Remember Your People and Exalt Your Name

REMEMBER YOUR PEOPLE AND EXALT YOUR NAME:
AN EXEGETICAL PAPER ON PSALM 74
Brent Karding
Psalm 74
HE 6204 Hebrew Exegesis
Dr. Joshua Stewart
April 19, 2015
brent.karding@mymail.lru.edu
INTRODUCTION
General Background
The title “Psalms” has its origin in “the title of the book in the Greek version of the
Hebrew scriptures,” and “indicates songs accompanied by stringed instruments.”1 The Hebrew
title “is tehillim, literally, ‘praises,’ but more accurately ‘praise’ (an abstract plural).”2 There are
more genres of psalms than praises, however; these include “laments, liturgies, and instructional
psalms.”3 The psalter includes psalms written by many authors over several centuries, and only
gradually assumed its current shape; Brueggeman and Bellinger call it “a collection of
collections.”4 For the specific collection that Psalm 74, the psalm under consideration, belongs
to, see the “Literary Background” section below.
The general background of Psalm 74 is not clear; however, there are several clues that
give hints. Anderson lists the “three main events which may possibly have led to the
composition of this lament: the destruction of the Temple in 587 BC, the hypothetical pollution
of the Sanctuary during the reign of Artaxerxes Ochus (359-38 BC), and the desecration of the
Holy Place by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BC.”5 Tanner lists only the first and latter events as
1
Walter Brueggeman and William H. Bellinger, Jr., Psalms (Cambridge University Press,
2014), 1.
2
Nancy deClaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner, The Book of
Psalms, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014), 2.
3
Ibid.
4
Brueggeman and Bellinger Jr., Psalms, 2.
5
A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms: Psalms 73-150, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Col, 1972), 538.
1
possibilities; the middle event is only hypothetical, and seems to have fallen out of favour as a
candidate for the setting of Psalm 74 in recent years.6
The most likely historical background for the lament of Psalm 74 is the Babylonian
destruction of the Temple. Arguments against a later Maccabean date include the “difficulty of
dating any canonical psalm as late as 165 B.C.E. because of the discovery of texts of some of the
Psalms at Qumran, dating from the first century” BC.7 Also, phrases in the psalm that seem to
indicate a Maccabean date for composition are not at all definitive. Leslie believes that the
destruction of the Temple “had taken place so long before the psalmist wrote that the resulting
ruins were called by him ‘perpetual desolations’” in verse 3.8 This is only hypothetical,
however, and does not prove a later date for the psalm. Also, “the reference to the destruction of
the ‘meeting-places of God’ in 74:8 has been thought to refer to synagogues,” which did not
exist until sometime after the return from the Baylonian exile, and which would fit best in the
Maccabean era.9 But “synagogues” is far from being the only way to translate the “meeting-
places of God” (see discussion below under “Grammatical Issues”).
Arguments in favour of an earlier date are much more persuasive. Tate writes, “The
period after 587 B.C.E. commends itself toward dating the psalm because of the destruction of the
temple and the city of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25), the hostility of neighboring peoples (Ps 137; Ezek
24), the similarity to Lam 2:5–17 (including the ‘her prophets obtain no vision from the LORD)’
6
deClaissé-Walford et al, Psalms, 598, footnote 20.
7
Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 20 (Dallas: Word
Books, 1998), 247.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
2
in v 2; cf. Ps 74:9), and various other parallels with Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel.”10 See
also the discussion of the use of Babylonian creation myth in verse 12 under “Grammatical
Issues” below, the usage of which Tanner calls “the clearest connection with a true ‘date’ for this
psalm.”11
Literary Background
Psalm 74 is the second psalm in Book 3 of the psalter (Pss 73-89). Recent scholarship
indicates that the psalter was deliberately organized, and that the shape of the psalter has “a
function and message greater than the sum of its parts.”12 Hebrew scholar G. H. Wilson argues
that Books 1 and 2 of the psalter “reflect a … positive and hopeful view of the Davidic
kingship”; Book 3, on the other hand, “modifies these hopes in the light of the exilic
experience.”13 “Further,” Tate notes, “Wilson thinks that Pss 90–106 (Book IV) function as an
editorial “center” of the present Psalter and provide ‘answers’ to the problem of the failed
covenant put forth by Ps 89.”14
Book 3, the section in which Psalm 74 is found, begins with Psalm 73 and ends with
Psalm 89. Psalms 73-83 were written by Asaph, and Psalms 84-89 were written by the sons of
Korah, David, and Ethan.
10
Tate, Psalms 51–100, 246.
11
12
Ibid., 22.
13
14
Ibid.
3
Psalm 73, the introduction to the collection, is a “wisdom psalm,” and introduces the lack
of a “reasoned connection [in the world] between righteousness and reward, wickedness and
punishment.”15 Its central assertion is that God is good to Israel, and to all who have a clean
heart (Ps 73:1), which assertion will be tested throughout Book 3. This is because “Psalm 73
opens a new chapter in the Psalter’s story of the life of ancient Israel. It signals a turning point.
David’s reign is over, and Solomon’s reign will end with the nation divided,” followed by
constant conflict between Israel and Judah and between Judah and “the nations around them.”16
Book 3 as a whole, in fact, is dominated both by “[c]ommunity laments and community hymns”
as Judah tries “to make sense of all that is going on around them.”17 This is in contrast to Books
1 and 2, which were dominated by “individual prayers.”18
Psalm 89 concludes Book 3, and is somewhat a summary of that collection of psalms. It
“represents a theological reevaluation of [Israel’s covenant] relationship as it is reflected in Pss
2–72. The covenant with David in the content of Ps 89 is an event of the distant past, and most
importantly, it is a failed covenant.”19 Book 3 thus “ends with the community of faith lamenting
and asking questions of its God: ‘Who are we? Who will lead us? Who will help us to survive
in this new world?’”20
15
deClaissé-Walford et al, Psalms, 31.
16
Ibid., 32.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid., 581.
19
20
Ibid., 34.
4
Psalm 74 clearly fits perfectly within Book 3 as a lament. A lament is defined as an
“appeal to God himself, seeking deliverance from trouble and distress.”21 In the midst of
suffering, a lamenting psalmist mourns “how life has run amok despite the power and grace of
Yahweh,” questions “the sure foundation represented by God’s creative power and sustaining
authority,” and “[musters] arguments to motivate him to act in their behalf.”22
There are two kinds of lament psalms within the psalter: personal and congregational.23
This psalm “is a congregational lament.”24 It is “a prayer voiced for the people because of the
great distress they have experienced.”25 Examples include Psalms 77-80 and 82-83, which are
also Asaphic psalms in Book 3. Specifically, Psalm 74 laments the destruction of the Temple,
which had been “the point of reference for all of life. Its destruction thus meant the loss of a
center, and a profound public disorientation.”26
Scholars agree on the overall structure of Psalm 74, speaking of the main divisions of
verses 1-11, 12-17, and 18-23. As old an English version as the King James has the psalm split
into these three same paragraphs, and this analysis has evidently withstood the tests of more
recent scholarship. The text clearly shows a division between verses 11-12, as the first-person
21
Gerald H. Wilson, Psalms, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2002), 1:86.
22
Ibid.
23
This is the division made by Walter Brueggeman in Chapter 3 of The Message of the
Psalms. Brueggeman calls the latter category “communal” laments. Walter Brueggeman, The
Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1984), 67.
24
Elmer A. Leslie, The Psalms: Translated and Interpreted in the Light of Hebrew Life
and Worship (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1949), 234.
25
26
Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms, 67.
5
singular voice is used for the first time, followed by a “hymnic” section that “praises God’s
mastery over chaos in the ancient past” in verses 13-17.27 YHWH’s mighty deeds are listed and
exalted, evidently serving “as a … motivation [for Him] to come and conquer chaos again.”28
Another imperative follows the hymn at the beginning of verse 18, echoing the imperatives of
verses 2-3 and verse 11. Imperatives and jussives tumble after each other in verses 18-23,
providing the conclusion to the psalm.29 Following the broad strokes of the psalm, a chiastic
structure can thus be seen: a plea to YHWH to act (verses 1-11); a list of YHWH’s past mighty
deeds (verses 12-17); another plea to YHWH to act (verses 18-23).
Where disagreement occurs in the analysis of Psalm 74 is in the smaller divisions of
verses 1-11. The larger outline given above makes up “three stanzas” of the psalm, according to
some.30 Others would split up the psalm into more stanzas, using some division of verses 1-11,
followed by 12-17 and 18-23. Verse 1 functions as the introduction to the psalm, but also as part
of the “supplicatory imperatives in v. 2-3,” with its “rhetorical questions.”31 Tate follows the
outline of G. F. Sharrock, who uses the conjugation of the main verbs appearing in each section
to break up the psalm. Verse 1 is the introduction, as already stated, and verses 2-3 consist of
imperatives; verses 4-9 describe “[t]he devastation done by the enemy to God’s sanctuary,” and
27
28
Ibid.
29
Tate includes a list of the conjugation of the main verbs in each section of Psalm 74,
made by G. F. Sharrock, and also notes the chiastic structure of the psalm. Tate, Psalms 51-100,
245.
30
31
Tate, Psalms 51-100, 245.
6
express the feeling of abandonment felt by the remnant in the land.32 Verses 10-11 address
YHWH directly, with imperfect verbs and an imperative; then verses 12-17 contain perfect
verbs, and 18-23 contain imperatives and jussives.33
Beth Tanner, on the other hand, summarizes the psalm as “an extended plea for God to
act,” and see the psalm as split into five sections, each section give one reason for God to act on
Israel’s behalf.34 These sections (following the introduction of verse 1) are verses 2-3, 4-8, 9-11,
12-17, and 18-23. While each section does provide a reason for God to help Israel, this is not
stated specifically in the text. Sharrock’s division based on verbal conjugations is textually
based, and therefore is not imposed from the outside in the same way as Tanner’s. This makes it
superior.
In conclusion, Tate notes that Sharrock’s chiastic outline based on the occurrence of
verbal conjugations “makes sense and seems to have a ‘good fit’ with the psalm,” although
“[t]here are certainly other ways to analyze” Psalm 74.35 It is to that qualified conclusion I have
come as well.
Translation of Psalm 74
(1) A Maschil of Asaph: O God, why have you rejected us without end? [Why] does
your anger smoke against the flock of your pasture?
32
deClaissé-Walford et al, Psalms, 594. The verbal conjugations are taken again from
33
34
35
7
(2) Remember your congregation which you purchased long ago; the tribe of your
possession [which] you redeemed; this Mount Zion in which you dwelt. (3) Raise your feet [and
come] to the everlasting ruins, to all that the enemy has destroyed in the sanctuary.
(4) Those who show hostility toward you roar in the midst of your meeting place; they
place their standards [there] as signs. (5) It looked like someone swinging axes in a thicket of
trees, (6) And now they smite down her carvings with hatchets and axes. (7) They send out fire
from your sanctuary; they profane the dwelling-place of your name to the ground. (8) They say
in their heart, “Let us oppress [them] harshly;” they have burned all the meeting-places of God in
the land. (9) No signs do we see for us; there is no longer a prophet, nor any among us who
