Ps. 79.10b (call of blood)

Before our own eyes / let your name be known / among the nations
by the vindication / of the poured out blood / of your servants.

In the open. This is the first of several petitions that will flow, without interruption, to the conclusion of the psalm; they, in a sense, spill over the ending. For that reason, we need to pay particular attention to why this one is placed first. The answer, I believe, lies in the immediately preceding question and our reflections on how the psalmist ‘question-within-a-question’ pointed toward a hiddenness of God resulting from the defilement that has saturated the psalm. Again, the ‘hiddenness’ of God, in this context, is not due to him being clothed in ‘inaccessible light’. Rather, God’s hiddenness is a manifestation of his anger. It is, for this reason, an historical reality of tragedy, of his withdrawing his protective hand from his Temple, his City, his People and his Land. By doing so, he allows chaos to flood all of them and to, importantly, obscure his own glory. To the nations, he is not hidden but ‘in hiding’, defeated. For Israel, he is not defeated and therefore the nations “question” is contained within a much deeper question of their own: “Why do you allow the nations to think you are defeated?” (vs. 10). It is within this ‘greater question’ that his answer is rooted: to completely reverse the nations’ perception of God’s defeat they ask for a fully public display of vindication. They are not looking for something private (or, ‘spiritual’). They are looking for an historical ‘day’, an act that reverses the nations’ defilement, that removes the eclipse of their and his shame. This ‘act’ is to take place not only on behalf of Israel (“before our eyes”) but also “among the nations”.

The name and vindication. Crucially, this manifest act of vindication will be a manifestation of the divine name. When it (the reversal) occurs, the ‘person’ of God will be revealed; not simply his ‘power’. There is depth to this. We must recall that the nations have been specifically described as those who do not know God’s name and do not call upon it. Here, by contrast, when God acts in vindication of his servants his name “will be known among the nations”. This ‘knowing’ is an act of perception generated from the great reversal. Who they thought was concealed and defeated will be revealed to have been greater than their destructive power; he will, in fact, have contained their destruction within himself.

Resurrection. The vindication will be “of the out poured blood of your servants”. Clearly we are to find in this a reference back to verse 3 (“They poured out their blood like water, all around Jerusalem…”). This ‘reversal’ will be an act of resurrection power. It will, in other words, be a “blood response”. It is his servants ‘out-poured’ life that will be vindicated. This is astonishing—God’s name (the pinnacle of his personal revelation) is revealed to the nations as an act of resurrection power, a blood response and a vindication of his slain servants. This is the convincing power of God; his power to overcome the death dealing forces that overcame his servants in a supreme act of justice and love. That which so clearly signaled God’s defeat to the nations will become the resurrected vessel of his theophany to the nations. Their vindicated blood will be the theophany of his name. (“This is my blood, given for you…”).

Formally. Finally, we must signal here that these petitions begin the reversal of verses 1-4. The ‘out-poured blood of your servants’ is vindicated (verses 2-3). This life-giving power is what begins the reversal.

Ps. 79.10 (how a question reveals creation)

