TromboneChat

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 20, 2016, 03:30AM1) This psalm concludes the second of the five sub-books of Psalms.
2) The final verse - does this tell us that the text is intended to be addressed by David to Yahweh on Solomon's behalf?

I think that v20 is an editorial statement telling us that this is the conclusion of the the psalms/prayers that David wrote.  (The next Psalm has another author.)  v18 and 19 may also be part of this conclusion.

So the Psalm, up to the conclusion, would be a prayer of David on behalf of Solomon.

Psalm 73 text

Highlights

 - Asaph understands God's response to corruption from his perspective

Summary

 - God is good to the pure in heart, but I am jealous that the wicked prosper
 - They prosper until they die: they scoff at God
 - So the people follow them because they think God is doing nothing about them
 - I've done the right thing and got rediculed for it.
 - I tried to understand this but it was too much for me until I went into your sanctuary and saw there end (from your perspective)
 - How they will be destroyed in a moment; How I didn't understand anything
 - You continually guide me: and in the end I will receive your glory
 - this has happened so that I can tell of your works

Questions and Observations

1) Who was Asaph?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms_of_Asaph

This para is relevant to Psalm 73
"As an officer within the Jerusalem religious system, Asaph would have participated in both the public and private side of that system. He served as an official for several years, starting with King David and serving King Solomon as well, if he is the same Asaph mentioned in 2 Chronicles 5.12. During his long term, Asaph surely saw the best and worst of other officials. His complaint against corruption among the rich and influential, recorded in Psalm 73 (MT) / Psalm 72 (LXX), might have been directed towards some of those officials. The words he used to describe the wicked come from the same lexicon of words used by officers of the cultic/sacrificial system."

2) And while I'm quoting Asaph's Wikipedia entry this seems an apt description of the Psalm:

"Divine providence and the internal battle within one's soul are the two main themes of this psalm. It speaks of the journey of self-realization about the evils around the world but also coming back and realizing the plan of God.

Psalm 73 deals with how the righteous are to respond to corruption within the ranks of wealth, power and influence. Initially, the good man or woman is scandalized by the revelation that leaders are abusing the power of their privileges. But as Asaph reflects on the nature of God, he comes to understand that even the most powerful authority figures, if corrupt and unchanged (unrepentant), will receive his reward at the hands of the Lord. Asaph might have witnessed corruption within the ranks of the officials of the Temple.

In this Psalm, Asaph questions the fairness of why the wicked seem to prosper. Asaph goes into the sanctuary, the part of the temple where sacrifices are done and gets a new perspective. Asaph sees God's judgement of evil and takes refuge in that God."

Quote from: John the Theologian on Dec 20, 2016, 10:26AMIf we take the heading to Psalm 51 seriously-- which is in all of the copies of the text we have-- then the statement that David didn't see himself in need of "salvation" seems problematic. 

Nowhere near as problematic as claiming David knew he faced certain Eternal Damnation, nor thought there was a separate person of Yahweh that would later be called Holy Spirit. 

Unless................you're claiming this is all a modern version of the literary midrash? 

Quote from: timothy42b on Dec 20, 2016, 03:09PMNowhere near as problematic as claiming David knew he faced certain Eternal Damnation, nor thought there was a separate person of Yahweh that would later be called Holy Spirit. 

Unless................you're claiming this is all a modern version of the literary midrash? 

I still see your claim as problematic because you claim to be just saying what the texts say and the text of Psalm 51 raises the sort of questions that the NT doctrine of salvation addresses: sin, guilt, forgiveness, divine power to live righteously, etc. 

No historic, orthodox Christian that I'm aware of would claim that the full NT doctrine of the Trinity is found in Psalm 51.  However, it would be equally as inaccurate to say that the elements that are used to develop that doctrine are not found in this text-- i.e. a distinction between the God who is the recipient of David's prayer of confession and the "Holy Spirit" who is God's Holy Spirit.

Likewise Psalm 32 speaks very much in language that echoes NT categories of "salvation": Sin, guilt, not counting iniquity, relief after the experience of divine forgiveness, assurance of the deliverance of God and of his steadfast love (Hebrew hesed)  It is no wonder that this psalm is quoted by Paul in the book of Romans.