knows how long.
(10) Until when, O God, will the adversary reproach? Will the enemy spurn your name
forever? (11) Why do you draw back your hand, even your right hand? [Withdraw it] from your
bosom; destroy [them]!
(12) For God is my king of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. (13) You
yourself divided the sea by your might; you broke the head of the sea-monster on the waters.
(14) You yourself crushed the heads of leviathan, giving him [as] food to the creatures of the
desert. (15) You yourself broke open [a channel for] the spring and the torrent; you yourself
dried up the ever-flowing rivers. (16) The day is yours, and also the night; you yourself
established the lights and the sun. (17) You yourself established all the boundaries of the earth;
you yourself formed summer and harvest.
(18) Remember this, [that] the enemy reproaches, LORD; the foolish people spurn your
name. (19) Do not give the soul of your turtledove to the wildlife; the life of your afflicted ones
do not forget forever. (20) Look to the covenant, for the hiding-places of the land are full; [they
8
are] habitations of violence. (21) Do not let the oppressed return ashamed; the poor and needy
will praise your name. (22) Rise, O God; contend your own cause; remember the taunting of
fools every day. (23) Do not forget the voice of those who show hostility toward you, [even] the
roar of those who rise up against you [which] rises up without end.
HEBREW TEXT ANALYSIS
Text Critical Issues
The first text critical note is in verse 3. It states that the LXX reads τὰς χεῖρας σου (“your
hands”), which is ָ‫ ַכפֶּי‬in Hebrew; also, the Syriac version, translated into Hebrew, is ֶָ‫“( ָפּ ֳעל‬your
works”), as in Psalm 77:12 [13 in English]. Tate calls the reading in the BHS “strange,” and
notes that there have been many attempts to clarify its meaning.36
In verse 4, it is noted that many manuscripts add a ‫ י‬after the ‫ ד‬in the word ָ ֶ‫מוֹעֲד‬, as in
verse 8.
The first word of verse 5 in BHS is ‫“( יִוָּדַ ע‬he knew”). BHS notes that the reading ‫יִגְדְּ עוּ‬
(“they have hewn down”) has been proposed instead. This verb could also be from the root ‫דעה‬,
and be translated “they burned.” Tate has an extensive discussion on this, sighing that “[t]his
convoluted mixture of emendation, transposition, and free translation clearly indicates the
difficulty of this verse.”37 Alter admits that “[t]he Hebrew is obscure.”38 Tate chose to “translate
36
37
Ibid., 242.
38
Robert Alter, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W.
Norton, 2007), 258, footnote 5.
9
the text as it stands, though with no great confidence.”39 I did the same, translating the opening
verb “it seemed,” as did Tate.40
There are two more proposed changes in verse 5, neither of which are very significant.
The first is regarding the third word of the verse, which is ‫( ְל ָמ ְעלָה‬literally “to from above”),
speaking of the direction of the axes (Alter describes “the evident image” painted in the verse as
“a woodsman chopping down branches from a high tree”).41 The proposed emendation involves
removing the ‫מ‬, replacing it with a ‫ו‬, and splitting it into two words: ‫“( ָעלֶה לוֹ‬he lifted up to
him”). The last involves removing the last letter of the final word of verse 5, ‫ק ְַרדֻּ מּוֹת‬, making it
‫ק ְַרדֻּ מּוֹ‬. However, “scholars are deeply divided on which changes should be made,” because
“[t]he meaning of this line [the first half of verse 5] is uncertain in [the] MT”; therefore, “any
translation of this line is tentative at best.”42
The first word of verse 6 in BHS is ‫“( ְועֵת‬and a time”), which Tanner calls
“problematic.”43 The qere reading is ‫“( עַתָּ ה‬now”). The LXX reads ἐξέκοψαν (“they cut down”),
and does not have the Greek equivalent of “and a time” or “now”; the possible Hebrew text they
translated from may have read ‫כִּתְּ תוֹ‬. Others propose a reading of ‫( ְואֵת‬with the qere) or ‫ ִעוְּתוּ‬. The
qere makes the most sense in the context. The second word of verse 6 is ‫“( וּחֶי ָהפִּתּ‬her
engravings”); the LXX reads τὰς θύρας αὐτῆς (“her doors”), revealing a possible Hebrew
original (from a postulated non-MT text) of ‫פְּתָ חֶי ָה‬. Some propose adding ‫הִים‬- to the end of
39
40
Ibid.
41
Alter, Psalms, 258, footnote 5.
42
43
Ibid., 595, footnote 7.
10
‫( פִּתּוּחֶי ָה‬thus pluralizing the noun) and others ָ‫חֶי‬- (adding a second-person masculine singular
pronoun). The last text critical note for verse 6 is regarding the penultimate word of the verse,
‫“( ְוכֵילַפּ ֹת‬and axes”); two Hebrew manuscripts read ‫“( וּ ְב ֵכלַפּוֹת‬and in axes”).
There are two short notes for verse 7. Many manuscripts end the word ֶָ‫ ִמקְדָּ שׁ‬with ‫שׁיך‬-
instead of ֶָ‫שׁ‬-. Also, just a few manuscripts end verse 7 with ָ ֶ‫“( כְּבוֹד‬your glory“) instead of ֶָ‫שׁמ‬
ְ
(“your name”).
The quotation of the words of Israel’s enemies begins in verse 8 with the word ‫נִינָם‬,
which is translated “let us oppress,” if indeed the root of the word is ‫ינה‬, as the textual apparatus
notes, and as Tate asserts.44 The Syriac version reflects this meaning. Moving to the second note
on verse 8, the first word of the second half of the verse is ‫“( שׂ ְָרפוּ‬they burned”); the textual
apparatus suggests another possibility (‫ ְונִשְׂר ֹף‬- “let us burn”), and refers the reader to the LXX
and the Syriac. The LXX reads κατακαύσωµεν, though, which doesn’t reflect the critical note.
Tate gives the LXX and Peshitta reading as reflecting ‫נשׁבת‬, meaning “let us cause to cease,”
which makes more sense.45 However, as Tate points out, the MT reading is better as the change
in the LXX “seems to involve too much change to be likely.”46
There are no text critical notes for verses 9 or 10. The first of the three text critical notes
for verse 11 notes that the atnach accent should be under ָ ְ‫ י ָד‬instead of under ֶָ‫וִימִינ‬. The word
ְָ‫“( חוֹק‬your decree”) has the qere reading of ‫“( ָחֵי ְק‬your bosom”), and the text critical note states
that many manuscripts and most of the versions agree with the qere.47 The qere reading makes
44
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid.
11
more sense in the context; Tate comments that the kethiv “has little support among versions or
commentators.”48 I have followed the qere in my translation. The last word of verse 11 is ‫ַכלֵּה‬
(“destroy”), but it has no object, which is “unusual” for this verb; the text critical note suggests
replacing this verb with ‫“( ְכלֻאָה‬restrain”), which would then be the verb for the direct object for
ֶָ‫“( וִימִינ‬and your right hand”).49 But this is “awkward,” requiring “a very forced use of the
preposition in ‫ מקרב‬as well as the adoption of an emendation,” and so I have rejected it.50
The first word of verse 12 is ‫“( םוֵאֹהִי‬and God”). The Peshitta includes a 1st-person
plural suffix at the end of this word; the critical apparatus suggests that the original began the
verse with the 2nd-personal singular pronoun ‫אַתָּ ה‬, which begins four out of the next five verses.
The second word of verse 12 is ‫“( ַמ ְלכִּי‬my king”), which has a 1st-person plural suffix in the
LXX; however, the Peshitta and the Aramaic Targum omit the suffix altogether.
No critical apparatus addresses verse 13. The last two words of verse 14, ‫“( ים ְל ִציּ ִ ְלעָם‬to
the people, the desert-dwellers”), have a text critical note. The meaning of ‫ ִציּ ִים‬is “uncertain,”
according to Tate. This reading should possibly be emended by spacing the letters differently to
create two different words: ‫“( י ָם ְל ַע ְמ ְלצֵי‬to the people of the ship of the sea”).51 Interestingly, the
LXX here reads λαοῖς τοῖς Αἰθίοψιν (“to the people of Ethiopia,” as the LXX also reads in Psalm
72:9. In any case, “[a]ny translation is uncertain.”52 Also in verse 14, some manuscripts omit
the word ‫“( ְלעָם‬to the people”). The LXX translates ‫ ְלעָם‬with the plural number here.
48
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
Ibid., 244.
52
12
Verses 15-18 have no text critical notes, but verse 19 has three. The third word of verse
19 is ‫“( ְל ַחיּ ַת‬to a wild beast”); the LXX, the Targum, and Hieronymus’s Psalms read τοῖς θηρίοις
(“to the beasts”), which reading requires only a slight change in vowel pointing. Tate says that
this word is a feminine noun with an “absolute ending…, which may be collective.”53 He
believes that it does not require emendation, as BHS suggests with the possible reading ‫“( ַל ָמּוֶת‬to
death”). It is fascinating that the word ‫“ ְל ַחיּ ַת‬forms a pun with ‫“( חית‬life”) in v 19b.”54 Lange
laments that “[t]he English Version fails only in the want of a felicitous term” for translation.55
The last two text critical notes in verse 19 are much less significant. The noun ָ‫תּוֹר‬
ֶ (“turtle-
dove”) is spelled ‫ תודך‬in some LXX and Syriac manuscripts, and a few manuscripts add the
conjunction ‫ ְו‬after the noun ‫ ַחיּ ַת‬.
At the beginning of verse 20, God is urged, ‫“( ַלבּ ְִרית ַהבֵּט‬look to the covenant”). The LXX
and Syriac Peshitta add a 2nd-person singular suffix to ‫“( ַלבּ ְִרית‬look to your covenant”). Tate
accurately points out that this is “is probably what [the] MT means without emendation”
anyway.56 The reason God was urged to “look to the covenant” was because the “hiding-places
of the land” were ‫“( ָחמָס נְאוֹת‬habitations of violence”). The LXX reads οἴκων ἀνοµιῶν (“houses
of iniquity”); BHS suggests amending ‫ נְאוֹת‬to read ‫“( ֲאנָחָה‬groaning”), which is not necessary,
according to Tate.57 However, Alter follows the reading of the LXX, as he finds the MT reading
53
54
Ibid.
55
Carl Bernhard Moll, The Psalms, trans. Charles A. Briggs et al, vol. 9 of Lange’s
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner, Armstrong and Co.,
1872), 422.
56
57
Ibid.
13
“odd coming after ‘dark places of earth.’”58 The MT reading is more likely as it is the more
difficult reading.
Verse 21 begins with the words ‫“( אַל־י ָשׁ ֹב‬do not let return”). The Syriac Peshitta reads
‫“( יֵשֵׁב‬sit/remain/dwell”).59 Tate follows the latter reading, though without explanation. Both
verbs make sense in the context, and no consonants need to be changed; it is a matter merely of
vowel pointing. The only other text critical note in verse 22 is that Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Parisinus Latinus add the conjunction ‫ ְו‬before the participle ‫“( נִ ְכלָם‬ashamed one”). This addition
in the Greek “appears to be reading the verb ‫ ישׁב‬as hiphil imperfect (from ‫ )שׁוב‬rather than MT’s
simple imperfect,” as Tate concludes.60 The translation of the line would then be “Let not the
oppressed and humiliated one be turned away (rejected).”61
The last note in the critical apparatus for Psalm 74 is on the last two words of verse 22,
‫“( כָּל־הַיּוֹם‬all the day”). This note is difficult to understand, as it suggests that these two words
should probably be deleted from the text because of their masculine gender. This is perhaps
because the noun ‫“( פָּתְ ח ְֶר‬taunting”) is feminine, and ‫ כָּל־הַיּוֹם‬is an adjectival phrase modifying it.
In spite of the grammatical irregularity, Alter points to the fact that it picks up on ‫( ָלנֶצַח‬literally,
“to forever”) in verse 1, and creates a “powerfully expressive” inclusio.62
58
59
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid.
62
14
Grammatical Issues
The following paragraphs will discuss several grammatical issues present in the Hebrew
text of Psalm 74, following the psalm’s stanzas closely.
As previously discussed under the “Literary Background” section, the use of verbal
conjugations seems to provide the best outline of the psalm. Verse 1 is the introduction to the
psalm; verses 2-3 each begin with an imperative; the “main verbs” of verses 4-9 are in the qatal
conjugation; verses 10-11 contain only verbs in the yiktol conjugation (with the possible
exception of ‫ ַכלֵּה‬, an imperative, at the end of verse 11); the main verbs of verses 12-17 are in the
qatal conjugation; and the final stanza, verses 18-23, consists of jussives and imperatives as its
main verbs.63
The first word of the psalm, the beginning of its superscription, is ‫שׂכִּיל‬
ְ ‫ ַמ‬. This is a Hiphil
participle, used as a nominative here, which BDB defines as a “contemplative poem.”64
NIDOTTE points out that ‫שׂכִּיל‬

