Psalm 132 - Yhwh's great promises to David

Structure

Although this psalm does not have the heading "for David", it is easily the one most thoroughly soaked in talk of David. As I explain below, it is essentially a retelling of 2 Samuel 6-7. Like Psalm 130 this psalm has an ABAB structure. There is much repetition, and much correspondence, especially between the two B sections. The way I see it, each section has the introduction from the narrator, and then some speech, first from David, then Israel, then Yhwh in the past, then Yhwh looking to the future. The sections have different lengths (respectively, 10,10,8,12), but each AB pair has 20 stichs (which should correspond to the number of lines in the setting out in of most translations), giving the psalm a nice balance.

A intro 1-2 Remember when David swore to Yhwh

speech 3-5 David's vow to build Yhwh's house

B intro 6 The excitement of hearing of David's vow

speech 7-10 The people encourage Yhwh to dwell in Zion

A` intro 11a-b When Yhwh swore to David

speech 11c-12 Yhwh's vow to build David's house

B` intro 13 When Yhwh chose to dwell Zion

speech 14-18 Yhwh's promises to David in the future

Each section has Yhwh and David; in the two A sections they are adjacent, while in the B sections they are not. Furthermore Yhwh and "the mighty one of Jacob" occurs with one word separating them, twice in the first A section (v2,5). Otherwise the first AB section reuses the word "tabernacle" or "tent" (v5,7), and the second A`B` sections reuse the phrase עדי־עד (for ever ever, v12,14). Apart from these, most of the correspondence is between the two A sections and between the two B sections.

1-5; 11-12

The first of these is unsurprisingly נשׁבע - he swore. They both occur in the respective headings of their sections (v2,11), as the respective oaths of David and Yhwh are introduced. The oaths themselves are discussed in both respects with the conditional אם (if); thrice in v3-4a (and assumed in 4b) and once in 12a. In the case of David's oath, this is a Hebrew oddity where it forms the first half of a phrase but where the second half remains unstated. "If I do x before y (then may something bad happen to me)." So in this case, David's oath is that he will not care for his own interests - by going home or lying down or having a nap - before he builds Yhwh a house. But if he does, then something bad may happen to him. 

The second A section (11-12) reuses אם just the once, but in a positive sense, so that if David's descendants do indeed obediently follow Yhwh, then they will sit on his throne forever.  Interestingly the word order is "then your sons for ever and ever will sit on your throne", so that it's not "for ever and ever" which finish the thought, but "your throne" to be the note to finish this thought on. It's not the length, but the place, which is at the forefront.

6-10; 13-18

There are more repetitions between the B sections, with "resting place" being found in v8 and v14, as well as "anointed one" (lit. "messiah") in v10 and 17. The discussions about the priests and steadfast ones in v9 and 16 are repeated almost verbatim.

9	16
כהניך ילבשׁו־זדק	וכהניה אלבישׁ ישׁע
וחסידיך ירננו	וחסידיה רנן ירננו

The perspectives are obviously different - v8 is from the perspective of the people and v16 is Yhwh speaking, but otherwise there are two notable differences. The first is the clothing: v9 the priests will be clothed with righteousness; v16 the priests will be clothed with salvation. The second difference is the enthusiasm with which steadfast ones will rejoice - in v16 the verb is repeated, such that they will certainly, or enthusiastically, sing for joy (רנן).

Both B sections speak then of the joy of a restored Zion; in v6 it is boasted of from far away, while in v13 it is ensured because Yhwh has chosen (or desired - v13, 14) to choose that as his dwelling place. The places mentioned here - Ephrathah and Ja'ar - are interesting choices. David is said to be an Ephrathite, as Bethlehem was in the area of Ephrathah. We have Judah>Ephrathah>Bethlehem. So in David's home region it is heard that something is happening in Jerusalem. But it is found out also in "the fields of Ja'ar" - which is interesting in the other way - it's very confusing what this might mean. 

Everywhere else in the Bible Ja'ar is translated "forest", but the weirdness of saying "the fields of the forest" has led translators to go instead with "the fields of Ja'ar", assuming that there is some other place (maybe alternate name for Ephrathah?) which is actually called "Ja'ar." There are three options:

1. there is a place called Ja'ar that isn't recorded anywhere else
2. there is a field in a forest
3. there is a typo (NIV footnote suggests Jearim or Je'arim - which just means forests rather than forest)
4. Ja'ar is an alternate name for Ephrathah

It could well be that we are to read the two stichs of v6 in parallel, so that, rather than opposite ends of the land like in 120:5 (Meshek and Kedar), Ephrathah and Ja'ar are more or less the same place. If Ephrathah is or was largely a wooded region, then the places people would live and farm within it would the fields, so I think option 3 probably makes the most sense, and that the name was given it because it was a wooded place.