All of this is to say, that while one must be careful not to "read into" OT texts the full NT understanding of Christian doctrine, one must also be careful not to ignore categories in the OT that very much anticipate the NT doctrines and show that OT believers would have likely experienced rudimentary, if somewhat less than fully clear, versions of those doctrines.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Dec 20, 2016, 03:37PMLikewise Psalm 32 speaks very much in language that echoes NT categories of "salvation": Sin, guilt, not counting iniquity, relief after the experience of divine forgiveness, assurance of the deliverance of God and of his steadfast love (Hebrew hesed)  It is no wonder that this psalm is quoted by Paul in the book of Romans.

But Exodus also speaks in salvation categories: redemption, passover, covenant, they were his children, his son, he was their God, he saved them and they were baptised, they were taken out of captivity and bought into the kingdom.  They were part of the archetype of salvation.  Were they not saved?  How was this the same or different to our situation?

(I'm not arguing, just curious)

Psalm 74 text

Highlights

 - Asaph encourages Yahweh to help them

Summary

 - The Israelites are militarily confounded
 - Come on Yahweh, sort us out!
 - We're fulfilling our part of the bargain, how about fulfilling yours?
 - See how people scoff at you right now
 - We know you can do mighty things - our history tells us so

Questions and Observations

1) There have been quite a few of this type of psalm, haven't there? The Israelites are taking a national pummelling, and they plead with Yahweh to intercede for them. Military victories are due to Yahweh; military defeats are due to him having temporarily lost interest. Yahweh gets quite a sweet deal out of this arrangement - good things are down to him, whereas bad things are down to his followers not honouring him enough. It's almost as if he doesn't need to exist at all for it all to happen exactly as it did...

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 20, 2016, 11:51PM  Were they not saved?  How was this the same or different to our situation?

(I'm not arguing, just curious)

I guess the argument is, saved from what?  Since there was no idea of an eternal damnation at the time, any salvation they talked about had to refer to something temporal and contemporary. 

I think it is very risky to read too much into any similarities between words.

On the other hand, if you really buy that, you're forced into the opposite problem.

Clearly several million people lived before Jesus, even if we postulate a 4,000 year Young Earth, based on various numbers of population cited in various OT verses.

Just as clearly if they were subject to eternal damnation, they went to hell for all eternity, because Jesus had not yet saved them. 

Or, they saved themselves by works - and that's contrary to modern theology. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Dec 21, 2016, 04:57AMI guess the argument is, saved from what?  Since there was no idea of an eternal damnation at the time, any salvation they talked about had to refer to something temporal and contemporary. 

I think it is very risky to read too much into any similarities between words.

On the other hand, if you really buy that, you're forced into the opposite problem.

Clearly several million people lived before Jesus, even if we postulate a 4,000 year Young Earth, based on various numbers of population cited in various OT verses.

Just as clearly if they were subject to eternal damnation, they went to hell for all eternity, because Jesus had not yet saved them. 

Or, they saved themselves by works - and that's contrary to modern theology. 


Every one of your statements is problematic, I believe, and historic orthodox Christian theologians have clear cogent responses and/or clarifications, but this forum isn't the place to discuss them.  I refer you to any standard theology text-- systematic or biblical-- these are technical terms that refer to different disciplines-- that address those.

I believe you will find that they are not special pleading, but responsible handling of the texts.  They don't all agree on the details, but there are broad similarities and careful exegesis of the texts that doesn't assume 2 fallacies:
     
    1,  That slight differences in wording means different and/or contradictory content.

    2.  What C.S. Lewis or some other similar apologist-- I can't remember exactly-- called "the tyranny of the present"  that "modernity" always gets it right.  The history of discarded ideas and practices among completely secular folk is enough to disprove that.  My term for it is the fallacy of "presentism."  The ancients certainly got many things wrong, but they also got many things right and understood many realities far better than many so-called progressive moderns want to give them credit for.

Psalm 75 text

Highlights

 - All will be judged

Summary

 - Asaph honours Yahweh
 - Yahweh's words are imagined:
 - "I will judge all and judge fairly, at a time of my choosing"

Questions and Observations

1) Obvious, but does bear saying: assuming that the attribution "of Asaph" means that these words were written by Asaph (whoever he may have been; see discussion in Martin's post above) raises similar issues to the attribution "of David". We have no certainty that there wasn't a later school of psalmistry that wrote these words in tribute to these historical figures.
2) Putting words in Yahweh's mouth - theologically a bit risky?

