Last month’s edition of Christianity today featured an article entitled, plainly enough, “How to Read the Bible.” You could be forgiven for thinking that this is redundant, as after 1600+ years of having this formalised collection of 66 books we now have a pretty good handle on navigating our way through it.

But, as its author J. Todd Billings suggests, the irony is that in spite of easy access, and a proliferation of tools and techniques that enable us to interrogate the Scriptures, we are all too often lost in interpretation. Despite a nagging sense that we really ought to read it more, many of us are simply confused by the Bible – unsure what to make of it, how to piece it together, or how it speaks with any sense of relevance as the voice of God to us today.

In recent times a new player, which takes these issues seriously, has emerged within the academic/Church scene. Operating under the conviction that the Bible is God’s redeeming and communicative self-giving through which the church is brought into being (see Webster), this ‘movement’ goes by the name: Theological Interpretation of Scripture.

Billings elaborates: “Partly due to the inadequacies of popular and scholarly readings of the Bible, an increasing number of scholars have been advocating a ‘theological interpretation of Scripture.’ They encourage us to read the Bible as God’s instrument of self-revelation and saving fellowship. This school of interpretation includes a wide range of practices, but all of them move us toward knowing the triune God and being formed as Christ’s disciples through Scripture.”

The best way to understand the difference this approach makes is to see it in action, and Billings provides a nice example in his article. Here the David and Goliath story is rescued from being seen as little more than an anthropocentric and therapeutic allegory about realising human potential – to one in which the God of Israel is front and centre, as the primary agent in this redemptive narrative.

“Rather than seeing David as the self-actualized hero, the emphasis here is on the saving action of the almighty God, whom David actively trusts. For as the text repeatedly notes, it was not a “sword” of David that brings deliverance from the Philistines, for “the Lord does not save by sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s and he will give you into our hand” (17:47; cf. 17:37; 17:50). Although David appears to be ill-prepared to encounter Goliath, David acts with covenantal trust in God that “The Lord …will save me from the hand of this Philistine” (17:37). Thus, we are invited to actively trust in this same God—the God of Israel who finally reveals the nature of his victory over his enemies in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

One of the fascinating observations noted about the results of this approach to reading Scripture is the remarkable similarity it often shares with the perspectives of pre-modern, and contemporary non-Western interpreters. The effect of this being that it opens the door to a reconsideration of these ‘other readings’, with the hope that we might see and recover elements which we have neglected or overlooked in our attempts to interpret the Bible. Not only does this demand a certain interpretive humility, but it also strongly suggests that it takes the whole church, globally and historically, to read the Bible well.

Now you’d expect, with a title like that (and the fact that this is the Edge blog after all) that I would follow on with some witty remark or clever angle, but nothing of the sort today…just a link to a really useful website that is well worth checking out.

Have a look at this one:
www.bibledex.com

This site, put together by the University of Nottingham, provides short video introductions to all the books of the Bible, along with discussions of key passages and themes. This is a really helpful resource providing an overview of each book, a summary of how it has been read and understood throughout history, and an idea of how to begin ‘navigating’ it.

I’m a big fan of resources like this which can help orient us in our reading of Scripture. A couple of my favourite are the “How to Read the Bible” books from Fee and Stuart:
How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth
How to Read the Bible Book by Book

In similar vein Bibledex is well worth taking a look at for helping you ‘get your bearings’, and I think it will also serve as a good reference resource.

Enjoy.

<< part 1.
<< part 2.

Compatible?

One of the dilemmas presented by the Psalms to Christian readers is how to harmonise these poems, replete with yearnings for destruction of the opposition, with the moral and ethical teachings on the treatment of enemies presented in the New Testament. In particular the passages which seem to challenge this ‘spiteful streak’ in the Psalter are those found in Matthew 5:43-48, and which are echoed in Romans 12:19-21.[1]

In reflecting on this tension, and basing his observations on personal experience, Zenger comments insightfully that: “…It has become almost a ritual part of pastoral reflections and recommendations intended to introduce people to the practice of praying the Psalms to point out, regretfully and with apologies, that the book of Psalms – as lovely as it is – unfortunately has a number of blemishes that one may either overlook in a spirit of Christian generosity or criticize from a Christian point of view.”[2]

Christians throughout the ages then have struggled with this apparent contradiction and often dealt with it simply by ignoring certain Psalms altogether;[3] and there are many examples of denominations excluding many verses or entire Psalms, based on the enemy language contained within them.[4] Other strategies employed to work around this issue include a ‘wholesale’ spiritualisation of the enemies, or an application to ‘personal demons’ like addiction and depression.[5]

Considerations.

