Ps. 89.30-34 (Pt. 2; when the king(s) act)

Our previous reflection focused largely on the form of these verses. Here, I want to look more closely at the words. The first thing to note is how severe is the failing of David’s descendants. They do not merely ‘stumble’; they do not merely ‘fail’. They “forsake my teaching” and “profane my requirements”. In other words, they rebel and prove faithless. I think, though, that the starkness of their description serves a deeper point. Up to this point in the psalm, Yhwh’s action on behalf of David (and his descendants) has been overwhelming. Heaven has opened up to earth, through David and the covenant. As we have seen, also, there has been an intense focus on the fact that it is Yhwh who performs these acts through David. The question then emerges, what happens if David (or his descendants) turns away? It is this reality that these lines address, and this is why, for the first time, the kings are made to be the sole actors. In other words, these lines serve as a contrast to what came before not only in the act of rebellion but in the fact that the actions are solely actions of the kings; this is not, as it has been up to this point, Yhwh ‘acting through (or for) the king’. There is another interesting wording that supports this. We note that David is Yhwh’s ‘firstborn’, implying that David’s sons will also be ‘sons of Yhwh’. Here, by contrast, they are not Yhwh’s but “his descendants”. What Yhwh does possess in these lines are “my teaching”, “my commandments”, “my requirements”.  The point is subtle but clear—sonship to Yhwh involves two components: election by Yhwh and faithfulness. And so, again, the question, if they are unfaithful do they cease to be sons? Do they lose their election and, more deeply, is heaven sealed off from the people because of their unfaithfulness? Are all of the actions performed by Yhwh up to this point revoked (or, stilled and silenced)? The previous reflection addressed this. The answer is clearly “No”. Their rebellion is ‘enveloped’ within Yhwh’s election, such that they will be punished, but the covenant won’t be revoked. Again, that is why these lines are painted in such stark hues. And, it is also why there are only two verses in the entire psalm (of 52 verses) that describe the kings’ failure and rebellion. In other words, these verses are here to pose the question as starkly as possible, answer it, and then to move on. Yhwh ‘spoke these words’ but the psalmist has arranged them in the order they are in order to highlight the fact that the people’s present plight is not the result of the kings’ rebellion; it can’t be. It must, then, lie with Yhwh and his turning away from the covenant. 

The Rod of Iron. One final reflection: when Yhwh punishes the kings rebellion he does so by way of the “rod of iron”. I hesitantly would refer back to Psalm 2 where, upon the king being declared Yhwh’s son he is given a ‘rod of iron’ by Yhwh to rule the nations. In this verse, that same ‘rod’ that had been the weapon of authority is turned upon the kings themselves. I think this actually falls in line with the previous two verses—just as the rebellion originates from “my commandments” so too is the “rod of iron” really Yhwh’s rod of iron that he can take back to himself when the kings rebel. In a sense, heaven is ‘contracting’ and now becoming the punishing force against the kings. Yhwh is taking back to himself that which he had granted, but not in order to retain it but to use it for the purpose of rectifying the kings. It is rehabilitative. And this, too, falls in line with the ‘rod’s’ purpose in Psalm 2—it was not simply to smash the nations but to coerce them into recognizing Yhwh and his anointed as the rightful kings of heaven and earth. Here, that rod serves the same purpose—to show the Davidic kings that Yhwh is the rightful king and to, thereby, bring them back into alignment with his commands so they can be the rightful earthly kings.

Ps. 89.30-34 (the enveloping; Pt. 1)

If his descendants / forsake my teaching
and do not follow / my commandments
if they profane / my requirements
and do not keep / my requirements

I will punish their rebellion / with a rod of iron
and their waywardness / with plagues

But / I will not break off / my loyal-love from him;
I will not betray / my fidelity to him
I will not profane / my covenant
or alter / what I have promised. 

These lines form an important crux of the psalm and we need to mention several different aspects of it. The first thing to point out is a formal one. These liens are organized as such: 4 lines (regarding the kings’ disobedience)—2 lines (detailing Yhwh’s response/punishment)—4 lines (regarding Yhwh’s faithfulness). There is a clear point being made in this arrangement—the 4 lines of the kings’ disobedience, is countered by the 4 lines of Yhwh’s faithfulness. The word usage even largely mirrors each other. For example, “if they profane my requirements” and “I will not profane my covenant”. We could put it thus: the first 4 lines are the kings ‘call of rebellion’ while the concluding 4 lines are Yhwh’s ‘answer of faithfulness’. In the middle, stands the hinge—that which addresses the disobedience and also turns toward Yhwh’s faithfulness. They will be punished but not destroyed. Perhaps more importantly still is the fact that these five verses are preceded and followed by descriptions of the covenant. The covenant, and Yhwh’s sworn oath by himself, ‘envelop’ the rebellion of the kings. In other words, the form of these verses mirror their content—the kings’ rebellion will be met by Yhwh’s faithfulness and is ‘always-already’ enveloped within the covenant with David. This dynamic is similar to the Deuteronomic one of – election, joy, fall, punishment, crying-out, election, joy…. The point in both is that the punishment/chastisement is intended to re-fold them back into the joy of the covenant. They joy-of-the-covenant is an end in itself; the wrath is not. Were it an ‘end in itself’ it would be annulling of the covenant. That is the same dynamic here—the punishment of the Davidic lineage will be redemptive, penultimate. On the one hand this ‘envelope’ of the covenant provides an astonishing (apparently absolute) security—it is not possible for the Davidic lineage to lose their election because it is premised on Yhwh’s always-already prior commitment to them, by himself. On the other hand, we need to signal how this leads to the lament—it is precisely this ‘envelope’ structure of these lines that leads to the devastating lament that concludes the psalm. What I mean is this—that David and his descendants cannot ‘fall out’ of the covenant, precisely because they are enveloped within it. But, what this means is that any ‘turning away’ from the covenant is by Yhwh himself. If the covenant ‘fails’ it fails because of the envelope, not because of the Davidic waywardness. As such, there would appear to be no way of rectifying the situation, as David and his children did not cause it.  They are left (it seems), not with sacrifice, not with penance, but only with the lament itself.