Psalm 76 text

Highlights

 - Yahweh is mighty

Summary

 - Yahweh is worshipped
 - The author stands in awe of him
 - And cannot believe that anyone could do otherwise

Questions and Observations

1) If the writer was the Asaph commissioned by King David, what was he doing writing about Judah and Israel as separate entities? The story told by Samuel/Kings is that the division of the kingdoms did not occur until Solomon's death, after a reign of 40 years. One could resolve this by either suggesting that "of Asaph" doesn't necessarily mean written by him, or by the more radical (but historically plausible) measure of noting that the united kingdom period has a good deal more legend than fact to it as an entity, so far as evidence shows.
2) Is the author saying that Israel is more zealous in worshipping Yahweh than Judah? This is the opposite of the impression given by Samuel/Kings.

Psalm 77 text

Highlights

 - The author intends to ask for Yahweh's support when needed

Summary

 - When the author is troubled, they will talk to Yahweh
 - They will count on his support
 - They remember times he has helped people in the past

Questions and Observations

1) No mystery to interpretation, I think?

Quote from: John the Theologian on Dec 21, 2016, 05:19AM    2.  What C.S. Lewis or some other similar apologist-- I can't remember exactly-- called "the tyranny of the present"  that "modernity" always gets it right.  The history of discarded ideas and practices among completely secular folk is enough to disprove that.  My term for it is the fallacy of "presentism."  The ancients certainly got many things wrong, but they also got many things right and understood many realities far better than many so-called progressive moderns want to give them credit for.
Keep in mind that argumentums ad antiquitati are often made by mis-citing argumentums novitati too though. If we recognize something that's wrong from the past it doesn't mean we're saying it's wrong because it's old, it may just actually be wrong and we learned how and why after it was written. Much of that sort of thing in the Bible isn't an issue for non-inerrantists. It's the same basic fallacy to dismiss newer, increased understanding as if it can be considered an argumentum ad antiquitatis just because it's criticizing an ancient (and often revered) claim or notion or ideology.

BvB,
If I can quote John:
QuoteThe ancients certainly got many things wrong, but they also got many things right and understood many realities far better than many so-called progressive moderns want to give them credit for.
and expand on it,

he is claiming that they got things right that they don't know they got right.

E.g., in the OT they had no concept of Eternal Damnation, and no need for salvation, but they used the word salvation thinking it was temporal and current, BUT ACTUALLY got it right without knowing it. 

I just don't see how that can ever make sense. 

While John knows that concept is anachronistic, most of the parishioners in the pew consider the Bible a single coherent linear story, and assume if we had Eternal Damnation in Paul's day we had it in Moses's. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Dec 21, 2016, 08:50AMBvB,
If I can quote John:
and expand on it,

he is claiming that they got things right that they don't know they got right.

E.g., in the OT they had no concept of Eternal Damnation, and no need for salvation, but they used the word salvation thinking it was temporal and current, BUT ACTUALLY got it right without knowing it. 

I just don't see how that can ever make sense. 

While John knows that concept is anachronistic, most of the parishioners in the pew consider the Bible a single coherent linear story, and assume if we had Eternal Damnation in Paul's day we had it in Moses's. 

Actually, you've misunderstood me.  I think that they got many things correct and as far as what recorded the Bible is concerned they got them all correct as far as it goes.  However, that does not mean that their understanding of these things was anywhere nearly as fully developed as later texts.  There clearly is progressive understanding of the concepts as the biblical narratives unfold.  Exactly what someone living at the time of David understood about eternal punishment is something I don't believe we can be sure about.  However, I believe that there is enough evidence to say that they knew that there was divine deliverance from an afterlife that was not a pleasant one.  See the discussions in some of the OT theologies for more on this.

Developing this further is probably not the best use of this particular thread.  I can personally give you some avenues to pursue if you would really like to.

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 21, 2016, 03:16AMPdslm 74

- We're fulfilling our part of the bargain, how about fulfilling yours?
 - See how people scoff at you right now

I think that "we" and the people are one and the same.  Which means that we the people aren't fulfilling their part of the bargain.