In considering whether the attitudes demonstrated by the Psalmist towards the enemies are compatible with New Testament teachings scholars have noted a number of key insights that illuminate this discussion. Firstly, Anderson points out that, lacking the ‘eschatological horizon’ of the New Testament, the Psalmists write about life in the here and now – and seek to find answers to redress grievances in the temporal domain: “…The Psalmists are not satisfied with the notion that the imbalances of life will somehow be corrected in another form of existence beyond historical experience…For the Psalmist death is the final limitation…”[6] In light of this the Psalmist’s attitude towards the enemy may be understood as a fervent passion for justice.[7]

Secondly, the question has been asked as to whether our current understanding of the concept of vengeance corresponds directly with that held by the ancient Israelites. To the ‘modern/post-modern’ mind it is, on the whole, inherently negative and sinful, but for the Psalmist it was inseparably linked to the concept of justice – with vengeance and compassion being seen as two sides of the loving-kindness of Yahweh.[8] Such an approach has been lost to the general Christian consciousness,[9] but through this lens what were perceived to be corrupt and poisonous yearnings for vengeance in the ‘enemy Psalms’ can be rightfully understood as just claims “…submitted to the real judge.”[10] In this view the Psalmist’s cries again are for justice and understood as pleas for vindication, rather than vindictive and hateful cursing of the enemy.[11]

A third factor for consideration is ambiguity in the teaching of the New Testament itself, which at times seems to contradict the ill feeling expressed towards the enemies in the Psalms, yet in other places confirms it.[12] In support of this proposition Day draws attention to passages such as Matthew 11:20-24 and 23:13-19, instances where Jesus himself pronounces ‘imprecations’, on unrepentant cities and on unbelieving scribes and Pharisees, respectively.[13] Day then builds on this, arguing that in extreme circumstances vengeance, of the type called for by the Psalmist, may be the only remaining option in ensuring justice, securing order from chaos, and freedom from oppression; and he says, “…grace repeatedly spurned calls for punishment, and at such a juncture God’s people are justified in calling for divine justice.”[14] This seems to correlate with the trajectory of the New Testament itself, and in which we are reminded that God is deeply interested in setting things right.

Fourthly Brueggemann suggests the Psalms offer the wounded a path to wholeness by encouraging expression, rather than repression, of the ‘genuine article of hatred’; this being the necessary road to true forgiveness, as opposed to a ‘cheap and easy’ counterfeit.[15] Furthermore they open a way to effectively and appropriately channel anger to Yahweh – the offering of ones deepest hatreds to God being itself a profound act of faith.[16]

Whilst this suggestion exposes the Psalms to the charge of fostering and fueling hatred and retribution, conversely they can be seen to be opening routes away from violence and anger, encouraged through the expression and release of desires, so they are never acted upon.[17] Zenger concurs, suggesting that the Psalmists “…give to God not only their lament about their desperate situation, but also the right to judge the originators of that situation. They leave everything in God’s hands, even feelings of hatred and aggression.”[18]

Conclusion.

It has been said that as ‘modern/post-modern’ Westerners we often find ourselves attempting to avoid or deny pain,[19] however, in the Psalms we find ourselves face to face with it, and with a reality that perhaps reflects a more common experience of life than we generally care to acknowledge. The Psalms are edgy and unsettling, and at their outer limits of expression there is no simple and easy reconciliation with the Christian worldview. Here they give voice to a host of terrors and hatreds, and are frank in recounting the struggle with evil in all its shapes and forms.

As indicated the Psalms lack a measure of specificity when it comes to identifying the enemies so prevalent throughout the Psalter, but this opens them to a wide range of applications and uses. Furthermore it was noted that the portrayal of the enemies, at times, tends towards transcending the merely earthly and human.