ְ ‫“ ַמ‬is commonly used in literature associated with wisdom,” and
“is sometimes parallel to ‫( בִּין‬Deut 32:29), ‫( י ָדַ ע‬Isa 41:20), and ‫( דֵּ עָה‬Jer 3:15).”65 ‫שׂכִּיל‬
ְ ‫ ַמ‬seems to
indicate the genre of the psalm, therefore, and could indicate its function as didactic. However,
caution must be taken in reading too much into this term, as its “meaning … is unknown.”66
The psalm is attributed in verse 1 to Asaph. The lambda was commonly used in Semitic
languages to denote authorship, and can be translated “by” elsewhere in the OT “[w]ithin other
63
64
BDB s.v. ‫שׂכִּיל‬
ְ ‫ ַמ‬.
65
Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology &
Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 1243.
66
15
literary genres” (see Isa 38:9; Hab 3:1).67 Asaph was “a Levite musician” who lived during the
reign of David (1 Chr 15:17-19), and “in Ezra 3:10 a group of musicians are known as ‘the sons
of Asaph.’”68 This psalm, however, as discussed in the “General Background” section, was
likely written during the Exilic Period, and so could not have been written by the Asaph of
David’s day. Tanner helpfully summarizes the possibilities for meaning of the usage of this
name here: “Asaph may indicate a family name, a specific group, or simply be a marker such as
a musical notation.”69 Thus the meaning behind the use of Asaph’s name here must remain
uncertain.
The compound interrogative ‫ ָלמָה‬in verse 1, made up of the preposition ‫ ל‬and the particle
‫מָה‬, can be translated “why?” or “for what reason?”70 It is also used with the same force in verse
11. The particle ‫מָה‬, following after ‫ עַד‬and attached to it by a maqqef, occurs at the end of verse
9; this combination has a different meaning, however, meaning “until when?” or “how long?”71
‫ ָלמָה‬introduces the first question of verse 1: “Why have you rejected us without end?”
The word translated “without end” is ‫ ;נֶצַח‬it is used also in verses 3, 10, and 19. In verse 1, God
is said to have rejected Israel forever; in verse 3 the rubble of the temple is viewed as permanent;
in verse 10 God is asked if the enemy will blaspheme His name forever; and the author begs the
LORD in verse 19 not to forget His people forever. In verse 3 ‫ נֶצַח‬follows a noun in the
construct state; this is the only time it appears this way in the OT. In verses 1, 10, and 19, on the
67
VanGemeren, ed., NIDOTTE, 4:1101.
68
69
Ibid.
70
BDB s.v. ‫מָה‬, definition 4.d.
71
Ibid., definition 4.e.
16
other hand, it follows the preposition ‫ ;ל‬this is “[t]he most common usage,” which “is
synonymous with ‫ עוֹלָם‬and ‫ עַד‬and, like them, refers to perpetuity, with the context supplying just
how perpetual.”72
The description of the tragedy being mourned in the psalm as God’s rejection of Israel
and His anger smoking against His flock (verse 1) shows that the psalmist understood that it was
God Himself behind the terrible destruction of Jerusalem, as indeed He was (see Lam 1:5, 15;
2:1-9, 17). The phrase ְָ‫“( י ֶ ְעשַׁן ַאפּ‬your anger smokes”) “is a description of great anger” (see Pss
18:8; 80:4; Lam 2:3).73
In verse 2, God is urged to ‫“( זְכ ֹר‬remember”) His people. He is begged to do this also in
verses 18 and 22, in the third stanza of the psalm, which is thematically parallel to the first
stanza. In verse 18 the psalmist urges God to remember that “the enemy reproaches, LORD,”
and that “the foolish people spurn your name,” while verse 22 contains a plea with the LORD to
remember “the taunting of fools every day.” The word ‫“ זְכ ֹר‬is contrasted with forgetting’” with
the use of the imperative verb ‫שׁכַּח‬

ְ ִ‫ תּ‬in verse 19 (“the life of your afflicted ones do not forget
forever”) and in verse 23 (“do not forget the voice of those who show hostility toward you”).74
TWOT points out that when used to address God, “the meaning [of ‫ ]זְכ ֹר‬is better taken as ‘pay
attention to’ since nothing ever escapes God’s omniscience.”75 Leslie points to the opening part
of the story of Noah in Genesis 6:12-13, where God “saw the awful ‘corruption’” of the wicked
72
73
Anderson, The Book of Psalms, 538.
74
R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 241.
75
R. Laird Harris et al, eds., TWOT, 241.
17
“the He got into action, utterly destroyed that corrupt generation, but wondrously saved the
righteous, Noah and his sons.”76 The call to remember is a call for God “again [to] look and
become concerned over the corruption that is now oppressing His creatures,” and is “[t]he climax
of the whole psalm” in the third stanza (verses 18-23).77
That the destruction of the temple (‫ )קּ ֹדֶ שׁ‬is referred to in verse 3 seems clear enough.78
The term ָ ֶ‫“( מוֹעֲד‬meeting-place”) in verse 4 is a synonym of ‫קּ ֹדֶ ש‬. It is used over 200 times in the
OT.79 It can mean an “appointed time,” such as a feast, an “appointed meeting,” “appointed
place,” or “appointed sign.”80 The temple was the place God would meet with His people;
shockingly, God’s enemies now “roar” there, displacing God’s people and casting them out of
His presence.
Verse 5 is difficult to interpret; according to my translation, the preposition ‫ כ‬there is
used in the sense of “agreement in kind.”81
The psalmist continues his description of the enemies’ destruction of the temple in verses
6-8. Two prepositional phrases are used in verse 7 to describe this. The enemies have ‫שׁלְחוּ ָב ֵאשׁ‬
ִ
(“thrown fire”) into the sanctuary; the verb ‫שׁלַח‬

ָ in the Piel stem can be followed by the ‫ב‬
76
Leslie, The Psalms, 237.
77
Ibid.
78
See the use of the term ‫ הַר־צִיּוֹן‬in verse 2, which proves that the temple had already been
built.
79
80
BDB s.v. ‫מוֹעֵד‬, definitions 1-4.
81
Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2003) 4.1.9.a. See discussion under “Text Critical Issues” above.
18
preposition.82 The enemies also profaned “the dwelling-place” of God’s name ‫ָאָרץ‬
ֶ ‫“( ל‬to the
ground”). This is the simple spatial use of the preposition ‫ל‬.83
Another synonym for the temple, besides ‫“( קּ ֹדֶ שׁ‬sanctuary”) in verse 4 and ָ ֶ‫מוֹעֲד‬
(“meeting-place”) in verse 4, is ‫שׁכַּן‬