Asaph is actually pleading with God to be merciful, to "save" them, not because they are doing the right thing, but because of the covenant and because the foolish who are scoffing at him are his enemies.

QuoteIt's almost as if he doesn't need to exist at all for it all to happen exactly as it did...

almost.

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 21, 2016, 05:30AM
 - Yahweh's words are imagined:
 - "I will judge all and judge fairly, at a time of my choosing"
....

2) Putting words in Yahweh's mouth - theologically a bit risky?

if God existed and was going to judge you for it then yeah, I would not be keen to imagine random words to put in God's mouth. 

I'd make sure that I repeated what he had already said somewhere else.  Maybe if I was feeling really game I might paraphrase somthing he said.  I'll see if I can find a likely quote that he's using.

Psalm 78 text

Highlights

 - Yahweh likes Judah above the rest of you

Summary

 - Asaph says: Hear ye! Hear ye! I am telling you lessons from history.
 - Jacob was given a covenant which still holds with you today
 - The Ephraimites did not keep the covenant, despite knowing of historic miracles from the time of Moses
 - Yahweh didn't like this, and punished all of Israel for it
 - Dissatisfied, Yahweh dismissed Joseph's successors and also the Ephraimites
 - He settled instead on the kingdom of Judah as being worthy

Questions and Observations

1) Not sure which particular episode with the Ephraimites Asaph refers to - likely something to do with David, I would guess? As noted before, there have been quite a few instances where "the hill country of Ephraim" has proven politically problematic for the kings of Judah.
2) This psalm seems to place all the blame for the supposed consequences of Israelite faithlessness on the tribe of Ephraim. But I am not sure if I am reading this correctly, as this seems a controversial and painfully divisive message if so. Perhaps it is simply badly expressed, and the long segment (vv. 10-66) talking about faithlessness is meant to apply to the whole of Israel. But it does follow straight on from that condemnation of the Ephraimites. It is hard not to read it as a nasty piece of ethnic stirring.
3) Again Asaph apparently writes of divided kingdoms. It seems clear to me that either Asaph lived an exceptionally long life (continuing to write psalms into his 90s), and/or these were written by a school of writers that followed (perhaps a long while after), and/or the history laid out in Samuel/Kings isn't quite right. Something doesn't tot up properly, but from a vantage point of 3,000 years later it's hard to determine exactly what. My take is that, as we've previously discussed, the notion of a united kingdom period seems more in the way of a Jewish folk-myth than hard history; historians tends to think that Israel and Judah rather arose as two neighbouring independent states in the usual manner.
4) All in all, I am reading Asaph as having a tendency to write with a pro-Judah, anti-Israel message, as in Samuel/Kings, where the kings of Israel were all knaves.

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 21, 2016, 05:41AMPsalm 76 text


1) If the writer was the Asaph commissioned by King David, what was he doing writing about Judah and Israel as separate entities? The story told by Samuel/Kings is that the division of the kingdoms did not occur until Solomon's death, after a reign of 40 years. One could resolve this by either suggesting that "of Asaph" doesn't necessarily mean written by him, or by the more radical (but historically plausible) measure of noting that the united kingdom period has a good deal more legend than fact to it as an entity, so far as evidence shows.

It seems to me that these Psalms are written after David and Solomon ruled and the kingdoms were split, (assuming that they were united at one stage).  eg Psalm 74 3-8 seems to talk about the destruction of the temple which happened generations after Solomon.  So it seems to me that Asaph wasn't the man appointed by David, but a person or persons writing later.

Quote2) Is the author saying that Israel is more zealous in worshipping Yahweh than Judah? This is the opposite of the impression given by Samuel/Kings.

Are you talking about the 1st verse? If you are, I don't think that there is supposed to be a contrast made between Israel and Judah here.  Its just two ways of saying the same thing.  Like v2 does for his abode/dwelling.  Its a feature of Jewish poetry, they repeat meanings rather than sounds, like we do to establish rhyme.

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 22, 2016, 01:47AMPsalm 78 text

Highlights

 - Yahweh likes Judah above the rest of you
- Don't forget the lessons of history

QuoteSummary

 - Asaph says: Hear ye! Hear ye! I am telling you lessons from history.
- he emphasises how important those lessons are by saying repeatedly that problems were caused because people forgot or didn't remember these lessons.

