Ps. 89.38-40 (a family lament)

But now / you have rejected / spurned,
and become enraged/ with your anointed.
you have repudiated / the covenant with your servant
you have defiled / his crown in the dirt; 
 you  have broken through / all his walls
reduced his fortifications / to ruins. 

These lines fall like a hammer. There has been almost nothing to prepare us for it in the preceding two sections. There are several important overview-observations to make here. The first is that Yhwh has stopped speaking and will never speak again in the psalm. We have alluded to this before—but Yhwh’s words in the psalm form the center (both literally and literarily). The covenant with David is what enacts on earth the heavenly power of the first section of the psalm. Further, it was establishes that power forever as a sworn oath of Yhwh, by his own holiness. It is not a momentary granting, but the irrevocable turning toward David and his sons. Yhwh has ‘sworn-himself-outside-himself’ and to David. This reality forms the sum and substance of Yhwh’s words in the center of the psalm. There is no shadow to them, nor any hint of turning. 

It is important to recognize that Yhwh’s words are entirely regarding David and his sons. The first portion of the psalm, that recounts the heavenly aspect of Yhwh’s authority, are words of the psalmist describing Yhwh. When Yhwh speaks, his words relate solely and exclusively to the establishment of his king on earth. In other words, Yhwh’s words ‘create history in David’. In a very real sense, ‘time’ starts, in this psalm, with David—time being the wedding/covenanting of Yhwh to the earth (through David). I don’t want to get too sidetracked on this at this point—the point for our verses today is that the covenant with David, the ‘words of Yhwh’, are not ‘left behind’, but Genesis-like, reveal the ‘creation’ of Yhwh-with-Israel. The fact that Yhwh ‘does not speak anymore’ does not mean that he has stopped speaking. Rather, Yhwh’s words to David function much like the Torah itself---they provide the ongoing basis and source and presence of Yhwh to his people. In other words, the lament portion of the psalm speaks from within Yhwh’s words/covenant-to-David.   

Perhaps creation is a good analogy to this: both the Davidic covenant and creation are types of Yhwh’s ‘swearing-himself-outside-himself’. They both, in other words, function as an act by Yhwh to another and they both are rooted in Yhwh. They are Yhwh ex-pressing himself (onto Temple / king; creation / Adam). Likewise, with creation there is an irrevocable promise to it (after the Flood), and, here, an irrevocable promise to David. In both, perhaps, there is a ‘witness in the clouds’ to that promise (creation: the rainbow; David: the “witness in the clouds” of vs. 37). And, in both, laments that come forth after that irrevocable promise speak from within that promise. This is key—in covenant Yhwh has not just ‘sworn-himself-outside-himself’ he has ‘sworn-himself-to-his-partner’. Yhwh has thereby ‘handed over’ to that partner something of the power (or, justice) of the covenant itself. When his covenant partners lament, they assume its permanent nature, but address what seems to be an act of unfaithfulness on Yhwh’s part to his sworn oath. What I mean is this: it is precisely the permanent nature of the covenant that forms the basis and authority for the lament. No matter how wide the chasm is between the covenant promise and its current enactment, the lament assumes the chasm can be closed by petition of the covenant partner. There is something of an echo of this in Abraham (when he petitions for Sodom/Gomorrah), Moses (when he petitions on behalf of Israel) and Jeremiah (when he is commanded not to pray for Israel). 

I think part of the reason this is important is because it shapes how we understand the lament. Is it simply a jarring discontinuity, or does it actually flow from the preceding sections? I would argue that when we understand the lament as coming from within the covenant, rather than external to it, we should read it largely as continuous with the previous sections. Of course, it is a lament, but again, the ‘hammer’ of the lament is one that gains its force only from within the context of the covenant itself. It is the difference between, for example, a family lament and a ‘contract’ lament. A ‘family lament’ is undergirded by the deep bonds of kinship. A ‘contract’ lament is undergirded by nothing but the contract itself. A ‘family lament’ is one of sorrow and hope; a contract lament is simply anger. It is within that context that I think we need to make another formal observation. In this section Yhwh is accused of precisely seven things: rejection, spurning, rage, repudiation, defilement, breaking-of-walls, and ‘reduction-of-fortifications’. It is a type of ‘perfect lament’ to Yhwh and, I think, has been arranged in this way not only to highlight the depth of sorrow and injustice of the psalmist (covenant partner), but to cajole Yhwh to re-ignite his face toward the Davidic lineage. It is, in a sense, the psalmist’s way of saying that the covenant has ‘hit the bottom’. 

Beneficiaries of the covenant. Another important thing to note is that the lament is not from the king himself, but from his people. They are petitioning Yhwh on the king’s behalf. The king was not made king for himself, but he was made king for Israel. The covenant was made with David, but for Israel (and the world). When the king falls, those for whose benefit the covenant was established experience the pain of the disfigured covenant and can implore Yhwh to rectify it; they are covenant partners as much as David. Notice how the actions Yhwh is accused of begin with David (rejection, spurn, rage, repudiation and defilement) but end in the effect on the community (breaking his walls, reducing his fortifications). David is the city and its inhabitants. It was the covenant that maintained David in his own strength and, thereby, the city itself. When David falls, the walls fall and everyone is left vulnerable. They are ‘sheep without a shepherd’.