Psalm 78

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 78 and its interpreters.  I have three items.

1.  Psalm 78:18-22 states (in the King James Version): “And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust. Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?  Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?  Therefore the LORD heard [this], and was wroth: so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel; Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation”.

Augustine says that the Israelites were tempting God rather than believing in him, and Marvin Tate characterizes their question about God providing a table in the wilderness as “willful and mocking”, asserting that “they did not ask God sincerely for food, nor wait to see whether or not he would provide it.”  Regarding v 21′s statement that the Israelites did not believe in God, the Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary states that the issue is not belief, for the Israelites in the wilderness knew that God exists, since they saw his activity on their behalf.  Rather, they were failing to apply their knowledge by trusting God.

Often in Christian circles, I have heard that it is acceptable for us to be honest in our prayers to God—-to share with God what we are truly feeling: the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Christians are told that they can even express to God their anger towards him, for God is big enough to take it.  After all, was not the Psalmist honest with God when he expressed his anger with God and his impatience at God’s apparent reluctance to act?

But were not the Israelites being honest with God when they asked if God were able to furnish a table in the wilderness, when they were frustrated and impatient, when God appeared to be slow to act on their behalf?  And, while they knew that God existed and saw his wonders, should they be faulted for being deluded in their hunger and for wondering if God could truly turn a barren land like the wilderness into a table?  Sure, they technically should have known that God was able to do so, but it’s quite a feat!  Moreover, they knew that God existed, but how could they be sure that God would provide for them in the future?  In a sense, they were called upon to have faith in the unseen, for the future is unseen.

And what does Psalm 78:18-22 have to do with us?  Granted, the Israelites could arguably be faulted for not trusting God after God had displayed his wonders on their behalf, but what about those of us who live in a time when it’s uncertain whether or not God even exists, when some can attribute their “blessings” to luck rather than to God’s provision?  Can we really be faulted for lacking faith?

I think that Augustine and Tate would say that there was a difference between the Psalmist and those who wrestle with their faith, on the one hand, and the Israelites in the wilderness, on the other hand.  The Israelites in the wilderness were incessant in their negative carping against God.  They lacked gratitude.  They lacked humility.  That’s different from desiring God’s presence and goodness and being upset when those things are delayed.  While I’m having a hard time coming up with the words to express why the complaining Psalmist was okay whereas the Israelites in the wilderness were wrong, I have a sense that there is a difference between being a desperate petitioner and being a brat.

2.  Psalm 78:38-39 states: “But he, [being] full of compassion, forgave [their] iniquity, and destroyed [them] not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.  For he remembered that they [were but] flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.”  The note for this verse in The Jewish Study Bible says, “Clearly this author, as is typical of the biblical period, does not believe in resurrection.”  

How do interpreters who believe in the resurrection handle this verse?  Theodore of Mopsuestia and Augustine interpret it to mean that human beings by their own power are incapable of rising from the dead, but that God can raise them up by his power.  The problem with this interpretation is that the verse does not appear to discuss human capability, but rather says that people pass away and do not return.  The Midrash on the Psalms denies that the verse negates the resurrection, for its point (according to the Midrash) is that the evil inclination does not return to people when they are resurrected.

I wonder if there are other ways to get around the apparent denial of the resurrection in Psalm 78:39.  Could the rabbinic tradition that the generation in the wilderness has no place in the World to Come be relevant (see here and here), since Psalm 78:38-39 is about the wilderness generation?  I guess that depends on whether or not the Israelite generation would be resurrected before being denied a place in the World to Come!  Could one argue that Psalm 78:39 is saying that people pass away and do not return as they were before, but in a glorious state?  I’ve not encountered these last two interpretations, but I’m curious as to whether or not interpreters went these routes.  (See here for how Pope Gregory handled passages in Job that appear to deny the resurrection.)

I think that the point of Psalm 78:38-39 is that God had mercy on the wilderness generation because he recognized that their life was short.  Perhaps one can derive a lesson from this: that we should cut ourselves and others some slack because life is short!  Personally, I draw comfort from the idea of an afterlife, but I believe that it’s important to see this present life as precious.

3.  Psalm 78:9 states: “The children of Ephraim, [being] armed, [and] carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle.”  There are numerous ideas about what this passage is referring to.  When did Ephraim turn back in the day of battle?  The view of Rashi and Radak is that the Ephraimites left Egypt prematurely—-before God performed his miracles—-and the outcome was that they were whipped by the people of Gath (see I Chronicles 7:21).  Perhaps Rashi and Radak thought this because v 9 precedes a discussion about the Exodus.  Others contend that Psalm 78:9 is about Ephraim murmuring at the Red Sea or on the outskirts of Canaan, when the Israelites were debating about whether or not to conquer the Promised Land (in Numbers 14).

Another view is that Psalm 78:9 refers to events in the time of the Judges.  Ephraim was a prominent tribe, and some have suggested that a reason that Israel lost battles so often in the Book of Judges is that Ephraim was holding Israel back, either through a lack of will to fight, or by disobeying God’s commandments and thus bringing a curse on Israel.  Some refer to specific incidents in Judges, such as the Ephraimites not helping Jephthah to fight the Ammonites in Judges 12, or the Ephraimites bringing idolatry to Israel in Judges 17-18.

Others apply Psalm 78:9 to events in I Samuel.  I Samuel 4:10 states that men fled during a battle with the Philistines, and another view says that the Ephraimites could have chickened out during the Battle of Gilboa in I Samuel 31, the battle that cost Saul his life.  In favor of the I Samuel 4 interpretation is that Psalm 78 culminates in the loss of the Ark of the Covenant, which occurred in I Samuel 4.

Others have related Psalm 78:9 to the North seceding from the South during the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam.  I’m not entirely certain what this has to do with Ephraim turning back in the day of battle.  In I Kings 12 and II Chronicles 11, Rehoboam and Jeroboam almost get into a battle, and the result is that Jeroboam’s Northern Kingdom survives and moves forward.  Could that be what Psalm 78:9 means when it says that Ephraim turned back in the day of battle: that the battle did not occur, and so Jeroboam could uphold Northern Israel’s secession (turning back) from Judah?

Another view is that Psalm 78:9 is about the destruction of Northern Israel in 722 B.C.E.

There are probably positives and negatives to each interpretation.  Marvin Tate even speculates that Psalm 78 is aware of a tradition that is lost to us!  In any case, the goal of Psalm 78 in its references to Ephraim is most likely to elevate the South above the North. 

Psalm 77

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 77.  I have three items.