Quote - Jacob was given a covenant which still holds with you today
 - The Ephraimites did not keep the covenant, despite knowing of historic miracles from the time of Moses
 - Yahweh didn't like this, and punished all of Israel for it

- the actions that the people were punished for were not just the actions of the Ephraimites but the actions of the pretty well all of the People in the wilderness weren't they.  So I think that Ephraim is being used as a symbol of the whole people, maybe especially the Nothern Tribes, because as we have noticed, they were especially "bad".

- I think Ephraim is also used because they were associated with enemies of David like King Saul and Absalom and so make a good foil for King "Saint" David who is depicted as the hero of all things good.

Quote4) All in all, I am reading Asaph as having a tendency to write with a pro-Judah, anti-Israel message, as in Samuel/Kings, where the kings of Israel were all knaves.

Pretty much.  Although by the end of 2 Kings, Judah had proved to be as delinquent as Israel and the archivists didn't try and hide it.

So to me the point of the Psalm is not so much that God likes Judah more than Israel, but that Israel's problems were caused because they forgot and didn't remember the lessons of history.

It's classic scapegoating - but with the interesting twist that the blame is internalised. History says that both Israel and Judah got squashed between the relentlessly grinding millstones of greater empires around them during a period in which empires found it relatively easy to expand rapidly. That isn't the fault of anyone that got squashed - though some Israelite and Judahite leaderships undoubtedly were better or worse than others at the rapid footwork required to stay safe in such a position. But their religion led them to blame themselves, feeling that it must have been a karmic reward (to use the word in a general sense, not in the specific Indian sense).

It's a sound thing in life in general to look for the ways in which one's own behaviour might be improved before casting blame elsewhere, but this is way overdoing it, to a point where it got in the way of seeing what actually was going on. There's no need to invoke divine displeasure when ordinary worldly events explain what happened perfectly well. It is in a way avoiding analysing the issues properly - they preferred to cling to the comforting narrative that their priests regularly berated them with rather than face head-on the reality that their military prowess had proven second-class. It's an emotional comfort blanket - 'we might have failed, but we failed because of our thing, rather than because of your thing'.

Psalm 79 text

Highlights

 - Jerusalem is fallen; Yahweh, please help, we need you

Summary

 - Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed by invaders
 - Its people murdered
 - Its former glory hugely diminished
 - The author asks Yahweh how much more of this they are due before things get better
 - And begs for his aid
 - Promising faithfulness

Questions and Observations

1) Yes, as Martin says, this seems to refer to the destruction of the first temple in 586 BC, centuries after David, while also being attributed "to Asaph". I am concluding more and more strongly that these attributions should not be read at face value - rather as being inspired by a tradition that venerated the person attributed to.
2) It would take a stone heart not to be moved by the pleas here. It might all have happened millennia ago, but these are very strong human emotions, expressed without relief.

Psalm 80 text

Highlights

 - Appeal to Yahweh for help in the face of disaster

Summary

 - Please Yahweh, save us from what has happened
 - Have mercy on us now we've been punished
 - You made us great; please do it again

Questions and Observations

1) These last few psalms seem to run sequentially on similar topics?

But then there's all that history that they had ...  with this supernatural being that gets jealous and apocalyptic (to use the word in the non-biblical sense) when they go off after other pretend gods.

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 23, 2016, 03:23AMBut then there's all that history that they had ...  with this supernatural being that gets jealous and apocalyptic (to use the word in the non-biblical sense) when they go off after other pretend gods.

More of the same, I would contend - it's a self-reinforcing thing:

Things go well => obviously we've been faithful recently, thank you Yahweh!
Things go badly => obviously we've not been faithful enough recently, thank you for the lesson Yahweh!

Whether things turn out well or not, the moral is that Yahweh knows best and requires more praising. This pattern has been consistently applied throughout all the books of the bible that we've read.

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 23, 2016, 03:26AMMore of the same, I would contend - it's a self-reinforcing thing:

Things go well => obviously we've been faithful recently, thank you Yahweh!
Things go badly => obviously we've not been faithful enough recently, thank you for the lesson Yahweh!

I don't think that your hypothesis fits the data.  eg Ps 73 where the wicked prosper and Job where the innocent suffer.

And I was thinking of the history where God did intervene spectacularly as in Exodus, even if I didn't articulate that well.