ְ ‫“( ִמ‬dwelling-place”) in verse 7. It is derived from the verb
ָ , meaning “to dwell.”84 This shows that it “refers in general to places of dwelling—dwellings
‫שׁכַן‬
of both human and God.”85 It was originally used of the tabernacle, and is used this way in much
of the OT.86 In this usage, it refers specifically and “exclusively to the tent structure inside the
court, not the sanctuary complex as a whole.”87 However, it was also used to refer to the
Solomonic temple, describing the whole as God’s “dwelling place.”88
The temple is said in verse 7 to be the dwelling place of God’s name (ֶָ‫שׁמ‬
ְ , “your name”).
This same phrase, “your name,” is also used in verses 10, 18, and 21. NIDOTTE points out that
“[i]n the ancient Sem. world a person’s name often carried more significance than an
identification mark; it was considered to be a description of character or conditions.”89 God’s
name described His attributes, and was closely tied to His glory (see Exod 34:5-7). In the
context of Psalm 74, God’s name is used as a motive for Him to act. His enemies have profaned
82
BDB s.v. ‫שׁלַח‬
ָ , Piel stem, definition 7.
83
Arnold and Choi, GBHS, 4.1.10.a.
84
85
Ibid.
86
Ibid., 2:1131.
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid., 4:147.
19
the dwelling-place of His name (verse 7); they blaspheme His name (verses 10, 18); in contrast,
the “poor and needy will praise” His name if He delivers them (verse 21).90 This is reminiscent
of Moses’ plea in Exodus 32:8-13 after Israel worshipped the golden calf, and of Joshua’s
petition after the sin of Achan in Joshua 7:7-9. Thus God’s love for His glory is used by the
psalmist, as one partaking in a heritage of such pleas, as a motive for God to act both in His own
behalf and in behalf of His people (see the more detailed discussion below under “Thematic
Analysis”).
A curious and seemingly anachronistic expression is used in verse 8: the ‫מוֹעֲדֵ י־אֵל‬
(“meeting-places of God”). The psalm seems to have been written during the Babylonian Exile,
but ever since God made the Sinaitic Covenant with Israel there had been only one meeting-
place of God: the tabernacle/temple. But ‫ מוֹעֲדֵ י־אֵל‬is plural. The ‫ מוֹעֲדֵ י־אֵל‬could not be
synagogues, as these did not develop until the post-exilic age.91 The first possible solution is that
“this verse sees the Jerusalem temple as the last of God’s successive meeting places (Exod.
20:24), all of which had now been destroyed.”92 Another possible interpretation is given by the
LXX, which translates the noun “as ‘appointed feasts’ [τὰς ἑορτὰς], a sense which it often has;
but it would require a different verb.”93 Kidner concludes that “[t]here is, so far, no clear
90
See deClaissé-Walford et al, Psalms, 600.
91
It is unknown when synagogues were first established, but “[t]he first undisputed
evidence of a synagogue comes from Egypt in the 3rd century B.C. From the 1st century B.C.
onwards the evidence of synagogues is abundant.” Walter A. Elwell, ed., Baker Encyclopedia of
the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 2007.
92
Derek Kidner, Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 16, Tyndale Old
Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 296.
93
Ibid.
20
solution, but on balance the first seems the most likely.”94 This could, however, be a use of
hyperbole, which would mean that “this whole discussion has been too much ado about
nothing.”95 The verse would then be lamenting, “They have burnt every meeting-place of God
on the whole earth!”96
The word ‫“( אוֹת ֹתֵ ינוּ‬our signs”) in verse 9 recalls the use in verse 4 of ‫“( אוֹת ֹתָ ם‬their
signs”). The use in verse 4 seems to be physical signs, such as “military signs and emblems of
the invaders (cf. Num 2:2; etc.), or their religious emblems (cf. Deut 6:8; Ezek 4:3), or both.”97
Verse 9, however, seems to use the word in its metaphorical, “prophetic” sense.98 These would
then be “signs of Yahweh’s saving actions—signs of divine intervention to change the
situation.”99 But they do not appear. The invaders’ banners snap in the breeze within the
shattered walls of the temple, but the LORD has not raised up a corresponding banner against
them (see Isa 59:9).
The use of the conjunction ‫ ו‬near the end of verse 9 is very common, and is called the vav
copulative. Here is simply being used in front of the last item in a list.100 The translation “and”
94
Kidner, Psalms 73-150, 296.
95
96
Ibid.
97
Ibid., 248.
98
99
100
Christo van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 40.8.1.
21
would be acceptable, but since the statements are each negative, “nor” seemed more appropriate
in the context.
The psalmist concludes the first stanza with an impassioned cry to God. God is
addressed as ‫ אֱֹהִים‬in verse 10, and the psalmist repeats the noun ‫ נֶצַח‬from verses 1 and 3. In
verse 11, he cannot understand why God has pulled back His hand from His people. Why does
God sit idly by, with His hands in His pockets, while evil nations blaspheme His name, turn His
holy temple into so much gravel, and oppress His people? God’s hand (ֶָ‫ימִינ‬, “your hand”) is a
powerful, oft-repeated anthropomorphism in OT. His “right hand is majestic (Exod 15:6; Ps
118:16) and exalted (Ps 89:13 [14]; 118:16), supporting, answering, providing refuge to those
who call upon him (17:7; 18:35 [36]; 20:6 [7]; 63:8 [9]; 139:10; Isa 41:10), and bringing them
salvation and victory (Exod 15:6; Ps 17:7; 44:3 [4]; 60:5 [7]; 98:1; 108:6 [7]; 138:7; 139:10).”101
NIDOTTE adds that “nearly everything that is reckoned to God—both attributes and actions—is
also accorded to his right hand, so that, especially in Proverbs and Psalms, Yahweh’s right hand
has become a metonymy for God himself.”102 This means that the psalmist is asserting that God
Himself has deliberately pulled back His hand, His power, His presence, from His covenant
people. This state of affairs cannot last; God must “destroy” these enemies (see the last verb of
verse 11).
The second stanza of the psalm begins in verse 12. It begins with the conjunction ‫ו‬,
attached to a noun. This means the ‫“ ו‬has a disjunctive role.”103 It could be translated as “but,”
101
VanGemeren, ed., NIDOTTE, 468.
102
Ibid.
103
Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990),39.2.3a. See also 39.2.1.d.
22
to contrast the saving work of God in verses 12-17 with His apparent disinterest in verses 1-11,
or as “for,” to explain the psalmist’s distress and confusion in light of God’s previous mighty
works on Israel’s behalf.
The psalmist confidently describes God as his king in verse 12, working ‫( י ְשׁוּעוֹת‬literally
“salvations”) “in the midst of the earth. In this context, “salvation” is the description given to
God’s miraculous “parting of the Red Sea and the crushing blow to Egypt, that dragon of the
deep” (verses 13-15), and to God’s creation of the universe (verses 16-17).104 The language of
salvation is not often used to describe creation, but it is often used to describe God’s deliverance
of His people (Pss 14:7; 62:3; Isa 33:2; 55:7; Jonah 2:10). The mythological language used to
describe God’s victory over Egypt in verses 13-14 is “clearly connected to the claims in the
[Babylonian] Enuma Elish... where Marduk kills Tiamat, the sea-goddess (v. 13a), and her
chaotic sea-monsters (vv. 13b-14b) and then fashions heaven and earth (vv. 15-17).”105 Tanner
calls this “theological chutzpah,” which “claims in the midst of a ruined temple that it is the Lord
of Israel who stands in the place of Marduk.”106 The psalmist is brazenly claiming “that what
Baal had claimed in the realm of myth, God had done in the realm of history—and done for his
people, working salvation.”107 At the end of the stanza (verses 16-17), by praising God’s work
in creation the psalmist is “[moving] to the vast arena of creation, to make the most
comprehensive claim possible.”108
104
Kidner, Psalms 73–150, 297.
105
106
Ibid., 600.
107
108
23
In the psalmists’ description of God’s decisive victory over Egypt in verse 13, the
psalmist uses two prepositional phrases. The first is ְָ‫“( ְב ָעזּ‬by your might”), which shows the
instrumental use of the preposition ‫ב‬.109 The second is ‫“( עַל־ ַה ָמּי ִם‬on the waters”), showing the
“spatial/locative” use of ‫עַל‬, which is its primary use. Some versions translate the preposition
“in” instead of on, such as NASB, NIV, and NKJV; the difference between “in” and “on” seems
to be slight.
As mentioned above, the language of verses 13-15 is reflective of ancient pagan
mythology. One example of this is the mention of ‫“( ִל ְוי ָתָ ן‬Leviathan”). In Ugaritic mythology
ָ 110
Leviathan was a “seven-headed monster,” and verse 14 describes it as having “heads” (‫)ראשֵׁי‬.
It could have its basis in “an existing animal,” for it is mentioned as an animal God created in
Psalm 104:26 and Job 41.111 Here, however, the use of ‫ ִל ְוי ָתָ ן‬is clearly metaphorical. NIDOTTE
points out that there are “many passages in the OT… [that have] allusions to a conflict between
Yahweh and a dragon (variously termed Leviathan, Rahab, twisting serpent, or simply dragon) or
the sea at the time of creation.”112 Commentators disagree whether this language refers to God’s
victory over Egypt or whether verses 13-17 in their entirety speak of God’s victory over “chaos”
in His creation of the universe.113 In the latter case, this language could reflect “a polemical
109
Arnold and Choi, GBHS, 4.1.5.c.
110
111
Ibid., 2:779.
112
Ibid.
113
Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms, 70. Present-day scholars who believe
verses 13-15 are referring to the Exodus include Kidner (Psalms 73-150, 297) and Brueggeman
(The Message of the Psalms, 70); Tate (Psalms 51-100, 251-52) is against this, and Tanner does
not mention the Exodus (deClaissé-Walford et al, Psalms, 599-600).
24
element … against Baalism.”114 The reference to God’s giving Leviathan as “food to the
creatures of the desert” fits better with a Red Sea reference, as does his drying-up of “the ever-
flowing rivers” (verses 14-15). Interestingly, Beale and Carson note that “the creation story
often was linked with the exodus story…, especially when the new creative act of God is
expected (cf. Isa. 43:15–21; 45:9–18; 51:12–16).”115 The precise reference is still uncertain,
however; Tate’s conclusion seems reasonable: “the primary referents are the cosmic forces
commonly treated as gods in ancient Near Eastern thought,” whether or not the deliverance from
Egypt is in view.116
In this light, the use of ‫ אֵל‬for God’s name in verse 8 may be significant, although it
appears outside the context of the hymn in verses 12-17. In Ugaritic writing, “El” was “the
father god, head of the divine assembly, and the eternal and wise king, the ‘ancient one,’ and
‘creator of all creatures.’”117 In this case, the psalmist is asserting that YHWH is the true “El,”
the true creator and “king of old” (verse 12). He asserts YHWH’s power and glory in the face of
pagan aggression.
Whatever the exact reference of the mythological language of verses 13-15, verses 16-17
clearly refer to God’s creative acts. In fact, the words ‫“( יוֹם‬day”), ‫“( ָליְלָה‬night”), and ‫מָאוֹר‬
(“light”) appear in the creation account of Genesis 1:5 and verses 14-18. The language of Psalm
74:7 used to describe “summer and winter” (‫ ) ַקי ִץ וָח ֶֹרף‬also comes from Genesis, this time from
114
115
G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 287.
116
117
Ibid., 252.
25
chapter 8, when God makes a covenant with Noah never again to destroy every living thing and
not to increase the curse on the ground (8:21). As long as the earth lasts, God told him, the time
for sowing and reaping, cold and heat, day and night (using the same Hebrew words as in
Genesis 1 and Psalm 74:16, ‫)וְיוֹם ָו ַליְלָה‬, as well as “summer and winter” (‫ ) ְו ַקי ִץ וָח ֶֹרף‬would never
cease (8:22). This shared vocabulary between Genesis 8 and Psalm 74 could be a hint from the
psalmist that as God made a covenant with Noah, so He made a covenant with Israel. He has not
forgotten the first; how can He forget the second? This thought is made explicit in verse 20,
where the psalmist implores God to ‫“( ַהבֵּט ַלבּ ְִרית‬look to the covenant”), although which covenant
is not specified.118
Verses 12-16 also speak of God’s victory over chaos by making unbreakable boundaries.
The primeval black nothingness now is divided into ‫“( ָליְלָה‬night”) and ‫“( יוֹם‬day”); Anderson
quotes von Rad, saying that this means that the night is “kept in bounds by a protective order” by
the light “which was the firstborn of the works of Creation.”119 See the discussion of verse 17
under “Syntactical Issues” below.
Verse 16 contains a rarity in Psalm 74: a conjunction, ‫“( אַף‬also”). It appears from a
cursory study of Psalm 74 that there is a striking absence of conjunctions in poetry, except for
the conjunction ‫ו‬, as compared with narrative.
The psalmist returns to imperatives in the final stanza of the psalm (verses 18-23). This
stanza is filled with pleas to God. In fact, the number of pleas is seven, which “both reiterate the
118
Tanner thinks that this “does not refer to any covenant specifically, but is an appeal to
the promises God has always made to this particular people” (Israel). deClaissé-Walford et al,
Psalms, 600.
119
Anderson, The Book of Psalms, 545.
26
previous calls to action and introduce additional ones.”120 This sevenfold plea mirrors the
sevenfold repetition of “you” addressed to God in the second stanza. These pleas are addressed
no longer to but to ‫“( יהוה‬YHWH”). YHWH is “the personal name of Israel’s God,” and is used
for the first time in the psalm here in verse 19. The use of this name for God marks the
intensifying of the psalmist’s supplication.121 The psalmist urges YHWH not to forget (‫ )זְכָר‬the
blasphemy of His enemies (verse 18). He begs God not to give up His people to these wicked
foes (verse 19). The negative adverb ‫ אַל‬is used with a jussive verb four times in this last stanza
(twice in verse 19, as well as verses 21 and 23).
“Look to the covenant,” the psalmist entreats YHWH in verse 20, appealing to His
attribute of faithfulness. The reason given (the evidential use of the conjunction ‫ )כִּי‬is that “the
hiding-places of the land are full; [they are] habitations of violence.”122 In verse 21, the psalmist
seeks to motivate God to act by a promise of praise; those who are “poor and needy will praise
[‫ ]י ְ ַהלְלוּ‬your name.” This verb is used 88 times in the psalter, and indeed the title of the psalter in
Hebrew is the cognate noun ‫“( תְּ ִהלִּים‬praises”). The root of this verb “is also used in songs of
thanksgiving, which celebrated the resolution of an individual’s crisis in answer to prayer.”123 If
God acts to deliver His people from their (and His) enemies of Psalm 74, they would offer such a
song to Him. Examples of such individual psalms of praise and thanksgiving are Psalms 30 and
34; Psalm 118 is an example of a communal, liturgical psalm of thanksgiving.
120
121
122
Arnold and Choi, GBHS, 4.3.4.b. See my defense of the translation given for verse
20b in the “Text Critical Issues” section above.
123
VanGemeren, ed., NIDOTTE, 1036.
27
Finally, the psalmist’s supplication in verses 22-23 entreats God “to act within God’s
responsibility as Judge, using the images of a court dispute.”124 God should “arise and argue the
dispute” He has with “fools” because of their “taunting” that occurs “every day.”125 The
adjective ‫“( כָּל‬every”) is used in this last phrase for the final time in the psalm; it unites the three
stanzas with its occurrence in verses 3, 8, 17, and 22. The first two and the final occurrence of
the word bookend the psalm, as they each speak of something the enemy has done: God needs to
come see “all that the enemy has done wickedly in the sanctuary” (verse 3); God’s enemies
“have burned all the meeting-places of God in the land (verse 8), and fools mock God “every
day” (verse 22). The third use of ‫ כָּל‬in verse 17 is unique in the psalm, as it modifies the
construct clause ‫אָרץ‬