1.  A theme that I heard in sermons and read in commentaries was that Psalm 77 is about the Psalmist’s movement from self-absorption and self-pity to trust in God.  I especially enjoyed a story that Pastor Chuck Smith told about an alcoholic he counseled (see here).  The alcoholic had a stormy fight with his family while he was drunk, and Pastor Chuck then prayed with him.  At first, the alcoholic was complaining to God about how his family mistreated him and did not love him, but, gradually, the alcoholic’s prayer changed its focus, as the alcoholic confessed to God that he had not served God as he ought.  According to Pastor Chuck, the alcoholic needed to get his self-pity out of his system before his eyes could be opened, and this occurred within the context of prayer, as was also the case with the Psalmist in Psalm 77.

2.  Psalm 77:10 is a difficult and much discussed verse.  In the KJV, it states: “And I said, This [is] my infirmity: [but I will remember] the years of the right hand of the most High.”  Keil-Delitzsch presented four interpretations of this verse (which I encountered elsewhere in my reading), and, in this item, I will give the four interpretations and also justifications for them.  Then, I will look at how the Septuagint renders the verse, and what two Christian interpreters did with the Septuagint’s translation of it.

a.  The word that the KJV translates as “the years of” is shenot, which is from the root sh-n-h and can mean “to change”.  (The KJV, however, assumes that it’s the construct plural of shanah, which means “year”.)  The second half of the verse, therefore, can be translated as “the change of the right hand of the Most High”.  According to Keil-Deltizsch, Martin Luther said that the point here is that the right hand of the Most High can change everything for the better.  As far as I could see, Keil-Deltizsch did not say how Luther understood the first part of the verse.  Here, though, is Luther’s translation of it into the German: “Aber doch sprach ich: Ich muß das leiden; die rechte Hand des Höchsten kann alles ändern.”  Based on what I found on Google Translate, that means: “But I said; I must suffer; the right hand of the Most High can change everything”.  I’m unclear as to how the second part of the verse follows from the first part, in this reading.

b.  The second interpretation is that Psalm 77:10 is saying that the Psalmist’s affliction is that the right hand of the Most High has changed, which presumably means that the Psalmist is upset that God is no longer delivering him.  This interpretation assumes that the Hebrew word that the KJV translates as “my infirmity”, chaloti, is from the root ch-l-h, which often relates to sickness, but at times pertains to grief (I Samuel 22:8; Jeremiah 5:3).

c.  The third interpretation is that Psalm 77:10 is saying that the Psalmist’s supplication is for the years of the right hand of the Most High, which means that the Psalmist is asking God to deliver him as he did in times past.  This interpretation holds that chaloti (only without the vowels that the Masoretic Text added) means “my supplication”, for ch-l-h in the piel is used for supplicating (Exodus 32:11; I Samuel 13:12; II Kings 13:4; II Chronicles 33:12; Jeremiah 26:19).  One can mix and match and say that Psalm 77:10 is saying that the Psalmist’s supplication is for the change of the right hand of the Most High, which would mean that the Psalmist is asking God to change his inactivity and to save him with his right hand.

d.  The fourth interpretation is that the Psalmist’s affliction is the years of the right hand of the Most High, which means that the Psalmist feels afflicted by God’s right hand (perhaps because the Psalmist feels that God is punishing him for some sin).

e.  Brenton’s English translation of the Septuagint has: “And I said, Now I have begun; this is the change of the right hand of the Most High.”  According to Marvin Tate, the Septuagint’s Hebrew manuscript has a word in Psalm 77:10 from ch-l-l, which can mean “to begin” in the hiphil.  What can one do with this reading?  What did the Psalmist begin?  Augustine says that the Psalmist is having a fresh start as he thinks beyond himself and focuses on God.  Theodore of Mopsuestia, however, thinks that the verse is saying that the Psalmist began to think that God had changed his favorable attitude towards him.

3.  Psalm 77:19 states (in the KJV): “Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.”  What is the Psalmist communicating when he says that God’s footsteps are not known?  I liked how the Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary handled this (and the subsequent) verse.  It said that God split the Sea after the Exodus, but God left no physical traces of that miracle, for the Sea closed up again and reverted back to how it was before.  Consequently, because there are no physical traces of the miracle reminding us of it, we have to take the initiative to remember it and to pass it on to our children.  Moreover, notwithstanding the absence of evidence for the miracle, God continues to guide his people.  God did so after the Sea-event through Israel’s leaders, Moses and Aaron.

Psalm 76

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 76.  I’ll post Psalm 76 in the King James Version (which is in the public domain), and I’ll comment on select verses.

To the chief Musician on Neginoth, A Psalm or Song of Asaph. In Judah is God known: his name is great in Israel.

I enjoyed what the Midrash on the Psalms had to say about why Judah merited to have the kingship: because Judah in Genesis 38 confessed wrong concerning his relationship with Tamar, and the Midrash on the Psalms says that was sufficient to atone for Judah’s sin; because Judah recommended that Joseph be sold rather than killed (Genesis 37:26); because Judah offered to be captive to Joseph in Benjamin’s place so that Benjamin could be permitted to return to his father (Genesis 44:33); and because Judah was the first tribe to go boldly into the Red Sea right after the Exodus, when the other Israelites were hesitant (the Midrash of the Psalms cites Hosea 12:1, which in the KJV is Hosea 11:12).  There are historical-critics who have argued that some of these stories were invented to justify Judah’s exalted status as the home of the Davidic monarchy and the central sanctuary, by arguing that Judah did good things and thus received divine favor.  But the Midrash on the Psalms contends that Judah actually did those things, and so his line really did deserve God’s favor.  Personally, I don’t think that most of these stories depict Judah in an overwhelmingly positive light, but they do present Judah as human, and as one who confessed his mistakes, chose the lesser of two evils, and learned to sacrifice himself for somebody else’s good.

 2 In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.

The Hebrew words translated as “tabernacle” and “dwelling place” can also refer to a lion’s den, as Patrick Miller in the HarperCollins Study Bible documents, citing Psalm 10:9; Amos 3:4; Nahum 2:12; and Song of Songs 4:8.  The idea is that God as a lion (figuratively-speaking) is attacking the aggressive enemies of Israel.  The depiction of God as a lion occurs in many passages of the Hebrew Bible (see, for example, Isaiah 31:4).

 3 There brake he the arrows of the bow, the shield, and the sword, and the battle. Selah.

The phrase that the KJV translates as “arrows of the bow” is literally “flames of the bow”.  What does this mean?  One idea is that the arrows are swift, as a flame.  Another idea is that these are fire-arrows.  You’ve probably seen them in movies: soldiers shooting arrows that have fire at their heads.

 4 Thou art more glorious and excellent than the mountains of prey.

What are the mountains of prey?  One idea is that this verse is saying that the enemies of Israel have slaughtered a lot of prey on mountains, but that God is greater than these feats of terror.  Another idea is that the enemies themselves are the mountains that have slaughtered prey, meaning that the enemies are powerful and intimidating, and yet God is greater than they are.  A third idea is that God is the one who has slaughtered prey, meaning the enemies of Israel, on the mountains.  The third option holds that God is glorious and excellent from (or on) the mountains of prey.

