Ps. 8 (an Eden psalm)

My contention is this: that just as Adam is revealed in the Divine Name so too is his ability to name the animals something that springs from the same name. We see in Genesis, in the first creation story, the fact that man is made the pinnacle of creation. In the second creation story he is made the ‘gardener’ of Eden. Likewise, being alone, all of the animals are brought to him at which time they receive their name. As is clear from the Scriptures, to name something is to have control over it; it is to know the things ‘essence’ and to be able to thereby curse or bless it. It is, as we saw, why the giving of the Divine Name is so crucial. Notice how man is created as king and then, later, the animals are brought to him, by Yhwh, in order that they might find their names. I think this could be seen as tracking the strange verb tenses in our psalm: “You have made him little less….you will crown him….you will make him master….you have set everything beneath his feet.” There is the sense here that man is king but will also be ‘be made master’ over the work of Yhwh’s hands. As in Genesis, there is a sense of Adam’s superiority to creation and the fact that he exercises that authority in and by his naming; it is, in this way, an ongoing process (through his naming, Adam becomes, or shows, or exercises what he is). In the words of our psalm, Adam has ‘everything placed beneath his fee’ by the fact that everything is brought to him to be named. He shows his sovereignty over the creatures by endowing them with their names. What is not immediately evident in Genesis, but comes out in this Psalm, is that this ability to name and rule creation stems from the ‘majesty of the Divine Name’. The opening of the psalm makes clear that everything that is about to follow is praising of the divine name. This, therefore, includes Yhwh’s placing of everything ‘beneath his feet’. Also, notice how the psalm opens praising “Yhwh, our Master” and now we see man as being made “master over the work of Yhwh’s hands”. Again, the majesty of Yhwh’s name is actually revealed in his making Adam master over creation: and, hence, Yhwh’s name is revealed in Adam’s naming of creation. I want to pause here to reflect on one thing that seems unrelated at first: Adam is made the king of creation and has, as an expression of that power, the ability to name every living thing. In Genesis there is one incident when ‘man’ is made to ask for the name. This is crucial: man is here confronted with something he cannot name. It happens twice. First, it is Jacob at the river Jabok. Interestingly, Jacob is rebuffed, but he is, in turn, renamed (he is like an animal brought before Yhwh, who is “looking for a helper” and is ‘named’; or, in the words of our psalm, Israel is now placed “beneath Yhwh’s feet” as his footstool). If we look forward there is another time when man is confronted with someone he cannot name: Moses at the burning bush. Here, the Name is revealed. What we see here is the fact that the heavenly realm (either the ‘angel of the Lord’ or Yhwh himself) cannot be named by man; but, rather, He must reveal that name; and, not simply that, but, first, renames man upon being asked his name and then, within that new identity, provides them His name. Yhwh is, in this regard, not an aspect of creation and therefore when he is brought ‘in front of man’ like every other creature man can only respond with curiosity: “what shall I tell them your name is?” In the words of our psalm, all of the works of the master have been placed beneath his feet, but the Master himself has not; the Master is, therefore, not within the ‘order of naming’. However, when this name is revealed to man, so that man can now ‘name God’, something astonishing is revealed: just as creation itself suddenly springs into view so too does man’s nature as king of that creation (in this way all of the ‘wisdom’ literature finds its unity or form). In other words, if man is now given the name of the Creator, man himself must be only “slightly lower than God” and above all creation. One concluding remark about this psalm: traditionally it is numbered the eighth. However, as we saw, psalm 1 and 2 have been regarded as a single psalm (and, it is not clear how far this goes back). If they were regarded as one psalm when the psalter was compiled, that would make this psalm the seventh. As a creation psalm that so closely mimics Genesis’s creation account, it would be an entirely fitting placement. We see here the fact that man, the king of creation, has emerged and is moving into the Sabbath rest (you have made him….you will make him master). There is in this psalm that sense of Sabbath rest that has not been found in any other psalm we have encountered. The enemies only make a momentary appearance at the beginning (in much the same way the ‘waters of chaos’ make their appearance in Genesis), and the rest of the Psalm is overtaken by a praise to Yhwh’s ‘majestic name’. It is as if this psalm represents a type of Sabbath psalm, an Eden-psalm. How appropriate then that it begins and ends with praise to the Divine Name.

Ps. 8 (the transition)

But / you have made / him / little less / than God 
and / you will crown / him / with / honor and glory 
You / will make him / master / over / the work / of your hands 
You / have set / everything / beneath / his feet 
 all sheep / and cattle / and even the beasts / of the field 
 birds / of the air / and fish / of the sea 
whatever / passes / through / the pathways / of the sea 

We should be used to shocking transitions by now. David has experienced them (in Ps. 3 and 7), the sick man, and the man whose reputation is being tarnished—all of them have, within the span of a single verse, moved from near despair to victory. This plays itself in a particular way in each psalm so one should hesitate in drawing broad conclusions, and yet, there is worked into these psalms the sense of a sudden reversal that is remarkable. Here, we have another one, but it is of an entirely different order than the ones we have seen before. Those always involved deliverance from an enemy (either sickness or military or ‘workers of iniquity’). This transition is one that moves from an almost divinely inspired sense of insignificance to a likewise inspired sense of utter importance. There could be no greater shift in perspective than what we see here. And yet, I think there is something profoundly important to note in this shift and it is this: the same name that revealed and inspired the sense of insignificance is the same name that inspires this sense of absolute significance. It is no the case that man staring up at heaven is somehow ‘natural’ man devoid of the divine name and this verse constitutes man as he truly is. No, both of these experiences flow from the same source and that is the divine name, Yhwh. Notice how the heavens were ‘made’ by Yhwh and man is, here, ‘made little less than God’. Notice too how the heavens are the works of his fingers and yet, here, the works of his “hands” are placed beneath man. And, most importantly, that opening, and difficult to understand, verse, moves in exactly the same manner as the transition here: “From the mouths of babes and sucklings (the utterly small and insignificant) ----- you have established strength on account of your enemies to put at rest both foe and avenger (those who are made kings with everything ‘under their feet’)”. And I think, herein lies the clue to this transition: as we saw in our reflection on those verses, creation and exodus/deliverance are completely tied together. The name that revealed Yhwh to be creator was revealed when Yhwh was acting as deliverer. The revelation of Yhwh’s name made both of these realities spring up simultaneously: Yhwh is creator and Yhwh is the sovereign Lord of history (deliverer). Genesis (source of all creation) and Isaiah (source and guider of all political power) spring from the name and are contained in the revelation of the name in the exodus story. And, as we see here, something else is now understood to be contained in that revelation that we have not, thus far, commented on: Adam is revealed in the divine name as well. When Yhwh revealed to Israel his divine name he not only revealed it, he gave it to them. By handing it over to them, he took them to himself as well (he made them a “nation of priests”). In other words, by permitting Israel to appropriate his name, he expropriated them to his service; they became like holy objects of a temple, set apart from the world in order to be a light to the world. This is absolutely crucial: much reflection on the divine name centers on its ability to reveal Yhwh as the source of all (both creation and political power), but what is often lost sight of is the fact that it was not just ‘revealed’ but it was ‘delivered’. This ‘handing over’ to man is just as much a revelation of the name as what the name, in ‘isolation’, reveals “from itself”. Let’s put it this way: the name was not revealed to philosophers but to a small community of slaves who were crying out for deliverance; the name was not revealed to a mighty king; it was not revealed to a mighty hero; it was not revealed to a people who by any standard were powerful (except for the fact that they were apparently ‘multiplying’ rapidly in fulfillment of the genesis promise…). By revealing it to the enslaved, he revealed himself to the true Deliverer. By revealing it to the lowest, he revealed that man is the highest of all creatures. By revealing it to the lowest he revealed himself to be the highest of all gods because in their deliverance there would never be any confusion about who was destroying the gods of Egypt. It is here that we see Genesis emerge: Yhwh, inaugurating the creation of the world and making it a stage upon which man will become the lead actor, just as Yhwh stooped down to redeem the lowest of all people from the midst of chaos and make them his chosen people. From this insight, a light flowed back over time (and, it flowed forward as well….), to “the beginning”. Yhwh’s name, delivered to man, in a blinding moment revealed not just ‘creation’ but ‘man’. And, in an utterly shocking realization, man was seen to be “partner of God”, not his slave. This is how Yhwh’s name is ‘majestic’: it reveals both the utter and absolute distance of Yhwh from all of creation and the fact that man has all of creation placed “under his feet”. As we saw in our initial reflection on the word ‘majesty’ this is the proper response: a person in the presence of the ‘majestic’ both desires to look upon but is also convinced of the danger of doing so. The ‘majestic’ both calls forth and establishes a distance. One wants to ‘raise one’s eyes’ to it, but one knows that to do so would be foolish and dangerous. It is, in a word, exactly what happened when Moses approached the ‘burning bush’ and ‘received the name’. This psalm, and this transition in particular, plays out this response to the ‘majestic name’ is the same way, but in a different key. This is not all, though, tomorrow we will reflect upon something perhaps even more profound than what we have seen here—it involves the fact that in the Divine name, Adam/man is given the power to ‘name’ (subdue) all of creation.  

