Ps. 89.12 (creation and conversion)

You have created / the North and the South
Tabor and Herman / sing for joy / in your name. 

The content of Yhwh’s creative governance is deepened in these verses. The previous verses alluded to Yhwh owning “heaven and earth” and establishing “the earth and its fullness”. These are acts of ‘kingly or sovereign governance.’ Now, however, the psalm moves into the ‘act of creation’, except here what is created is the expanse of creation (‘north and south’). It is a vision of total creation; I don’t’ think it is meant to exclude ‘east and west’. It is, in other words, a re-casting of the image of ‘the earth and its fullness’ but through the lens of space or geography. From this vantage the psalm then turns to Tabor and Hermon. It appears commentators have had a hard time figuring out exactly what this line refers to. My reflection leads me to think that from the totalizing creation of ‘space’ the psalmist now shifts to the totalizing force of liturgy. In other words, this verse works somewhat like a chiasmus, as follows: A) You have created B) North and the South; B1) Tabor and Hermon, A1) sing for joy in your name. If this is correct Tabor and Hermon are a type of “North and South” with creation being a type of ‘liturgy in the name’. 

An additional support for this is the fact that both Tabor and Hermon likely operated as liturgical centers in Israel, and before. As such, they represent the totality of liturgical praise to Yhwh (not the ‘expanse’ of Yhwh’s governance, but the liturgical totality of Yhwh’s glory). They are the ‘earthly’ counterpoint to the ‘heavenly ones’. Just as Yhwh’s faithfulness has been ‘fixed’ (and built) in the heavens, so too now are Tabor and Herman “founded” by Yhwh and, consequently, turn to him in praise. This also explains the fact that Zion is not mentioned, nor Jerusalem. We must recall, the holy ones are the retinue around Yhwh and his throne. On earth, David and Zion/Jerusalem would represent that center. Tabor and Herman would then be the ‘congregating centers’ around the ‘one center’ of David and Jerusalem. The psalm then works a subtle de-emphasis of these liturgical centers, subordinating them to David/Jerusalem just as the ‘holy ones’ are subordinated to Yhwh and his throne. (Incidentally, it is possible that Tabor was once a major Canaanite liturgical center. If so, by subordinating Tabor to Jerusalem, the psalm is ‘subordinating’ it to Yhwh’s reign but doing so by envisioning it in praise to Yhwh, much like, perhaps, many of the ‘holy ones’ would now do.).

Ps. 89.11 (owning creation)

The heavens are yours / so is the earth;
the world and its fullness / you have founded them! 

I find in this verse an interesting echo of the opening of Genesis where we read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now, the earth was formless and empty.” This verse largely tracks Genesis in reverse: “heavens are yours and the earth”, matching Genesis 1.1 while “the world and its fullness” reversing “the earth was formless and empty”. In both, this ‘ownership’ or ‘creation’ is established by and through Yhwh’s bringing order out of chaos. In Genesis, it is by the spirit and the ‘speaking’; here, it is by Yhwh’s destruction of Rahab and mastery over the sea. What I find interesting is that the Genesis account would not, in my opinion, ‘work’ as well in Psalm 89. It is ‘too refined’ to play the dramatic role necessary. What I mean is that the story told in psalm 89 about Rahab and the ‘establishment’ of creation serves the purposes of the lament surrounding the fall of the Davidic house better than the Genesis account.  Specifically, the account of Rahab and her destruction involves the ‘kingly act of pacification’, the role assigned to a king to bring peace to his realm and to establish justice and order. Once that is established, then the psalm moves into this portion regarding Yhwh’s ownership over heaven and earth and the ‘form and fullness’ of creation. It moves along the same pattern as that of a king—who first pacifies his enemies and, within the (just) peace that he has established, there emerges the bounty and prodigality of life. Which is what David was ‘chosen as son’ to perform, to re-enact this role of Yhwh.Yet, when that covenantal bond is broken, David's realm returns to that state of chaos that it emerged from.