The Septuagint for the verse affirms that God shines forth from the everlasting mountains.  According to Marvin Tate, an earlier Hebrew version had the word ad, which means “prey” (Genesis 49:27; Isaiah 9:5; 33:23; Zephaniah 3:8), and a later hand substituted for that the word tereph, which also means “prey”.  But the translator into Greek had before him a manuscript that had ad, which can mean “prey” but also “ancient” or “everlasting” (Job 20:4; Habakkuk 3:6; Amos 1:11; Psalm 83:18; 92:8).  That, according to Tate, is why the LXX has “everlasting mountains” rather than “mountains of prey”.

 5 The stouthearted are spoiled, they have slept their sleep: and none of the men of might have found their hands.

The idea here, according to Keil-Delitzsch and Tate, is that God has immobilized the hands of Israel’s enemies.  I wonder if it could mean that Israel’s enemies are looking for their hands and cannot find them in the dark land of Sheol, the realm of the dead.  (See here for the argument that Sheol is a place of darkness.)

6 At thy rebuke, O God of Jacob, both the chariot and horse are cast into a dead sleep.
 7 Thou, even thou, art to be feared: and who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry?
 8 Thou didst cause judgment to be heard from heaven; the earth feared, and was still,
 9 When God arose to judgment, to save all the meek of the earth. Selah.
 10 Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.

There are numerous ideas about the meaning of this verse, and I will mention only some of them.  The word that the KJV translates as “restrain” most often means “gird”.  Some have argued, however, that the word means “restrain”, for different reasons.  Rashi argues that it means “restrain” because the root appears to relate to restraint in Babylonian Talmud Chullin 18a.  And some modern scholars have compared the root to ancient words (i.e., in Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac, and Mishnaic Hebrew), some of which pertain to restraint, and some of which concern lameness (See J.A. Emerton, “A Neglected Solution of a Problem in Psalm LXXVI 11, VT 24, 1974).

Here are some proposals about what Psalm 74:10 is saying:

a.  God’s name will be praised when God defeats the wrath of Israel’s enemies (or when God’s wrath is poured out on Israel’s enemies), and the enemies surviving will thereby be restrained from hurting Israel anymore.  Who praises God?  One suggestion is that Israel’s enemies do so, as the wrath of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 3 was turned into praise of God.  This is tempting (since I have a degree of sympathy for universalism), but the problem is that a number of Israel’s enemies in Psalm 76 die.  Another idea is that Israel is praising God for delivering her.  A third option is that God gains glory for himself before the nations when he defeats Israel’s enemies.

b.  God was angry at Israel, which now praises God, but now God is girding up what’s left of his wrath to use it against the Gentiles.  (The Targum.)

c.  Those Israelites who survive the wrath of Israel’s enemies will be girded by God with strength so they can defend themselves.  (A view John Gill mentions.)

Some read the Hebrew word for “man” (adam) as “Edom” and the word for “wrath” (chemoth) as “Chamath”.  These were areas.  The idea is that God will cause areas that give Israel trouble, such as Edom and Chamath, to praise God or to be restrained from hostilities. 

The Septuagint understands the verse to mean (according to Brenton’s translation) that “For the inward thought of man shall give thanks to thee: and the memorial of his inward thought shall keep a feast to thee.”  According to Tate, the Septuagint’s Hebrew manuscript probably has chemed (“desire”) rather than chamath and chemoth (“wrath”) and the root for keeping a festival (ch-g) rather than tachgor (“you will gird”).

 11 Vow, and pay unto the LORD your God: let all that be round about him bring presents unto him that ought to be feared.
 12 He shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.

Psalm 75

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 75 and its interpreters.  I have three items.

1.  Psalm 75:2 says in the King James Version: “When I shall receive the congregation I will judge uprightly.”  The Hebrew word that the KJV translates as “congregation” is moed, which can also mean an appointed time or place.  Consequently, there are different understandings of Psalm 75:2.  One is that moed here means God’s appointed time to judge the wicked.  In this interpretation, God is affirming that he will seize the opportunity to judge the wicked at the appointed time.  God, in this scenario, is comforting his people with the idea that God will intervene and set things right, at a particular time.  All they need to do is wait.

Another interpretation treats Psalm 75:2 (or at least 2a) as the words of the Psalmist, not God.  Rashi says that the verse means that, when we take a festival day (a meaning of moed), we praise God with reference to that day.  For some reason, Rashi interprets “I will judge uprightly” in terms of praising God.  Perhaps Rashi is saying that praising God on the festival day is exercising good judgment, as opposed to engaging in “obscenity and levity” on festivals (to quote this translation of Rashi).

The Midrash on the Psalms understands the verse to mean that, when the Psalmist reaches the appointed time of God’s redemption, he will declare God’s acts of equity.  Theodore of Mopsuestia has a similar interpretation.

I do not understand how the Midrash on the Psalms gets the idea of declaring God’s acts of equity from “I will judge uprightly.”  Theodore of Mopsuestia’s interpretation, however, makes sense to me because he is using the Septuagint.  The Hebrew Masoretic Text of Psalm 75:1b says “your wonders declared.”  The LXX says something different, though: “I will declare all your wonders.”  The LXX and Theodore are understanding Psalm 75:1b-2a to be saying: “I will declare your wonders, when I receive the appointed time.”  And what does Theodore do with Psalm 75:2b, “I will judge uprightly”?  He says that the Psalmist is trusting that there will be a time when God will save him on the basis of God’s promise of “I will judge uprightly”.

I think that interpreting moed as God’s appointed time of redemption makes sense, but I am also open to seeing it as a festival.  A festival interpretation would coincide with Sigmund Mowinckel’s view that the festivals were about God’s judgment and defeat of chaos.

2.  Psalm 75:3 says (in the KJV): “The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.”  There are different interpretations of this verse: that justice keeps society firm, as pillars support the earth; that the pillars are somehow related to justice (see I Samuel 2:8); that the earth melts when God judges; and that we can trust that there are moral absolutes even when the earth dissolves, in terms of lacking morality.

I especially liked an interpretation that I found in the Midrash on the Psalms, even though I don’t think that it relates to the verse’s original meaning.  The Midrash on the Psalms presents the view that the earth was quaking during the Sinai revelation out of fear that Israel would not accept the Torah, which would result in the earth plunging into chaos.  I’m intrigued by the notion that the Torah somehow preserves the cosmos, in Jewish thought.  So how did the world survive before the revelation of the Torah, in this view?  Perhaps the answer would be that it barely did, or that God tolerated the earth in its sinfulness before the Torah came and held people accountable, or at least held Israel accountable to be a light of righteousness to the world.