It has also been suggested that the ill feeling the Psalmist expressed towards the enemies can be understood as a righteous and passionate desire for justice – for things to be made right in the here and now – in the face of enemies who have spurned grace, and become hardened in their outworking of enmity, deceit, oppression and injustice.[20] In this we are reminded of the ongoing nature of the struggle against evil, and that Yahweh is not a “…soft and romantic God who only tolerates and forgives, but one who takes seriously his rule and the well being of his partners.”[21]

Finally it was observed that the broader shape of the New Testament teaching was not clearly incompatible with the attitudes towards the enemies in the Psalter, when considered against the backdrop of issues of justice – and when reading Psalms as prayers of ‘release’ and a healthy alternative to enacting vengeance. In this way they fulfill the objective of bringing every area of life under the domain of God. Perhaps the activity of incorporating enemies into ‘Psalmic’ prayer could even be an avenue by which forgiveness would come and a love for these ‘opponents’ made possible.

<< part 1.

The Psalmist’s attitude towards the enemies.

Imagery.

Although their identity is frequently ambiguous the enemies are clearly depicted as a menacing presence throughout the entire Psalter. They are spoken of as an aggressive and hostile opponent, actively and persistently engaged in treachery, warfare, accusation, slander and deceit against the ‘righteous’ of Yahweh. The Psalmist tells how they set traps, speak lies, assail and devour ‘flesh’, scoff and speak with malice,[1] working all manner of iniquity and injustice.

At times these enemies are depicted in less than human terms, and animal metaphors, such as lions,[2] bulls, serpents and dogs[3] are frequently utilised to characterize their brute and beastly nature and behaviours.[4] Keel also points out that these animal comparisons indicate they are not interested in the material goods, or titles of the complainant but that this enemy seeks “…his life and that alone.”[5] These dehumanising rhetorical devices may also help the Psalmist feel justified in calling for the enemy to be brought to ‘unsavoury’ ends.[6]

Other imagery employed includes depictions of the enemy in terms of warfare, as a hostile army, and with hunting and fishing metaphors, in which they are portrayed pursuing their prey with their weapons and wiles.[7] All of which serve to reinforce the sense that these enemies are perceived to be a very real threat to the existence of the Psalmist.

Beyond this the enemy is also frequently framed in moral terms, as ‘wicked’ and ‘ungodly’ opposition to the righteous. In this way the Psalmist considers them not only a threat to their well being, but dangerous also in that they fail to pay attention to the way of Yahweh and ”…challenge the justice and loyal love of God.”[8] This destructive impiety is vividly manifest in psalm 74, where we are provided with explicit details of the sacrilegious desecration of the temple, whilst psalm 64 is indicative of a more subtle but pervasive program of plotting, scheming and threatening against the blameless and righteous.

Juxtaposed against these images are characterizations of the Psalmist, and their ‘associates’ as faithful and loyal followers of Yahweh,[9] and Mays notes, “…the servants and the enemies are frequently called the righteous and the wicked to characterize them in terms of conduct.”[10] Typically the Psalmist believes they have the special favour and attention of Yahweh and demonstrate an aptitude for ’triangling’ throughout the Psalter, which is “…lining up Yahweh with him two against one, against the enemy”,[11] so that the enemies also appear to be enemies of Yahweh himself.

Scholars point out that undergirding these projections is a fundamental view of the cosmos in which the enemies, by the nature of their impious conduct and character, present a threat to the very fabric of existence; they bring forth chaos, distort relationships, undermining and attacking the peace, stability and order in God’s good creation.[12] Their violence and unbelief is considered offensive to Yahweh on more than moral grounds, as it is effectively a “…structural distortion of the earth as the abode of life.”[13] This helps to understand why the Psalmist comes to regard them as God’s enemies, who are thus to be hated.[14]

Vengeance.

It is with an appreciation of this context that we come to a consideration of perhaps the most shocking element of the Psalter, which is the Psalmist’s cry for both vindication and vengeance. In these outbursts they “…unabashedly declare their ill will towards enemies and even the enemies’ families” and “…openly pray for God’s partisan intervention”.[15]

In doing so they express the desire to see, amongst other things, the enemies heads shattered, their children dashed against rocks, the angel of the Lord pursue them, and ultimately their eradication.[16] Whilst these attitudes peak in Psalms such as 109 and 137, these raw expressions of hatred and enmity towards the enemies, along with calls for retaliation and revenge, are woven throughout the Psalter.[17]

The Psalmist does not appear to be interested in the rehabilitation or reformation of these enemies, but wants them dealt with, here and now. Such ill feeling is characteristic of the wider Psalter, but so pronounced is this attitude in places that those poems are referred to as ‘imprecatory’ or ‘cursing’ psalms.[18]

In part 3 I will reflect on how these attitudes may (or may not) be compatible with the New Testament’s teaching on the treatment of enemies.