QuoteWhether things turn out well or not, the moral is that Yahweh knows best and requires more praising. This pattern has been consistently applied throughout all the books of the bible that we've read.

I agree sort of: God does deserve praise, regardless of whether he's doing stuff that we think is good (ie of it benefits us).  (Is that close enough for an agreement?) But he is ok with accepting and even rewarding complaints when we are suffering, as was shown in Job.

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 23, 2016, 02:30AMPsalm 80 text


did you notice the facial expression theme?

v3  let your face shine, that we may be saved!
v7  let your face shine, that we may be saved!
v16 may they perish at the rebuke of your face!
v19 let your face shine, that we may be saved!

Psalm 81 text

Highlights

 - celebrate God, listen to him and be blessed.

Summary

 - everyone sing a joyful song to the Lord at the Feast
 - this was ordained in the Exodus when God rescued us, blessed us and tested us
 - But Israel didn't listen to the Lord do he gave them over to their stuborn hearts
 - Oh that they would listen, God would soon subdue their enemies and feed you with the finest food.

Questions and Observations

1) the full moon feast would be either Tabernacles or Passover. Both of these are remberances of Exodus events that fit in with the content of this Psalm.  I think its more likely to be Tabernacles because of the references to the Law, listening to the Lord and harvest.
2) Israel here would be all the 12 tribes, not just the northern ones.

Psalm 82 text

Highlights

 - a surfeit of gods.

Summary

 - God takes his place in the divine coucil and condemns the gods for their unjust judgements
 - they walk in the darkness,  they know nothing.
 - they might be sons of the Most High but they will fall and die like any prince.
 - Arise God and judge the earth.

Questions and Observations

1) This raises the monotheism v polytheism issue.
2) I think that the 'gods' were created beings, probably angels, that may have been worshipped as gods by humans but weren't God.  Any new thoughts since we discussed this last?
3) Here, the status of the gods were that they were accountable to God (and seemed to have delegated authority and responsibility) and would be judged by him for who they fulfilled their responsibilities.

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 23, 2016, 10:59PMI don't think that your hypothesis fits the data.  eg Ps 73 where the wicked prosper and Job where the innocent suffer.
Not sure how this contradicts what I was saying?

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 23, 2016, 10:59PMI agree sort of: God does deserve praise, regardless of whether he's doing stuff that we think is good (ie of it benefits us).  (Is that close enough for an agreement?) But he is ok with accepting and even rewarding complaints when we are suffering, as was shown in Job.

That wasn't how I read the denouement of Job. Yahweh seemed pretty cross with Job about his complaining, I thought. Told him he should have had faith that all was for a good reason, even though we were explicitly told that is was for a bad reason. Job was rewarded for his suffering - but not I think because he piped up about it - rather because Yahweh was morally obligated to compensate him for it.

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 23, 2016, 11:57PMPsalm 82 text

1) This raises the monotheism v polytheism issue.
2) I think that the 'gods' were created beings, probably angels, that may have been worshipped as gods by humans but weren't God.  Any new thoughts since we discussed this last?
3) Here, the status of the gods were that they were accountable to God (and seemed to have delegated authority and responsibility) and would be judged by him for who they fulfilled their responsibilities.

Now this is interesting! There could not be a more clear biblical acknowledgment that their religion believed that some other gods were real. One can argue that the use of the clear term "gods" is a metaphor, but there are plenty of other bible passages that talk equally unambiguously.

I'm reminded of the name that Tim dropped into the conversation a page or two back - Marcion of Sinope, an early Christian church father who concluded that the Yahweh of the OT was not the same god as the God of the NT, concluding that Yahweh was subservient to him. It was evidently not an outlandish idea to early Christianity that more gods existed than the one that they chose to worship.

Psalm 83 text

Highlights

 - Plea for Yahweh's military aid

Summary

 - Yahweh, please talk to us
 - Our enemies are upon us
 - Destroy them please

Questions and Observations

1) This is the final psalm "Of Asaph".