Ps. 89.9-10 (the beginning of holy saturday)

You are ruler / of the surging sea;
when its waves rise up / you can still them
You crushed Rabah / she was like a corpse
you scattered your enemies / with your powerful arm. 

The first portion of the psalm was a type of praise of Yhwh but cast in the third person; it didn’t address Yhwh directly. Now, however, the psalmist is shifting his voice directly to him. Almost every line in the next few verses will begin with ‘you’ or ‘yours’. The first verse speaks to Yhwh’s present rule while the second speaks the past establishment of that rule. These are not, I don’t think, to be taken in a strictly chronological fashion but more in a theological fashion. I find these verses to be largely parallel, describing the same thing but in different modes. What I mean is this: Rahab is often described as the ‘sea’ and in other mythologies, particularly Baal mythologies, she is the chaos sea that is conquered during the ascendancy and enthronement of the god. Here, Yhwh overtakes that story and he becomes the one who is understood as having ‘crushed’ her, just as he is now understood as being the ‘ruler of the surging sea’. What I think we see is that Yhwh’s mastery of the present forces of chaos is understood as being grounded not in a type of battle-that-might-be-lost but in a theologically (not chronologically) prior victory over chaos. In other words, the psalmist clearly recognizes that chaos has not been utterly destroyed; it is still at work and the ‘waves still rise up’. However, he also knows that it is subject to Yhwh’s reign; he ‘can still them’. It will not, and cannot, challenge his reign; its ‘queen’ has been destroyed.  It is tempting to say that the psalmist, in his perception of chaos, sees the ‘battle of Rahab’; he simultaneously sees the ongoing effect of chaos and perceives Yhwh’s victory, mastery and dominion over it. 

So why did the psalmist bring this up? What does this have to do with this psalm? There are several reasons I think, and they relate to Yhwh, David and the future. As to Yhwh: I think these verses operates in a somewhat analogous way that ‘heaven’ operates in the previous verses. Meaning, they describe a mode of Yhwh’s reign that is ‘utter light’. In the previous verses this took the form of liturgy—all the heavenly ones were turned toward Yhwh in liturgical praise of his faithfulness and his authorial glory. Here, it takes the form of ‘the establishment of his throne’. In both what we see is the unquestionable authority of Yhwh in both praise and in the enactment of his reign. I also think this is one reason why the ‘holy ones’ were introduced. They represent the forces in the ‘heavenly sphere’ that are in utter conformity with Yhwh’s reign; Rahab represents that force in the heavenly sphere that was utterly subjected to Yhwh’s reign. As to David: we will see later that this ‘governing power of Yhwh’ over the forces of chaos will be both wielded on behalf of David and given over to him. In verse 21, Yhwh’s ‘arm’ makes David strong and then, immediately, it begins to describe the fact that no enemy will get the better of him and I will beat to pieces his foes before him (vs. 21-23). In David the ‘battle of Rahab’ is continued. That divine power to subdue chaos is granted to David, Yhwh’s ‘son’ on earth. As to the future: this is where the lament emerges. David’s throne has been ‘cast to the ground’, the covenant seemingly abandoned by Yhwh. As such, that force that operated to withstand the ‘chaos sea’ has fallen and the waves are pouring in. Earthy is ceasing to mirror heaven—as the covenant with David was intended to accomplish—and, most troubling, that faithfulness that surrounds and establishes Yhwh’s throne is being called into question. 

It is tempting to put the matter this way: once the covenant is established with David, what happens on earth is absolutely tied to how one perceives and interacts with Yhwh. In other words, when Yhwh’s faithfulness was ‘only in heaven’, then what happened on earth would not call into question Yhwh’s person (his faithfulness). However, once Yhwh comes down from heaven and covenants himself (swears himself) to David, then he unalterably weds himself to the events on earth; what happens to David really does reflect Yhwh and his faithfulness. No longer can there be a hiatus between the earth and heaven. If Yhwh’s throne in heaven is established by his faithfulness, and if that throne-power is covenanted to David’s throne, then the destruction of David’s throne, quite literally, ‘stretches to heaven’. 