Ps. 8 (Pt. 2) insignificance

When / I see / your heavens / the work / of your fingers  the moon /  and / the stars / which you have / established 
what is man / that you / are mindful / of him? 
And / the son of man / that you / attend / to him?

The “heavens" have already been mentioned in our opening. There, the psalmist said he would “worship your majesty above the heavens”. It may seem odd that here, then, he is looking directly at the heavens, except for the fact that they are described as “works of your fingers”. This deserves some reflection: in the opening Yhwh’s name was described as ‘majestic’, as commanding a type of regal authority throughout the earth. This majesty was then seen as even extending not to the heavens but above the heavens. We saw, in our reflection on that passage, that ‘above’ probably carried within the same meaning it has had throughout our psalms: it is not as much a geographical term as a term of authority. The ‘higher’ one is the more one has control—in the same way that a king is the ‘highest’ in his realm when he ‘ascends to his throne’. Here this ‘above’ the heavens has reference to his creative power—the heavens are but the ‘work of your fingers’. This is an important point and one we have already made: Yhwh’s ability to create is not to separated from his royal rule. We tend to think of ‘creation’ and then deliverance or righteousness. I think, however, that Yhwh as “King” is understood, here at least, to also mean Yhwh as Creator and they are not separate realities. This, of course, stands at the heart of Genesis—Genesis is not as much the story of ‘creation’ as the story of Yhwh’s creating a realm, or a kingdom, a place wherein he will rule through man as his vice-regent. In other words, to create is to establish a throne. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that this understanding could not have emerged prior to the giving of the name. I am convinced that it was upon reflecting on the name that the story of Genesis emerged. Genesis flows from the Divine Name. To fully understand this I need to digress a bit: a name is inherently a relational term in that it identifies the individual apart from other individuals (I’m a male, but my name is Brad, and it is that name that identifies me from other males). In this way a name is both a way of separating an individual from a community but also enabling that community to address the individual. When God identifies himself at the burning bush to Moses he does so in two ways: 1) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and 2) “I am who I am (will be, etc…)”. The first mode of identification is profound in that he is not identified with a place or a thing. He is identified with a people. He moves with those people and is not geographically bound like every other God. He is, in biblical terms, identified by his covenant with them, and covenant means ‘kinship’; he is, in essence, their ‘father’. So the first is this incredible intimacy. And yet, it is not a “name”. The second is a name, but it rebuffs every understanding of what a name should do/be. While a name is supposed to identify communion amongst others, this name simply refers back to itself. It is a name, for sure, but it is a name that hides as much (if not more) than it reveals. This is a “name” that will stand “above (or behind?) every name”. It will be a “name” that reveals a profound depth that controls and shapes every mode of existence that previously was understood to be a god (whether political, sexual, geographic, monetary, etc….). It stands as the source of all of those ‘powers’ and, in that, we see the roots, I think, of Genesis 1 (the more Israel meditated on the Divine Name the more they came to see how that name reveals the very nature of creation itself; Genesis is a liturgical enactment, so to speak, of the divine name, as it sees him as the source of all of those powers previously identified as gods: sun, moon, stars, waters, beasts, light, darkness, etc…). In this way we see how it is through understanding the divine name that one comes to understand the first of the ten commandments: “you shall have no other god beside me”. Isaiah’s reflection on this name will reveal something even further; this God stands as the shaping hand behind every political power, and to such an extent that Cyrus himself will be but an (unknowing) tool in the hand of God’s providential care for Israel. How does this help us understand this psalm? It is through meditating upon the Divine Name that one comes to see the heavens (what in most other religious systems are gods) as (merely) the “work of Yhwh’s ‘fingers’”. The sense of overwhelming awe at the heavens is only heightened through a reflection on the divine name. It is crucial to emphasize this as well: that reflection upon the divine name is also what engenders in this psalmist a deep sense of irrelevance (‘what is man that you are mindful of him’). It is much like the experience of the prophets upon seeing Yhwh: they are immediately and utterly convinced of their unworthiness. In other words, one aspect of the divine name (as reflected in creation) is to create an almost unbridgeable distance between man and Yhwh. This sense of total insignificance is not to be understood as some ‘lower’ form of response but a fully called for, almost demanded, response to seeing the divine name in creation; yes, as we will see, there is a type of ‘answer’ to this question, but the question itself is not thereby negated. It is, in fact, in understanding (and inhabiting) the question that the answer becomes so startling. One final observation that confirms, I think, what we have been saying: the moon and the stars are described as “established”; this term was also used when describing the strength of Yhwh as proceeding from the mouths of ‘babes’—their pronouncing of the divine name “established” Yhwh’s strength on account of his enemies. I believe one can anticipate the answer to the question in this word “established”: as we saw in our reflection there, Yhwh’s establishing of his strength was intimately associated with the deliverance of his people; it was, therefore, anything but ‘ignorant’ of man or the ‘son of man’. Here, the heavens are described as ‘established’, but this causes a sense of utter insignifance. However, by using the same word we are aware that for Yhwh to establish the heavens is somehow related to his establishing himself within his people.

Ps. 8 (babes and sucklings)

From / the mouths / of babes / and sucklings 
You / have established / strength / on account of / your enemies  
to put / at rest / both / foe and avenger.

This is a notoriously difficult passage to understand. Few commentators have been able to adequately make sense of it. What exactly is happening here and what have these “babes and sucklings” done that establishes Yhwh’s strength? Also, notice how this psalm seems to ‘work’ (according to our understanding) much better if you simply remove these lines: the psalm then becomes a hymn to the Creator, much like the Genesis creation accounts. Why is there this apparently odd reference to “putting to rest” foe and avenger? The entire rest of the psalm is concerned with creation. Beginning with the opening we see that it is “from their mouths” that strength is established. If our psalm gives us any indication about what they are saying it is probably that it is the divine name—Yhwh. The psalm opened with the “majestic name” in “all the earth”. The name has, therefore, already been portrayed as inhabiting the entire human realm. And, not just that, the majesty of the name is “above the heavens”. There may be a clue here: the ‘majesty’ as we saw is the regnal power of Yhwh to command and demand the obedient admiration of creation. The name of Yhwh is both that which attracts all of creation around and to him, and that which also establishes the absolute fact of Yhwh’s distance from creation (as Creator/Master). This name, though, was given to Israel in the Exodus. I believe it crucial here to recognize that the name was ‘established’ in Israel precisely at the time that they were under the complete and total domination Pharaoh and it was given as a source of power to deliver Israel from this Egyptian god-man (and, the Egyptian gods themselves). And, it was given to a group of people that were, truly, the least of all in the earth: slaves. It was not revealed or delivered to the strong, but to the weakest—those most incapable of delivering themselves. I do not think the name should ever be forgotten, then, as originating as a source of deliverance and as guaranteeing that that deliverance is understood as originating in Yhwh (due to the fact that it was given to those who would never be able to have claimed victory for themselves). Even when it ‘dwelt’ in the Temple it remained this pervasive force to establish Israel as the kingdom of Yhwh. Whether this is being directly referred to, I do not know. I do know that Israel, in the exodus, is referred to as Yhwh’s “first born” and could therefore be seen as a type of ‘babe’. There are also ample references in the prophets to the exodus being the time of Israel’s birth. Jeremiah refers to Yhwh finding Israel in the ‘dessert’ covered in her birth-blood (referring to the exodus). During the conquest of the land it is said that the inhabitants had heard of Yhwh’s great act of deliverance and were terrified that this Warrior God was now coming to displace them as he routed Pharaoh (this must have been truly terrifying). Likewise, Yhwh repeatedly tells Yhwh that he will route the enemies in the land so that they will “find their rest” (the land being a type of geographical Sabbath). This, I think, begins to point us the correct direction but, again, why put this here at all in the midst of a psalm about creation? As we proceed through the psalm it moves in this manner: the heavens, man, the living things of creation. The wording is very similar (and, at times, identical) to that of Genesis. There is also a very profound similarity in this: that the heavens are merely the work of Yhwh’s ‘fingers’. In Genesis the creatures of the deep were understood as Leviathon, a terrifying creature that, in every other mythological conception, was the source of chaos. The fact that Genesis seems to find him to but a plaything to Yhwh is similar to the heavens being but the work of his ‘fingers’. It shows Yhwh’s total mastery and the fact the he stands as the source of everything. Why is this important? Genesis opens with the watery chaos. Over this the spirit of the Lord hovers. It is at this point that creation ‘begins’. This watery chaos makes a reappearance in the Noah story—it is released from the bounds set by Yhwh earlier and covers the earth again (creation is returned to its pre-creation: Yhwh is ‘starting over’). In Exodus, this watery chaos can also be seen in the Reed Sea that Yhwh effortlessly parts for Israel and yet allows to descend upon Egypt. My point is this: when matched up to the Genesis account this opening is not odd. It is the taming of the forces of chaos that initiates creation itself. Except, now, the images of Israel as the ‘babe’ and the story of the exodus are all brought into a rather remarkable unity. It is as if we are to see in creation the exodus, and, in the exodus we are to see creation. For Israel, it is clear that they both influenced each other (one did not ‘come first’ in understanding—the more they reflected on the exodus the more they understood creation; the more they reflected on creation the more they understood the exodus (the exodus including, also, the conquest of the land)).

