Ps. 1:1-3

Diagrammed:

Blessed the man who:    has not /    walked  /  by counsel         /   of wicked
                                    has not /    stood    /  in the way          /   of sinful
                                    has not /    sat       /  in the gathering   /   of scoffers

But:                              in the Lord’s Torah /   is his delight
                                    In the Lord’s Torah /   will he muse       / by day and by night

Just focusing on these three verses a few things are emerging:
1)       What the blessed man “has not” done is more lengthy than what he does do. Might this point to the fact that God’s Torah is one source, from the one God, whereas what is avoided is always a varied source (wicked, sinful, scoffers)? As I’ve been making my way through the prophets, I have been struck by this: the incredible urge (and even difficulty perhaps) of centering Israel’s attention on one god, rather than the many. The prophets often speak of Israel playing the “whore” and not merely the unfaithful wife. By this they often mean she has several “clients”; she is not just running away from Yhwh and after her “one true love” but her many lovers (whether this refers to other nations or other gods depends on the context). They all provide her, in their individual capacities certain benefits (the gods in their control over a certain aspect of life (whether fertility, rain, grain, etc…) or the nations for their protection (Egypt, and her chariots, or Assyria and her help against the Babylonians)). The prophets, by contrast, keep trying to show them that all of these benefits (the ‘gifts’) stem, not from a varied source, but from one source: Yhwh. Israel (and perhaps man in general) found this demand to be, it seems, almost contrary to its natural disposition. How can all of these various goods stem from one source rather than many? When one source dries up, and yet others remain, does it not seem like there are, in fact, a variety of sources? Does it not, in fact, seem like there may be gods who disagree, and who you can, therefore, apply to for protection when one god is apparently ill-disposed to you?
a.       When speaking about this in the context of the searching for wisdom (the right ordering of life), this same temptation works in an analogous way: by contrast to the one Torah, there are many other sources of wisdom. By setting up the contrast of the Torah with these others (the: wicked, sinful, scoffers) it would seem that their approaches are attempting to offer the same thing the Torah is offering (in this Psalm at least): wisdom/instruction.  And this author has to attempt the same thing for wisdom that the prophets attempt: directing one’s gaze at this “blessed man” who avoids the call of these varied sources and centers his attention on Yhwh’s Torah. I think it is important to note that the author of the Psalm is the one calling these people wicked/sinners/scoffers, by which I do not mean the author is not correct but I wonder if he is not saying, because these others represent other sources they are wicked/sinners/scoffers.
2)       The “blessed man” is made up of two simultaneous habits, one negative and one positive: he does not walk/stand/sit with wicked/sinner/scoffers; he does meditate on God’s Torah. For this “blessed man” there is no middle ground. Protecting himself against the wicked does not lead to blessedness unless that avoidance is matched by his attachment to Torah. It is only those who are properly rooted in Torah who would be able to see who the ‘wicked/sinners/scoffers’ actually are. It would not be apparent simply from an ‘objective’ or neutral standpoint. We would significantly misread this Psalm if we thought the author was simply being objective or describing a state of affairs that didn’t require the “vision of Torah”. Likewise, this is not a chronological progression: it doesn’t involve first avoiding the sinners, and then meditating on Torah. This “man” is blessed because he is/does both and, as is probably the case, they both inform and develop the other. This is a lived reality, not a statement of fact.
a.       And here, I think, we might have some way of understanding the author’s designation of the ‘wicked’ by way of Jesus’ parable on the ‘mote’. In that parable, Jesus says that certain people are attempting to pick out the mote in their neighbors eye without seeing the beam in their own. Fundamental to this parable is the fact that those who have a beam in their eye may think that their neighbor’s mote is in fact much larger than it is. It is as if their beam was acting like a magnifying glass.  In the parable the act of judgment reveals more about the person judging that the person being judged.
3)       Blessedness and Delight: it is interesting to note that the word translated “meditate” carries connotations of more than silent thoughts, but rather involves the idea of whispering or murmuring. This is an expressive delight. Torah is not something he turns to simply because it is ‘true’ but because it is beautiful. It attracts him. He is drawn to it. One wonders if his avoidance of the wicked is simply because they are boorish when compared with the Torah. He does not need to become angry at them; he hardly recognizes them because they hold no attraction for him. I have to think here that one catches a glimpse of what it meant for these authors to be ‘inspired’. The prophets and the poets were not reporters (how often is the word described in the prophets as being a word like honey or as bitter as wormwood (in Jeremiah)). To see is to delight. We tend to think of desire as blinding us. Here, a blessed man is marked by his delight in Torah.
a.       Blessedness and reward: The happiness (or blessedness) of this man is not a reward for his delight in Torah. This Psalm works more like an "identification” Psalm. It is identifying what a blessed man is like. Just as delight is inherent in man (whether for good or ill), so too is blessedness inherent in a man who delights in the Torah. One might say the blessedness is a natural outworking of his delight/musing in Torah but not the “reason” for his delight. There is, it seems to me, a profound point to this: that one can and must surrender to the attraction of Torah; it can, in this way, be an “end in itself” and does not need to be regarded as simply a means to an end. It functions, in this way, the same way creation functions for God. When he created the world he looked “and saw that it was good”.
4)       “By day and by night”: I think there is a contrast here with the “walking, standing, sitting”. There, the company kept involved his all-encompassing movement. Here, the ‘meditation’ is marked, likewise, by an all-encompassing framework. This one, though, has important contrasts. The ‘walking, standing, sitting’ all involve other people. At some point one would be apart from these influences (particularly, when asleep). The Torah, by contrast, is a constant companion (night and day) and is seen to be the voice of Yhwh. This “blessed man” is encased, and encases himself, in Torah.