---

[1] Psalms 57:6, 35:20, 27:2 and 73:8, respectively.

[2] “On the other hand, the use of lion imagery in particular may serve to present the enemy with the highest degree of strength and power and thus may constitute a rhetorical move that serves to invoke the deity’s help.” B. E. Kelle, “Warfare Imagery,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2008), 830. However they are still less than human: a beast.

[3] Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 87.

[4] B. E. Kelle, “Warfare Imagery,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2008), 830.

[5] Keel, “The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms,” 88.

[6] B. E. Kelle, “Warfare Imagery,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2008), 830.

[7] Mays, “The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms,” 36.

[8] ibid., 38.

[9] Psalm 26:3 and psalm 113:1 are two examples of these pervasive themes.

[10] Mays, “Psalms. Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching,” 35.

[11] Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary. Augsburg Old Testament studies (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1984), 67.

[12] Mays, “The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms,” 37.

[13] Zenger, “A God of Vengeance?: Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath,” 75.

[14] Anderson and Bishop, “Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today,” 73.

[15] Marti J. Steussy, “The enemy in the Psalms,” Word & World 28, no. 1 (December 1, 2008): 5.

[16] These references correspond to these ‘voiced desires’: 110:6, 137:9, 35:6, 139:19.

[17] Zenger, “A God of Vengeance?: Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath,” 13.

[18] Anderson and Bishop, “Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today,” 70.

In reflecting on why it is that Christians are drawn to the Psalms the great English preacher, John Stott, concluded that it is because they “…speak the universal language of the soul.”

In them we stare down the barrel of the full range of human experience and emotion, and they are well, frankly, honest…sometimes uncomfortably so. The early church Father, Athanasius, was right on the money with his remark that in them “…nothing contained in human life is omitted.”

Unaware of this it may come as a shock for some who stumble across the Psalms for the first time to find that a large chunk are actually sad songs, or laments. But once it is understood that these are songs in the key of honesty – rather than unfaithful or negative confessions – it is possible to come to accept, and perhaps even love, the Psalms of lament; they give voice to common experience, and we can allow them to speak for us…

However, coping with lament is one thing – but what about those Psalms that put the boot into the opposition? I mean, as a Christian is it really ok to say ‘that’?

In this series of three posts I will approach this topic from three angles, examining;
1. The identity of the enemies in the Psalter,
2. The Psalmist’s attitude towards them, and
3. Conclude by reflecting on how these attitudes may (or may not) be compatible with the New Testament’s teaching on the treatment of enemies.

Introduction.

One of the thorniest issues in the Psalms is the place that the ‘enemies’ occupy in these prayers of the ‘people of God’.[1] References to hostile opponents abound, and whether they are in immediate view, or lingering in the background,[2] these characters play a structural and necessary role in the general form of these prayers.[3] As one scholar has concluded, “…The one praying and his or her enemies – that, in short, is the dominant theme of the Psalter.”[4]

The enemies function in these poems both as vindictive initiators of malice and injury, but also, and more troublingly from a Christian perspective, as intended targets of vengeance and animosity – and the church has long wrestled to make sense of this apparent disparity between the gospel ethic and these prickly themes of the Psalter.

Who are the enemies?

Bernard Anderson, for one, has spoken of the ‘conventional monotony’ and the ‘confusing variety’ associated with the definition of the enemies in the poems of lament[5] – a feature consistent throughout the Psalms. So while the presence of enemies is a prominent characteristic of the landscape of the Psalter quite who, or what they are, is something of an elusive matter that scholars have debated.

Communal Psalms.