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 24, 2016, 07:03AMNow this is interesting! There could not be a more clear biblical acknowledgment that their religion believed that some other gods were real. One can argue that the use of the clear term "gods" is a metaphor, but there are plenty of other bible passages that talk equally unambiguously.

your reference argues that  "The idea that there are other “gods” who exist as real supernatural beings, albeit infinitely inferior to the only Creator and Redeemer, pervades the Bible. The Psalms fairly explode with evidence.
“There is none like you among the gods, O Lord” (86:8);
“For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods” (96:4);
“Our Lord is above all gods” (135:5); “Ascribe to Yahweh, [you] gods, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength” (29:1, my trans.);
“He is exalted above all gods” (97:7);
“For Yahweh is a great god, and a great king above all gods” (95:3, my trans.)"

I'm not going to disagree with what the bible says.

But, I think its clear that Israel has been told that their relationship is with Yaweh, the God who created all, and that they are not to worship the puny gods that have been assigned to look after the other nations.

QuoteI'm reminded of the name that Tim dropped into the conversation a page or two back - Marcion of Sinope, an early Christian church father who concluded that the Yahweh of the OT was not the same god as the God of the NT, concluding that Yahweh was subservient to him. It was evidently not an outlandish idea to early Christianity that more gods existed than the one that they chose to worship.
You're mixing up the created gods with the creator God.  I would argue that that's a category error.

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 24, 2016, 07:09AMPsalm 83 text

Highlights

 - Plea for Yahweh's military aid

Summary

 - Yahweh, please talk to us
 - Our enemies are upon us
 - Destroy them please

And I think its worthwhile adding that the Psalmist bases the reasons for his request on:
- God's previous victories - do to them like you did to Midian and Sisera ...
- the idea that the enemies will learn about God's power

Psalm 84 text

Highlights

 -  God's a cool guy with a nice house

Summary

 - You've got a really nice house God, even the birds like it: I'd really like to be there
 - The people that trust in you get stronger as they travel
 - Hear my prayer and bless your anointed
 - Your house is better than anywhere else and you reward those who trust in you.

Questions and Observations

1) in v9 the reference to your 'anointed' is the word messiah.  It directly referes to the King but ultimately to Jesus the ultimate Messiah and King.

Psalm 85 text

Highlights

 -  Longing for revival

Summary

 - God, you've looked after your people before,
 - Don't be angry with us any more, love us again
 - We want to hear you again, because we are sure you will favour us
 - Then heaven and earth will be in harmony

Questions and Observations

1) I think my last point is what the last paragraph of the psalm is saying, but its not really clear

We're back with the Sons of Korah again, which, like Asaph and David, I would interpret as being likely a school of ancient Judaic poetry and musicianship - in fact the name is much more obviously so than the other two cases we've seen. There's been a distinct stylistic change from the Asaph psalms that preceded - there's a lightness of touch here where Asaph's writing tended to the intense and brooding.

Psalm 86 text

Highlights

 - David trusts in the Lord for mercy

Summary

 - Listen to me O Lord, save me, be gracious to me, because I am in need
 - You are the best: teach me so that I can follow you
 - Bad people are against me: be gracious to me and save me

Questions and Observations

1) more gods.
2) David is in trouble and relying on God again
3) God is good, loving, trustworthy and reliable

Psalm 87 text

Highlights

 - City, Birth, Book

Summary

 - The City the Lord loves: Zion
 - Other cities
 - The people that were born in Zion are registered

Questions and Observations

1) This is a strange little Psalm, but it has themes in it that are significant in the bible: The City of God, Birth and The Book.
2) Zion is a reference to Jerusalem: Zion is the name of the mountain it stands on.
3) The reference to Rahab in a list of cities is strange.  My commentary says that Rahab is a nickname for Egypt.

Psalm 88 text

Highlights

 - The darkness of the soul, patient faith, faithful patience

Summary

 - I continually cry out to you, but I see no hope
 - everything is dark
 - I am close to death and your wrath is upon me
 - Every day I call out to you
 - I see nothing. I know nothing
 - I face death without hope
 - But I cry out to you every morning
 - you ignore me: it is dark
 - I am terrified and close to death

Questions and Observations

1) God doesn't promise us that life will be happy.  Sometimes it looks hopeless. Here is an example of someone walking in darkness, without light but still trusting in the Lord.