ֶ ‫“( גְּבוּלוֹת‬the boundaries of the earth”), which speaks of God’s creative
power. It occurs, further, within the middle stanza of the psalm (verses 12-17), which has as its
theme God’s primal and redemptive victory over chaos. The God of creation can completely
defeat His enemies, even though they try to make their destruction of His people complete.
The psalm concludes in verse 23, which is one more plea to God not to forget the never-
ending voice of His enemies. This is a conclusion “without a resolution,” Tanner notes.126
However, this is not the cry of despair but confidence, as the middle stanza testifies.
Syntactical Issues
The following paragraphs will discuss several syntactical issues present in the Hebrew
text of Psalm 74. Since the structure of the poem was already closely followed in a verse-by-
124
125
Ibid., 600-601.
126
Ibid., 601.
28
verse format in the preceding section on grammatical issues, knowledge of the flow of the psalm
will be assumed.
After the genre and author of Psalm 74 are given, the psalm opens with a question,
beginning with the word ‫“( ָל ָמה‬why?”), addressed to ‫“( ֱאֹהִים‬God”). This use of ‫ ֱאֹהִים‬in discourse
analysis is called “thematic address,” which is defined as “[t]he use of vocatives or nominatives
of address containing extra descriptive information that is not required to identify the
addressee(s).”127 God is again addressed in the same thematic way as ‫ ֱאֹהִים‬in verse 10, at the
end of the first stanza; as ‫“( יהוה‬YHWH,” God’s covenant name) in another thematic address in
verse 18, at the opening of the final stanza (verses 18-23), which serves as a thematic crescendo;
and finally as ‫ ֱאֹהִים‬again (the same usage as in verse 1) at the end of the last stanza in verse 22.
The psalm thus comes full circle, bookended as it is by the “generic name for God” in the OT.128
These four “thematic address” usages of God’s name show that the psalmist moves thematically
from evoking a feeling of distance from God in the first two stanzas, then a “[heightened sense]
of a close relationship among God, his people, and the speaker” in the beginning of the last
stanza, and concludes with the still-puzzling refusal of God to act.129
Verse 1 contains two questions. The use of ‫ ָל ָמה‬to begin the first clause makes it clear
that it is a question; the reversal of typical subject-verb order at the beginning of the second
clause (ְָ‫ )י ֶ ְע ַשׁן ַאפּ‬makes clear that it is also a question.130
127
Steven Runge and Joshua Westbury, eds., The Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible:
Glossary, Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), 2.3.
128
129
130
See John A. Cook and Robert D. Holmstedt, Beginning Biblical Hebrew: A Grammar
and Illustrated Reader (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 60.
29
The psalm contains several different terms for God’s enemies. The first, ‫“( אוֹי ֵב‬enemy”),
is used in verses 3 and 18; ָ‫“( צ ְֹר ֶרי‬those who show hostility toward you”) appears in verses 4 and
23, and the singular form of the same noun, ‫“( צָר‬the adversary”) in verse 10; ‫“( ְועַם נָבָל‬the foolish
people”) is found in verse 18, as well as ‫ נָבָל‬by itself (“fools”) in verse 22; finally, verse 23
concludes the psalm by describing the “roar” of ָ‫“( ָק ֶמי‬those who rise up against you”). Those
who have destroyed the temple are thus described colourfully as hostile fools who oppose God,
rising up against Him by attacking His people.
The same word is repeated twice at the end of verse 4, both times in the plural, with a
third-person masculine plural suffix attached to the first usage (‫)אוֹת ֹתָ ם א ֹתוֹת‬. The clause is the
object of the verb ‫“( שָׂ מוּ‬they place”). The ESV translates the double cognate clause “their own
signs for signs,” following the generic usage of both nouns and inserting the word “for” to aid
understanding of the phrase. The NASB and NIV are more specific, translating the first word
“standards”; the NKJV translates has “banners,” while the HCSB has “emblems.” (See the
discussion on meaning and translation above under “Grammatical Analysis.”) By translating the
clause “their own signs for signs” the ESV does the least interpretation of this “awkward
construction” and thus best reflects the clause’s uncertain meaning.131
The adverb ‫( עַתָּ ה‬the qere reading of ‫ ְועֵת‬, the kethiv) is fronted at the beginning of verse 6.
This “[draws] extra attention to changes in time within” the psalm, and makes the horrific sound
of splintering wood more present to the reader.132
Also in verse 6, the noun ‫“( פִּתּוּחֶי ָה‬her carvings”) has an unexpected third-person feminine
suffix. The carvings belong to the ָ ֶ‫“( מוֹעֲד‬meeting place”) of verse 4, which is a masculine
131
132
Runge and Westbury, eds., The Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible: Glossary, 5.2.
30
noun.133 The noun ‫“( ֫ק ֹדֶ שׁ‬sanctuary”) at the end of verse 3 is also masculine. It appears that this
quandary cannot be resolved.
The object of the verb ‫“( ָראִ ינוּ‬we see”) in the first clause of verse 9, ‫“( אוֹת ֹתֵ ינוּ‬our signs”)
appears at the head of its clause, even before the negation of the verb (‫)ֹא‬. This gives the object
“a position of prominence to attract extra attention.”134 Thus the psalmist is saying, “It is a sign
of God’s deliverance that we cannot see” (see the discussion of this translation under verse 4 in
the “Grammatical Analysis” section above).
The length of God’s incomprehensible forgetfulness of His people is the focus of verses
9-10. This is shown by “[t]he dual use of how long at the end of v. 9 and the beginning of v.
10.”135 This “returns the audience to the initial cry of Why have you rejected us?” of verse 1.136
Verse 12 begins with the name ‫ ֱאֹהִים‬. He is continually addressed throughout the second
stanza, using the second-person masculine singular pronoun ‫ ַאתָּ ה‬seven times. Thus ‫ ֱאֹהִים‬seems
to be more than just the topic of the clause, but even of the discourse, which would be at least the
entire stanza in this case.137 The focus of the stanza is a clause that begins with the participial
phrase (‫)פֹּעֵל י ְשׁוּעוֹת‬, which explains that God is the one who is characterized by “working
133
134
135
136
Ibid.
137
See Cook and Holmstedt, Beginning Biblical Hebrew, Lesson 46, for more details on
discourse and clausal topic.
31
salvation.”138 That this is the focus of the stanza is shown by the details given throughout the
remainder of the stanza in verses 13-17, which all fall under the rubric of “salvation.”
Verse 12 also contains the use of a first-person singular pronoun for the first time in the
psalm, attached to the end of the word “king” (‫) ַמ ְלכִּי‬.139 The psalmist could be thus personalizing
his lament, demonstrating his personal knowledge of God’s salvific acts; or he could simply be
representing the nation as an individual. Tate asserts that “[t]he ‘my King’ in v 12a lets the
reader know that the speaker in this psalm is an individual voicing a prayer for the community—
not simply a detached narrator of events or some purely professional mediator.”140
As mentioned above, the second-person masculine singular pronoun ‫ ַאתָּ ה‬is used seven
times in the second stanza of the psalm (verses 12-17). Each time it is used, it begins a clause.
This pronoun “appears only in this section” of the psalm.141 The number seven “is considered a
complete number in Hebrew thought,” and this shows the perfection and all-encompassing
nature of God’s saving power.142 With this fronted placement of ‫ ַאתָּ ה‬, the normal subject-verb
order is inverted, and this shows emphasis.143 God Himself “is the center of this section,” as
Tanner correctly asserts.144
138
See Cook and Holmstedt, Beginning Biblical Hebrew, Lesson 41, for more information
on focus.
139
A first-person plural pronoun appears in verse 1.
140
141
142
Ibid.
143
Cook and Holmstedt, Beginning Biblical Hebrew, 60.
144
32
Verse 17, the conclusion to the middle stanza, is constructed as a chiasm. A chiasm is
simply “an inverted relationship between the syntactic elements of parallel phrases.”145 Thus
while the second-person pronoun ‫ ַאתָּ ה‬is fronted, thus emphasizing the work of God in creation,
the centre of the chiasm provides the focus of the verse, which is the fact that God “established
all the boundaries of the earth” and “formed” both “summer and harvest.” The words “summer
and harvest,” in their turn, are a merism. A merism is defined as “[a]n expression using
contrasting parts to indicate totality, e.g. ‘head to toe’ or ‘heaven and earth.’”146 Thus the focus
of verse 17 is that God is the one responsible for the physical and chronological boundaries of
the universe.
The final stanza (verses 18-23) begins with an imperative, addressed to YHWH: ‫זְכָר־ז ֹאת‬
(“remember this”). The feminine singular demonstrative pronoun ‫ ז ֹאת‬has a deictic function.
That is, it is used “to point ahead to a target that has not yet been introduced,” thus “attracts extra
attention to the thing to which it refers.”147 The target of this pronoun is the grim reality that “the
enemy reproaches” and “the foolish people spurn your name” (verse 18). The psalmist is
pointing a trembling finger, as it were, at the fools currently in action swinging their axes within
God’s holy sanctuary (verses 5-6), making sure God looks directly at their crimes.
The second-person personal pronoun is used several times throughout this psalm,
especially in the third stanza (verses 18-23). This emphasizes that it is God’s own name that is
145
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-
Webster, Inc., 2003), s.v. “chiasmus.”
146
Douglas Mangum, The Lexham Glossary of Theology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham
Press, 2014), s.v. “merism.”
147
33
being spurned (verse 18), God’s own cause that He should defend (verse 22), and it is against
God’s own person that His enemies, like lions, are roaring.
The phrase ָ‫“( ַחיּ ַת ֲענִיּ ֶי‬the life of your afflicted ones”), the object of the verb ‫“( אַל־תִּ ְשׁכַּח‬do
not forget”) is fronted at the beginning of its clause in the last colon of verse 19, thus receiving
the emphasis of the entire clause. It also appears at the centre of the chiasm that is verse 19
together with the object phrase ָ‫תּוֹר‬