Ps. 8 (pt. 1): Majesty

O Yhwh / our master   how majestic / your name / is / in all / the earth  I / will worship / your majesty / above / the heavens.  One cannot help but be reminded of these opening words of another famous prayer, “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” They are remarkably similar (and, different in very important ways as well): they both recognize that Yhwh/Father is in heaven; they are an initiation of praise; and they both focus on the name. To limit ourselves to our psalm, however: “O Yhwh, our Master”—we will see how this designation of Yhwh as ‘master’ is a crucial preparing for what follows. It establishes, at the outset, the sense of utter obedience. One thing we have not explicitly pointed out before is how Yhwh’s designation in the psalms is entirely appropriate to the thematic content of the psalm (Ps. 2: “Enthroned One”; Ps. 3: a “shield”; Ps. 4: God “of my righteousness”; etc…). Here, Yhwh as “Master” (or, governor) initiates us for the following--“majesty of your name”. We do not find here that Yhwh’s name simply pervades “all the earth”. Rather, the name is bathed in ‘majesty’. To know Yhwh’s name is to know his majesty; one cannot (at least here) separate the two. It is important to note that it is not merely ‘beautiful’ but ‘majestic’. In English the term ‘majesty’ connotes royal dignity and beauty (a rather dry definition that seems to actually obscure more than it reveals). There is an element here of power, authority and sovereign control. Majesty has a paradoxical quality in this regard: it is utterly beautiful and therefore one desires to look at it, and, at the same time, it is so overpowering that one is intensely aware that one is entirely unworthy in its presence and it would be dangerous to make ‘eye-contact’. To look upon majesty (to ‘raise one’s eyes’) is and could be seen as an act of hubris and rebellion; one never looks a king in the eye until he gives permission. Moses certainly experienced this at the burning bush. The prophets after him too: they almost uniformly were overwhelmed (to the point of death) by the vision of Yhwh. In the Apocalypse, Jesus has “eyes of flame”. It is an astonishing thing: majesty both draws the viewer into its presence and, simultaneously, establishes a total distance between itself and those in its presence. It both attracts and repels. One senses oneself to smaller than nothing in its presence; it is not an uncommon experience to ‘seek cover’ and to ‘hide one’s face’ in the presence of majesty. One does not want to be looked upon by the majestic because its eyes seem to penetrate. And, is this not what the ‘name’ does? “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be”. The ‘revealing of the name’ to Moses was an astonishing act of self-gift to the Israelites. And yet, contained within that ‘giving’ was this sense of utter authority: no matter how much Yhwh gives himself to Israel he will remain “who he will be”. Although this could be fruitfully pursued, we must return to our psalm and recognize this: to see Yhwh’s name “in all the earth” is not to simply see the ‘beauty’ of the name in the earth; it is to see the ‘majesty’ of the name. ‘Beauty’ can often connote a type of equality between the viewer and the object; beauty can be ‘safe’ in this regard. Within the experience of “majesty” one would never cross that boundary: the object is and will always demand utter obedience. “I will worship your majesty above the heavens”—the psalmist is here enveloping the entirely of the created order (earth and haven) in the majesty of Yhwh. As we have already seen in other psalms, Yhwh being ‘on high’ or ‘above’ connotes his authority; we might also describe it as the fact that reality flows ‘from on high’. Yhwh is the ‘source’ of all that is, as Creator. The heavens, as Genesis makes clear, is not where Yhwh dwelt before creation: the heavens were, in fact, part of creation. This psalm will later make this explicit in the wonderful description of the heavens being created by Yhwh’s “fingers” (Yhwh is so utterly superior to the grandest created design that they are not even created by his ‘hands’). This is why his majesty will be “praised above the heavens”. We may miss something rather shocking in all of this—the psalmist has the ability to comprehend this majesty. In some sense, his awareness of Yhwh’s majesty has endowed him with a perception of that which is the creator of both heavens and earth. This is not some dry recognition of Yhwh’s ‘transcendance’—it is a recognition of Yhwh’s ‘majesty’. Is it not a shocking thing that man is endowed with the ability to perceive/praise this? In some manner man has the capability of perceiving/praising what is ‘above the heavens’, and yet this perception is always one of ‘majesty’ (hence, this perception is praise).  As we will see, these few lines have encapsulated the entire psalm.  

Ps. 8 (pt. 1): Majesty

O Yhwh / our master   how majestic / your name / is / in all / the earth  I / will worship / your majesty / above / the heavens.  One cannot help but be reminded of these opening words of another famous prayer, “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” They are remarkably similar (and, different in very important ways as well): they both recognize that Yhwh/Father is in heaven; they are an initiation of praise; and they both focus on the name. To limit ourselves to our psalm, however: “O Yhwh, our Master”—we will see how this designation of Yhwh as ‘master’ is a crucial preparing for what follows. It establishes, at the outset, the sense of utter obedience. One thing we have not explicitly pointed out before is how Yhwh’s designation in the psalms is entirely appropriate to the thematic content of the psalm (Ps. 2: “Enthroned One”; Ps. 3: a “shield”; Ps. 4: God “of my righteousness”; etc…). Here, Yhwh as “Master” (or, governor) initiates us for the following--“majesty of your name”. We do not find here that Yhwh’s name simply pervades “all the earth”. Rather, the name is bathed in ‘majesty’. To know Yhwh’s name is to know his majesty; one cannot (at least here) separate the two. It is important to note that it is not merely ‘beautiful’ but ‘majestic’. In English the term ‘majesty’ connotes royal dignity and beauty (a rather dry definition that seems to actually obscure more than it reveals). There is an element here of power, authority and sovereign control. Majesty has a paradoxical quality in this regard: it is utterly beautiful and therefore one desires to look at it, and, at the same time, it is so overpowering that one is intensely aware that one is entirely unworthy in its presence and it would be dangerous to make ‘eye-contact’. To look upon majesty (to ‘raise one’s eyes’) is and could be seen as an act of hubris and rebellion; one never looks a king in the eye until he gives permission. Moses certainly experienced this at the burning bush. The prophets after him too: they almost uniformly were overwhelmed (to the point of death) by the vision of Yhwh. In the Apocalypse, Jesus has “eyes of flame”. It is an astonishing thing: majesty both draws the viewer into its presence and, simultaneously, establishes a total distance between itself and those in its presence. It both attracts and repels. One senses oneself to smaller than nothing in its presence; it is not an uncommon experience to ‘seek cover’ and to ‘hide one’s face’ in the presence of majesty. One does not want to be looked upon by the majestic because its eyes seem to penetrate. And, is this not what the ‘name’ does? “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be”. The ‘revealing of the name’ to Moses was an astonishing act of self-gift to the Israelites. And yet, contained within that ‘giving’ was this sense of utter authority: no matter how much Yhwh gives himself to Israel he will remain “who he will be”. Although this could be fruitfully pursued, we must return to our psalm and recognize this: to see Yhwh’s name “in all the earth” is not to simply see the ‘beauty’ of the name in the earth; it is to see the ‘majesty’ of the name. ‘Beauty’ can often connote a type of equality between the viewer and the object; beauty can be ‘safe’ in this regard. Within the experience of “majesty” one would never cross that boundary: the object is and will always demand utter obedience. “I will worship your majesty above the heavens”—the psalmist is here enveloping the entirely of the created order (earth and haven) in the majesty of Yhwh. As we have already seen in other psalms, Yhwh being ‘on high’ or ‘above’ connotes his authority; we might also describe it as the fact that reality flows ‘from on high’. Yhwh is the ‘source’ of all that is, as Creator. The heavens, as Genesis makes clear, is not where Yhwh dwelt before creation: the heavens were, in fact, part of creation. This psalm will later make this explicit in the wonderful description of the heavens being created by Yhwh’s “fingers” (Yhwh is so utterly superior to the grandest created design that they are not even created by his ‘hands’). This is why his majesty will be “praised above the heavens”. We may miss something rather shocking in all of this—the psalmist has the ability to comprehend this majesty. In some sense, his awareness of Yhwh’s majesty has endowed him with a perception of that which is the creator of both heavens and earth. This is not some dry recognition of Yhwh’s ‘transcendance’—it is a recognition of Yhwh’s ‘majesty’. Is it not a shocking thing that man is endowed with the ability to perceive/praise this? In some manner man has the capability of perceiving/praising what is ‘above the heavens’, and yet this perception is always one of ‘majesty’ (hence, this perception is praise).  As we will see, these few lines have encapsulated the entire psalm.  

