector who stood far off, praying for mercy.

4)       “You hate all workers of iniquity”: God’s anger is not foreign to us. We have detected it, at least from Ps. 2 and 3. It is, therefore, a very important emotion to understand.

a.       Ps. 2: the hurricane blast of God’s address was described as being “in anger” and “in wrath”. Notice in this Psalm, though, that the source of this anger is the rebellion of the nations against the Lord and his anointed. It is responsive to their active attack on Yhwh and his son. This attack constitutes both a personal affront to Yhwh and an insult upon his child. This “anger” and “wrath” is later embodied in the king’s power to shatter to the nations (Ywhy’s act of protecting his son is empowering him to destroy the nations).

b.       Ps. 3: Yhwh “smites” David’s enemies and “smashes” the teeth of the wicked. Again, this is an entirely responsive act of protecting and vengeance on the part of Yhwh because of the impending doom surrounding David, the “one after his own heart”.

c.       Ps. 5: at least initially this anger appears to emerge from a different place than Ps. 2 and 3. It seems much less provoked. Rather, it is a revealing of God’s inner state without it being directed specifically in an act of protection. These “workers of iniquity” are hated by God simply by their actions alone. Note how God hates all workers of iniquity. We are seeing here a permanent, rather than merely responsive, emotion of Yhwh; it is all encompassing. Regardless of whether these ‘workers’ enact their evil against themselves or against Yhwh’s chosen people, they are, to him, an object of hatred. It is absolute, unconditional and total.

                                                               i.      This sheds light on something passed over already. Note how “wickedness” and “evil” (v. 5) are not people, but properties. It does not say “wicked men” or “evil men”; that certainly is implied, however, by stating it in such a blanket way, “wickedness” and “evil” are seen as almost supra-personal powers. It is as if they are something mad becomes a part of rather than something he merely enacts. In this way, to find oneself as standing within those ‘spheres of influence’ is to find oneself an object of God’s hatred (and wrath). Those things are, without qualification or remainder, detestable to Yhwh.

5)       “You shall destroy those who speak falsehood”: Yhwh’s hatred has now flared up into more than an emotional response. He has now become a Warrior King, set out to destroy. For many, the previous description and this should be inverted. Those who lie are less of a threat (and therefore only subject to hatred) than “workers of iniquity”. However, we are getting a sense here of something that stands very close to God’s heart: proper and truthful speech. The ability on man’s part to lie or distort the truth is seen as one of the most profound acts of rebellion against Yhwh. The first of the Ten Commandments centers on it completely: swearing in the Lord’s name. The book of Judges could be read as the folly of a lose tongue (from hasty promises to a failure to protect what is precious). Proverbs is almost obsessed with proper speech and Isaiah’s first response when he comes into the presence of Yhwh is that his lips are unclean. Conversely, it is the word of Yhwh that creates, promises and establishes covenant. It is the word of Yhwh that is spoken through the prophets. And it is from the mouth of Yhwh that a ‘double-edged’ sword emerges. Words are their own reality, not merely vehicles for action. They are not just powerful but power.

a.       Understood from this perspective, it is no surprise that false speaking is so abhorrent to Yhwh that he will seek out its destruction. An ancient form of silencing opponents was to literally cut their tongues out. One sees here a Yhwh reaching into these men mouths, taking hold of their tongues and tearing them out of their mouths.

6)       “You loathe bloodthirsty and deceitful men”: The fact that loathing follows destruction is interesting in that it seems like a lessening; it seems more appropriate to move this way: hate à loathing à destruction. This probably points out to us that this is not, in fact, a ‘progression’ but a type of catalogue (in no particular order).

a.       Loathing conjures up images different than hatred. To loathe something is to be intensely repelled by it. Loathing is much more visceral than hatred. I see it more as a physical reaction to filth; one’s stomach turns when one loathes something. Hatred is much more ‘pure’ and direct. You wear “loathing” like clothes and it drips from you.

b.       “bloodthirsty and deceitful men”: because these two descriptions are combined I tend to see these men as different than those “who speak falsehood”. These men, through their deceit, cause the death of innocent people. Or, they take such and advantage of them that they are, effectively, murderers. Whoever they are, they are actively violent and destructive.  

Ps. 5:4

Ps. 5.4

Diag.

O Lord  /  in the morning  /  hear  /  my voice

In the morning  /  I make  /  preparations  /  and watch.