I want to pause over the previous reflection for a moment. In particular I want to suggest that the ‘question within the question’ actual provides us a window into creation itself (it is, in a sense, a question that emerges from Genesis 1). It may seem like an odd claim. Let me lay some of the foundation. In most (actually, all I am aware of, except perhaps in some Egyptian stories), the act of creation is an original act of violence, of gods warring with each other and, in fact, in some stories, of creation actually emerging from the torn carcass of conquered god. In Genesis, however, there is absolutely nothing like this. Even the ‘chaos waters’ do not present any obstacle to God and, in fact, become a medium for his creative power. There is, in other words, a total lack of violence. Creation is the moment of divine peace, benevolence and grace. It does not emerge from a prior destruction. And, with this, I think we begin to see a glimmer of how this question, containing the question of the nations, contains a ray of that primal, peaceful light. Note: the question the nations pose is a question that, without the story we just recounted, is, in a very deep sense, coincides with their view of creation. The nation’s question to Israel, in effect, asserts the conquered death of their god. Like creation itself, their actions toward Israel partake of the violence of creation, of their gods conquering of Yhwh. In other words, for them, peace arrives after violence, and requires it, in some way. This is why the destruction of Yhwh’s Temple, to them, is manifestly a defeat; it is a moment within the violent pacifying of their gods. Violence and its consequent shame is creative, a  theophany in fact of the divine realm and its strife. Israel, though, does not agree. More primal than the violence that is obvious on the face of the earth is the creative peaceful power of Yhwh. This is (one of) the lessons of Genesis. Violence does not precede peace; peace precedes violence. And, when violence does emerge, it does not arrive through a divine strife but a human eruption, a human stain, a human breach within the creative peacefulness of God’s grace. Israel, then, and unlike the nations, can’t see in violence a necessary moment within creation. It is not a theophany of the divine realm. It is, if anything, a manifestation of man; it is defilement. This is why the nation’s question is contained within Israel’s question to God. Israel sees a primal peace and its question, then, enfolds the nation’s question as not an assertion of creation, but an assertion of defilement. There is more to be said. The nations, as we have said, equate violence (of divine conquering) with a moment in creation. For them, the ‘death of (a) god’ is the precedent for life. Now, this vision of creation (of the nature of the cosmos) is, to those who do not ‘call upon Yhwh’ or ‘know him’ (vs. 6; i.e., the ‘nations’), obvious. It is apparent. It is manifest. It is common and clear. Israel was ‘delivered’ from this vision through, importantly, the divine name; in fact, Israel was very much ‘created’ by the divine name. We have said this time-and-time again: the exodus revealed creation and creation reveals the exodus. We need not pursue this here. The point is that the ‘drama of the divine name’s power’ (the exodus) initiated Israel into the vision of Genesis. Through God’s election of Israel and through his delivering power Israel was brought into genesis-creation. It is through this dramatic election and salvation that Israel came to perceive that the nations’ question is enfolded within the power of the divine name. In other words, that there is, in fact, a peace prior to the divine violence and death; a question prior to theirs. By enfolding the nation’s question within theirs, Israel is calling upon the divine name to (re)enact his creative, peaceful power. Finally, and this is absolutely key, there is a tantalizing hint here that, for all the reasons we have given, death cannot overcome Yhwh. By divorcing violence from creation, by refusing to see in it a ‘moment’ in creation, Israel has been ushered into Yhwh’s presence such that they “see” the creative, resurrection power of God. To put this another way: within Yhwh Israel perceives the prior gracefulness of creation, the ‘stain’ of violence and (and this is huge), the already-conquering of that stain by and through resurrection. The nations’ question is not only enfolded by a prior vision of creation but a future certainty of resurrection, vindication and redemption. This is why the question posed to God is forward looking; it looks toward revelation of the divine name to the nations in act of blood-vindication.

Ps. 79.10 (a question within a question)

Why / should the nations say

Where / is their God? 

In context. We will look more closely, later, at the content of the two questions asked in this psalm. Here, we need to focus on their formal placement in the psalm. The first question of “How long…” emerges directly on the heels of Israel’s complaint regarding their profaned reputation among their neighbors. They are a visible and public object of shame. The second question follows the same patter—it comes directly on the heels of the petition to God to help Israel “for the glory of your name…for your name’s sake”. So, the first question is focused on reversing the loss of Israel’s reputation while the second question focuses on reversing the loss of God’s reputation. They both emerge from a complaint about the terrible effect of public shame (the loss of powerful glory and respect) on their mutual ‘names’.  There is a further important similarity between the two: they both emerge from, or respond to, Israel’s waywardness. The first question explicitly finds in Israel’s present horror the effect of their waywardness—God is angry with them. The second question follows immediately on the call to God to “remember not our wayward acts” and “pardon our sins”. In both questions, then, we see how the removal of sin and a question posed to God as to the unrighteous present either coincide or the removal of sin precedes the question. In this psalm, the chasm torn open by Israel’s waywardness must be addressed before or during the question to God (both questions being, of course, implicit petitions). It is, in fact, their waywardness that has created the absurdity contained in both questions.

Two questions. Two questions are asked in this psalm. How long is he to be angry with the psalmist and his people (vs. ) and the question in this verse. They are, in fact, very similar questions. Both questions focus on how others are responding to Israel (the first: God; the second: the nations). Both questions essentially ask “how long” (the first: as to God’s anger; the second: as to the taunt of the nations); they both want the ‘age to turn’ (upside down). Perhaps more the point, they both question why God presence is allowed to be hidden in shame. Note, it is not a question about why God’s presence is, simply, ‘hidden’. Rather, both questions emerge from a sense that God’s presence and glory should be fully public and unquestionable; it should not seem contained. However, in the present, the reverse of that ‘publicity’ is the degradation of shame. Again, we must keep in mind the focus of verses 1-3—defilement has covered, literally, everything (all of God’s inheritance). The ‘taunt of the nations’ in our verse is simply another expression of that. It is that ‘filth’ that has become the expression of God’s hiddenness. The differences. The first question looks for Israel to be ‘raised up’ by the cessation of God’s anger and his ‘sent mercy’. The second looks for the nations to be ‘torn down’ from their superior and mocking stance. The first places before God Israel’s own experience of suffering-present. The second places before God the mocking call of the nations. In this we find here a hidden connection the first—as the first originated from the ‘jeers’ of the neighbors, so the second originates from the jeers of the nations.