Ps. 7 (Pt. 4)

He sharpens / his sword

He has / bent / his bow / and / prepared it

and for it / he has made ready / instruments / of death

He / will make / his arrows / fiery shafts.

It has been said already throughout our reflections but it bears repeating: the act of judging between innocent and guilty in this psalm is inextricably bound to the act of punishment and deliverance. The Warrior King is the Righteous Judge; we might call him the Warrior Judge. The previous verse ended with Yhwh being a ‘righteous judge’, immediately shifted to ‘indignation’ and now we find him preparing his weapons for war. The pacing is rather elegant. It is the first time in the psalm that the element of time becomes central: in other words, the psalm has become ‘dramatic’. There have been other dramatic aspects (the nations ‘gathering’around the judge), but here things feel different. One can picture Yhwh taking his sword to the sharpening stone, and, over a period of time, sharpening the blade, testing it, sharpening it more and testing it until it is prepared for battle. He then lays down his sword and bends his bow so as to notch the string. Laying the bow aside he begins to inspect the arrows he fashioned earlier. A fire is stoked and he places on the tips of the arrows a flammable liquid. From heaven he girds on his sword, takes up his bow, and places an arrow into the flames of his wrath. Notching an arrow he takes aim at the evil-doers below. The choice of verbs is interesting (he “sharpens his sword”(present)—he has bent his bow (past) – he will make his arrows (future)). There is the sense that this act of judgment is one that is all pervasive; perhaps here we have a development of the image of Yhwh’s “indignation” he has “every day” at those who do not repent. This sense of abiding indignation that seemed in such contrast to the earlier commands to “Wake up!”, “Arise!”, “Assume your seat!”, is now understood to be a description of this process of preparing for war. Yhwh’s indignation is not simply an ‘eternal principal’ but, here, is understood as a process of ‘girding for war’. Are we to understand there is a hidden sense of patience here? That Yhwh ‘sharpens his sword’ and all this time is waiting to hear words of repentance, and that he only lets fly the fiery instruments of death when the time for repentance is over? There may be something to this, but it seems to me that the overall feeling of these lines is to slow time down in order to highlight the horror of what is about to happen to the wicked. One can immediately sense this in the next lines—

Lo / he is / in labor / with iniquity

and he is / pregnant / with mischief

and / gives birth / to falsehood.

The shift in perspective is essential in grasping the import of these lines, and it is something we have seen over and over already. The judgment of Yhwh (his ‘shooting of instruments of death’) is the wicked man’s giving birth to his own evil. In other words, Yhwh’s judgment is allowing the evil that wicked men give birth to, to descend upon their own heads. I have heard it described as a boomerang judgment. These wicked men cast out their evil accusations against David that he is a covenant breaker, and, just as the curses are about to strike him Yhwh becomes his “shield”and the curses begin to make their trek back to the wicked men. In this way Yhwh acting as a shield is his ‘preparing his sword’, his ‘notching of his bow’and his dipping of arrows in the flames of his wrath. Yhwh needs do nothing except permit this evil to come into his presence where it becomes fashioned into an ‘instrument of death’ (which is what it was when it entered his presence) and is returned to the wicked man. This militates against an idea of Yhwh’s judgment as always being a type of active and arbitrary cursing. In Yhwh’s presence the world becomes its own judgment (“I have not come into the word to judge it; but those who do not recognize me stand condemned.”). This may be better conveyed by the images used in this psalm: we left off the last verse with Yhwh taking aim with fiery shafts. This is an image of something ‘leaving’ Yhwh’s presence and descending to earth. Immediately the scene shifts and we see wicked men who are, likewise, about to ‘deliver’ from themselves an ‘instrument of death’ (these ‘wicked curse-children’) and shoot them at David. The contrasting of these two images is to highlight the fact that, in a very profound sense, they are the same thing. Yhwh’s ‘preparing his sword’ is the wicked man’s ‘labor of evil’. Yhwh’s shooting of his fiery arrows is the wicked man’s ‘giving birth’ (meaning, I think, the actual performance of the wicked act). Notice too that the wicked man’s evil is described in terms that are deeply shameful: he is described as a woman. This would be a humiliating description and it needs to be seen that way: this utter shamefulness is part of the judgment. As we have seen, there is the need for these men to be publicly shamed, not just ‘individually found guilty’. There actions have been public actions; their punishment must be a public punishment (shaming). There is another important aspect to this image: whereas Yhwh very deliberately sharpened his sword and prepared his bow, these men have, in a sense, no control over the wickedness. It grows in them; it requires them to ‘give birth’. The biological inevitability highlights the deep sense that wickedness ‘takes a person over’, and this in stark contrast to the very deliberate actions of Yhwh. This contrast is fascinating: one sees a total Divine freedom as describing in parallel fashion what seems to be an almost fatalistic enactment of evil. I don’t think this should be pushed too far in the wrong direction. One thing we can say is that there is very much the sense that evil is not an entirely ‘free act’; it is ‘engendered’ in man but then grows, with a ‘life of its own’ and demands its own ‘birth’. There is something in David’s awareness that to perform evil is not to be overtaken (as seen in the contrast with Yhwh’s freedom in preparing for battle) in much the same way that a woman is ‘overtaken’ by birth. One does not, however, get the same sense of David who proclaims himself righteous; meaning, there is not here a sense that righteousness is somehow related to this same fatalism of evil (again, the contrast with Yhwh the sharpening ‘righteous One’). This is a profound mystery: the ‘righteous One’ can ‘fashion’ instruments for battle, in total freedom, out of actions that very much give the impression of fatalism. In order to ‘balance’this fatalism David adds another image to the wicked man—

He dug / a pit / and excavated it

then / he fell / into the hole / he was making.

Utter perplexity and an inability to reduce or ‘define’ evil. It is both fatalistic (as an image of giving birth) and one of freedom (digging one’s own grave). The evil man intends for his child-curse to destroy David; he intends for this pit to be one into which he can thrown his Joseph/David. But, utterly surprisingly, both of them return upon his own head (as Joseph’s brothers’ evil ‘returned upon their own head’—“You intended this for evil; but God intended it for good”).

His mischief / returns / upon / his own / head

and his violence / descends / on / his forehead.

Notice where judgment comes from: ‘returns’ (horizontal) and ‘descends’ (from above). The source of this judgment perfectly matches what we have said thus far: they are, entirely, his own actions boomeranging back upon him (horizontal) and they are coming down from Yhwh and are His ‘fiery shafts’ (from above). One sees here that everything is permeated with Yhwh’s presence; it is all ‘seeded’ with his potential. When attempting to understand this it would be, I think, very misleading to speak in terms of ‘nature’ and ‘grace’ (or ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’).The images capture this best and it would be best, here, to let them alone.

I will / laud / Yhwh / because / of his righteousness.

I will / sing the praise / of the name / of Yhwh / Most High.