I only want to make a few observations of this verse. First, an entirely speculative one: The first seven (7) lines concern the petitioner’s request to be heard. This is followed by six (6) lines describing those evil men the Lord abhors. There are three sets of four lines and then the concluding seven (7) lines concern those who take refuge in the Lord and their joy. Might we see in the two seven (7) lines an expression of the perfect number? The first as the perfect expression of a request, the last a perfect expression of their fulfillment? And, further, could we see in the six lines devoted to the wicked a literary sign of their lack of completion, their inability to enter into the ‘rest’ of the seventh (remember, in Daniel, the statute is made up of ‘six’ and the beast in Revelation is “666”)?

“make preparations”: this phrase could indicate two things. It could indicate the making preparations for the morning sacrifice (as in, placing wood upon the altar). On the other hand, it could indicate the preparing of one’s words (for a defense or a debate, for example). Along the first lines, we see a man making his prayer to be heard and preparing to make his sacrifice.

“watch”: it is not, to me, clear what this man is watching for. A few possibilities though come to mind. In vs. 9 this man prays the Lord would guide him in righteousness because of those “lying in watch for me”. This man may then say his prayer to the Lord and then watch for this ‘guidance’ and the Lord’s “making straight his way” before him (vs. 10). Along these same lines it may be important that this prayer is being said in the morning and that this man does not apparently have specific evil men in mind. He merely knows that some are “lying in watch” (meaning, they are hidden to him). These observations would tie in nicely with what we saw in our previous reflections: this man is intensely aware of a need for protection and, immediately upon waking, he begins his day with this deeply felt request for protection against enemies he cannot see. For this reason all he can do is “watch”. He must wait to see what is revealed throughout the day. In a way, this lack of identity on his part concerning who is ‘watching’ him is why his prayer too is so shrouded in ‘murmuring’ and the ‘sound of his voice’. He cannot put any more form to his words except for this felt need for protection.

Ps. 5:2-3

Ps. 5.2-3

Diag.

Give ear  /  to my words  /  O Lord.

Consider /  my murmuring.

Give attention /  to the sound  /  of my plea

My King  /  and  /  my God

For  /  it is to you  /  that I pray.

We are in familiar territory with the opening of this Psalm. We, again, find at the beginning a triple repeated description. So far they have looked like this: Ps. 1 (description of wicked men avoided by blessed man); Ps. 2 (the nations’ actions as they prepare to make war); Ps. 3 (David’s thrice repeated, “How many…”); Ps. 4 (asking of sons of men how long they will continue their violence). One thing I have avoided doing until now is looking at whether there they contain any real progression of thought. We have made some observations in this regard (Ps. 1: all consuming; Ps. 2: the progressive alienation; Ps. 3 the sense of a growing heaviness; Ps. 4: the sarcasm) but we have not looked much at whether the three develop; I have generally assumed a type of parallelism. Here, I want to look at these three because I sense more than the parallelism of the previous Psalms.

“Give ear to my words”: We have seen something similar to this already in Ps. 3 and 4. In Ps. 3 David says he cries out and the Lord will “answer from Zion”. In Ps. 4 (a closer analogy), the righteous man “calls out” and demands an answer. He also says the Lord “will hear” when I call to him. In both of these Psalms the “calling out” emerges from a sense of impending danger. It is an attempt, therefore, to “prick the Lord’s ears”. We have noted how these calls are also seen as jolting time forward, of getting things “back on track”. Furthermore, we have seen how the covenant provides the context for these prayers. In a sense, reality is grounded on this dialogue between the Lord and his people and his people (the blessed man, the ‘anointed’ son, David, the righteous man) have been given a very active and positive role in “moving things along”. The righteous man must identify when a prayer for deliverance is required. Without it, time stalls and justice is allowed to continue being flaunted.

In this Psalm, however, the reason for the prayer is not at all immediately obvious. In fact, what we will later come to learn is that this prayer is spoken first thing in the morning. It is a call for protection, not from known dangers, but from unknown ones. We have here, then, something we haven’t seen before. This is a prayer, actively seeking protection although the danger is not immediately obvious. This experience is new in that the previous calls for God to ‘hear’ were essentially responsive to a danger. Here, we find a ‘morning’ call for protection that is proactive in seeking protection. This man knows there is danger but he doesn’t know where or when it will strike.

“Consider my murmuring”: In one sense this is set as a parallel to “give ear to my words”. However, the description is full of the sense that the “words” spoken are surrounded by a ‘murmuring’; it is as if the man were stuttering because of a nervous sense of need. And he wants the Lord to consider this aspect of his speech. It is just as much a part of the meaning he is attempting to convey because it, in its weakness, is conveying (or, revealing) something. His desperation cannot be communicated if only his words are regarded. His being is actually perceived in the poverty of his murmuring and stammering.