3.  The KJV translates Psalm 75:6: “For promotion [cometh] neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south.”  In the Hebrew, however, the word for “promotion” is not in this verse, which reads: “for not from the east (lit. going forth) and from the west and not from the south (lit. wilderness of mountains).”  “Promotion” may be implied in Psalm 75:6, for the idea of Psalm 75:5-7 appears to be that the wicked should not be proud, for promotion and demotion come from God (who, as E.W. Bullinger notes, lives in the north, the only direction not mentioned in Psalm 75:6; Isaiah 14:12-14; see Job 26:7).  The Targum, however, does not include any idea of promotion in its interpretation of Psalm 75:6, for it affirms that the idea in that verse is that there is none like God anywhere.  I suppose that this, too, is a reason not to be proud!

Psalm 74

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 74.

Psalm 74:8 says (in the KJV): “They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land. “

The Hebrew word translated as “synagogues” is moadei, which is the plural construct form of the word moed.  Moed in the Hebrew Bible can refer to a religious assembly, a feast, a congregation, or a designated time.

The Septuagint translates the verse as “They said in their heart, their kin together, ‘Come and let us burn all the feasts of God from the land.’”  The Septuagint understands moadei in this verse to mean “festivals”.  It presumes that Psalm 74:8 relates to what appears to be the topic of Psalm 74 as a whole: Israel’s sadness at the destruction of the Temple, her perplexity as she wonders when God will help her, and her attempts to reassure herself as she reminds herself of God’s displays of power in the past.  For the LXX, the festivals were held in the Temple, which is destroyed in Psalm 74, and so Psalm 74:8 most likely relates to the destruction of the Temple.  Interpreters who relied on the Septuagint, such as Augustine and Theodore of Mopsuestia, had this understanding.

But there is another view: that Psalm 74:8 is acknowledging the existence of places outside of the Temple in the land of Israel where Israelites gathered together to worship.  For one, Psalm 74:8 says that the moadei were “burned”, and it makes more sense to say that a place of assembly was burned rather than a festival.  Second, the MT has “in the land”, which implies that these moadei are throughout the Holy Land, not only at the Temple.

But then the problem of the date of Psalm 74 arises.  When were there places of worship outside of the Temple in the land of Israel?  In II Kings 4:23, we read that Northern Israelites in the time of Elisha could go to a prophet on a Sabbath or a new moon.  But would these places of worship exist in 587 B.C.E., at the time when the Temple was destroyed?  Josiah had gotten rid of other sanctuaries besides the Temple, and a predominant theological school of the Bible, the Deuteronomists, opposed those sanctuaries.  Psalm 74 may be related to the Deuteronomistic school in some manner, for Psalm 74:7 refers to the Temple as the dwelling-place for God’s name, and the Deuteronomists were emphatic that the sanctuary was to be a dwelling-place of God’s name, not God himself (Deuteronomy 12, 14, 16).  Would Psalm 74 support sanctuaries other than the Temple?

Others have noted that there were places of prayer in Israel’s exilic and post-exilic times.  Zechariah 7:3-5 and 8:19 refer to fasts, which the Jews practiced even when there was not a Temple.  And I Maccabees 3:46 mentions a former place of prayer at Mizpah.  Consequently, some have related Psalm 74 to Antiochus IV’s attack on the Temple right before the time of the Maccabean revolt.  The idea is that Antiochus not only attacked the Temple, but other places of worship throughout the land of Israel as well.  But my problem with that view is that Psalm 74 appears to describe a destruction of the Temple, not merely a pollution of it.  The destruction of the Temple occurred in 587 B.C.E., so I think that Psalm 74 is about that particular event.

My conclusion is that there were places of worship outside of the Temple in 587 B.C.E., and that these places were deemed valid by the Deuteronomists.  As I talk about in my post here, we see in Deuteronomy 16:7-8 that a solemn assembly could be held outside of the Temple on the last Day of Unleavened Bread.  Deuteronomy most likely did not support sacrifices occurring outside of the Temple, but perhaps these places of assembly only had prayer, not sacrifice.

Psalm 73

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 73.  I will focus on four verses: v 4, v 10, v 17, and v 24.

1.  In the King James Version, v 4 states: “For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm.”  The New American Standard Version, however, translates the second half of the verse as “and their body is fat”.  Both are understanding the words in the phrase u-vari ulam differently.

I can see merit in pieces of both translations of the verse.  I can understand why the NASB translates bari as “fat”, for that is what the word most often means in the Hebrew Bible (see here).  The only place where the KJV translates it as “firm” is in Psalm 73:4.

But I can also understand why the KJV translates ulam as “their strength”.  The word ul only appears in two places in the Hebrew Bible: in Psalm 73:4, and in II Kings 24:15, where it refers to the mighty in the land (and mighty equals strength).  As I checked the BDB and William Holladay’s Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, I could not find a justification for translating ul as “body”.  Keil-Delitzsch, however, noted the Arabic parallel allun, which they say means “body”.  Perhaps the idea is that the body is strong because it is a structure.  In any case, even though I think that (from a linguistic standpoint) “their strength” makes more sense for ulam and “fat” makes more sense for bari, I have to admit that “their strength is firm” and “their body is fat” make more sense to me as an English reader than “their strength is fat”.

But that’s not why Psalm 73:4 stood out to me.  The reason that this verse caught my attention is that it affirmed that there are no bands when the wicked die.  The word translated as “bands” (which, in the Hebrew Bible, only appears in Psalm 73:4 and Isaiah 58:6, where it refers to the oppressive bands of wickedness) is understood by many translators to mean pain, their idea being that Psalm 73:4 is a lament that the wicked do not feel any pain when they die.  The Septuagint and the Targum, however, have a different idea: that the verse is saying that the wicked are not “dismayed and daunted” (to draw from Edward Cook’s translation of the Targum) when they die.  Either way, Psalm 73:4 stood out to me because it appeared to contradict the overall theme of Psalm 73 as a whole: that the Psalmist is sad that the wicked prosper, but the Psalmist then learns that God will kill the wicked.  But why should the Psalmist be consoled that the wicked will die, when he says in v 4 that their death is not painful, or that the wicked do not even fear death?

There are at least two solutions to this problem that have been proposed.  One is that Psalm 73 is not about God’s punishment of the wicked in this life, but in the afterlife.  I will look more into this viewpoint in my discussion of Psalm 73:24.  The other solution is that le-motam (“to their death”) is actually lemo tam, which means “to them whole”.  The idea here is that Psalm 73:4 should be translated as follows: “For there are no bands to them; whole and fat is their body.”

2.  Psalm 74:10 says in the KJV: “Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup are wrung out to them.”  My literal translation of this verse is, “Therefore his people will return (or, in the kethib, will bring back) here, and waters of full will be found to them.”