Ps. 89.29 (David forever)

I have ordained / that his offspring / last forever
his throne / as long as the heavens last. 

David was the ‘firstborn’. Here, we have ‘his offspring’. Just like David, these children (sons) are incorporated into the covenant with David, as they now enter into the ‘forever-covenant’ of Yhwh. They will enter into the ‘steadfast’, ‘loyal-love’ that Yhwh showed to David and, in their turn, will become the object of Yhwh’s attention. I think we need to be attuned to the fact that this ‘perpetuation’ of the Davidic line is a type of leavening resurrection-power—it grants a type of Davidic immortality-through-sons to Israel. What I mean is this. In verse 28 Yhwh says, “Forever I will keep my loyal-love for him.” Here, that ‘forever loyal love for David’ is the perpetuation of his offspring. In other words, each child of David is the real, enacted love of Yhwh for David. Each son-king is a type of ‘new-David’, a perpetuation of Yhwh’s forever covenant with him. Likewise, the second line says “his throne, as long as the heavens last”, not “their throne…”. The point, I believe, is that David is made perpetual through his children; he is made into the forever-of-Yhwh through them, and his throne, likewise, enters into this same divine, perpetual sphere. The final image captures this from a slightly different angle: the throne of David will last “as long as the heavens”. The throne will not ‘become heaven’, but this is ‘thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven’. Through David, the gaze of Yhwh, that which the first portion of the psalm portrays as being the ‘council of heaven’, is made present on (or, to, or, in) earth. In other words, earth will now exist under the dominion of heaven, like a type of bride to her bridegroom. Not identified with, but wed to, the heavenly (forever, perpetual) realm of Yhwh’s council. 

In this we see a deeply significant aspect of (the Davidic) covenant: it is that which accomplishes the (re)uniting of two parties (heaven and earth), such that one party enters into the glorious power of the stronger one.


And one final note that ties into the above: Abraham, David and Peter all become ‘foundational’ fathers in Yhwh’s plan. And they become such, not because of who-they-are-in-themselves, but precisely because their ‘fruitfulness’ is a divine fruitfulness. In the words of today’s verse, it is one that is ‘ordained’ by Yhwh. These three men’s source of (perpetual, ‘forever’) unity, and fatherhood, is therefore one that is a divinely established (covenantal) unity. But again, we can’t ‘thing-ify’, this—as these verses (and entire psalm) make clear, the perpetual nature of their unity and fatherhood is the ‘steadfast love’ of Yhwh. They are made ‘perpetual’ because Yhwh is ‘perpetual’ toward them, established by his solemn covenantal oath (swearing by himself!) that he will be.   

Ps. 89.28 (the forever)

Forever / I will keep my loyal-love for him
my covenant obligation to him / is steadfast. 

These two lines work like an acrostic: A: Forever; B: I will keep my loyal love for him; B1: My covenant obligation to him; A1: is steadfast. A first thing to note is that the term ‘forever’ has been employed already a couple of times. Indeed, it inaugurates the psalm: “I want to sing forever of Yhwh’s deeds of loyal-love” (vs. 1); Yhwh’s loyal-love is “built to last forever” (vs. 2); Yhwh will “establish your [David’s] offspring forever” (vs. 4). As we saw when reflecting on verses 2 and 4, the ‘forever’ of Yhwh is a heavenly reality made present to earth through David. “Forever” is, in a way, the ‘presence of God’; it is the heavenly realm. It is what the Temple makes accessible and it is, now, what we see David makes accessible as well. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that this ‘forever’ is one aspect of the ‘face of God’ that every biblical man yearns to see. Which leads to the second observation—the ‘forever’ of Yhwh’s loyal-love is made parallel to the ‘steadfastness’ of his covenant obligation. In other words, Yhwh’s ‘forever’ is not a type of static state, or thing, on Yhwh’s part but a constant being-for-his-anointed. In this psalm, he does not grant David power over his enemies or ‘over the waters’. Rather, Yhwh is the one who accomplishes these things on behalf of his ‘firstborn’. His loving attention for his firstborn will not waiver and, as we have seen, this ‘attention’ is the bridge over which Yhwh’s heavenly power will pass to earth, through David. Yhwh, through David, will reign on earth as he does in heaven. In line with what we said in our first observation—this is the personal, being-for, of Yhwh; it is his ‘face’. Through David, Yhwh’s ‘face’ will be toward the world.