“Give attention to the sound of my plea”: The full picture of his communication is provided here. He wants his King to pay close attention to the very sound of his plea. This man is straining; he knows his words alone (even his murmuring) do not at all convey his prayer. He is desperate that he be heard and his desperation can only be gathered from the sound of his voice. Just as one listens to the sound of symphony and observes certain themes and developments within them is this man asking that God appreciate his “sound”.

“My King, and my God”: he had previously only said, “O Lord”. Now, after this desperate call for an audience he includes the very touching word “my”. What began as a reverential distance “O Lord” has now, at the tail end of this plea, become something like a grabbing onto his garments. There is contained in this simple word a hidden demand. (“Because you are my King, you must listen to your servant.”) Likewise, the addition of the descriptive “King” is important. He could have just said “my God”. However, a king is a much more relational term. A king is a king because he is a shepherd of a nation. There is no such thing as a king without subjects. And a king is, first and foremost, a protector. His very office is one of clear responsibilities and duties. One can almost hear this man’s voice by his including this description in his plea.

Ps. 4 Summary (The set-apart)

Ps. 4 Summary (The set-apart)

When the directions are given for the building of the Temple particular attention is given to the instruments used in the worship and sacrifices offered, whether they be the tongs, the lampstands, the censors or the basins. And they are not merely tools for worship but, as it were, furnishings of Yhwh’s home. As possessions of Yhwh that dwell continuously in his presence they are endowed with the same power that is that presence. They have been set apart from their normal uses and placed within the very sphere of Yhwh. And, as with any king’s regalia and emblems of his power, they are prized and objects of his devotion. He cherishes them; he loves them. The entire Temple, with everything contained therein, is the apple of his eye and he delights in it.  

These objects are given their beauty and delight because Yhwh has made them into the very dwelling of his name. We intimate what this means. Unlike in our culture, the name of Yhwh carries with it the very presence of the person named. It is, in a word, not merely what identifies this god, but is this god. The name is his presence, his power and his being. Likewise, and just as important, a name is not just the ‘interior’ reality of that person; it is their mode of identification. For example, I am a human, but my name, Brad, is who I am ‘publicly’ so to speak; but that public reality is the most intimate identification of who I am. To hand over one’s name to another, to make them a ‘dwelling’ of the name, is to hand over to that person his ‘reputation’. When Yhwh revealed his name to Israel and came to dwell within them in the Temple, he made Israel the bearers of his reputation.  

In this Psalm, we are given a rather startling vision of the effect of God’s setting apart of objects for his own love and devotion: they are not destroyed; they are not merely made into ‘pointers’ or ‘metaphors’ to or of Yhwh. Rather, their own ‘reputations’ (something they all contain) are lifted up into Yhwh’s very presence and become a source of delight and protection. When Yhwh delights in these objects of devotion (these “holy men”) he is not merely delighting in himself and what he can do. They are apart from him and have their own reality apart from him. To be lifted into God’s presence is to be perfected in all the natural modes of existence, not destroyed. They simultaneously bear Yhwh’s reputation and their own.

This righteous man is like a speaking lampstand in the Temple of Yhwh.  And, like a lampstand that has been contaminated through contact with filth, so too has this man’s own reputation been attacked. It is from this deep sense of ownership by Yhwh that this man’s confident prayer emerges. It is not one, of course, grounded merely in his own sense of righteousness. Rather, like the lampstand, he is intensely aware of the fact the has been set apart for Yhwh and this setting apart has infused his entire being. He knows he is an object of love. Perhaps in this regard familial language might more adequately portray this reality: this man knows himself to be the son of Yhwh and, just as every son has his own reputation that is not merely his fathers, so too does he truly bear the reputation of his father. For this reason, when this man’s reputation is unjustifiably attacked, he instinctively knows his father, who loves him and whose reputation is itself bound to his own, will come to his aid. This language of love preempts any abstract thought on the difficulties of nature and grace and free will and the like. A son knows his father will protect him.

And it is from this very natural (yet intense) knowledge that this man speaks. He is so incredibly calm throughout the Psalm. The night is falling and the day has not been kind. He has, as he has for many days, suffered the insults of some of the most prominent men in his community. Their words are like a mountain stream trickling down throughout the community until everyone has joined in the destruction of his reputation. He has, perhaps for a while, withstood these attacks but their prevalence and the sense that his reputation may in fact be suffering a mortal wound has become a reality. Time is beginning to crawl to a halt; justice is apparently not working like it should and a sense of claustrophobia is beginning to emerge. The time has come for him to make his appeal to his father.