One things we have not done previously is to contrast the opening line of a psalm with its concluding lines. These lines obviously work as a type of conclusion; they are merely following on the heels of the previous verse but rather sum up the entire psalm in a very fitting manner. The opening sought refuge (and, as we saw, this was refuge in ‘judgment’ as innocence, as refuge in punishment of the wicked)—the conclusion expresses praise at Yhwh’s righteousness (meaning, his ability to ‘put back to right’ what was wrong, or, stated in other ways, to declare one innocent and to punish the wicked). The opening expressed a profound sense of exposure—the conclusion is one of security in the Most High. Along these same lines: we saw throughout the first half how the psalmist implored Yhwh to ‘rise up’ on ‘high’—the conclusion is an expression of praise to the “Most High”. The opening was a plea for deliverance—the conclusion is a song of praise for the provision of safety. Interestingly, too, the conclusion of the psalm mentions Yhwh’s ‘name’ twice. These are the final (and crowning) invocation of the name ‘seven’ times in the psalm (seven being the number of perfection, rest/Sabbath and deliverance). In the context of this psalm it is absolutely fitting and so surprisingly subtle to find the name mentioned precisely seven times (this has happened before, as we have seen). And, is it merely coincidental that the seventh psalm mentions Yhwh’s name seven times? And, structurally, notice this very interesting transition to the next psalm (I will contrast the two concluding lines of this psalm with the two opening lines of the next: “I will / laud / Yhwh / because / of his righteousness. I will / sing the praise / of the name / of Yhwh / Most High. à O Yhwh / our governor / how majestic / your name / is / in all the earth. I / will worship / your majesty / above / the heavens”). These two psalms flow so effortlessly between the two, emphasizing similar themes (the ‘name’, the majesty that is ‘above’ the heavens (or, Most High)), and yet they are utterly different in their purposes. The praise of the name exists, however, equally and just as forcefully within both: one, of deliverance from enemies, the other, of the praise of creation and man’s role as king within that creation. It cannot be overstated: the ‘name’ of Yhwh as a source of praise fills, utterly, both realms and is the source of inspiration in both realms. One sees, here, in these contrasting verse, a dynamism that could easily be lost if we were not to trace the lines between the two psalms. Whoever organized the Psalter must have had this in mind when he placed these two back-to-back.

Ps. 7 (pt. 3)

And let / the assemblies / of people / gather around you.

And above it / take / your seat / on high.

The Lord / adjudicates / the nations.

We covered much of this ground yesterday: the idea of Yhwh’s ‘rising’ as his ‘coming close’ in judgment (i.e. it is only when Yhwh stands “above” the nations that he is placed in the role of the judge of those nations). It might help in this regard to review the psalms covered and see what this ‘judgment’ looks like. Ps. 1: the wicked shall not “rise up” in judgment (again, note the movement of ‘rising’ and how it is tied absolutely to judgment); Ps. 2: language very reminiscent of our current ps. 7 (“assemblies of people”; nations). There is here the military image of the congregating people coming to do war against the Lord. The Enthroned One then shouts, from “heaven”,and silences them handing to his son the “rod of iron” to smash the nations. Apparently, the enforcement of judgment has now been handed over to the anointed. Ps. 3: “Rise up, O Lord! Give me victory, O my God!” The act of deliverance from enemies is matched with the Lord’s ‘rising up’ and the provision of victory. Likewise, from his ‘rising’ he will “smite and smash”David’s enemies. Ps. 4: from the midst of his cry for judgment the psalmist asks that the Lord “lift up” his countenance; again, the act of judgment and the “lifting up” are coincidental. Ps. 5: “judgment’ in this psalm is simply too pervasive to summarize, although there is not explicit mention of Yhwh’s “rising”.He does, however, place over the righteous a ‘screen’ and is a ‘refuge’ (an image that shows up in our psalm). Ps. 6: the act of judgment occurs by visiting upon the enemies a punishment that is essentially the evil they had delivered to the sick man. What we see then is that “judgment” is often intertwined with the idea of Yhwh’s “rising” (whether that be his “face” or his sitting upon his throne). Likewise, the act of judgment is an act of deliverance and restoration. In Ps. 1 and 6 it also can be seen as an act of enlightening the righteous man’s path (it becomes a source of ‘blessedness’ or a “light to path”).It is likely then that when Yhwh “takes his seat on high” he is performing an action that is at once judicial (he will pronounce one party “righteous” (or innocent) and another party guilty). This pronouncement will also be an act of punishment and deliverance (deliverance for the ‘innocent’ and punishment for the guilty). And, it could be an act of provision of light. This is not to be understood, however, ‘chronologically’ (as in, justification (pronouncement of innocence) and then sanctification (provision of light)). These are all different ways of perceiving the same action (in certain contexts, certain aspects might be highlighted however: for example, the provision of light as guidance is desired when the enemies are hidden; or, the desire that Yhwh “rise up” could be in the context of a military attack). One final observation to make regarding the phrase “let the assemblies of people gather around you”.There are two ways of interpreting this, one of which I find the more probably and more profound. The first way is to see the nations simply gathering into the courtroom in a type of neutral manner; they simply congregate there in order that Yhwh will be able to divide the “wheat from the chaff”. The other manner of interpreting this (and the one I prefer) is to see this “letting” of Yhwh to be a request that he allow the rebellious nations into his presence in order that they be condemned. The difference between these two interpretations is that, in the second, the “people” are like those in Psalm 2: they are gathering together in order to make war against the righteous. To “let them come in” is to, in a sense, open the gate to them. The reason I prefer this interpretation is that the context of the psalm suggests that these men attacking David (attacking the anointed: Ps. 2), think they are correct; they think David has committed this crime, in much the same way that the nations in Ps. 2 were “seeking freedom”. To allow them to come into the judgment chambers is to give them what they want: they want a platform from which to speak their accusations. This request on David’s part to allow them room is similar to his self-imposed curse and assertion of innocence. Rather than being defensive, David asks that they be given room to speak because he knows Yhwh will search them out and defend David. It is, in essence, a way for David to have his name cleared “in the open”.It is an incredibly risky move: it would be much safer to simply ask that they be destroyed. It is, however, a move from which David stands to gain the most: if he is cleared “in public” then his enemies are shamed, his name is cleared, and his enemies were allowed to vent the full force of their wrath. If his enemies “lose”, there is no further danger.

Judge me / O Lord / according to / my righteousness

and / according to / my integrity / O Most High.

We begin to pick up again a thread we left off in the earlier verses and are introduced, in a fresh way, to an aspect of David that we were beginning to grasp but had not fully appreciated: his deep sense of honor. The self-imposed curses of the earlier verses were not true acts of self-doubt. David knew he was innocent of the charges of covenant infidelity. They did, however, begin to show us how intensely David despises these charges against him. Nothing could cut him more deeply than to have been charged with betraying a covenant partner. Just notice the intensity of the words used throughout this psalm (rip me…tearing me...treachery…trample my life…lay my glory in the dust…wrath…furious outbursts…indignation…sharpening sword…instruments of death…arrows of fiery shafts…in labor with iniquity….pregnant with mischief…violence descending upon his forehead). This psalm is a psalm of fury rooted in David’s honor being called into question. This sense of violated honor is one reason why there is also this repeated idea of exposure. David begins the psalm like a lamb “on the run” from attacking lions. He is seeking ‘refuge’. He then moves into the curses of covenant infidelity which involve allowing such men to be exposed to the danger of “ripping” and “tearing”. As we have seen, this ‘exposure’is heightened by painting a continuous picture of Yhwh’s ‘rising’. As Yhwh ‘rises’and assumes his authority, everything else ‘crowds’ around him, subject to his judgment. The ‘higher’ the “Most High” ascends, the more exposed is the earth to his dominion. So what is David accomplishing in all this? We began to see this in our last reflection and see it fully here—he conjuring a court room scene wherein his name can be fully ‘exposed’ to the judgment of the Most High. This enables David to have his honor (not just his ‘innocence’) returned to him because it is only in this very public (exposed) arena that he can have what was so publicly taken from him (his status as a covenant partner). It in this context that we can properly hear the portion of today’s reflection: “Judge me…”.In almost every other psalm we have encountered the judgment is not to be leveled against the psalmist himself; rather, it is to fall on his enemies. Here, David, standing at the foot of the ‘judgment seat’, along with every other ‘nation’and enemy, asks that he be scrutinized. This harkens back to the already performed self-scrutinizing he performed on himself in the opening of the psalm. All of this is in order to publicly display his innocence. This is truly a soldier/warrior ethic and honor system: a fully public reckoning. Nothing honorable is ever performed in secret and so every clearing of David’s name must be performed in public (‘innocence’ can be declared in secret; ‘honor’ can only be maintained in public). There is another aspect to this: these are the words of a true king. David knows that his leadership depends upon his honor. His ability to command troops and be the object of their devotion and love is absolutely wed to his honor. This accusation (of covenant-infidelity), if allowed to fester, would destroy his (future) ability to lead. I do not mean to imply by this that this a ‘calculated’move on David’s part—rather, as we can sense from his rage, his honor is who he is, and it is for this reason that he is a “man after Yhwh’s own heart”. When David is anointed king, it is Davidwho is anointed king. Saul understood the need for public honor, but it seemed, to me, to not be something wed to himself but was, in fact, something more ‘calculated’than David (it always had the potential of deviating into hypocrisy; it was always something remembered ‘after the fact’). The request that Yhwh judge him according to his “righteousness” and “integrity” fit this context beautifully: they are leadership qualities, king-like qualities. They are the type of characteristics that a person intensely aware of their own honor would seek to establish and would find to be a source of defense to accusations of treachery.

