Ps. 74.10 (taste of hell)

How long / O God / will the foe taunt?
Will / the enemy / scorn your name / forever? 

The last question the psalmist posed to God was verse 1: “Why, O God, are you unrelenting in anger; why does your anger smolder against the flock of your pasture?” The two questions are very similar and yet they display marked contrasts as well. In verse 1, the focus is on God’s burning anger; as we have seen, this ‘flame’ is one that has consumed the Temple. Here, by contrast, the question focuses not on God’s activity (his burning anger) but his passivity (how long will you permit…?). This same tension we already saw in the contrast between verses 1 and 2, between ‘anger’ (active) and ‘forgetting’ (passive). The dynamic is crucial to note—on the one hand, the psalmist sees in the flames of the Temple the burning anger of God and yet, on the other hand, he also sees the ‘forgetting’ and permissiveness of God toward his foes. This is the profound point: to the psalmist, the opening question and this one are the same question (just as verse 1 and 2 express the same thing in different ways). The psalmist asserts, with equal force, that the tragedy inflicted upon God’s Temple and flock is both one ordained by God and one that is clearly at odds with his will. This is not to say that God is ‘at odds with himself’. It is to say that tragedy engenders this dual (and equal) sense of God’s will. And, more importantly, that prayer is the attempt to engage the will of God against the forces that anger or deny it. Although the psalmist asserts these dual forces, he clearly seeks to end God’s anger, to see him ‘remember’ his covenant and Zion. In the present they are equal, but they should be hierarchically ordered—with God’s pleasure in his people and Zion, his glory and his honor, at the pinnacle. However, in a time ‘without signs’ (vs. 9) there is no way to formulate this tragedy without reverting to these dual, and seemingly contradictory, images and to pose them as a question to God. We have noted the contrasts between vs. 1 and here. There are important similarities. As in verse 1, there is the sense of ‘totality’ or ‘finality’. There the question was regarding God’s “unrelenting” anger. Here, the psalmist asks whether the “scorn of your name” will persist “forever”. On what we might call an ‘emotional level’ these questions are almost apocalyptic in their scope. The palmist is asking, with incredulity, whether God’s current stance is to be permanent. Will his previous persistence toward the covenant and Zion now be one against the covenant and Zion?  Was the totality of the destruction of the Temple a manifestation of God’s “unrelenting” (vs. 1) and “forever” (vs. 10) will? What is the relationship between God’s creative (acquiring and redeeming) acts (vs. 2) and this act of “total ruin” (vs. 3)? The psalmist is convinced that the creative act is the ‘more firm’ or foundational, than what is now experienced. It is that act he appeals (vs. 2). This question then of totality and ‘forever’ is one that is qualified by his conviction that God’s creative act will “end” this ‘time without signs’, this time of ‘how long’. This is clear by the simple fact that these questions are not, in the end, questions but prodding. Their goal is for God to re-engage his covenant power toward Israel and the Temple. Even though these questions are posed as absolute, the psalmist is posing them precisely in order to end this seeming no-time of God’s anger and passivity. Understood in this light one might pose the following: citizens of hell would never pose this question because they will not be related to these creative acts of God but rather will find in God’s will only the “unrelenting” and “eternal” act of judgment; in other words, they will exist in despair. Verse 1 and 10 would no longer be posed as question but believed as fact because they will be the foe of the 'scorned-name'.