This is a difficult verse.  The Septuagint renders it (and here I am using Lancelot C.L. Benton’s translation), “Therefore shall my people return hither: and full days shall be found with them.”  The LXX’s Hebrew manuscript must have ve-yemei (“and days of”) rather than u-mei (“waters of”), and it has “my people” rather than “his people”.  The LXX for this verse is probably affirming that, because the wicked have angered God, God will return his people Israel to the Promised Land and give them full days.

But what if Psalm 74:10 is about the wicked rather than God’s people?  According to translators and commentators, the idea is that the people admire the wicked who are prospering.  Either the fullness of water refers to the prosperity of the wicked, or the phrase is indicating that people keep returning to drink up the wicked people’s words, for they admire the wicked on account of their rich life.

I thought that some of the Christian sermons that I heard on this verse were pretty pathetic, to tell you the truth.  They applied this verse to celebrities and how people admire them and drink up their words, even when these celebrities (supposedly) don’t know what they are talking about.  One preacher mentioned Harry Belefonte’s criticism of the Iraq War, saying that Belefonte singing “Day-O” does not make him an expert on foreign policy, and that Scripture calls Belefonte a fool for speaking out without knowing all of the facts (as if the Bush Administration knew all of the facts when it launched the war in the first place).  And another preacher lamented that people were holding a vigil for Heath Ledger after his death, when he was in the pro-gay movie Brokeback Mountain.  I found these remarks to be one-sided, judgmental, and ridiculous, for Belefonte is not wicked when he stands up for what he thinks is right, and there is nothing wrong with lamenting the death of Heath Ledger, who (by many accounts) was a decent guy.  But I still take from Psalm 74:10 the lesson that I should resist the temptation to admire the prosperous people who do what is wrong, as if their prosperity makes them worthy for me to emulate.

3.  Psalm 73:17 states in the KJV, “Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.”  This is a crucial part of the Psalm, for it is in the sanctuary that the Psalmist reverses his view that the wicked unfairly prosper and affirms that they will come to an end.  Why the Psalmist reversed his view is not stated.  Marvin Tate proposes three possibilities: that the Psalmist had a vision in the sanctuary of God in God’s majesty, as Isaiah had in Isaiah 6; that the Psalmist heard from a temple prophet that the wicked would come to an end, the sort of message that we see in Isaiah 40:7-8; and that the Psalmist reached this conclusion in a state of meditation and quiet contemplation.  Tate observes that Psalm 73:16 indicates that the Psalmist was engaging in “strenuous intellectual effort” to understand why the wicked prosper, and his insight in the sanctuary may have been (at least in part) the fruit of this hard brain-work.

But Psalm 73:17 has a difficulty.  The word that the KJV translated as “understood” is in the cohortative, and the cohortative often carries the meaning of “let me” do such-and-such.  Moreover, the Septuagint uses the subjunctive for that word, and the subjunctive often means “may I” do this.  So must the word in Psalm 73:17 mean “let me understand”?  What sense does that make?

What is Psalm 73:17 saying?  There are people who agree with the meaning that the KJV sees in the verse.  Rashi was a medieval Jew who knew Hebrew, and he had no problem with interpreting Psalm 73:17 to mean that the Psalmist went into the sanctuary and understood the end of the wicked.  And there is grammatical justification for that point-of-view.  For one, there is such a thing as a “pseudo-cohortative” (to use Waltke-O’Connor’s phrase), a cohortative that does not function as a cohortative.  We see this sort of thing in the Hebrew Bible (i.e., Psalm 66:6).  And, second, although the verbs in Psalm 73:17 are in the future tense, scholars have argued that tense is not really significant in Hebrew poetry—-that the future tense can be used to describe a past event.

But there are other ways to interpret Psalm 73:17.  One view is that the Psalmist is saying that he will understand the fate of the wicked only after God brings him to the sanctuary, for that will signal God’s intention to vindicate the Psalmist and to punish the wicked.  The grammatical justification for such a reading is that cohortatives are used in conditionals.  Some suggest that the issue in this verse is the restoration of Israel from exile, but I suppose that an interpreter can make the case that it’s applicable to David, who was away from the sanctuary during his flights from Saul and Absalom and wanted God to return him to it. 

Another view is that the Psalmist in Psalm 73:17 is expressing resolve, for a cohortative can indicate a firm resolution (as Waltke-O’Connor document).  In this case, the Psalmist is affirming that he will go into the sanctuary, with the express intent of understanding the true fate of the wicked.  This coincides with a sermon point that I heard: that we go to church to remind ourselves of what is right, and to conform our thoughts to the truth.  In the case of Psalm 73, according to this particular interpretation, the Psalmist thought that the wicked prospered, but he went to the sanctuary to remind himself of the truth that God is in control.

4.  Psalm 73:24 states in the KJV, “Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.”  Many Christian interpreters have understood the “glory” here as the afterlife.  Others, however, have argued that “glory” is never used for the afterlife in the Hebrew Bible, and that Psalm 73:24 is about a glorious outcome that God would bring about in this life.  Keil-Delitzsch wrestle with this issue, and they bring v 25 into the equation: “Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. “  They say that we can only go to heaven with God, and that even heaven would not satisfy the Psalmist if God were not there.  In my opinion, the Psalmist in v 25 is not necessarily talking about an afterlife but is saying that—-in the vast cosmos (heaven with its gods and earth with its people)—-God is the only one he can fully count on.  But I don’t mind Keil-Delitzsch’s homiletical application of the verse.

Psalm 72

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 72 and its interpreters.  I have four items.

1.  Peake’s Commentary on the Bible‘s treatment of Psalm 72 intrigued me.  It states:

“The king is to be just, beneficent, renowned.  But he is in no sense superhuman.  On the contrary, in 15 we are told that men will pray for him constantly.  But in 5-11 another view presents itself.  Not only is he to rule all nations, but his pre-existence, as some have thought, seems to be assumed in 6, and clearly his immortality is implied in 5.  The insertion breaks the connection between 4 and 12.  Hence it is now generally admitted that 5-11 is, at least in part, a later addition..The passage inserted (5-11) assumes a Messianic doctrine of very late age…”

Psalm 72 is about a king of Israel, but which king of Israel?  Is Psalm 72 a Psalm by David about his hopes and predictions concerning the reign of his successor, Solomon?  Is Psalm 72 about any king of Israel, as the nation expressed its hopes regarding a new king—-that his reign would bring peace, prosperity, and respect for Israel from the nations?  Is Psalm 72 about the Messiah, as many Jewish interpreters have maintained, and as a number of Christians have held in applying Psalm 72 to Jesus Christ?  

Unlike Peake’s Commentary, I don’t think that Psalm 72:15′s statement that prayer is made for the king continually has any bearing on whether the king is human or super-human.  Granted, a human is probably more dependent on God than is one who is super-human, but people can still pray for and root for the success of a super-human, or one who is superior to humanity.  After all, is not “Thy Kingdom come” a part of the Lord’s prayer?  God is superior to us and is able to bring his kingdom anytime, and yet Christians pray for that kingdom to come.  Why, similarly, couldn’t Israelites pray for a super-human king?