In the communal Psalms the enemies figure most prominently in the laments, but they also appear in other categories, such as the royal Psalms and the songs of praise.[6] They are often characterised as hostile foreign powers; national and political adversaries who may, as is indicated in a number of the laments, have dealt severe blows to Israel[7] or present them with such a threat.[8] Frequently they are depicted as ‘heathen’ nations that “…do not know Yahweh and do not call on His name.”[9]

These foreign peoples, who appear hostile to Israel and Judah, are at times represented by reference to their kings or rulers, and are occasionally identified directly.[10] For example, Edom is named as a national enemy in Psalm 60:9, as are Assyria and its allies in Psalm 83:5-8, and Babylon in Psalm 137:9.[11] In the majority of cases, however, there is a lack of clear concrete historical reference, and the language employed is generalised. This means that the identity of the particular enemy remains unknown, but it affords the Psalm flexibility, enabling it to be adapted for use in different contexts.[12]

Individual Psalms.

Numerous theories have been offered as to the identity of the enemies in the individual Psalms,[13] ranging from individuals within the Israelite community to mythological and ‘other worldly’ powers.[14]

Birkeland concluded that the enemies depicted in individual laments were the same as in their communal counterparts, and so he considered them to be predominantly ‘foreigners’.[15] He noted that in a number of the personal Psalms[16] the enemy were clearly identified as foreign, and in these cases the ‘speaker’ of the lament should be regarded as someone, likely the king, performing a representative function on behalf of the nation.[17]

Whilst others acknowledge the presence of ‘foreign’ enemies in some of the individual lament Psalms, they assert that Birkeland’s claim was an overstatement, as Tate counters: “…Although the ‘nations’ may appear in these Psalms (9:16, 59:9), the evil of the enemies in the individual laments seems more personal than national.”[18]

At the other end of the spectrum are those scholars who consider the enemies in the individual Psalms to be members of the community of Israel. These have been variously ‘identified’ as opposing parties in early post-exilic Judaism,[19] or members of a pro-Hellenistic party, a proposition offered by Duhm, based on his late dating of the psalms to the period of the Maccabees.[20]

Westermann, for example, held the view that the Psalmist and the enemy were compatriots, belonging to the same community of Israel, grounded in relationship and orientation toward Yahweh.[21] In this way he deviated sharply from the ideas of Birkeland, and also in his suggestion that the lamenter was a solitary figure, unconnected to other parties or causes. The conflict expressed then, in this view, was not religious, political, international or domestic in nature and waged between opposing groups, but grounded in interpersonal conflict between members of the same community.[22]

Schmidt and Beyerlin’s form-critical approach posits that the identity of the enemy can be best understood in relation to Jewish ‘institutional contexts’, such as the judicial process.[23] In a number of places the Psalmist is envisaged as a defendant pleading their case before Yahweh, the divine judge, in the temple ‘courtroom’. In Psalms 3, 17 and 27 for example, as they await the passing of the divine verdict, the Psalmist speaks, safe for the moment from the murderous hands, slanderous lies and defamation of their accusers.[24]

Kraus also mentions Schmidt in connection with another of these sacral Jewish institutions that he felt illuminated the identity of the enemy in the individual Psalms; the cleansing of the sick.[25] In these instances the Psalmist’s issue was one of illness, which the enemies interpret as a sign of the judgment of God, prompting them to issue unfounded and defamatory accusations of sin and guilt.[26] The enemy hostility is designed to compound the sense of weakness and helplessness felt by the Psalmist, who may have even gone to the sanctuary in hope of some restorative divine visitation,[27] and sow the thought that the “…sickness is a sign of being forsaken by God.”[28]

Alternatively Mowinckel suggested that the enemies could be best understood as sorcerers, or practitioners of black magic, who had cursed the ‘righteous’ Psalmist.[29] In his later work he broadened this perspective, moving away from seeing the enemy as a particular class of ‘magician’, to endorse the view that any individual was able to enhance their hostility with the use of stock occultic forms like evil words, bad wishes and potent ceremonies.[30]

Kraus also alludes to this kind of interpretation, considering the translation of the description of the enemies as ‘evildoers’ too weak – and detecting in their depictions a dark, demonic ‘primeval uncanniness’.[31]

Transcendent imagery.