Immediately, he turns his face towards these ‘sons of men’ and asks them, sarcastically, how long they intend to keep up their foolishness. Contained within this question is the absolutely incredible assurance (it feels so natural yet so astonishing at the same time) that he can speak this way to these men of influence. For this righteous man it is as if his reputation’s deliverance has already occurred simply by asking his father for help. This is not “hope”; it is an absolute certainty to him. One can envision these men turning to him, dumbstruck, that he would dare address them in such a condescending manner. But, before they can get a word out, the righteous man continues speaking. He answers their hidden question: he has been set apart by Yhwh for his own possession and Yhwh hears him when he calls out.

Anyone watching this might feel that the righteous man needed to quickly exit the room. Amazingly, his onslaught continues. And now, not only has he called their authority into question, he actually dares to offer them advice and directives. His sense of control over the situation has become absolute. Had he left the scene early, without these commands, he would have merely silenced them (perhaps). However, by making himself their teacher he demands not merely their respect but their subservience. He is now the true “son of man” or “man of influence”. The last has become first.

He now turns away from these men and to the crowd of people around him. He voices a question they all carry within them. “Who will show us the good?” At this point, this man could stand on no higher pinnacle: he makes himself Aaron, the high priest, and pronounces a blessing upon them. “Lift up the light of your countenance upon us, O Lord!” This utter and total superiority, this joy without any trace of a shadow, that has pervaded this Psalm from the beginning now shines through this man. He turns away from the crowd, as the night falls and a new days begins and lays down to rest and sleep, in a dwelling of safety and peace and in the very name that has made him “set aside” for his god.

Ps. 4:9 (Dwelling in safety)

Ps. 4.9

Diag.

In peace  /  I will both  /  lie down  /  and sleep,

For you  /  alone  /  are the Lord;

You  /  make me  /  dwell  /  in safety.

A room of peace and safety: Here, several strands of the Psalm are woven together into a very tight unity. In analyzing vs. 1 I intentionally skipped over this rather odd request: “When in distress, give me room.” Although it is not completely nonsensical it does seem puzzling. There are many other ways, it would seem, the Psalmist could have conveyed the sense of ‘pressure’ and ‘release’ other than a request for “room”.

What does the image of “room” convey? First off we see here the Psalmist hinting at something that is absent for the rest of the Psalm until the very end: that the attacks on his reputation, and the consequent sense of injustice about it, have engendered a feeling of claustrophobia, of unbearable ‘closeness’. This feeling is not, itself, unusual; we saw it Ps. 3 very clearly with David. But there is something about that is so devoid of power.

That is, until we get to the final verse where spatial imagery is again picked up: “In peace…; you make me dwell in safety.” This “room” has become a place of peace and, in effect, a bedroom (here, he lies down and falls asleep). It is a “dwelling” of safety. It is almost like Eden. I think one way to capture this is to think of this “peace” as a place; it is something he is in and a dwelling.

Sleep following joy: following vs. 8 the fact that the Psalmist falls asleep may strike us unexpected. This righteous man has requested that a joy more profound than every emblem of God’s blessing be placed in his heart and then, in almost a sigh of relief, he falls asleep. It would seem as if he has just started the race but instead he is seen crossing the finish line, exhausted. This image of sleep, within this Psalm, has already been hinted at in regard to the wicked: they are “speak within themselves and be still no their bed” (vs. 5). These men are obviously not granted sleep as their agitations will rob them of rest. And here we realize this: this Psalm is spoken at night-fall. Everyone is entering into the darkness of a new day (we have already contemplated in Ps. 3 the power behind envisioning the world as beginning when the sun goes down and the world falls asleep). The evil man, though, will not be granted “rest” and “peace”. He will not be allowed into this “room” but will have to stay outside, gnashing his teeth in the darkness.

Sleep being a consequence of joy makes sense in this context (of nightfall). As we have observed before, the falling of night is the natural and ordained time for man to enter into rest. To be awake during the night is to fail to enter into this beginning and this re-creation. A prayer for blessing and joy at nightfall is then a prayer that the righteous man be allowed to enter into this cycle and drink in the peace of sleep. Creation’s rhythm and the righteous man’s coincide. This is covenantal rhythm.

It is of profound importance that when the “day of the Lord” arrives, though, that this ordained time for sleep will become a time of intense watchfulness and, in fact, those who sleep will fail to enter into the wedding of the bridegroom and his bride.

You alone are the Lord, You make me dwell in safety: this is something very poignant and intimate in these words, especially in light of the fact that they are the righteous man’s final words as he falls asleep. There is something captured here that Ps. 3 did not convey: a loving calm has descended upon the righteous man. He knows he is not sleeping alone.

Ps. 4:9 (Dwelling of safety)

Ps. 4.9

Diag.

In peace  /  I will both  /  lie down  /  and sleep,

For you  /  alone  /  are the Lord;

You  /  make me  /  dwell  /  in safety.

