Ps. 44.3 (by way of contrast; negation and affirmation)

“For / they did not / take possession / of the land / by their sword – and their arm / did not / bring them victory – but it was / your right hand / and your arm, - and the light / of your countenance – for / you took pleasure / in them.” I want to continue the question posed yesterday as to why the psalmist tells this story in the way that he does. This verse stands in direct contrast to the previous. There, God was active both in dispossessing and in planting, in crushing and in setting free. As we saw yesterday, there is almost no room for any other actors or agents. Here, it is the reverse: they “did not take possession”; their arm “did not bring them victory.” The action then returns to a complete focus on God with the word “but”: “it was your right hand and your arm and the light of your countenance”. Formally what we see here is that God’s action bookends the ‘non-action’ of the ‘fathers’: Your hand dispossess/planted/crushed set free ---- they did not take possession/bring them victory ---- your right hand and your arm/light of your countenance. What we see then is that in every way God ‘surrounded’ the fathers, even in a formal manner within the psalm. Furthermore, the ‘non-action’ of the fathers is portrayed, itself, in contrast to God’s. Verse 2 spoke of God dispossessing nations; here they did not take possession by their sword. Furthermore, their arm did not bring victory; but it was your [God’s] right hand and your arm… The point is the same as the ‘bookending’ of God but is now played out in a different manner. Every action that is performed is understood as being performed by God. What the psalmist does by way of negation (“did not take possession”; “their arm did not bring victory”) is to show how empty the vessels of the fathers were and how, in that negation, God filled them up with his power (“you dispossessed”; “your right hand and your arm”). The psalmist is ‘creating a space’ within which God’s power can pour. The question is why and how does this function in the context of the psalm—as we indicated yesterday, by drawing attention, in this manner, to God’s action within their “fathers”, these “sons” are asking that the genetic line of faithfulness continue in them. As we will see later, they, like their fathers, do not attribute any of their power to themselves (vs. 5-8) and, thereby ‘empty themselves’ for God to fill. Again, it is imperative that we understand that these are “sons” who see no reason that they should, in a sense, be disowned by the God that fought for their “fathers”. This close familial connection is not merely biological, although the all-consuming nature of the biological is crucial to grasp; rather, it points to the covenantal bond of kinship established by God with them. Blessings/covenant bestowed on one family member are understood not only to pass to future generations but was, in fact, given in light of those future generations. For ‘sons’ to be treated different than ‘fathers’ then is tantamount to covenantal infidelity. In this regard, we see a second reason the psalmist has told the story in the way he has—the final line says that God fought for them “because he took pleasure in them”. The psalmist, by later emphasizing the fact that they have kept faith with the covenantal obligations (vs. 17-21) and have not understood their military power to ‘be their own’ (vs. 5-8) is claiming that they (the ‘sons’) should be just as much objects of God’s ‘pleasure’ as their fathers were. In other words, the psalmist is saying, ‘do for us as you did for them’. This will come out clearly in the concluding petition/directive issued at God (vs. 23-26).