Or are there three. Within this second question is actually a nested third question, that one posed by the nations to Israel. It is a question within a question. Israel asks God why the nations ask “Where is their God?” We find here the explicit concern of God’s hiddenness, except now it is placed not on the mouth of Israel but of the nations. This is an important device. The first question directed to God is, of course, a question-as-petition. It asks “how long..” but is meant to convey, “please cease this time of non-time” (stop being angry with us). As we saw there, the question actually offered a glimmer—it acknowledged that the horrors that had been perpetrated were not acts of the nations conquering Yhwh. Rather, they were, in fact, expressions of Yhwh’s anger. Their history is, in other words, contained within Yhwh’s will; were they to assume what many others would have assumed—that the destruction of Yhwh’s Temple occurred because Yhwh was unable to defend his own home—they would have been ushered out of their god’s will (and out of his sacred time) and into either an atheistic history or the history of another god. And that is precisely what the nations’ question taunts Israel with: “Where is their God?” means “Under whose authority (glory) do you now stand? None”. The nations’ have perceived their actions as not being an expression of Yhwh but of their own gods. Yhwh is not hidden from view; he is defeated. This is an incredibly important point to make: Israel identifies herself with the first question and distances herself from the second. However, the second question was the one that was more ‘apparent’. In Israel, then, there lived and abided a perception of history that was not only incredibly at odds with a reigning conception of history but also one that they actually found to be the more “true” (or, persuasive). The first question is theirs; the second question can only emerge from those who “do not know” or “call upon” the Divine Name. Hence, to “know Yhwh” and to “call upon him” actually ushers one into an arena of being that is profoundly different, so different in fact that it transforms the heart of his servants to such a degree that their deepest questions are of such a different order as to make them seem incomprehensible to others. And this is what we can see by the form of this question—the question of the nations is, literally, contained within Israel’s question to God. By offering it to God, they reveal the great distance between their hearts and the nations. This is, in effect, what it means to “know and call upon Yhwh”—it enables one to contain the world’s questions within a more encompassing one (a question, nonetheless) thereby denuding their mocking power within a greater absurdity.

Ps. 79.9 (consuming rift)

Help us / O God / of our salvation
for the glory / of your name
deliver us / and pardon our sins
for your name’s sake. 

The dynamic of pardoning sins is not simplistic in these two verses (vs. 8-9). We reflected yesterday on how God’s pardoning completely reverses the drama of verses 1-5. It is, in this way, not simply an act that takes place only in regard to waywardness. Rather, it is, in its fullest sense, a response. It therefore adopts the ‘drama of the call of sin’ and responds to it by overcoming (healing) it. Here, we come to see that the depth of Israel waywardness extends much further than their own well-being. This, of course, could have been anticipated by verses 1-3, where the immediate and primary effect of the nations is the destruction of the Temple (where God’s name dwells). However, it is in this verse where we see how deep the rift tears---and it tears all the way into God’s glory. This is the covenantal effect of waywardness. Meaning, within the covenant waywardness is not simply contained within the party who committed it. When God entered into covenant he, in a sense, ‘risked his glory’; he wed it to Israel. In so doing, her glory (her wellbeing) became a manifestation of his. And his glory, in some mysterious fashion, became a manifestation of hers. In this, we could even say, that Israel is God’s reputation in the world. She is, in other words, his publicity, his ‘face’ to the nations. It is at this point that we come to sense the terrible effect of her waywardness—it opens up a rift that begins to consume even this ‘face of God’ to the world. This is clear from verses 1-3, with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. This is not to say it ‘weakens God’; the psalmist is utterly convinced of God’s power to judge the kingdoms of the world and to forgive her sins. Rather, what it does is diminish the glory of God’s name. It eclipses it. Because God has wed himself to Israel his anger must, in some sense, make him at odds with himself (this is the ‘doubling’ of anger). Seen from this perspective I would propose that these lines actually refer to something concrete—the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem. It does refer to the salvation (redemption) of Israel from her oppressors, but this redemption now is understood to involve the healing of the rift that consumed the Temple and Jerusalem; it will involve the redemption of the glory of God’s name. Within the forgiving of their sins, the Temple will be rebuilt (…much as the gospel of John says…). Once this is accomplished the ‘doubling’ of Israel’s sin will be healed, the nations subdued and the ‘doubling’ of God’s anger removed—and flowing from this will be a unified Temple (“descending from heaven…” to a pacified Land).