A room of peace and safety: Here, several strands of the Psalm are woven together into a very tight unity. In analyzing vs. 1 I intentionally skipped over this rather odd request: “When in distress, give me room.” Although it is not completely nonsensical it does seem puzzling. There are many other ways, it would seem, the Psalmist could have conveyed the sense of ‘pressure’ and ‘release’ other than a request for “room”.

What does the image of “room” convey? First off we see here the Psalmist hinting at something that is absent for the rest of the Psalm until the very end: that the attacks on his reputation, and the consequent sense of injustice about it, have engendered a feeling of claustrophobia, of unbearable ‘closeness’. This feeling is not, itself, unusual; we saw it Ps. 3 very clearly with David. But there is something about that is so devoid of power.

That is, until we get to the final verse where spatial imagery is again picked up: “In peace…; you make me dwell in safety.” This “room” has become a place of peace and, in effect, a bedroom (here, he lies down and falls asleep). It is a “dwelling” of safety. It is almost like Eden. I think one way to capture this is to think of this “peace” as a place; it is something he is in and a dwelling.

Sleep following joy: following vs. 8 the fact that the Psalmist falls asleep may strike us unexpected. This righteous man has requested that a joy more profound than every emblem of God’s blessing be placed in his heart and then, in almost a sigh of relief, he falls asleep. It would seem as if he has just started the race but instead he is seen crossing the finish line, exhausted. This image of sleep, within this Psalm, has already been hinted at in regard to the wicked: they are “speak within themselves and be still no their bed” (vs. 5). These men are obviously not granted sleep as their agitations will rob them of rest. And here we realize this: this Psalm is spoken at night-fall. Everyone is entering into the darkness of a new day (we have already contemplated in Ps. 3 the power behind envisioning the world as beginning when the sun goes down and the world falls asleep). The evil man, though, will not be granted “rest” and “peace”. He will not be allowed into this “room” but will have to stay outside, gnashing his teeth in the darkness.

Sleep being a consequence of joy makes sense in this context (of nightfall). As we have observed before, the falling of night is the natural and ordained time for man to enter into rest. To be awake during the night is to fail to enter into this beginning and this re-creation. A prayer for blessing and joy at nightfall is then a prayer that the righteous man be allowed to enter into this cycle and drink in the peace of sleep. Creation’s rhythm and the righteous man’s coincide. This is covenantal rhythm.

It is of profound importance that when the “day of the Lord” arrives, though, that this ordained time for sleep will become a time of intense watchfulness and, in fact, those who sleep will fail to enter into the wedding of the bridegroom and his bride.

You alone are the Lord, You make me dwell in safety: this is something very poignant and intimate in these words, especially in light of the fact that they are the righteous man’s final words as he falls asleep. There is something captured here that Ps. 3 did not convey: a loving calm has descended upon the righteous man. He knows he is not sleeping alone.

Ps. 4:7-8 (the Aaronic blessing)

4.7

Diag.

Many people  /  say  /  “Who will  /  show us  /  good?”

Lift up  /  the light  /  of your countenance  /  upon us  /  O Lord!

Put more joy  /  in my heart 

Than when  /  their corn  /  and new wine  /  abound.

When Jesus stood before Pilate, Pilate asked him, “What is truth?” Here, the “many” ask, “Who will show us good?” In the context of the Psalm this “good” appears related to blessings of “corn and new wine”. They are embodiments of an earth that is ‘fruitful’ and productive. In many passages, these blessings are in fact the sign of a restored covenant, the blessings of covenant fidelity and even the blessings of the final feast with the Lord. For this reason they are not to be downplayed. They lived within the Israelite consciousness as some of the greatest signs of God’s love and tenderness to his people.

So what is happening here? We first must notice the ‘movement’ or drama of this ‘question and answer.” The question is put forth and then the righteous man erupts into prayer. And these are not merely words that have spontaneously occurred to him. They are, in fact, a portion of the Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6.25-26, “The Lord will make his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you; the Lord will lift up his countenance to you and give you his peace.”

The context of the blessing is interesting; it follows immediately upon the heels of how to offer proper sacrifices. Then Moses turns to Aaron and gives him and his sons this blessing to say over Israel. After the blessing, Moses consecrates the tabernacle.