Let / the evil / of wicked persons / come / to an end.

But / establish / the righteous

and / scrutinize / the thoughts / and emotions

O Righteous God

There is here a very strong resemblance to Psalm 1. There, the evil were like “chaff” blown away by the slightest breeze in the act of ‘winnowing’. The righteous, by contrast, were ‘planted’ by rivers of flowing water and were allowed a place in the “assembly”. As we saw there evil and wickedness were not seen as things of ‘substance’. They were so easily separated from the righteous that all one needed to do was simply throw them in the air, in the same manner as the wheat. Their “end” therefore consisted in the same action as the righteous (the ‘throwing up’ or ‘winnowing’) but they, by their lack of weight, were ‘carried off’. Here, the evil of wicked persons, is to ‘come to an end’. This is contrasted to the ‘establishment’ of the righteous. Whereas in Ps. 1 the separation was understood as consisting in the ‘winnowing’,here it is understood ‘chronologically’ – as “coming to an end”. They very much speak to the same act of separation, but now, the separation is one of ‘ending’while the righteous ‘persist’. In the context of this psalm, it would seem like David is asking that this act of judgment that Yhwh is about to perform on everyone (David included) will be the ‘beginning of the end’ for the evil. They may persist for a short period of time after the judgment is rendered but it will “come to an end”, and on the other side the righteous (David, who has already appealed to his righteousness) will remain. The content of the judgment are the “thoughts and emotions” of those subject to Yhwh. It is not merely their thoughts, but their emotions as well—and David is fully of fury, which is emblematic of his sense of violated honor. This is very much an impassioned psalm (as every one has been, with the exception, in some ways of Psalm 1). These emotions are, very much, what carry the prayers to heaven (recall the fact that the psalmist in ps. 4 wanted Yhwh to hear not only his words, but the “sound”of his voice and murmurings). Indignation, fury, wrath, hatred, joy, peace: all of these saturate our psalms and they are not attributed only to Yhwh but also the psalmist. It is to these emotions that David now appeals for judgment. He wants Yhwh to see his, to sense and to hear them. It is clear what David thinks; the manner in which he composes the psalm and the images he uses convey his emotions. One thing we are going to need to address, perhaps next time, if the fact that ‘righteousness’ all of the sudden is making a large appearance in this half of the psalm (according to my righteousness; establish the righteous; O Righteous God; God is a righteous judge; I will laud Yhwh because of his righteousness).

My shield / is upon / God the One / who delivers / the upright / of heart

The psalm began with David’s reminding Yhwh that he has been David’s ‘refuge’. This image is very reminiscent, as we saw then, to the image in Ps. 3 of Yhwh as a shield which allowed David to sleep in the midst of his persecution (it was, in fact, what enabled him to enter into the rhythm of the created order of nightfall and morning). Here, the image of the shield emerges again. It seems almost out of place. The previous verse spoke of the courtroom and the ‘scrutinizing’ of the divine judge. The following verse speaks of the ‘righteous judge’. Here, though, the courtroom scene is seemingly set aside for a militaristic image of a ‘shield’. When looked at structurally, however, it is not at all strange: the psalm has moved in this pattern throughout: arise in wrath against enemies à awake and declare a judgment à let assemblies gather and ‘take your seat’ à adjudication of nations à let evil of wicked come to end à scrutinize the thoughts and emotions à shield and deliverance à God is righteous judge à He ‘sharpens his sword’ and makes ‘fiery shafts’. It is apparent that the act of ‘judging’ is part and parcel to the militaristic image of deliverance and punishment. This seems to be incredibly important: the act of declaring someone ‘righteous’ is also the act of destroying of the enemy. There is not the idea, at least here, of a pure ‘juridical’ pronouncement. To declare someone ‘righteous’/innocent is to also enact a defeat of the guilty; to ‘rise’to one’s seat of ‘judgment’ is to rise to one’s seat as Warrior King. We see, in this single verse, the combining (on some level) of this fact: the ‘delivering of the upright of heart’ has referred in the previous verses to being “judged according to my righteousness” and yet, the “shield” imagery harkens to the militaristic images that pervade the psalm. For Yhwh to have “David’s shield upon him” is to be his defense in a court of law—and, for him to be his defense, is to be his ‘refuge’ from the chasing lions and his ‘deliverer’.

God is / a righteous judge but God is / indignant / every day if / a person / does not / repent

Notice here how God’s emotions are employed: his indignation. We saw already how his act of judgment is one which scrutinizes the entirety of man: his thoughts and his emotions. He wants to see in man the same response to wickedness that he experiences—indignation. To have this emotion is to enter into (or mimic) God’s judgment. This emotion results in the readying for war against these men who do not repent (he will bend his bow, make ready instruments of death and make his arrows “fiery shafts”). This is what a “righteous judge” should do, not merely ‘proclaim’ judgment but enact it. Also, this indignation is absolute and without interruption. It does not rest but persists “every day”. This is an interesting comment, especially in light of David’s previous imploring of Yhwh to “wake up”. There seems to be here both a sense of an ‘abiding’characteristic of Yhwh (every day) and a sense of Yhwh moving/waking up/arising/’lifting self up’. Perhaps the context of this verse makes some sense of this: God is a ‘righteous judge’ (he doesn’t ‘become’ a righteous judge); He is indignant every day. Could it be that the shift to Yhwh having resumed his throne now places these characteristics of Yhwh in the present? Or, perhaps we should understand this in less of logical way and more in an ‘impressionistic’way. Neither of these are to be taken literally (we saw that Yhwh’s ‘rising’did not mean, necessarily, his literal movement ‘up’, but his assuming of authority). I’m not sure. This deserves more thought.

Ps. 7 (pt. 2)

We ended our last reflection in the “earth” and “dust”of David’s self-imposed curse. His anger at covenant-breakers was palpable. Falsely accused what perhaps, to David, is greatest sin one could be guilty of he lashes out. One can almost feel the heat of his anger. His attack, however, is in an unexpected direction. It is against those to whom this accusation would ring true. It is a fascinating insight into David’s heart that he would, upon hearing of this accusation in particular, react not as much defensively, as offensively. The end result of this anger is in death, the robbing of glory and dust. Although not stated, David sees those who are covenant-breakers as properly abiding in Sheol. It is important to feel this grinding curse in order to see how much the next several demands flow from but stand in contrast to it. The images of ‘ascent’ pile on top of one another in very quick fashion: “Arise, O Lord…Lift yourself up…Awake, O Lord, my God…take your seat on high…” It is not coincidental that the final words of the psalm are “the Lord, Most High”.What is also apparent is that these spatial commands are not to be understood literally but as the Lord’s assuming of his throne in order to execute judgment. Typically, the idea of the Lord ‘ascending’ sounds like a ‘going away’or a distancing. This is manifestly not the case here. Rather, it is the opposite. Because these covenant-breakers are seen as dwelling on the ‘earth’ and ‘dust’the Lord movement ‘upward’ is seen as his ‘coming close’ to David; his providing him the requested ‘refuge’. One way to understand this (which is what these words refer to) is a king’s sitting upon his throne. When a king adopts his stance of authority within his realm, he is not ‘far away’ from his people. He is in fact moving into a position of intimacy and protection: he is adopting the authority of his office. This is why people would flock to see the coronation of a king. It was not until he ‘went up’ to his throne that he was properly vested with the authority necessary to rightly rule his realm. This is why ‘rising’ is almost always associated with ‘receiving glory’. It is the assumption of authority and reigning power. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that the Lord would, in the face of covenant-breakers, “arise in wrath”. It is as if he is running to his throne in order to put on the authority necessary to punish these wicked men. And so we see that David’s fury is one that is very much shared with Yhwh; David is, indeed, a man after Yhwh’s heart. There is an additional, important, aspect to this ‘rising’. The words “Arise” and “awake”are often associated with the image of warfare. The arc of the covenant, when it would taken into battle, would ‘arise’ to go before Israel. The image of “awakening” is similar to many battle cries, particularly the one spoken by Deborah (Judges 5.12). There is then a combination of images: a ‘judicial’image of a king who arises to his throne in order to enact justice and one of a‘warrior’ girding himself in preparation for battle. These are important images: the Son of Man will ‘ascend’ to the Ancient of Days, in order to ‘sit at his right hand’; Jesus will “ascend” in order to be enthroned next to the Father. These ‘ascensions’ must be understood as both the enthronement and the dawning of battle gear. 