ֶ ‫“( נֶפֶשׁ‬the soul of your turtledove”), and therefore receives the
emphasis of the entire verse.
Verse 22 contains another double cognate use (see discussion above under verse 4); God
is urged to ֶָ‫“( ִריבָה ִריב‬your own cause”). The verb ‫ ִריבָה‬means to “strive” or “contend.”148 The
noun ֶָ‫( ִריב‬from ‫ ) ִריב‬means “strife” or “dispute.”149 Both can have legal connotations, as
discussed earlier under “Grammatical Analysis.” NIDOTTE points out that “[i]n the OT
Yahweh is the one who defends the cause … of God’s people and saves them,” and that “[t]his
use of ‫ ִריב‬is evident particularly in exilic literature (e.g., Isa 49:25; Mic 7:9) as an expression of
hope, and in lament psalms as a petition for God to save (e.g., Ps 35:1; 43:1; 119:154; cf. Lam
3:58).”150 This usage clearly applies to its use here in verse 22.
THEMATIC ANALYSIS
First of all, it should be emphasized that the themes of Psalm 74 must be understood in
light of the overall themes of Book 3 of the Psalms, and within that book, in light of the themes
found within the psalms of Asaph. This analysis will focus on three themes found within Psalm
148
BDB s.v. ‫ריב‬.ִ
149
Ibid., s.v. ‫ריב‬.ִ
150
VanGemeren, ed., NIDOTTE, 3:1105–1106.
34
74, and it will do so within three concentric circles. The first level will explore the themes as
they appear in the psalm itself; the second within Book 3 of the psalter; finally, the third outer
circle will explore them within the broadest context of all of Scripture, especially the Old
Testament. Each theme will be studied in this basic format, although each circle will not be
present in each theme.
The three themes are the nature of God’s chosen people, the wicked actions of God’s
enemies against these people, and the power and glory of that God. Brueggeman points out that
the psalm addresses “three parties in the travesty [of the destruction of the temple]: the foes who
have done it, the people who have suffered it, and the God who must now deal with it.”151
Before the themes are examined in detail, it should be noted that they are not recited in a
detached, academic fashion. Rather, they are poured out in a passionate prayer to God. Within
the prayer, these themes appear as seemingly contradictory facts. The central tension throughout
the psalm is between the glorious truth of God’s redemptive power and promised covenant with
Israel, and the obvious tragic fact of Israel’s Gentile-oppressed and God-forsaken state. This
tension must be resolved, and for this the psalmist cries out to God, Israel’s only hope. Thus the
three themes of the psalm can only be understood in relation to each other as expressed in the
prayer of the psalmist. This should be kept in mind as the themes are individually explored
below.
The first theme is the nature of God’s chosen people. Several theologically loaded
descriptions are given in the psalm, mostly in the first (verses 1-11) and third stanzas (verses 18-
23). First, God’s people are the sheep of His pasture (ָ ֶ‫( )צ ֹאן מ ְַרעִית‬verse 1). This phrase is also
used in the section of Asaphic psalms in 79:13; the word ‫ צ ֹאן‬is also used in Psalm 77:21 [77:20
151
35
in English versions] and 78:52, to refer to Israel when God led her out of Egypt. The same word
is used metaphorically to speak of God’s people elsewhere in the OT (Ps 95:7; 100:3; Jer 13:17;
Ezek 36:38), and synonyms are often used, such as ‫“( ְכ ָבשִׂים‬lambs,” Is. 5:17), and ‫“( ֵ֫עדֶ ר‬flock”,
Ps 78:52) who feed in ‫“( מ ְַרעִיתָ ם‬their pastures” – same word as in Psalm 74:1).152 Thus the use of
‫ צ ֹאן‬in Psalm 74 portrays Israel as a flock of helpless sheep, living in a pasture provided by God
when He saved them from their enemies, and living under His protection. How can God be so
furious against such a flock?
The following verses expand the imagery of verse 1 with new pictures of Israel and
God’s redemption. Three cola (singular: colon) of synonymous parallelism are found there.153
In them three new terms are used to describe Israel: ָ ְ‫“( עֲדָ ת‬your congregation”), ָ ֶ‫שׁבֶט נַ ֲחלָת‬
ֵ (“the
tribe of your possession”), and ‫“( הַר־צִיּוֹן זֶה‬this Mount Zion”). Each term is loaded with biblical
meaning from previous prophetic material and the Torah. The word ָ ְ‫ עֲדָ ת‬is combined with other
words in the OT “to describe Israel in various settings,” such as “a worshipping community”
(like during Passover celebration) or as “a travel procession.”154 The truth that Israel belongs to
God is found elsewhere in the psalter, such as in Psalm 33:12, where Israel is called the nation
YHWH chose as “His inheritance” (‫) ְלנַ ֲחלָה לוֹ‬. In Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Israel is called the
portion of YHWH’s “inheritance” (‫)נַ ֲחלָתוֹ‬. The OT taught that Israel belonged to God in a
unique way; more than any other nation, it was His possession. Mount Zion is seen in the psalms
152
See deClaissé-Walford et al, Psalms, 597, footnote 18, and VanGemeren, ed.,
NIDOTTE, 3:727-30.
153
David Witthoff, Kristopher A. Lyle, and Matt Nerdhal, Psalms Form and Structure,
ed. by Eli Evans (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2014). See Chapter 1 of Robert Alter, The Art of
Biblical Poetry, rev. ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2011) and deClaissé-Walford et al, Psalms,
39-42, for helpful discussions on parallelism.
154
36
as the place where YHWH dwells (Pss 9:11; 50:2; 76:2; 78:68; 135:21), and where He rules as
King over the nations (Pss 2:6; 47:7-9; 146:10; 149:2; see also God’s description as “King” in
74:12).155 It is also fascinating that “[t]he fuller name “Mount Zion” in distinction to “Zion” by
itself occurs only nineteen times in the OT, at least nine of which allude to a remnant being
saved, in connection with either God’s name or God’s sovereign rule, and sometimes both.”156
So the imagery of verse 2 depicts Israel as a congregation belonging to God and the place where
God dwells and from which He rules.
Further, three parallel verbs are used in verse 2 to describe what God did in relation to
His people. The first two relate to His delivering them from Egypt: He bought them ( ָ‫ ָקנִית‬, “you
purchased”), and He redeemed them ( ָ‫גָּאַלְתּ‬, “you redeemed”). After He took them out of Egypt,
He brought them into the Promised Land, and dwelt Himself in the temple on Mount Zion ( ָ‫שׁ ַכנְתּ‬
ָ ,
“you dwelt”). Again, these three verbs are used throughout the OT and have a rich theological
heritage. Together, they remind the reader of the mighty arm of God who had done so much for
Israel in the past; the disjunction between this and their present crushed state is thus made more
dissonant and poignant.
Of course, after God redeemed Israel out of Egypt, He made a covenant with them. The
psalmist begs God to ‫“( ַהבֵּט ַלבּ ְִרית‬look to the covenant”) in verse 20. He is asking God to
remember (see verses 2 and 18) the covenant He made with Israel. A similar plea is made in
Psalm 89. The psalmist first lists God’s promises to His Davidic king in verses 19-37, including
God’s promise that His covenant would always remain unbroken (verses 28 and 34). He then
starkly accuses God of casting off His king and nullifying His covenant (verses 38-39), doing
155
156
Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1131.
37
exactly what He promised not to do in the preceding verses. After describing Israel’s
humiliation further in verses 40-45, the psalmist cries out, “How long, YHWH?” (verse 46),
echoing Psalm 74:10. Another link between Psalms 89 and 74 is in the language of 74:7. The
enemy has ֶָ‫שׁמ‬

ְ ‫שׁכַּן־‬
ְ ‫ָאָרץ ִחלְּלוּ ִמ‬
ֶ ‫“( ל‬profaned the dwelling place of your name to the ground”).
Psalm 89:40 asserts that God has ‫ָאָרץ נִזְרוֹ‬

ֶ ‫“( ִח ַלּלְתָּ ל‬profaned his [God’s servant’s] crown to the
ground”). Whether or not Psalm 89 speaks of the same situation as Psalm 74, the feeling of
abandonment and confusion is identical.157 The God who promised to judge any of His people
who “has defiled (‫ ) ַטמֵּא‬my sanctuary and profaned (‫ ) ְל ַחלֵּל‬my holy name” seems to give a free
pass to the heathen who do the very same!158
The last pictures of God’s people are found in the third stanza of the psalm (verses 18-
23). She is “your turtledove” (ָ‫)תּוֹר‬,