There is a similar movement here: the righteous man implores the vain men to offer proper sacrifices (righteous sacrifices of righteousness), then inserts this question of “the good”, followed by the Aaronic blessing. The righteous man then says he is “in peace” and he lies down to sleep, “dwelling” with the Lord in safety. Might we tentatively propose a progression like this:

Numbers 6/7: sacrificial instruction à Moses gives to Aaron the blessing à Aaron blesses the people à Moses consecrates the tabernacle (making it a proper place for sacrifices)

Psalm 4: instructing to offer righteous sacrifices à ‘many’ ask where the good is à Aaron’s blessing is recalled à righteous man falls asleep in the “dwelling of safety”

Understood this way the question propounded by the “many” is not one of nagging doubt on the mind of the righteous man. It is, rather, a foolish intrusion into the interplay between proper sacrifices and the Aaronic blessing; it is the question proposed by someone who is obviously in the pale, outside of the proper place of perception and understanding. Who provides “the good” is manifestly obvious to those who offer proper sacrifices. It is only a question to those who have not aligned themselves with a true sacrificial system.

To these “many”, however, even the most choice emblems of God’s goodness does not perceive something inherent within them. They, so to speak, do not shine as bright as they should/could. The righteous man does something very interesting to convey this. He divides the Aaronic blessing in two and places, in its midst, these blind “many.” Here is how it works (highlighting the Aaronic blessing):

The Lord will lift up his countenance upon us. Put more joy in my heart than when their corn and new wine abound. (And give you) In peace, I will lie down and sleep.

This is a truly wonderful move on the Psalmist’s part. By sandwiching the “many’s” blindness in the mist of the blessing one is invited to perceive, in a very effective way, the glory of the Lord that shines forth from within these natural fruits of the earth. Whereas the “many” certainly do taste joy at these blessings, the righteous man tastes the joy of seeing the face of the Lord. This joy is not one opposed to the corn and the new wine. The righteous man tastes it merely as “more”. It is a joy that stretches out and into the realm of the Lord’s presence. One cannot help but sense here the “eternal greenness” of the blessed man in Psalm 1 and the refrain throughout the Psalms that dwelling upon the Lord in his Temple is “better than life”. There is here an indescribable joy. All the emblems of the Lord’s blessing (corn and new wine) fall short of the joy of his face. This is utterly ecstatic; the Psalmist is not only leaving himself in this deep and rich joy but all earthly manifestations of joy. It would be banal to call this simply a joy of the “eternal good”. But, when all created emblems fail, there is little left but to simply say, “More…”.

One final point: recall verse 1, “…Be gracious to me and hear my prayer.” Now, the part of the Aaronic blessing that had not been referred to above: “The Lord will make his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you.” This entire Psalm is a deep mediation upon the Aaronic blessing, an elaboration and exploration of how it is accomplished in the midst of a righteous man’s “reputation” being stolen from him.

Ps. 4:5-6 (Covenant closer to the surface)

Ps. 4.5-6

Diag.

Tremble  /  but don’t sin!

Speak within yourselves  /  but be still on your bed.   Selah

Sacrifice  /  sacrifices of righteousness

And trust /  in the Lord

Only in Ps. 2 have we found something similar to this direct address to ‘vain men’. There, the address emerged only after the anointed had proclaimed the words spoken to him by his Father, along with the terrible threat of the nations being destroyed like potter’s vessels. As we saw there, the words of the Enthroned One left the earth in silence, the anointed one stepped onto the state who then filled that void with his own words, and the narrator of the Psalm carried forward this shouting enthronement of judgment through instruction. He said to the nations: think carefully / be admonished / serve the Lord / rejoice with trembling / kiss the son.

Something similar is happening here. Regardless of how one interprets vs. 3, the Psalm moves from prayer to an address to vain men telling them of where true judgment lies (it lies in the righteous man who is “set aside” for the Lord), and then moves into instruction.

In both Psalms, then, we have this one person lifted up who is this ‘conduit’ of judgment because he stands within the sphere of God’s anointing and protection. In Ps. 2, the anointed was established on this throne (and begotten) by his father, the Enthroned One. He became the source of his father’s mighty judgments upon the earth; we saw in Ps. 3 how he returns all of that glory to his father. There, in Ps. 2 the source of the instruction to the nations issued forth based upon the promise to the anointed that he would shatter them. Here, in Ps. 4 it is the ‘righteous man’ rather than the king who is the Lord’s ‘prized possession’. It is after that revelation that instruction emerges and it seems to emerge more from a place of protection. Indeed, the emphases between the two overlaps in significant ways while maintaining its own distinctive viewpoint.  

Notice the progression between the two instructions as well. They both begin in an interior ‘watching’ (Ps. 2: think carefully/be admonished; Ps. 4: tremble / speak within yourselves). This interior disposition then issues forth into an outer movement (Ps. 2: kiss the son; Ps 4: sacrifices). Neither is given priority, although the interior does seem to be a precondition of the outer movement. We must emphasize again, based simply upon natural reflection, that outer actions are not merely expressions of interior dispositions. They are their own reality. Just as a tree’s fruit is based upon the interior processing of water and sun, so too do these outer movements become the ‘fruit’ of an inner disposition. As the OT makes very clear, fruit is what the Lord is looking for, not merely an interior disposition. Indeed, an interior disposition without fruit is a perversion, a grotesque thing deserving of judgment. In this way fruit actually completes the process and brings to the process its own distinctive glory. A grape needs a vine, but a grape is not a vine.

