Ps. 44. 9-14 (positioning and petition)

“You / make us retreat / from an enemy, - and those / who hate us / have plundered / at will; - you / hand us over / like sheep for food – and have scattered us / among the nations; - you / sell your people / cheaply – and have not profited / from the price / of their sale; - you / make us a reproach / to our neighbors – an object / of mockery / and derision / to those around us; you / make us a byword / among the nations – an object of sorrow / among the peoples.” The first half of the psalm has been crucial, as we have already seen, in laying the groundwork for what occurs from here to the end. We cannot review everything we have emphasized, however, in this regard but we should point out a few things as it pertains to understanding these very stark and troubling verses. First, what we will notice is that these verses will operate as a type of ‘negative’ of the opening sections. Likewise, it will operate as a ‘negative’ of the verses that will follow them. As to its relation to the opening sections: there, God did everything (as we have said); he both dispossessed and planted; man was very much negated in the process in order to draw attention to the fact of God’s presence/power within Israel as it entered the promised land. Here, everything is reversed except that the focus is still entirely on God. Notice how the wording is employed and utterly turned-on-its-head: verses 2-4 (“your hand dispossessed; you planted them; you crushed peoples; you set them free---they did not; their arm did not—your right hand, your arm, countenance of your face, you took pleasure in them); here: (you have spurned and humiliated; you do not go forth; you make us retreat; you hand us over; you have scattered us; you sell your people; you make us a reproach; you make us a byword).  What will become important for the later verses is the fact that here there is no ‘middle section’ that ‘negates’ man as in verses 2-4 (“they did not; their arm did not”). Rather, as we will see, Israel and the king have seen themselves as utterly ‘positive’ in the present; they therefore ‘deserve’ an entire section that recounts their faithfulness. As to these verses we must point out that just as centrally focused was verses 2-4 on God’s action so too is that actin centrally focused on God here. One might say that this is a ‘consequence’ of the positive statements made in verses 2-4. That, however, profoundly misses an important point: these words are not being offered as theological abstraction; they are, rather, intensely rhetorical and liturgical. Their goal is to reverse this situation. These are the words of a betrayed partner who is imploring the other to return to them and, in this way, must be understood through this logic of devotion. Just as they devotedly attributed to God all the glory in verses 2-4, so too do they attribute to him the pain of abandonment here. A second important observation: the progression here is horrifying, as it is evident that the defeat suffered was almost catastrophic. The verses move in this manner: abandonment (vs. 9); vulnerability and robbery (vs. 10); killed and scattered (vs. 11); enslaved (vs. 12); shamed (vs. 13); byword and shame (vs. 14). It follows a roughly chronological movement from the initial sense that God is not in their midst (too late), to the battle itself, its aftermath and the current predicament of shame. In short, everything that God accomplished in verses 2-4 has been reversed; they are back in Egypt, enslaved. And, whereas God was understood in the past to be the one who “set them free” (vs. 2), he is not perceived not only as the one who leaves them vulnerable to enslavement but, more troubling, he actually sells them, and for an utterly meager price. Because of his betrayal they view themselves as utterly worthless to him, a mere economic thing subject to transaction by an unscrupulous seller. God is not a gardener here, but a merchant, a very poor one. Furthermore, the reference to being ‘sheep’ “handed over like food” and “scattered” is not merely a disturbing literal image (which it is), but is to call to mind the fact that their ‘shepherd’ has been utterly negligent. And, as we now, the ‘shepherd’ is the king; and God has been hailed as “my King and my God” (vs. 4). This is clearly a stinging rebuke (eager petition), pointing to God’s failure to care for his flock and to abandoning them to the wolves and lions of the nations. Third, and very fundamentally: the effect of God’s abandonment are not simply descriptive. They allude to the curses of unfaithfulness in Deuteronomy 28, beginning in verse 15, but particularly those in verses 25-29. This is crucial to understand: this psalm is a covenantally saturated psalm; the last word appeals to God’s ‘lovingkindness’, the foundation of the covenantal relationship. As we have alluded to in the past, the petition itself comes from the perceived tear in the relationship. In Deuteronomy, though, these curses follow the blessings that would be given to Israel if they remained faithful; if they betrayed God, however, they would be cursed. Here, what is troubling, is that the psalmist is alluding to these curses but has and will steadfastly assert that they did not act unfaithfully to God. It seems, then, that just as the psalmist has been steadily reversing the first section of the psalm as it relates to the present, so too is he introducing this jarring note of covenantal disruption on the part of God, as if God was inappropriately enacting the curses of the covenant. What is his point in doing this? Again, it is a rhetorical strategy aimed as ‘waking God up’. And, more importantly, it is being employed so as to ignite the covenantal blessings that are ‘due’ them in Deuteronomy. It is an incredibly ‘clever’ move, as it all happens just underneath the surface of the psalm. It will, also, become important that here he begins with the inappropriately applied curses and will then follow with assertions of his and Israel’s covenantal obedience.