ֶ in danger from enemies (verse 19). The dove was used in
the OT as a picture “of people lamenting for their sins and miserable situations (Isa 38:14; Ezek
7:16) or groaning for salvation (Isa 59:11; 60:8).”159 This seems to explain its use here. The
psalmist’s people are called “your afflicted ones” (ָ‫) ֲענִיּ ֶי‬, also in verse 19, who in OT Israel were
“on the same level as the resident alien, the widow, and the orphan, all of whom were
disadvantaged because of their social standing and who lived from day to day, dependent on
others for their welfare and livelihood.”160 In fact, “the prophets exhorted [Israel] … to deal
justly with the ‫( ָענִי‬Isa 10:2; 58:7; cf. Prov 14:21),” and God Himself promised to defend such
157
See Tate’s helpful discussion of the historical context of Psalm 89, especially on pages
416-18. He believes that the psalm “is probably either exilic or post-exilic (i.e., after 597 B.C.E.,
but more probably after 500 B.C.E.).” Tate, Psalms 51-100, 417.
158
159
Ibid., 2:426.
160
Ibid., 3:455.
38
people (Deut 10:17-18).161 The psalmist, then, is pleading with God to fulfill His Word and act
according to His character in delivering His afflicted people.162
The second main theme of Psalm 74 is the wicked actions of God’s enemies against His
people. The psalmist uses every dark colour on his verbal palette to paint a portrait of the
devastation wrought by Israel’s attackers, primarily within the first stanza in verses 3-8. They
“roar” like beasts of prey as they prowl around the place that should have been a haven of safety
for the righteous (verse 4); banners praising false gods snap in the breeze in the temple courtyard
(verse 4); with vicious energy they hack apart the wooden structure, like lumberjacks in a forest
(verses 5-6); flames devour the holy place of God (verse 7); once the smoke clears, only rubble is
left – the “dwelling-place” of God’s name has been profaned and destroyed (verse 7). Leslie
evokes the horror of the psalmist in his summary of verses 4-7: “The holy place of the Temple,
where only praise and prayer should be heard, has been desecrated by the crude roar of soldiers,
unhindered in their destructive orgy by any pious inhibitions as they hew down the precious
woodwork of the Temple.”163 Further, these enemies seek to “oppress … harshly” God’s own
sheep; not content with burning down the temple, they burn down every building dedicated to
God throughout all Israel (verse 8).
Within the first stanza (verses 1-11), the attackers are characterized as ‫“( אוֹי ֵב‬the enemy”)
in verse 3, and as ָ‫( צ ְֹר ֶרי‬literally “your enemies”) in verse 4. The meanings of both participles
161
162
Synoynms for ‫ ָענִי‬are used in verse 21: “the oppressed” (ְ ַ‫ )דּ‬and “the poor and needy”
(‫) ָענִי ְו ֶאבְיוֹן‬. They will not be discussed separately, as they seem to be used for the same purpose
as ‫ ָענִי‬.
163
Leslie, The Psalms, 235.
39
are very similar, having to do with showing hostility toward someone.164 At the end of the first
stanza, in verse 10, the temple-destroyers are again called ‫“( צָר‬the adversary”), the same word as
used in verse 4, and ‫“( אוֹי ֵב‬the enemy”), as in verse 3. They appear in the opposite order in
verses 10-11 as in verses 3-4, thus forming a thematic envelope around verses 3-11. In the past,
God had delivered Israel from such enemies, as Asaph describes in detail just a few psalms later
(78:42-51; cf. Ps 44:7), and had treated His people like sheep (78:52-54; cf. 74:2-3). Israel’s
enemies had been God’s enemies, and He had “[vented] his righteous wrath” on them (Deut
32:41-43; Nah 1:2). This just anger of God was a cause for rejoicing to His people, for He
would avenge them and deliver His land (Deut 32:43; cf. Ps 74:21).
Further, in verses 3-8, the actions of the enemy are shown to be against God’s people and
His temple; in verse 10 they are portrayed as being against God’s person. The ‫ צָר‬reviles (‫)יְח ֶָרף‬
or reproaches (whether the object is God or His people is left ambiguous) (verse 10). But the last
colon of verse 10 is explicit: the enemies ‫“( יְנָאֵץ‬spurn”) the very name of God.
These two verses (10-11) “are the hinge section of the psalm. The crux of the psalm is
found in the backward look to the terrible damage done to the worship place and the seemingly
endless scorn of Yahweh’s name. Why does he hold his hand in his bosom? Why does he not
pull out his right hand and with one mighty blow end the arrogant invasion of his domain?”165
The following stanza then describes the mighty works that the right hand of God has done in the
past. “The sense of the absence and inactivity of God, despite great provocation by his
enemies,” is made more painful by this contrast.166 Thus even though the second stanza doesn’t
164
BDB, s.v. ‫ אָי ַב‬and ‫( צ ַָרר‬III).
165
166
Ibid., 253.
40
mention Israel’s current enemies, the past salvific acts of God make the enemies’ present
unhindered devastation of Israel more shocking and incomprehensible.
The psalmist saves his most colourful descriptions of the enemy for the third stanza
(verses 18-23). He calls them ‫“( אוֹי ֵב‬the enemy”) for the third time, as in verses 3 and 10, and
then calls them ‫“( נָבָל‬the foolish people”) in verse 18, as well as verse 22. This is so much an
insult, however, as it is a theological reality, for most often in the NT “‫ נבל‬and its cognates in the
OT refer to one who acts foolishly in a moral or religious sense, breaking social orders or
behaving treacherously towards God.”167 When speaking of a nation, as in Psalm 74, ‫“ נָבָל‬refers
to a people that does not know God or revere him.”168 ‫ נָבָל‬is used only three other times within
the psalms besides these two occurrences in Psalm 74. The ‫ נָבָל‬is the one who denies the
existence of God (Pss 14:1; 53:2), and the one who reproached David, the man after God’s own
heart (Ps 39:8). Such spiritual ignoramuses know not God, and despise those who do. How can
God sit back while such fools despise His holy name, and attack His covenant people?
The psalmist has one last epithet he tosses at the enemy in his prayer; he begs God not to
deliver the life of His “turtledove” (discussed above) “to the wildlife” (‫) ְל ַחיּ ַת‬. The noun ‫ ַחיּ ָה‬can
be used to refer to animals in general, and to wild animals in particular, as in this verse.169 The
subtle point behind this word as applied to Israel’s enemies is unclear. When contrasted with the
“turtledove,” it conjures up the image of a slavering wolf attacking a helpless injured dove.170
Many wild animals were unclean (see Lev 11; Deut 14); the Gentiles were not called unclean
167
168
Ibid., 3:12.
169
BDB s.v. ‫ ַחיּ ָה‬, 1.a. and b.
170
See Brueggeman, The Message of the Psalms, 20.
41
specifically, but were separated from God, and could not even enter the inner court of the
Temple, according to the Mosaic Law (Num 1:51; 3:10; Neh 13:1). Now the Gentiles had
defiled this temple; a wild dog had attacked a harmless dove. Would God do nothing about such
a shocking act?
Finally, the third main theme of Psalm 74 is the power and glory of God. This is first
seen in the psalm in the sevenfold “you” of the second stanza (in verses 13-17; see discussion of
this in “Syntactical Issues” above), where God’s power in conquering the chaos of the primal
universe, and possibly in conquering Egypt when He delivered His people in the Exodus, are in
view.
God’s power and glory are also seen in all the verses giving God’s “name” as a
motivation for helping His people (verses 10, 18, and 21). This motivation follows the second
stanza, where the sevenfold repetition of “you” gives extra force to this motivation, especially
since the fronting of “you” appears alongside a recital of creative acts only God could do. Using
God’s prioritization of His glory as a motivation for Him to answer prayer has canonical
precedent. Moses uses YHWH’s declaration of His name (Exod 34) as the reason why He
should be merciful to His people after they refused to enter the Promised Land (Num 14:13-19);
Joshua cried out to God in his frustration and perplexity after Israel’s defeat at Ai, using His
“great name” as a reason for Him to be merciful (Josh 7:7-9); and Daniel begged God to restore
Israel to her land because of His “righteousness” and for His own sake (Dan 9:15-19). God will
not let His name be sullied, nor let false gods rob Him of His glory (Isa 42:8; 48:9-11). It was
YHWH who saved the “flock” of Israel, making them His “possession” and dwelling Himself
upon “this Mount Zion” (verses 1-2). By doing this, He got for Himself “a glorious name” (Isa
63:14). The psalmist points out that the glory of this name is now in jeopardy. Surely God will
42
act; He has called His people after His own name after all, so that their safety and protection and
His reputation are inseparably intertwined (Isa 43:7).
It is at this point that the unique focus of Psalm 74 can be defined. Why has God
abandoned His people and seemingly even His love for His name? The reason for this
abandonment is not mentioned in this psalm – but it is mentioned in another of Asaph’s psalms,
Psalm 79. Unlike in Psalm 74, Israel’s sin is acknowledged as the reason for the calamity
(verses 5 and 8; this reason is detailed in passages such as 2 Kgs 22:16-17; 24:3-4; 2 Chr 36:15-
20). Further, also unlike in Psalm 74, wrathful revenge is specifically called down upon the
heads of Israel’s enemies (verses 6, 10, and 12). Both psalms, however, have the same three
basic themes; both recount the deeds of the destroyers of the temple (74:3-8; 79:1-4), both
describe God’s people with various metaphors (74:1-2, 19, 21; 79:1-2, 7, 11, 13), and both base
their pleas on a desire for the glory of God (74:18, 21; 79:9-10) and promise thanksgiving for
deliverance (74:21; 79:13). Therefore, with a sharpened understanding from comparison with
Psalm 79, Psalm 74 can be described as basically a question (Why has God forsaken Israel?) and
a plea (Remember your covenant and make things right for the glory of your name).
CONCLUSION
Application
The psalms are a rich treasure house of application for the believer. As Luther wrote,
“[Each saint], whatever his circumstances may be, finds in it psalms and words which are
appropriate to the circumstances in which he finds himself and meet his needs as adequately as if
43
they were composed exclusively for his sake.”171 There are three applications of this psalm to
the life of the 21st-century Christian that will be presented below.
First, it’s okay to ask God the question “How long?” The psalmist asked God this
question – and Psalm 74 is inspired Scripture! Further, this is not the only place in the Bible this
question is asked. According to Beale and Carson, “[t]he expression ‘how long?’ … is typically
used throughout the … OT for questions about when God will finally punish persecutors and
vindicate the oppressed (see Ps. … 73:10 [74:10 ET]; 78:5 [79:5 ET]; 79:5 [80:4 ET]; 88:47
[89:46 ET]; 89:13 [90:13 ET]…).” 172 They reference “John’s emphasis on God defending his
own reputation by judging sinners who have persecuted the righteous [which] is also evoked by
the clause ‘will you not vindicate our blood?’ [in Revelation 6:10,] which is an allusion to Ps.
78:10 LXX (79:10 ET): ‘Let the vindication of your servants’ blood that has been poured out be
known.’”173
The facts of God’s promises and the seemingly contradictory experiences of God’s
servants, as in Psalm 79:10 above, are simultaneously present in the lives of God’s people many
times; “[t]here is no going behind [this fact] for an explanation or answer.”174 It is easy for
God’s people to put on their pious Sunday faces and pretend everything is going swimmingly.
But often life is hard; when it is, will you look to yourself for answers, or turn away from God in
anger? No; you should turn to God in prayer.
171
172
Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1104.
173
Ibid.
174
Ibid., 637.
44
The presence of laments such as Psalm 74 in holy writ forces Christians to face the
difficult questions of life head-on. The psalms are a gritty, realistic book, unlike our modern
hymnbooks, which are full of light-hearted praise and suspiciously lacking in real-world honesty.
N.T. Wright points out that “the Psalms were the hymnbook that Jesus and his first followers
would have known by heart,” and that “[w]hat Jesus believed and understood about his own
identity and vocation, and what Paul came to believe and understand about Jesus’s unique
achievement, they believed and understood within a psalm-shaped world. That same shaping,
remarkably, is open to us today.”175 In other words, when in difficulty, pray the words of psalms
like Psalm 74. As Wright said, we should both “pray and live the Psalms.”176 Praying a psalm
like this one in a time of despair “is a way of holding onto God in the darkness, even when –
precisely when! – the problem is that God seems to have gone back on his word … [It] offers a
way of continuing to worship without pretense, eyes open to the terrible reality.”177 Believers
ought to look at their circumstances as the psalmist did, “without blinking,” and then “[invoke]
the power of YHWH as creator” as the psalmist did, for “[o]nly there is hope to be found.”178
This observation leads into the second application, which is that you must trust God’s
presence and power. The psalmist looks with the eyes of faith at the power of his God in the
midst of unimaginable tragedy (verses 12-17). Kidner observes that “at least the discipline of
175
N. T. Wright, The Case for the Psalms: Why They Are Essential (New York:
HarperCollins, 2013), 11.
176
Ibid., 22.
177
Ibid., 72.
178
Ibid., 93-94, 95.
45
offering praise and of facing other facts will have made the plea more confident, if no less
urgent.”179 Why this confidence?
An answer can be found in theologian R.C. Sproul’s reference to the words of atheist
scientist Carl Sagan, who “makes the dogmatic assertion that the universe is cosmos, not chaos,
which is the difference between order and confusion.”180 The psalmist reminds himself that God
has the power to turn chaos into cosmos; in the midst of a chaotic world and a chaotic life, that is
very comforting, and the reason why the psalmist cries out to God with desperate, confident
hope. You can know that God has promised to work everything for the good of those who love
Him (Rom 8:28). This means the seeming chaos of tragedy is actually an intricate instrument of
blessing in the loving hands of a sovereign God.
This was the belief of the psalmist’s heart in spite of the ruin of the centre of his and his
nation’s religious life. Brueggeman notes that “[t]he speaker is utterly committed to the temple
as the center and focus of all of life. That is why the poem is so passionate. And yet, at the same
time, the speaker knows better. For even when the temple is destroyed, life remains focused on
the invisible, but very concrete, presence of Yahweh.”181 Brueggeman continues, “The psalm
makes quite clear that the loss of the temple does not mean the loss of Yahweh. Yahweh can be
present even where the temple, the sign of presence, is nullified.”182 And so today, even without
outward signs of God’s blessing and presence, God’s people can rest in His presence and
179
180
R. C. Sproul, Everyone’s a Theologian (York, PA: Reformation Trust Publishing,
2014), 174.
181
182
Ibid.
46
faithfulness to His promises. God was still the psalmist’s “source of life and hope in the absence
of the temple”; he had a “faith which is willing to ‘wait without idols.’”183 Believers must share
this faith in the midst of the difficulties that are the common coin of life in a broken world.
This application section would not be complete without looking thirdly at suffering and
trust through the lens of Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Old Testament (Luke 27:25-
27, 44). Specifically relevant to Psalm 74 is the startling claim of Jesus Christ that He Himself is
the temple of God (John 2:19-21). That is, He is the reality toward which the Old Testament
temple was pointing. He “lived among us,” John wrote in John 1:14; as is well-known, “the
Greek word John uses could be translated to say that he ‘tabernacles’ in our midst.”184 The
destruction of the Solomonic temple in 586 BC was a type of the death of Christ on the cross
(John 2:19, 21). This means that Jesus is the fulfillment of the theological conundrum of Psalm
74. He was forsaken by God as the only truly righteous sufferer, bearing your sins in His own
body (1 Pet 2:24). The Father turned His back on His Son, sending Him into exile from His
presence – not for His sins, but for ours (Dan 9:26; 2 Cor 5:21).
This means that “the most horrible thing that ever happened was the most wonderful
thing that ever happened.”185 Nothing more awful, more unjust, more painful has ever happened
in human history than the crucifixion of Jesus. The disciples may have wondered in the dark
days after Jesus’ murder, “Was this not the end of everything good, true, and beautiful? If this
could happen, is there any hope for the world?”186 Yes, for “[i]n God’s righteous and wise plan,
183
184
Wright, The Case for the Psalms, 109.
185
Paul David Tripp, New Morning Mercies: A Daily Gospel Devotional, Advance
Reader Copy, Kindle ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), loc. 2268.
186
Ibid.
47
this dark and disastrous moment was ordained to be the moment that would fix all the dark and
disastrous things that sin had done to the world. … This moment of extreme suffering guaranteed
that suffering would end one day, once and for all.”187 For after three days, God rebuilt the
temple of Christ’s body in a permanent, immortal form (1 Cor 15:20-23). The Exile is over; sin
and death has been defeated!
This is why God can bring grace and joy out of your despair. The truth is that each
person deserves to have God forsake them, just like He forsook Samson (Judg 16:20). But
because God forsook Jesus, He will never forsake you (Heb 13:5-6). His promise never to leave
you is a beautiful, cross-purchased gift. But here is what God has not promised: He has not
promised that Christians will have lives free from tragedy and suffering. Nevertheless, in the
midst of heartbreak, God promises that He will accomplish His purposes in you through those
tragedies for your ultimate, eternal joy and good.
This leads to the related truth that as Christ is God’s temple, the church (His body) is
now God’s new temple, built for the glory of God (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:19-22). As
God never left Christ, so God will never leave this Temple. No, He will build it up until it is
perfect and complete. You can therefore pray Psalm 74 with confidence that God is your King
of old (Ps 74:12). You can know that “[t]he same God who planned that the worst thing would
be the best thing is your Father. … He takes the disasters in your life and makes them tools of
redemption.”188 You can lift up your voice with joy beside musicians Keith Getty and Stuart
187
Tripp, New Morning Mercies, loc. 2268-79.
188
Ibid., loc. 2279.
48
Townend, singing, “In Christ alone my hope is found; / He is my light, my strength, my song. /
This Cornerstone, this solid ground, / Firm through the fiercest drought and storm.”189
Sermon Outline
Introduction: Tension between God’s Sweet Promises and Our Sour Predicaments
I. Problem of Present Rejection (v. 1-11)
A. Has the Shepherd Turned against His Sheep? (v. 1)
B. God’s Promises Contrasted with Present Reality (v. 2-3)
C. The Ruined Temple Described in Detail (v. 4-9)
D. God’s Inaction the Ultimate Cause of the Current Destruction (v. 10-11)
II. Praise for Past Redemption (v. 12-17)
III. Plea for Promised Remembrance (v. 18-23)
IV. Application
A. Complain to God; Don’t Hide Your Struggle from Him (v. 1-11)
B. Recount God’s Past Works in Your Life (v. 12-17).
C. Plead for God to Act According to His Word and Character (v. 18-23).
D. Wait and Trust (v. 23).
189
Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, “In Christ Alone” (No. 239) in Rejoice Hymns
(Greenville, SC: Majesty Music, Inc., 2011).
49
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. Rev. ed. New York: Basic Books, 2011.
________. The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton,
2007.
Anderson, A. A. The Book of Psalms: Psalms 73-150. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Col, 1972, 1989.
Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge University
Press, 2013.
Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-
Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000.
Brueggemann, Walter. The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary. Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1984.
________, and William H. Bellinger, Jr. Psalms. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Cook, John A., and Robert D. Holmstedt. Beginning Biblical Hebrew: A Grammar and
Illustrated Reader. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
deClaissé-Walford, Nancy, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. The Book of Psalms. The
New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 2014.
Elliger, K. et al, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967,
1977.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.
Getty, Keith, and Stuart Townend. “In Christ Alone.” (No. 239) in Rejoice Hymns. Greenville,
SC: Majesty Music, Inc., 2011.
Harris, Robert Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook
of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.
Kidner, Derek. Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 16 of Tyndale Old
Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975.
50
Leslie, Elmer A. The Psalms: Translated and Interpreted in the Light of Hebrew Life and
Worship. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1949.
Mangum, Douglas. The Lexham Glossary of Theology. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014.
Merwe, Christo van der, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference
Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Mish, Frederick C., ed. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed. Springfield, MA:
Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003.
Moll, Carl Bernhard. The Psalms. Translated by Charles A. Briggs et al. Vol. 9 of Lange’s
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Scribner,
Armstrong and Co., 1872.
Runge, Steven, and Joshua Westbury, eds. The Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible: Glossary,
Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012.
Sproul, R. C. Everyone’s a Theologian. York, PA: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2014.
Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51-100. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 20. Dallas: Word Books,
1998.
Tripp, Paul David. New Morning Mercies: A Daily Gospel Devotional. Advance Reader Copy.
Kindle ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014.
VanGemeren, Willem, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis,
vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Wilson, Gerald H. Psalms. Vol. 1. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2002.
Witthoff, David, Kristopher A. Lyle, and Matt Nerdhal. Psalms Form and Structure. Edited by
Eli Evans. Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2014.
Wonneberger, Reinhard. Understanding BHS: A Manual for the Users of Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia. 2nd rev. ed. Vol. 8 of Subsidia Biblica. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico,
1990.
Wright, N. T. The Case for the Psalms: Why They Are Essential. New York: HarperCollins,
2013.
51