In a sense, the king of Israel was believed to be super-human.  See here for my post on Psalm 45, in which I discuss that very issue.  The king was thought to have a special relationship with God and even divine characteristics, such as a special knowledge.  That was not the only belief about kings in Israel, however, for the Deuteronomistic School tended to regard kings as mere human beings, who could and did make mistakes, some of them fatal to the nation.  But Psalm 72 could hold that the king of Israel was super-human, without being an exilic or post-exilic statement about a coming Messiah.

But Peake’s Commentary believes that Psalm 72 (or, more accurately, what the commentary considers to be a Messianic addition to Psalm 72) is taking the king’s super-human status another step: that Psalm 72 is saying that the king existed prior to his human birth and will live forever.  To evaluate that claim, let’s look at vv 5-11 in the KJV:

⁵They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations.

For Peake’s Commentary, this verse is saying that the king himself will live forever, meaning that it concerns a super-human Messiah.  Those who think that the verse is not about a super-human Messiah but rather a pre-exilic king of Israel, however, maintain that the verse concerns the length of the Davidic dynasty, not an individual king (see II Samuel 7:16).

Interestingly, there are Christians who have argued that Psalm 72:5 actually affirms the Messiah’s pre-existence, for the second half of the verse can be translated as “and before the moon, generation to generation.”  For these interpreters, this means that the Messiah existed before the creation of the moon.  Detractors, by contrast, maintain that “before” in Psalm 72:5 does not mean chronologically before but rather “before” in the sense of being “in the presence of” the moon.

⁶He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass: as showers that water the earth.

I do not know what Peake’s Commentary has in mind in citing this as a verse that assumes the king’s pre-existence.  Perhaps Peake’s Commentary means that, according to v 6, the Messiah was in heaven and came down to earth, like rain.  An alternative interpretation, however, says that v 6 is suggesting that the king’s reign will bring refreshing relief to the poor and natural prosperity to the land, as rain refreshes and enlivens the earth.  The king of Israel was expected to defend the poor and to bring natural prosperity to the land.

⁷In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.

⁸He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.

⁹They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.

¹⁰The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.

¹¹Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.

Those who believe that these verses are about a super-human Messiah point out that vv 8-11 affirm that the king’s reign will be worldwide, which was not the case with any Davidic monarch thus far.  Detractors retort that this sort of hyperbole or hope is present in other nations’ descriptions of their kings (i.e., Egypt).  There may have been a hope that the king would rule the world, or a belief that the king technically did rule the world (geopolitical realities notwithstanding) because he was the earthly representative of the deity, who himself ruled the world.  See my post on Psalm 2.  Those who believe that Psalm 72 concerns Solomon will point out that some of the nations mentioned in v 10, such as Tarshish and Sheba, gave gifts to Solomon (I Kings 10; II Chronicles 9:21).  (This is unclear in the case of Tarshish, for Tarshish-ships were a type of ship, not necessarily ships from Tarshish.  Solomon could have had Tarshish-ships that brought him riches, without those ships being sent from Tarshish.)

2.  Psalm 72:3 states: “The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness.”  What does this mean?  One idea is that the king, by being righteous (i.e., defending the poor), will influence God to bring peace and/or natural prosperity to the land of Israel (called the mountains).  Some interpreters maintain that the specific reference to mountains is significant, however, for they believe that the passage is saying that peace will not only exist in the protected cities, but also in the mountains, where bandits tend to roam.  The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary regards the mountains as metaphorical for the nations, who make peace with Israel after they recognize her righteousness.

3.  Psalm 72:17 states: “His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and [men] shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.”  Psalm 72:17 associates the king with blessing, which recalls God’s promise that the nations would bless themselves in Abraham and Abraham’s seed (Genesis 22:18; 26:4).  Many commentaries that I read asserted that the king is the means for the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham and Abraham’s seed—-that it is through the king that the nations will receive blessing, or that Israel will become so prosperous that the nations will bless themselves in reference to Israel.  John Van Seters, however, argues the opposite: that what we see in Genesis is a democratization of the role of the king, as Israel was granted the king’s role so that she could find meaning in exile, a time when she lacked a king.

There is debate about what the hithpael for b-r-k means.  Does it mean that the nations will receive blessings through the king of Israel or Abraham’s seed, as if Israel has a mission of benevolence to the world, or the nations can bring divine blessing on themselves by being nice to God’s people (see here)?  Or does it mean that the nations will look at Israel’s prosperity and wish that they would be like her in terms of prospering, the sort of thing that we see in Genesis 48:20 (may God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh)?  In Deuteronomy 29:18, the hithpael of  b-r-k refers to a blessing that a sinful Israelite might pronounce upon himself, notwithstanding his wickedness, and that appears to go with the latter view.  Still, I cannot rule out the former view.  In any case, I’d like to think that God’s blessing of Israel will bring blessing to the other nations as well.

4.  Psalm 72:20 states: “The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended.”  But there are Psalms of David that appear after Psalm 72 (i.e., Psalms 86, 101, 103).  How, then, could Psalm 72:20 says that David’s prayers are ended?

A modern scholarly response is that Psalm 72:20 reflects a stage of the Book of Psalms at which David’s Psalms did end with Psalm 72.  I should note John MacArthur’s point that the Psalms that come next (Psalms 73-83) are by Asaph and not David.  Others have proposed different solutions, however.  One solution is that the word translated as “are ended”, kalu, means something different.  It could mean “fulfilled” (Ezra 1:1), in which case Psalm 72:20 is saying that David’s prayers will be fulfilled when Solomon or a Messiah rules the world in peace and righteousness.  According to John Gill, this was the view of Abraham Ibn Ezra and Rabbi Joseph Kimchi.  The word could mean “yearns” (Psalm 84:3), in which case Psalm 72:20 is saying that David yearns for that time of peace. 

Another Jewish interpretation is that Psalm 72:20 is simply indicating that Psalm 72 was David’s very last Psalm, and that David composed it when he was old and Solomon was about to take his place; Psalm 72, in this scenario, is David’s expression of hope about what the reign of his son Solomon will be like.

Psalm 71

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 71.  I have three items.

1.  The Psalmist in this Psalm is asking God to deliver him from enemies, as he draws upon what other Psalms have said.  (Psalm 71:1-3 echoes Psalm 31:1-3a; Psalm 71:5-6 is like Psalm 22:9-10; Psalm 71:12a is like Psalm 22:1, 11, 19; Psalm 71:12b is like Psalm 38:22:22 and 40:13; Psalm 71:13 is like Psalm 35:4, 26; Psalm 71:18 is like Psalm 22:30-31; and Psalm 31:19 is like Psalm 36:6.)  But the Psalmist is old in Psalm 71.  Does that influence how the Psalmist interacts with other Psalms, or does the Psalmist merely quote other Psalms verbatim?