Verse 5 can appear rather confusing. One helpful paraphrase is as follows: “You can tremble with anger and rage, but don’t sin by doing anything! You can speak your evil words within your hearts, but don’t speak them out loud! Lie still and silent upon your beds, where you can do no harm.” We see again, the sense that the outer actions have their own distinctive reality. This is, of course, only logical given the context of the Psalm. It would be better for the vain men to be angry at the righteous man and not profane his reputation. It is the act of profanation that will ignite God’s wrath (“If your hand causes you to steal, cut it off. It would be better to enter the kingdom maimed, than to enter Gehenna with both hands.”) and the entire concern of the Psalm is on the tearing apart of this man’s reputation. Immediately following this, though, is the directive, “Sacrifice sacrifices of righteousness!” What began as a prohibition (avoiding outer actions of destruction) has been met with positive instructions. It is not enough, obviously, to simply avoid doing evil. One must, also, engage in positive acts of righteousness. One is here reminded, in a way, of Psalm 1. There, the blessed man avoided the wicked and delighted in the Torah.

I am not sure how else to state this except to say that this Psalmist lives much closer to “the surface of things”. Is it not the case that we tend to favor the interior, to find it to be where our ‘true selves’ exist? Actions, bodies, the dramatic nature of time and space have become merely metaphoric pointings to the interior person. Like a diver, we must ascend from these interior depths and learn to see reality as an enactment much closer to the surface where the light actually shimmers off of the wave’s surface. I think it is here that the covenant is ‘ignited’ so to speak. Lived too deep and it simply stutters and stalls; time stops. Too close to the surface and its reaching down into the depths can be easily overlooked. Grace is not merely an ‘empowering’ of our inner selves. It encompasses the entire range of human activity so as to ignite within them the ability to ‘move time forward’ in covenant faithfulness. Grace can, in this way, be ‘shared’, passed on in material elements like wine, bread and oil. It can, literally, reach out to us and grab us and smash our faces into the Lord. Grace is drama. But until we ascend from our depths this whole interplay will be lost on us.

There is something in this about why ‘confidence’ in these Psalms is so difficult to understand as well. But I need to reflect on this further…

Ps. 4:4

Ps. 4.4

Diag.

But know  /  that the Lord  /  has set aside  /  the godly  /  for himself!

The Lord   /  will hear  /  when I call  /  to him.

Depending on how one interprets vs. 3 (whether as a statement of sarcasm or of anguish) is crucial for how to understand this verse, and arguable the Psalm as a whole.

1)       If vs. 3 was of anguish: verse 4 will be an abrupt and almost total change in perspective. The Psalm will then read like this: calling out for deliverance (vs.2), anguish of how long until the prayer is heard (vs. 3), and the assurance that the prayer will be answered (vs. 4). This, of course, is similar to what happened to David in Psalm 3. There was a deep and profound anguish at the “many” who were approaching him. David cried out to Zion for deliverance and, suddenly and, to the reader, in almost disorienting fashion, David moves from despair to hope.

a.       Source of assurance: the righteous man has re-membered that God has set apart for himself the righteous. His plight, then, must almost be at an end. The clock that had stalled is now moving again; time, justice, and covenant fidelity have been reignited in this righteous man’s prayer. It is as if a blocked stream has started flowing again; and what a torrent. Notice that this comes before the statement that the Lord hears his prayer. For this righteous man his being set apart is what provides the context for his prayer being heard; it doesn’t move in the opposite direction.

b.       “…the godly for himself”: the picture obtained here is that of the righteous man being like a holy vessel, placed within the Temple as special possession of the Lord. It is not merely an object of ‘holiness’ but an object of delight, worship and love (and, a love that flows from the vessel to the Lord and from the Lord to the vessel). This righteous man knows/senses that he is not just like this vessel; he is this precious vessel. And like all precious vessels that have been “set apart”, so too will he be “set apart” from the profane and vain men who are destroying his reputation.

                                                               i.      Notice that in this regard this righteous man has come to see that his ‘righteousness’ is his being an object of devotion of the Lord. It is, in this way, the Lord’s reputation. He is the Lord’s ‘image’ and just as the Lord cannot be in the presence of the profane, so to will the Lord ‘retrieve’ this man’s reputation from the vain men’s mouths, and return it to its proper owner. The thieves will be robbed of their prey.