Ps. 7:1

We encounter here something (at least at first glance) entirely new. On a literary level we see this in the contrast of vs. 1 (O Lord, my God, I have ….) and vs. 3 (O Lord, my God, if I have…). On first reading David’s sudden change of tone from a desire for protection to an almost self-delivered curse seems odd (to say the least). Surely David knows whether he has, in fact, committed this wrong. Why then do we have this? What purpose does it serve? Is it merely rhetorical? We won’t be able to fully answer this in this reflection but we can begin to lay the groundwork for what I think is at least one answer to the question. Initially, on an emotional level, it seems that David is showing his profound distaste for these accusations. In this way he is, in some ways, siding with his accusers. He is as ‘ravenous’ and “lion-like” against these accusations as his accusers are against him. Although he knows he is innocent he is agreeing that this is the type of punishment that should be meted out to someone who has betrayed an ally. This can be a type of disarming to his accusers. One would expect David to be furious at his accusers, rather than turning this possible condemnation on himself; we have seen how the ‘righteous man’ often calls down judgment on his false-accusers. To cede the propriety of their punishment is to grant them a high degree of respect at a time when many would be attempting to place as much distance between themselves and their attackers. To those who know of David covenantal love for Jonathan and the fact they, again and again, refuses to attack Saul, this strikes a particularly familiar chord. David’s blood runs with covenantal loyalty and the respect inherent within it. One can almost picture David seething with anger as he pronounces this curse (not so much at the fact that they are falsely lain against him but at an imagined betrayer of covenantal bonds).Some structural observations: the self-accusation becomes progressively worse. It moves this way: “this thing”—injustice in my hands—treachery and rescuing of adversary empty handed. This thrice repeated self-accusation is matched by a three fold, increasingly intensified, curse: “let him pursue and overtake me”—trample my life onto the earth—lay my glory onto the dust. This symmetry is not merely literary. I believe it points to something that will be highlighted throughout the psalm and is something we have seen already: punishment for an offense takes its measure from the offense (this is an “eye for an eye” structure). The way this plays out in this psalm is that David essentially says that “If I have been an enemy to my ally, and made him exposed to danger, then leave me exposed for my enemy to pursue me.” The punishment ‘fits’the crime in the same way that the first three condemnations are matched by the three curses. In other words, the formal structure is an expression of the content. “Injustice in my hands”: to have something ‘in your hands’ can often be the sign of treachery (1 Sam. 24.11; 26.18). This image is carried forward as a type of treacherous ‘currency’. “If I have repaid my ally with treachery….”Here we begin to catch the outlines of what exactly David is being accused of. Apparently there have been some (false) accusations that David has acted on behalf of one of his covenant partners allies. This act of treason is here seen as if the covenant ‘blessings’ he was supposed to provide to his ally have, in fact, been covenant curses of betrayal. “And rescued his adversary empty-handed”:Notice here how the idea of ‘rescue’ again emerges. David initiated his prayer with a call for ‘refuge’ from the pursuing lions (his furious allies we now understand). This prayer is then matched by a self-imposed curse that if he has‘rescued’ his allies’ enemy then he should remain exposed for their devouring. Flowing throughout this psalm is this stream of ‘rescue’ from exposure. Also, notice too how the ‘hand full of treachery’ is now really the ‘empty hand’. The worse aspect of the allegations is not that David has behaved treacherously, but that he has done so for nothing else but spite and wickedness (his accusers are essentially saying David helped out this enemy and didn’t even ask for payment). To his accusers David should be extending a hand full of blessing but instead he is gifting them only air and emptiness. “Let an enemy pursue…let him trample….let him lay my glory….”: As said before, one can picture David, within increasing intensity, pronouncing these curses upon a covenant-breaker. The words he uses are vivid in their violence: this ‘pursuit’ recalls the previous ‘tearing’and ‘ripping’ of the abandoned lamp; ‘trampling’ is a particularly horrid image of a body that is the subject of horses or other beasts’ feet stomping; laying my glory in the dust is the image of the lowest point of degradation a person could sink (the ‘glory’ of man could be his respect in the community, his reputation). For David, covenant-breakers should be robbed and their bodies desecrated by their enemies. It is likewise important to note that, for David, this results not from any particular action by Yhwh—it come about, rather, by Yhwh doing nothing (letting his enemy continue the pursuit). The ultimate punishment is not that Yhwh would send down fire, but that Yhwh would simply let things take their course, letting the evil devour the wicked in a self-masticating feeding frenzy.

Ps. 1 & 2 (an interpretation)

One question we did not directly address in our reflections on Ps. 1 & 2 was why did the Psalter open up this way? Why were these two Psalms understood to be the ‘gateway’ to entire collection? I want to offer here one interpretation, and it is one that was implicit in our previous reflections but something that has just emerged in a different light for me. A few general observations about these two psalms:

1) Yhwh’s speech and presence—Yhwh never makes a direct appearance in Ps. 1 and says nothing either; the ‘torah’seems to be the object of attention; in Ps. 2 Yhwh directly says very little; the vast majority of Yhwh’s ‘words’ are placed on the lips of David, not Yhwh.

2) Yhwh’s ‘action’—in Psalm 1 Yhwh ‘does’ very little; the psalm works more along the lines of an ‘identification’ psalm (meaning, this is what a blessed man is like, not ‘do this’ and you will be blessed); the ‘separation’ of the wheat and chaff is not something directly attributed to Yhwh but rather could be pointing more to the fact that the slightest breeze carries off the wicked, while the blessed man is as stable as a tree; in Psalm 2, an initial reading may give the impression that Yhwh ‘does’ a great deal, but all he ‘does’ is speak (which, granted, is a lot properly understood); he laughs and then proclaims to the nations what has already occurred (the begetting, the anointing, etc…). The ‘action’of the psalm is placed more directly in the hands of David (the rod of iron, the smashing of the clay vessels, etc…).

Without rehashing everything we already observed, what we do not see here is a type of ‘scripture’ alone. Psalm 1 does emphasize the ‘torah’.It is both a source of ‘living water’ and is the blessed man’s ‘delight. However, with Psalm 2, the source of blessedness is in the anointed. Significantly, and as a couter-balance to Psalm 1, the very words of Yhwh are placed within the mouth of this anointed (who is David). Whereas one is only indirectly given the ‘words’ of Yhwh’s instruction/torah in Psalm 1, in Psalm 2 we hear an intimate dialogue between David and Yhwh. In this way David becomes something like a new ‘Moses’, and, in his anointing, engages in a dialogue with Yhwh as intimate as any Moses engaged in in a ‘tent of meeting’. One final observation—the psalms are unlike many other writings in the OT because they are not ‘words of Yhwh’ (as in prophets who say “Thus says the Lord…”, or the Decalogue (ten commandments) understood as the very voice of the Lord emanating from the flaming mountain of Sinai). Rather, they are prayers to the Lord. In this way, it would seem like they were more of a revelation about ‘man’ than a revelation about the Lord; they seem to be going ‘up’rather than ‘down’ (and ‘down’ is always ‘better’, isn’t it?).

What is the point? The vast majority of the following psalms are ‘attributed to David’ (although they were clearly not all written by him). Psalm 2 has keyed us into the fact that David’s speech is often not merely the mediated words of Yhwh but the expression of his discussion with Yhwh; what I mean is that Psalm 2 shows us that Yhwh’s ‘speech’ is embodied in a dialoguewith his anointed (it is, in this way, botha ‘down’ and an ‘up’). Here we are given something that we can miss in the prophets (although it is clearly there, especially in Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel), that Yhwh reveals himself by and through his dialogue with man and not simply in a monological disclosure. And, as we also saw in Psalm 2, the vast majority of Yhwh’s words are placed in this context. It is a shocking realization: Yhwh’s theophany (revealing) of himself is just as much from these“ground up” psalms as the words spoken “down” in the Torah (from Sinai). It would not be hard to imagine these prayers as properly ‘devotional’ but the fact that they were included as Scripture should give us pause (and require us to re-evaluate what it means for Yhwh to “speak”).

We might say it this way: in David Yhwh has found a conversation partner that draws out of Yhwh more than would have been revealed without him and that, in some truly mysterious manner, this ‘more’ points to an ability for Yhwh to reveal himself not merely ‘through himself’ but through those who are not himself; one could almost compare this to David as a type of ‘bride’ of Yhwh, a woman who is not merely reduced to her husband but (like creation) causes an unforeseen ‘delight’ to emerge (and “God saw that it was good…”).