And this is where we come to what seems to me a deep resonance with Christ: in the fall of the Davidic house, it would appear that Israel is made to go through a ‘holy Saturday’, to, in some way, participate within that time when Christ was dead and before his resurrection, when the covenant was seemingly destroyed (only to be ‘raised up’ anew). And Chris, in turn, is made to go through the ‘time of Israel’; he is made to walk through the ‘fall of the house of David’ and enter into that ‘death of the covenant’ (Christ, in perhaps the most profound sense, did not participate in the Davidic covenant but was that covenant). As we know, the only way a covenant can be void is by the death of one of the parties…

Ps. 89.6-8 (fear and faithfulness)

For who in clouds above / is equal to Yhwh?
who is like Yhwh / among divine beings?
God / dreaded in the council / of the holy ones
great and awesome / above all around him.
O Yhwh / God Sabaoth
who is like you / O Mighty Yah?
with your faithfulness / around you? 

As we have seen, with the exception of the covenant-with-David, the psalm has been gazing into heaven. That continues here. The questions presented are not about Yhwh’s incomparability to those on earth, but to those in the ‘heavenly council’. By stationing this question ‘in heaven’ the psalmist is raising his listeners attention to the source of all power and explaining that, even there, Yhwh’s power is full of ‘dread’ and ‘fear’. Even among the ‘holy ones’ Yhwh is without compare. The imagery here is not one of an ‘absolute distance’ but of an ‘overpowering light’. Yhwh’s ‘incomparability’ is due to his forceful sovereignty over all around him, like a king of such majesty that his glory radiates to all around. Perhaps more importantly, there is contained within this display of authority the absolute conviction that his authority is, in a way, of an entirely different order than that of the ‘holy ones’. He is ‘without compare’. The revelation of his presence, reveals his utterly uniqueness of his power. There is here, though, in the concluding line an interesting ‘reversal’ of movement. Up to the final question Yhwh’s presence has been one that evokes a reverence of “dread”, “awe” and “greatness”. In the concluding question though, Yhwh is envisioned as ‘surrounded by his faithfulness’. In other words, he is surrounded by that quality of his that makes him so utterly and powerfully for those whom he chooses. So, on the one hand his presence evokes this sense of utter superiority and glory while on the other hand it also reveals a just-as tremendous being-for those whom he loves. This is the ‘presence of a king’—the simultaneous sense of authority and concern, power and grace. And it deserves to be pointed out again that ‘faithfulness’ is mentioned seven times in the this psalm—indicating that Yhwh’s faithfulness is a type of ‘perfect expression’ of his power, that which marks him out as being ‘beyond compare’, that which identifies him as the Highest King in the heavens. We will see later that this incomparable quality of Yhwh, as well as his being ‘surrounded by faithfulness’, is something that will be reflected in David, who be made the ‘most high’ of the kings of the earth (vs. 27).  

It is with these reflections in mind that we can tentatively point toward the real center of the psalm:
the ruin of the Davidic line. First, there is no question that Yhwh is the supremely powerful one in the heavens. He has ‘no compare’ and, as such, cannot be thwarted in his mastery over his realm. Second, this utter mastery is embodied in his utter faithfulness. We might say that he is not ‘first’ powerful and ‘then’ faithful, but that his power (mastery) and his faithfulness coincide. As such, his ‘faithfulness’ is as certain, unique and established as his throne. How then, with these two perceptions, does the Davidic covenant fail? It is not because Yhwh’s has been thwarted in some manner, nor, it seems, could it be that he is not faithful. Then, what? Whey this ‘holy Saturday’ during the time of the covenant?