According to John MacArthur, there is one incident in which the Psalmist in Psalm 71 modifies a saying in another Psalm in consideration of his own situation in life, his old age.  In his comment on Psalm 71:3, MacArthur states:

“Psalm 71:1-3 is almost the same as Ps. 31:1-3a.  One difference, however, is the word ‘continually,’ which the elderly person writing this psalm wants to emphasize.  God has ‘continually’ been faithful (cf. vv. 6, 14).”

MacArthur probably means that the Psalmist in Psalm 71 looks back at his long life and concludes that God has been faithful to him all of that time, and so he has faith that God will be with him in his newest predicament.  The Psalmist not only quotes Psalmic passages, but he has found the passages to be true in his own life.  Another reason that the Psalmist in Psalm 71 uses “continually” could be that he needs a special assurance that God is with him, even when he is weak in his old age, and so he assures himself that he can continually go to God for help.  That brings me to my next point.

2.  Psalm 71:9 states (in the KJV): “Cast me not off in the time of old age; forsake me not when my strength faileth.”  According to Adele Berlin and Marc Brettler in The Jewish Study Bible, the Psalmist here is hoping that God will not abandon him even though he is old and thus lacks the strength to serve God.  The idea appears to be that, somewhere in the old Psalmist’s mind, there is the notion that God needs to be paid for God’s presence and services, and the Psalmist is no longer able to pay because he is old, and so he fears that God will leave him.  Could a lesson of Psalm 71 be that God loves us, even when we cannot work for God?

Yet, Psalm 71 does indicate that the Psalmist can do something for God.  He can praise God.  He can testify to others about God’s strength and goodness.  He can play an instrument.  Moreover, the Psalmist tells God that his enemies believe that God has forsaken him, and the implication may be that God would be inviting doubt about God’s own faithfulness were God to refrain from helping the Psalmist.

Not surprisingly, there are Christian preachers who think that a lesson of Psalm 71 is that we should keep on serving God, even when we are old.  I listened to one preacher who praised John Wesley for getting up at 5 a.m. and for continuing to preach, even in his old age.

I believe that God loves us, even when we cannot serve him as we used to.  Psalm 71, after all, is about God’s faithfulness.  At the same time, I think that we can do something to serve God, even (or especially) in old age.

3.  Psalm 71:15 states: “My mouth shall shew forth thy righteousness and thy salvation all the day; for I know not the numbers thereof.”  The word that the KJV translates as “numbers” is sephorot.  That is similar to the Hebrew word for “book”, sepher.   To translate sephorot, one version of the Septuagint uses the word grammateias, which means “writings”.  Marvin Tate believes that the Psalmist in Psalm 71:15 is affirming that he will talk about God’s righteousness, even though he does not know the scribal art.

The KJV is probably correct, however, to translate sephorot as “numbers”, which would mean that the Psalmist will praise God, even though the praise will be inadequate because God’s good deeds are too many to count.  For one, the root s-ph-r does appear in reference to counting, in such passages as Genesis 15:5 and 16:10.  Second, fourth century Christian exegete Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was using the Septuagint, held both to the scribal interpretation and also the view that Psalm 71:15 relates to counting.  Theodore says that the scribes were responsible for counting things.  For Theodore, the Psalmist is saying that he will praise and testify about God, even though he is unlike a scribe in that he is unable to count the deeds of the one he is discussing.  The Psalmist will be so full of gratitude to God and love for God that he will honor God, notwithstanding his own limitations and the limitations of the task itself.

Psalm 70

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 70.  I have three items:

1.  Psalm 70 is similar to Psalm 40:13-17, only Psalm 70 uses “God” in some places where Psalm 40:13-17 has the tetragrammaton (YHVH).  Consequently, there is a view within biblical scholarship that Psalm 70 is an Elohist Psalm, perhaps an Elohist adaptation of Psalm 40:13-17.  But I don’t think that is necessarily the case, for the tetragrammaton shows up in Psalm 70.

Why was part of Psalm 40:13-17 made into an independent Psalm?  Keil-Delitzsch speculate that a fragment of Psalm 40 “accidentally came to have an independent existence.”  The Nelson Study Bible holds that there was a more deliberate process, however, for it states that “The description of the poor and needy was such a necessary element in the encouragement of people enduring troubles that this section was selected for individual use as a freestanding poem.” And then evangelist Jimmy Swaggart says that Psalm 40:13-17 is about the sufferings of Christ, whereas Psalm 70 concerns Israel crying out to God for speedy deliverance during the Great Tribulation.  Swaggart, like the rabbis, appears to seek a deep theological reason for repetition in the Bible.

2.  Marvin Tate believes that Psalm 70 has a post-exilic origin.  Psalm 70 refers to people who seek God, love God’s salvation, and view themselves as poor and needy.  For Tate, that fits the time of post-exilic factionalism, of the sort that we see in Isaiah 56-66, in which groups regarding themselves as true seekers of the LORD and seekers of God’s presence feel marginalized by the religious establishment.  That could be, but I am curious as to how a marginalized and poor group can afford to write a Psalm, since literary writing in the ancient world was more of an elite enterprise due (among other factors) to its costliness.  Perhaps the community had elite connections or sponsors who could support its scribes.

The Midrash on the Psalms presents the view that Psalm 70:2-3 is about God’s punishment of those who are envious of and angry towards the Psalmist.  In Psalm 70:2-3, the Psalmist hopes that those desiring his hurt will be shamed, confounded, turned back, and confused.  But is not the Psalmist’s attitude similar to the attitude of his enemies: he desires the hurt of his opponents?

There are a number of cases in which Augustine says that passages in which the Psalmist appears to desire the hurt of his enemies are misinterpreted: that the Psalmist does not desire his enemies’ hurt, but rather is saying what will happen to them: they will be punished.  This is because Augustine regards a number of the Psalms to be the words of Christ himself, and Christ on the cross did not desire for hurt to befall his enemies.  Rather, Jesus asked for God to forgive his enemies, for they knew not what they were doing (Luke 23:34).  But Augustine cannot make that claim regarding Psalm 70:2-3, for the Septuagint for that passage uses the optative for the verbs, and an optative expresses a wish rather than simply saying what will happen.

In any case, once we get away from the political factionalism and “us vs. them”, Psalm 70 does teach me the value of seeking God and God’s presence, loving God’s salvation, and avoiding destructive envy and anger.

3.  The superscription says that this Psalm is to bring to remembrance.  Could this be why this Psalm repeats much of Psalm 40:13-17: because we need to be reminded of Psalm 40:13-17′s content?  Perhaps, but “le-hazkir” (“to cause to remember”) does not always appear in Psalms that repeat content from elsewhere in the Psalms, for it is in the superscription to Psalm 38, and that does not repeat what is elsewhere in the Book of Psalms.