This, I think, is one reason why Psalms 1 and 2 were placed at the very beginning of the Psalter. It was to ‘introduce’ us into this realm of Davidic/Yhwh dialogue, and to show us how this “son of Yhwh”, in his prayers to “his Father”, was as equal to a revelation of that Father as any words ‘sent from above’. This, I would wager, is one reason why so many of these psalms were given attributed to David (and why it is important to, theologically, identify this). And, for Christians, nothing could be more essential: we see how the ‘unity’ of Christ must be captured from this ‘bottom-up’perspective as much as the ‘top-down’ perspective. Essentially, in Psalm 1 and 2 we see, in Christ’s light, a revelation of his dual nature (his ‘hypostatic’union: son of David and the spoken (Word) son of God).

Ps. 7.1 (prayer in flight)

Ps. 7.1

Diag.

O Lord  /  my God  /  I have  /  sought refuge  /  in you

Save me  /  from all my  /  pursuers  /  and  /  deliver me

            Lest  /  they should  /  rip me  /  like a lion

            Tearing me up  /  with no  /  deliverer

The protector is praying for protection.

The overall feeling of this psalm is one of exposure and vulnerability. This fact alone should give us pause: a king should never feel exposed. When and if it occurs it is because some defense that should have been maintained has either suffered attack or defeat, or, even worse, become a gate for the king’s enemies (in an act of deception and rebellion). The king is supposed to be the ‘shepherd’ of his people; his flock might, at times, feel exposed but it is to him, as king, that they are to call in times of danger. And, a true king, should come to their aid and re-establish the order of justice by punishing the evil-doer (attacker) and healing any wounded sheep. If the king, himself, is exposed, however, the very source of justice itself is under attack.

Were this psalm spoken by a member of David’s flock, we would be able to appreciate this sense of calling out for help. When this prayer is placed on the lips of David, something more terrifying emerges. Like Ps. 3, we must always keep in mind that when the ‘shepherd’ prays he is not merely praying for himself (as, perhaps, we might hear if this psalm were one spoken by a member of David’s flock), but for his entire people. He is the “anointed head” of Yhwh’s family. If he is ‘brought down’ by the lions, the sheep will be scattered and vulnerable. As exposed as David feels, he holds in his heart the exposure that will be experienced by all of “those whom the Father gave him” in his anointing.

David as ‘shepherd’. There is, I think, one unstated observation to be made here: David was Israel’s first ‘real shepherd’. Whenever one sees that image in the OT (and NT), one should realize it means ‘king’; it was a common, almost ubiquitous, imagine in the ancient Mediterranean world. Every reader of this psalm would have pictured David thus. Except now, David has placed himself in the role of the animal needing protection from Yhwh, the Shepherd. It is a beautiful insight into the ‘heart of David’, this ‘son’ of the father-Yhwh. In Ps. 3 we saw how every victory handed over to David, was, in turn, handed back to Yhwh. Here, we see how the shepherd of Israel sees himself as one in need of the Shepherd Yhwh.

“refuge”: a refuge is often portrayed as a contained place wherein one escapes from an ongoing tumult and exposure to danger (shade as a refuge from the sun; a harbor as a refuge from the churning ocean; a cave as a hiding from predators). A refuge is also a place of rest and, often, rejuvenation, like an oasis in a dessert. Those seeking refuge are acutely aware of this pressing need for safety and escape. A refuge is something one runs to; it is not something one attempts to ‘bring into battle’. It is an escape, not an engagement with the enemy. Yhwh is not here described as a sword, which would imply the power to address and defeat the enemy, but as a place of escape and withdrawal. It is a decidedly defensive image, rather than offensive.

David seems, though, from what we have seen, to understand Yhwh from these varying perspectives. In Ps. 2 the “rod of iron” that will smash the nations is placed in his hands as the nations come up to wage war against him. In Ps. 3, however, Yhwh becomes a circular shield around him so as to enable him to sleep (something like a ‘refuge’).

“from my pursuers…lest they rip/tear me like a lion”: The necessity for ‘refuge’ is highlighted in this passage. As a shepherd, David would have doubtless witnessed this type of killing: from the initial and unobserved stalking to the sudden orange bolt and subsequent chase and killing. An exposed sheep (one without a shepherd) has no chance of surviving the attack. Notice how the movement here is from ‘pursuit’ to ‘tearing/devouring’. There is no intermediate attack or the ‘bringing down’ of the animal. The reader only pictures the chase and the ‘tearing flesh’.  By removing this ‘moment of attack’, David points to the inevitability of being pursued by these men (these ‘lions’) and that without refuge he will be torn apart.

Notice too that David is already in full-flight from these men. Just as he does not describe the ‘moment of attack’ he does not describe the hidden stalking of the lion, nor does he describe the moment when the defenseless and exposed lamb first catches sight of his attacker. The lion and the lamb are in full sprint. The attack commenced long ago and this prayer is one that emerges during that flight.

Ps. 7 (superscription)

Ps. 7

The title to this psalm identifies it with a song David sang to the Lord “concerning the words of Cush, a Benjamite.” There is no reference in the OT to these “words”,although the psalm will go on to provide a great deal of information about the content of what was spoken. Regardless, we see here, again, an emphasis on the spoken “words”. There has been nothing more prevalent in our psalms as a call for deliverance than from these vocal utterances of an enemy. Even in Ps. 2, where war is about to be waged against the anointed, David, the entire psalm is a dialogue. And in Ps. 3 the most devastating blow to David, even perhaps more so than the fact that his son was seeking his life, were the words spoken behind his back to effect that Yhwh had abandoned him. Likewise, in Ps. 4, they are the accusations of the ‘sons of man’ and their attempt to destroy the righteous man’s reputation that initiate the prayer for deliverance. Ps. 5 reserves the most devastating imagery for those who ‘speak falsely’. In Ps. 6 the only ground to the sick man’s appeal was that praise would not be offered to Yhwh if he descended to Sheol. This only points to the deeper and underlying fact that the OT is overwhelmingly concerned with the power of the tongue. The wisdom literature (especially Proverbs) is almost single-mindedly concerned with how one guards one’s words. The book of Judges can be read as the evil of lose tongues and how the further one spirals away from Yhwh the loser one’s tongue becomes. It is apparent that, in the OT, words were much more of a “thing”or “reality” than we conceive of them. If one spoke a blessing, one could not take it back. It accomplished what it said. This is carried over, in the most emphatic way, to Yhwh’s ‘words’. As Genesis shows, they actually do create; his words are, literally, active. The prophets, inspired by the spirit, when they spoke saying, “Thus says the Lord…” were delivering to Israel this same creative word and, thereby, fashioning a reality in much the same was as the earth ‘sprang into being’.

Much of this points, I think, to a fundamentally different orientation in the OT (and the Scriptures, and the entire world of antiquity) than one we have today. Many have described this as the difference between a ‘guilt’ culture and a ‘shame’ culture, the Scriptures decidedly on the “shame” side. An overly brief description of this difference is as follows: modern, western culture tends to be a ‘guilt’ culture, in that it focuses almost entirely upon the individual response to his own responsibilities; it is not communal but the focus is on how one individually apprises oneself and not how one is viewed by the community/family/clan/church. In ‘shame’ cultures, the opposite is the case: who one “is” is how one is viewed. In these cultures one behaves because of the way one’s behavior reflects upon the whole of one’s community (family/clan/nation/church). One way of stating this difference is that in “guilt” cultures conscience exists in the individual; in “shame” cultures, it exists in the community. In shame cultures, honor, prestige and the like are heavily prized possessions and objects of desire because they are communal objects. In guilt cultures, these are perceived as shallow and only sought after by the ‘insecure’. One’s ‘worth’ comes from ‘inside’; one’s “outer”appearance is not (or should not) “matter”.

When reoriented in this way, the importance placed on spoken words becomes much more obvious. In shame cultures the ‘spoken’ word is the expression of the conscience of the community; it is much more of a “thing” or “reality-creating” than in a guilt culture. Likewise, it is absolutely essential in this regard to ‘guard one’s tongue’. And, most importantly for the purposes of our psalm, in ‘shame’ cultures a covenant will mean something very different than in a ‘guilt’ culture. In a guilt culture a covenant will appear more like a contract, a meeting between two parties. In a shame culture, a covenant will be the binding of two parties into one ‘family’ or ‘community’. Therefore, to break a covenant will be remove oneself from this source of identity. In a guilt culture, to be removed from this group is (probably) not desirable, but because one’s conscience is rooted in the self, the ‘punishment’ is not in being ostracized, but in the internal feeling of ‘guilt’.

In a way we could say that those in ‘shame’cultures live much “closer to the surface” of things because their ‘face’ is intimately bound up with the ‘face’ of the community. And it is along the surface of these things that the ‘prizes’ of life are won: honor, respect, fame…To be falsely accused in this culture, then, takes on much larger importance because it potentially robs the person of their ‘face’ (as is not the case in ‘guilt’cultures where one’s ‘face’ is deeply internal).