Psalm 87 text

Highlights

 - Does God promise and not fulfill

Summary

 - God's promises are guaranteed by his nature
   - He is powerful, just, loving and faithful
 - The promises
   - The people are favoured
   - King David is favoured
   - He is promised a throne ruling on his behalf
   - He will be The Lords son and The Lord his father
   - the dynasty will be disciplined but never rejected
   - it will be established forever
 - But you have cast of and rejected your people
 - Lord remember your servants and your promises

Questions and Observations

1) Here is a prayer of faith: first praising God and reciting how he can fulfill his promises; then recounting the promises; then pointing out that they have not been kept yet and seem to be in disarray; and then asking for God to keep his word.
2) So this is why the Gospels made the point the Jesus was a descendant of David, and the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises.

I'm going camping for a week, so it's all yours.

Happy New Year everyone.

Martin

Happy New Year to you too! You're now past 300 chapter summaries...

I see that with the last couple of psalms covered (88 and 89) we are introduced to two new authors, both Ezrahites, Heman and Ethan. It seems not entirely clear which Ezrah might have given his name to their clan. I also (slightly belatedly in edit!) see that here we conclude the third of the five subdivisions of the psalm collection.

Psalm 90 text

Highlights

 - Yahweh is a large concept

Summary

 - Yahweh has overseen things for ever
 - Individual lives are minuscule in comparison
 - Yahweh's anger is perilous to such small things
 - Do the right stuff and take inspiration from Yahweh's works

Questions and Observations

1) "A prayer of Moses"? Similarly to before, I am assuming that in reality this means a piece of work written by a later author intended to be words that Moses could have said.
2) With this psalm we start on the fourth of the five subdivisions of this long collection of psalms.

Psalm 91 text

Highlights

 - "Refuge and Fortress"

Summary

 - The author trusts in Yahweh
 - To shield from hazards
 - They will obtain confidence from it
 - Those that trust will be shielded
 - Despite exposure to danger
 - They will always honour Yahweh

Questions and Observations

1) The first stanza is pretty much a tautology - 'one who orders their life in this fashion orders their life in this fashion'.
2) "The snare of the fowler" - is this a metaphor or literal?
3) Unusually, this psalm bears no superscription.

Psalm 92 text

Highlights

 - Worship Yahweh or else

Summary

 - The author enjoys offering Yahweh praise in musical form
 - Yahweh is very powerful
 - Not everyone realises this
 - Those that don't are doomed
 - The author observes this effect

Questions and Observations

1) This one is simply superscripted "A Psalm. A Song for the Sabbath."

Psalm 93 text

Highlights

 - Yahweh reigns

Summary

 - Yahweh reigns
 - He defeated floodwaters
 - The author likes Yahweh

Questions and Observations

1) A short one, this, only 5 verses. No superscription again. We seem to have entered a part of the collection of more miscellaneous classification - glancing a little ahead, I see more unsuperscripted chapters.
2) But mysterious. What's the stuff about flooding? This says that it refers to the creation legend.

Psalm 94 text

Highlights

 - Yahweh, please stop the bad guys from winning

Summary

 - The author calls on Yahweh to smite their enemies
 - They lament the dominance some enemies have over them
 - They take heart in their faith in the face of reverses

Questions and Observations

1) The opening to this psalm is striking, calling Yahweh "God of vengeance". Where else is Yahweh given this attribute? It isn't common in the Bible.

Psalm 95 text

Highlights

 - Sing in praise of Yahweh

Summary

 - The author proposes to sing in praise of Yahweh
 - They sing that he is most excellent
 - Creator of the world
 - Tender of their people
 - Do not reject him like the wanderers in the wilderness

Questions and Observations

1) There is a strange shift of perspective in verse 9, when a sentence that starts in the voice of the psalmist shifts mid-way and without warning into the voice of Yahweh. This does not work as a poetic device to my mind.

Psalm 96 text

Highlights

 - Keep on singing

Summary

 - Sing praise to Yahweh
 - He is most excellent
 - Other gods are rubbish
 - Yahweh will judge all

Questions and Observations

1) Once again it is made clear that other gods are believed to exist, even if worshipping them is not considered valid within the religion being prescribed here

Psalm 97 text

Highlights

 - We like the boss

Summary

 - Everyone should be happy that Yahweh is in charge
 - He has the power to squash adversaries and meld the landscape and weather
 - Those worshipping other gods are wrong and should be embarrassed

Questions and Observations

1)