                                                             ii.      This is not merely an ‘interior’ sense of calm, that does not look for its ‘outer’ realization. This man is convinced that “the Lord will hear when [he] calls to him.” What this man has come to realize is not a ‘spiritual’ strength to withstand his reputation’s destruction. This man foresees his reputation being retrieved and returned to him. He envisions its cleansing.

2)       If vs. 3 was of sarcasm: much of what has been said applies here, except for the fact that the confidence spoken of has been present throughout. This does change, rather profoundly, how one approaches the Psalm. One emerges from the sarcastic confidence into this directive issued at the men of renown. There is no emerging from darkness into the light of confidence.

3)       I am tempted, in this regard, to attempt to see both of these experiences, the one of sarcastic confidence and the one of prayerful assurance, as being read together. I like this because it seems to cohere so well with the difference between the synoptic gospels (that embody a sense of prayer as providing assurance) and the gospel of John (which would be that of a sarcastic assurance of Jesus’ own deliverance). This, to me, seems very attractive because it would allow for incredibly different perspectives to still be perfectly valid expressions of man’s response to the Lord in the face of “vain men” and that they were both inhabited by Jesus. In our context, however, they must be read from their varying perspectives. What I mean is that forcing them together so that they are saying the same thing is impossible; it would be schizophrenic.

4)       One final point, and more as an aside: there are two difficulties I think we may have with the confidence of this righteous man.

a.       There is no where a breath of atheism in these or any other Psalm. The problem is not about whether the Lord exists. The problem is about whether he is listening or not. The divine realm as the source of the earth’s glory was simply assumed. When that glory shown one was aware that the god(s) were ‘listening’. When that glory withered (as in, here, a righteous man’s reputation being destroyed), one was aware that the god(s) was either deaf, unable to answer or angry (turning a deaf ear to the individual). Of course, there are other ways of understanding this silence (as in the book of Job and Isaiah) but this should help us realize that the issue is not one of existence of the god but of his willingness or ability to respond.

b.       In the shadow of certain New Testament passages confidence seems to be associated not with the righteous man but the self-righteous man. Or, worse, with delusion and hardness of heart. In addition, doctrines of ‘original sin’ would seem to stamp out any sense that there is a ‘righteous man’ who even has the ability to ‘prick the Lord’s heart’ the way this man does. This man, though, never waivers, never questions that he is doing the right thing. There is a gulf between the two making it difficult to enter into this Psalm’s experience. I do not, here, have much to offer in this regard except to suggest that certain phrases in the New Testament should not be read so absolutely that they silence these Psalms or, perhaps worse, force them to be read as only applying to Christ (there are a whole host of problems seeing it that way, alone).

c.       If both of these previous thoughts are combined, and this man’s assurance is deemed an impossibility, we should realize that what results is the continued oppression of the righteous, the stopping of time and a sense that man dwells on this earth underneath the canopy of a deaf god. We would become men of vanity and foolishness…

Ps. 4:2 Reinterpretation

Re-interpretation of Ps. 4.2.

Upon further reflection on Ps. 4.2 I have realized there is another, very different, interpretation of this verse, and it has rather significant effects on how one reads entirety of the Psalm. How/why I came to this is because, to the best of my knowledge, laments that incorporate this “How long….” are always addressed to God (or to his heavenly angel). However, here, the question is directed at those who have caused the injustice (I’ll call them “the vain ones”). What could this mean?

1)       What I realized is that this verse could be read not as a statement of anguish (which, if directed at God, it would be) but of sarcasm. It is as if the righteous man were asking, rather confidently, “How long are you going to continue to act like fools?” Read this way, verse 1 is seen not as a frenetic firing off of a plea for deliverance, but a very confident directive sent to God.

a.       In addition, the confidence expressed in vs. 1 would naturally give birth to this sarcastic “how long…” of verse 2. Seen from this perspective vs. 1 is so sure that the prayer will be answered that sarcasm towards the vain men is (one of the) only a natural possibilities.

b.       There is much to be said for this. In the apocalyptic books (like Daniel, portions of Ezekiel, Zephaniah and Revelation, among others), this sense of utter sarcasm is one of the pervading spirits of the book. As the visionary looks down from heaven upon the earth there is the same mocking coldness toward those who are the objects of God’s wrath. It emerges from the same place as what we call “sarcasm” and embodies a profound sense of appropriateness and assurance that the Lord’s judgment is perfect, complete and final.

2)       Verse 3, in this interpretation, would not be a transitional verse, but simply one completely in line with vs. 1-2. There would, in other words, be no development, or such stark contrast between them. This would not be a Psalm about a righteous man who “finds his assurance”. He had it all along.