In reflecting on the often exaggerated and larger than life features of the hostile forces within the Psalter, scholars have questioned whether the enemies are really even human[32] – for there seems, at times, to be something ‘other worldly’ about these adversaries. That is not to deny specific occasions where human opposition is plainly in view, but to recognize that, to some degree, the enemies can be also be understood to be personifications of evil; stylized representations of the forces of darkness and chaos at work in the world.[33]

In keeping with this transcendent imagery the Psalter also contains figurative reference to ‘primeval foes’, whose identity is neither national nor personal, but whose hostility is also set “…within the context of the reign of the Lord.”[34] Psalm 74, for example, speaks of Leviathan, the type of enemy power who threatens to bring chaos and destruction to the good order of the world in which Yahweh reigns.[35]

Kraus suggests that these mythical metaphors serve to highlight the great power of Yahweh,[36] as well as hinting that the identity of the enemies transcends the purely earthly and human. In regards to this he comments: “…All opponents who rise up against Yahweh, his anointed, his people, and his servant are powers of Sheol and forces of death. The foes of the individual are humans, but their nature and work are surrounded by an eerie darkness that has come from the mythical tradition.”[37]

In summary Tate suggests maintaining a wide range of interpretation in terms of the identity of the enemies, which factors in both the human foes detailed, along with the mythical agents of death and chaos.[38]

In part 2 I will look at the attitude of the Psalmist to “the enemies”…

---

[1] Bernhard W. Anderson and Steven Bishop. Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 65.

[2] This is even the case with the most ‘intimate of Psalms’ like Psalm 23. Erich Zenger, A God of Vengeance?: Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 10-11.

[3] James Luther Mays, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 36.

[4] Norbert Lohfink, “Was wird anders bei kanonischer Schriftauslegung? Beobachtungen am Beispiel von Ps. 6,” JBTh 3 (1988): 36; quoted in Zenger, “A God of Vengeance?: Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath,” 12.

[5] W. H. Bellinger, Psalms: Reading and Studying the Book of Praises (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990), 53.

[6] Hans-Joachim Kraus and Keith R. Crim. Theology of the Psalms (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1986), 126-27.

[7] Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms (Atlanta, Ga: J. Knox Press, 1981), 193.

[8] Johnston and Firth, “Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches,” 75.

[9] Psalm 79:6. W. D. Tucker Jr., “Theological Themes in the Psalter,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2008), 591.

[10] Kraus and Crim, “Theology of the Psalms,” 126.

[11] Johnston and Firth, “Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches,” 75.

[12] Anderson and Bishop, “Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today,” 57.

[13] Tate, “Psalms. 51-100. Word Biblical commentary, v. 20,” 62.

[14] ibid.

[15] John Day, Psalms. Old Testament guides (Sheffield: Sheffield Acad. Press, 1996), 22-3.

[16] Such as Psalms 9,10 and 59.

[17] Day, “Psalms. Old Testament guides,” 22.

[18] Tate, “Psalms. 51-100. Word Biblical commentary, v. 20,” 61.

[19] Bellinger, “Psalms: Reading and Studying the Book of Praises,” 17,52.

[20] Kraus and Crim, “Theology of the Psalms,” 125.

[21] Westermann, “Praise and Lament in the Psalms,” 193-94.

[22] ibid. For example, he considered Psalm 73 to express the heart of an impious individual who derided the Psalmist for their ongoing commitment to Yahweh. Tate, “Psalms. 51-100. Word Biblical commentary, v. 20,” 62.

[23] Kraus and Crim, “Theology of the Psalms,” 132.

[24] Kraus and Crim, “Theology of the Psalms,” 131-32.

[25] ibid., 132.

[26] Tate, “Psalms. 51-100. Word Biblical commentary, v. 20,” 62.

[27] “Seybold maintains that the sick person would not have been in a position to do so and that these psalms would have been recited at home, though he thinks a representative of the sick man may have recited a psalm in the cult.” Day, “Psalms. Old Testament guides,” 27.

[28] Kraus and Crim, “Theology of the Psalms,” 132.

[29] Bellinger, “Psalms: Reading and Studying the Book of Praises,” 52.

[30] Tate, “Psalms. 51-100. Word Biblical commentary, v. 20,” 63.

[31] Kraus and Crim, “Theology of the Psalms,” 131.

[32] Roland Edmund Murphy, The Gift of the Psalms (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 46.

[33] ibid., 46-7.

[34] James Luther Mays, Psalms. Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), 35.

[35] W. D. Tucker Jr., “Theological Themes in the Psalter,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2008), 591.

[36] Kraus and Crim, “Theology of the Psalms,” 129.

[37] ibid., 134.

[38] Tate, “Psalms. 51-100. Word Biblical commentary, v. 20,” 64.