Ps. 9 (praise, memory and presence)

I will / praise /  Yhwh / with all / my heart 
I will / recount / all / your / wonderful works 
I will / rejoice / and / I will / exult / in you 
I will / sing / the praise / of your name / O Most High

Following on the heels of Ps. 8, the opening to this psalm seems, at first, to be very similar. Ps. 8 concluded with the refrain: “O Lord our master, how majestic your name is in all the earth.” Here, we find the ‘name’ appear again as the object of praise. The tone of the psalm, though, is very different. Ps. 8 felt very detached. It was, in a sense, a very ‘global’ psalm; it was spoken from a great distance with massive (almost absolute or total) vistas in mind. Here, the psalmist’s praise is much more personal and individual. We might explain it this way: whereas Ps. 8 was primarily a psalm reflecting on Yhwh’s name as revealing creation, Ps. 9 (as we will see) focuses more on Yhwh’s name as being the source of deliverance. This, of course, is not to suggest these are two separate realities. As we have already commented on: in the revelation of the Divine Name both of these realities sprang into view (Yhwh as source of ‘creation’ and, therefore, also as source of ‘power’; to see Genesis properly is to see Isaiah properly as well). How the heart approaches these two realities, though, finds different expressions: the opening of Genesis is very liturgical; it is rhythmic and is composed almost like a hymn. In this sense it is ‘detached’ or ‘distant’ because of the nature of the object contemplated (all of creation). When the Divine Name is revealed to Moses, on the other hand, it is more intimate and set within the context of a people crying out for deliverance. Without overly schematizing things, the opening of Genesis and Psalm 1 and 8 have a very detached sense of praise (which does not mean it is not passionate; I only mean to imply that the object contemplated is so vast that the person singing the praise is almost eclipsed). Exodus and, for example, Psalm 2 speak about deliverance but in almost national terms; it is a ‘creation’ story but of a people and, in this way, it is more ‘personal’ or intimate than Genesis/Psalm 8. Psalms 3-7 are almost entirely personal; they speak about an individual’s suffering and deliverance. Our Psalm, as I think will become evident, seems more like Exodus and Psalm 2: it is not as personal as Psalms 3-7 but not as global as Psalms 1, 8 and Genesis. There is another, formal reason that creates this impression: this Psalm is an acrostic psalm, meaning it starts with the first letter of Hebrew alphabet and proceeds to the (with each ‘stanza’ beginning with a different letter). This formal aspect to the psalm creates this sense of ‘distance’ and rhythm. While not liturgical, per se, it inhabits that same perspective; it does not seem to me that an acrostic psalm would ever be very successful if employed to express an individual’s lament and desire for deliverance (although apparently Ps. 25 does just that). This, I think, begins to point to one thing that this opening establishes: this psalmist’s praise is rooted in reciting the ‘works of Yhwh’. Generally, the ‘works of the Lord’ refer to acts of deliverance (the plagues of Egypt, for example, are often referred to as ‘works’ of the Lord). There is, here, that sense of distance, of taking in large vistas, not of creation, but of time. The interesting question is this: what is accomplished by praising Yhwh from this vantage point rather than the purely personal? I would submit that when this perspective is employed one of, at least, two things are happening. In Ps. 8, this sense of distance led to ‘foundational’ realizations: the nature of man as king and as being ‘crowned with glory’. Here, in the context of a psalm about deliverance, it seems that these works are recounted because the present reality is not ‘where it should be’. In this way, the psalmist, in recounting Yhwh’s works, is reciting ‘foundational’ realities of Yhwh. By steadily recounting his works of deliverance, the “I” standing at the source of those works begins to emerge (or, is recalled afresh). In this context, I would wager, the psalmist is attempting to praise the “I” behind the works in order to properly ask for his intercession in the present. This is not well worded. What I am trying to convey is the similar reality as when a person has had a long relationship with another person: a person is not reducible to their actions (the “I” is not simply what they ‘do’). However, the “I” is exemplified in their actions. Yhwh, of course, in revealing his ‘Name’ revealed that his “I” is, ultimately, a mystery (“I am who I will be”).  Deuteronomy 8 catches this sense of remembering/praising the works of Yhwh and why its continuous remembrance/praise is necessary. There, we see that recalling the works of Yhwh leads to humility and the abiding sense of dependence upon Yhwh. Likewise, this acts as a shield to two specific forms of temptation: arrogance/pride (that Israel itself conquered the land) and idolatry (that other gods were and are the source of their success). Furthermore, and working in tandem with all of these, is the fact that remembrance of Yhwh leads to “life in the land”, while forgetting Yhwh leads to punishment and exile; ‘remembering’ Yhwh is not merely a form of ‘protection’ but a source of praise and life. What is clear is that Yhwh’s presence with Israel in the land is dependent upon Israel’s remembering of his actions; in other words, their remembrance might not so much “make Yhwh present” as making them to be the proper vessels or dwelling of his presence. In this way, memory becomes a key component of covenant; it is what makes/maintains Israel as a covenant partner. Yhwh’s presence to the people, though, is not something ‘manifestly obvious’ but requires this subjective and inner predisposition. If one ‘forgets’ Yhwh, one might become prideful. One final comment before we sum this up: the Name was delivered to Israel and dwelled within the Temple. The “I” dwelled within the camp. Yhwh was there. To recount/remember his ‘praises’ should never be divorced from this fact. This is not merely an act of ‘recall’. The real presence of Yhwh, the “I” who actually performed all these acts, was the recipient of the praise of memory. It was an act homage to the King sitting upon the throne in the Temple. “Memory” does not mean “absence”, but is rather to be understood as the praising of the abiding “I” that vivifies, protects, loves and fathers his children gathered around Him. The opening lines, in this light, take on added depth: “I will praise Yhwh with all my heart. I will recount all your wonderful works. I will rejoice and I will exult in you. I will sing the praises of your name, O most High.” Notice how he flows in and out of ‘recounting the works’ and directly praising ‘you’. These are the words of a psalmist who is enlivened with the reality of Deuteronomy 8.