I liked what Rashi had to say about Psalm 70′s superscription, as he drew from the Midrash on the Psalms: that Psalm 70 is reminding the Jews about God after the restoration of Zion that the end of Psalm 69 talks about.  The flock and the sheepcote have been restored, Rashi says, but Israel should not forget the shepherd, namely, God.  This makes me think about God’s desire for a relationship with us, and God’s hope that we acknowledge him and not just his gifts, and that we thank him for those gifts.

I guess my main problem with Rashi’s interpretation is that it does not appear to fit Psalm 70 as a whole, for, there, the Psalmist is asking God to deliver him speedily from his enemies, rather than trying to remember God after restoration has already taken place.  Still, if we bring into the equation Tate’s view that Psalm 70 reflects post-exilic factionalism, Rashi’s interpretation might work.  Israel has been restored, and there is a marginalized community that feels that it is seeking God and desiring God’s presence, whereas the religious establishment is not sufficiently doing so.  This marginalized community prides itself on remembering and reminding people of the shepherd, God, since it believes that so much of post-exilic Israel has forgotten God. 

Psalm 69

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 69.  Five verses in Psalm 69 are quoted in the New Testament.  In this post, I will compare how the New Testament uses these passages with what interpreters have said these verses mean in their original and historical context.  I will also address Psalm 69:5, in which the Psalmist affirms that his transgressions are not hidden from God.  This verse is probably troubling for Christians who believe that Psalm 69 is about Christ, for (according to their religion) Christ did not sin.

1.  Psalm 69:4 says (in the KJV, which I will use in this post): “They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.”  This verse is quoted in John 15:25.  John 15:24-25 states: “If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.  But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.”  Jesus here interprets Psalm 69:4 in light of the undeserved rejection he has received from the people of Israel.

Scholars have maintained that Psalm 69:4 is for people who have experienced rejection.  A common view is that Psalm 69 employed Jeremiah or the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah as models, and that later communities were using this Psalm for their own needs—-to lament the exilic or post-exilic suffering of the nation of Israel or the pious Jews, or to ask God for physical healing for their members.

Marvin Tate speculates that the Psalm was originally used by a pre-exilic king, but it underwent post-exilic stages, since Psalm 69:35-36 expresses hope that God might save Zion and build the cities of Judah.  Tate may have in mind what I read in Peter Craigie’s commentary on Psalms 1-50: that the pre-exilic king recognized his vulnerability to conspiracy from insiders and outsiders to his realm, and so he asked God to thwart his enemies.  David himself in II Samuel endured a nationwide revolt against his authority, and this revolt was launched by his own son (Absalom) and was joined by many in Israel.  Was Psalm 69 originally about this sort of situation, but exilic and post-exilic themes about restoration were later added?

Of particular interest is the Psalmist’s statement that “I restored that which I took not away”.  According to many interpreters, the idea here is that the Psalmist is being wrongfully accused of stealing.  Stephen Geller said in a class that I took on Psalms that the writer of this Psalm was probably a priest, who was being accused of robbing the Temple.  Against this accusation, Geller maintains, the Psalmist affirms in v 9 that he is actually zealous for the Temple. 

Some Christian interpreters have sought to relate that part of Psalm 69:4 to Christ, as they claim that Christ actually did restore what he did not take away.  John Gill says that Christ restored the glory of God, which human beings debased through their sin, and also that Christ paid the penalty for sins that he did not commit.  For Gill, Christ restored what he was not responsible for taking away, but that others had taken away through their sin.

2.  Psalm 69:9 says: “For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. “  The first part of this verse is quoted in John 2:17 in reference to Jesus cleansing the Temple of merchants and money-changers, and the second part is quoted by Paul in Romans 15:3 when Paul is arguing that Christians should aim to please their neighbors rather than themselves, since Christ did not please himself but endured reproach.

In terms of the original context of Psalm 69:9, I like what Christian pastor John MacArthur says about it: “The psalmist has brought hatred and hostility on himself by his unyielding insistence that the behavior of the people measure up to their outward claim of devotion to God.  Whenever God was dishonored he felt the pain, because he loved God so greatly.”  Different ideas have been proposed for the setting of this verse: that it is based on Jeremiah controversially exhorting the people to be righteous rather than worshiping in the Temple hypocritically; that it relates to the attempts of post-exilic Jews to rebuild the Temple, which was opposed by their enemies inside and outside of Yehud; or that it concerns the efforts of the Maccabees to recapture and to purify the Temple after Hellenistic defilement.  Some have even contended that the “house” in Psalm 69:9 is not the Temple but rather the nation of Israel or the household of faith.

In any case, the verse appears to be about the Psalmist suffering as a result of his zeal for God.  That has happened to many throughout history, including Jesus.

3.  Psalm 69:21 says: “They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.”  Matthew 27:34 quotes this verse in reference to people offering Jesus vinegar while he was suffering on the cross and was thirsty.  In its original context, according to a number of interpreters, Psalm 69:21 is about the Psalmist being offered gall and vinegar by people pretending to be his comforters.  The Psalmist is fasting on account of his suffering (Psalm 69:10), and he desires comforters (Psalm 69:20).  Real comforters brought sufferers food, but the people in Psalm 69:21 bring the Psalmist stuff that is either poisonous or bitter in taste.  That reinforces the Psalmist’s suffering and sense of alienation from others.

4.  Psalm 69:22 says: “Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.”  Paul in Romans 11:9 relates that verse to the spiritual inability of many Jews of his day to accept Jesus as the Messiah.  Originally, Psalm 69:22 was about the Psalmist’s hope that God might punish his enemies, whether those enemies were Gentile powers, or conspirators within the people of Israel, or others.

5.  Psalm 69:25 says: “Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.”  This verse is quoted in Acts 1:20 in reference to the death of Judas, only Acts 1:20 quotes it as referring to “his habitation” rather than “their habitation”.  The Septuagint has “their”, so Acts 1:20 is either quoting the passage loosely, has a variant, or assumes that what happened to Judas is typical of what occurs to all enemies of Jesus, and so it relates to Judas the fate of all of Jesus’ enemies.  There may be other options, as well.

I’ll turn now to Psalm 69:5, which says: “O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.”  How would Christians who interpret Psalm 69 as the words of Christ interact with this verse, when they believe that Christ was sinless?  Augustine and other Christians have maintained that Christ is not talking about his own sins here, but rather the sins of his body (the church), as it confesses sin while being attached to Christ.  Christian interpreters have also noted that Christ bore the sins of others on the cross.

Within its original context, however, Psalm 69:5 may be the Psalmist protesting his innocence of what others have accused him (stealing), even as he acknowledges that he is a sinner.  It’s like the Psalmist is saying, “You know what I am, Lord, both good and bad.”  Or the Psalmist is seeking God’s mercy.