Remember Your People and Exalt Your Name

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remember Your People and Exalt Your Name

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REMEMBER YOUR PEOPLE AND EXALT YOUR NAME:

AN EXEGETICAL PAPER ON PSALM 74

to, see the “Literary Background” section below.

candidate for the setting of Psalm 74 in recent years.6

places of God” (see discussion below under “Grammatical Issues”).

covenant put forth by Ps 89.”14

Korah, David, and Ethan.

1 and 2, which were dominated by “individual prayers.”18

Psalm 89 concludes Book 3, and is somewhat a summary of that collection of psalms. It

“represents a theological reevaluation of [Israel’s covenant] relationship as it is reflected in Pss

in this new world?’”20

authority,” and “[musters] arguments to motivate him to act in their behalf.”22

center, and a profound public disorientation.”26

deeds (verses 12-17); another plea to YHWH to act (verses 18-23).

Where disagreement occurs in the analysis of Psalm 74 is in the smaller divisions of

verbs, and 18-23 contain imperatives and jussives.33

your anger smoke against the flock of your pasture?

knows how long.

bosom; destroy [them]!

you yourself formed summer and harvest.

HEBREW TEXT ANALYSIS

Text Critical Issues

verb “it seemed,” as did Tate.40

translation of this line is tentative at best.”42

in the LXX “seems to involve too much change to be likely.”46

conjunction ‫ ְו‬after the noun ‫ ַחיּ ַת‬.

oppressed and humiliated one be turned away (rejected).”61

“to forever”) in verse 1, and creates a “powerfully expressive” inclusio.62

text of Psalm 74, following the psalm’s stanzas closely.

participle, used as a nominative here, which BDB defines as a “contemplative poem.”64

NIDOTTE points out that ‫שׂכִּיל‬

18:8; 80:4; Lam 2:3).73

the use of the imperative verb ‫שׁכַּח‬

of the whole psalm” in the third stanza (verses 18-23).77

Verse 5 is difficult to interpret; according to my translation, the preposition ‫ כ‬there is

used in the sense of “agreement in kind.”81

(“thrown fire”) into the sanctuary; the verb ‫שׁלַח‬

ground”). This is the simple spatial use of the preposition ‫ל‬.83

(“meeting-place”) in verse 4, is ‫שׁכַּן‬

Solomonic temple, describing the whole as God’s “dwelling place.”88

identification mark; it was considered to be a description of character or conditions.”89 God’s

on the whole earth!”96

then be “signs of Yahweh’s saving actions—signs of divine intervention to change the

them (see Isa 59:9).

works on Israel’s behalf.

comprehensive claim possible.”108

As mentioned above, the language of verses 13-15 is reflective of ancient pagan

under “Syntactical Issues” below.

the conjunction ‫ו‬, as compared with narrative.

(twice in verse 19, as well as verses 21 and 23).

thanksgiving, which celebrated the resolution of an individual’s crisis in answer to prayer.”123 If

34; Psalm 118 is an example of a communal, liturgical psalm of thanksgiving.

construct clause ‫אָרץ‬

stanza, and concludes with the still-puzzling refusal of God to act.129

clause (ְָ‫ )י ֶ ְע ַשׁן ַאפּ‬makes clear that it is also a question.130

rising up against Him by attacking His people.

construction” and thus best reflects the clause’s uncertain meaning.131

of splintering wood more present to the reader.132

quandary cannot be resolved.

the “Grammatical Analysis” section above).

not simply a detached narrator of events or some purely professional mediator.”140

Tanner correctly asserts.144

together with the object phrase ָ‫תּוֹר‬

emphasis of the entire verse.