The story of the psalm

In terms of the story this tells, it all hinges around the person of and promises to David. It revolves around the goings on in 2 Samuel 6-7 where the ark of Yhwh (cf. v8 ark of your power) is brought to Jerusalem and David intends to build a house for Yhwh (v2-5). The intent (or vow, v2) is turned on its head, as instead Yhwh swears (v11a) that he instead will build David a house his servant (v10), promises that his descendants will rule after him (v11b-12). 

The final section of the psalm seems to be more eschatological and hoping despite hope, possibly betraying a post-exilic context. Although her priests may be clothed in sackcloth now, "Her priests I will clothe with salvation" (v16). The line of David may not look like much now, but as with Isaiah 11 (although with different lexemes), Yhwh will cause David's line to "sprout" once again, and he will light his path. The glory that his enemies now enjoy will be turned into shame, will be taken from them and given to the anointed descendant of David.

The image used in v18b continues that begun in v17a. The horn which sprouted there is linked to a crown which "blossoms." The messiah is something of a tree - planted by and nurtured by Yhwh. Just as blossoms come from a tree at the right time of year, so too will Yhwh's chosen one be crowned. This quite beautiful imagery of a floral crown is in obvious contrast with the crown of thorns worn by Jesus as he was proclaimed king, but the irony of course is that the ones who crowned him in jest had their joking turned to shame, as Jesus rose like blossoms on a tree which otherwise seemed dead.

The concentric structures of the Absalom cycle in 2 Samuel

I've been doing some marking this week on 2 Samuel 16. Absalom normally slips past my notice (my mind normally jumps straight through Saul-David-Solomon) but it's interesting how the Absalom cycle plays an important role in the story of David and links to bigger themes of dependence on God in the midst of sin.

2 Samuel 16 comes within the centre of the Absalom cycle, where Absalom takes the place of David as king. But not only does Absalom take the place of David, Ziba takes the place of Mephibosheth, and Hushai takes the place of Ahithophel in being Absalom's advisor. It doesn't end up well for any of them. The contrast here is to David who did not presume to usurp God's king.

A Absalom usurps

B Ziba takes the place of Mephibosheth

C Shimei

B` Hushai takes the place of Ahithophel

A` Absalom dies 

Right in the centre (2 Samuel 16:5-14) comes Shimei, and it's an interesting exchange (which I guess is why it was chosen for the exegetical essay). From what's happened around it we can expect some kind of replacement, which we get, but it's odd. Shimei comes out cursing David and flinging stones and dirt at him. He is upset that Israel is now saddled with a Davidic dynasty instead of a Saulide dynasty. He wants David to pay for Saul (and presumably Jonathan) dying. Abishai kindly offers to off his head but David understands something Abishai doesn't. While Shimei's reasons for cursing are misplaced, he is correct that David has blood on his hands. Indeed, in the central verse, David is confident that Shimei speaks for Yhwh, even if the details are incorrect. David's final words are hoping that Yhwh might forgive him.

A 5a David enters

B 5b-6 Shimei pelts David

C 7-8 Shimei curses David as a man of blood

D 9 Abishai curses Shimei

E 10 David defends Shimei who speaks for Yhwh

D` 11 David rebukes Abishai

C` 12 David hopes Yhwh will forgive his iniquity

B` 13 Shimei pelts David

A` 14 David exits

So although Shimei curses David for how he treated Saul, David is actually justified in this passage for his upright behaviour throughout. David is beyond reproach with regards to Saul. Where his guilt remains though is to do with Uriah and Bathsheba, for blood still remains on his hands. He may not have usurped Saul, trusting as he did in Yhwh's timing, but he did take the place of Uriah and did so by having him murdered.

Robert Alter - Illustrated

two translations of Robert Alter have been all the rage at college - The David Story (1&2 Samuel) and this year his translation of the Psalms.

the psalms is particularly good - his translation methodology is admirable - particularly the way he strives for terseness, in homage to the underlying Hebrew.

he has also written a great book the art of biblical narrative and translated Genesis

last year however i read an article he'd written in the New Republic called Scripture Picture. It's a four page article about the new illustrated Genesis by Robert Crumb using his translation (Crumb is probably quite famous in graphic novel circles, in others not so - check out the film Crumb where he plays himself, or even American Splendor [sic] for someone playing him in a minor roll - it's a good film!)

the article really is a good read. it's a fascinating discussion about what you do as you illustrate the bible, or depict anyone in another form. who are you when you hit the page in picture? it's hard enough to identify with yourself in print (ever critically read your own CV?), without having that then exported to another medium altogether.

there is something permanent-ising, objectifying, about turning the scriptures into pictures. the ambiguity is gone, the imagination, rather than engaging with ideas, is left to other devices - perhaps joining frame to frame in their head, filling out the missing action/movement.

and i wonder, do we do the same when children are read the scriptures as a child (i'm thinking big picture bibles)? why are we so fixated on the need for images to convey a message? do we not trust that people will do the imagining themselves?

(i think i was originally going to procrastinate about whether to buy Alter or Crumb - if you have an opinion, let me know in the comments. Cheers!)