‏יָקוּם אֱלֹהִים יָפוּצוּ אוֹיְבָיו
וְיָנוּסוּ מְשַׂנְאָיו מִפָּנָיו׃
‏כְּהִנְדֹּף עָשָׁן תִּנְדֹּף כְּהִמֵּס דּוֹנַג מִפְּנֵי־אֵשׁ
‏יֹאבְדוּ רְשָׁעִים מִפְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים׃
‏וְצַדִּיקִים יִשְׂמְחוּ
‏יַעַלְצוּ לִפְנֵי אֱלֹהִים
‏וְיָשִׂישׂוּ בְשִׂמְחָה

About a week ago, John Hobbins noted the similarity in tone and vocabulary of Psalm 68:2–4 and Numbers 10:35–36, suggesting a liturgical procession involving the ark of the covenant. One might suppose that this talk of God arising and scattering the enemies might have been chanted at the beginning of a military expedition, but verses 25–28 belie this notion and leave no doubt that a cultic parade is in view.1

Yet this strikes me as a little bit weird. Why would a procession of the ark into a sacred space for worship be liturgically reimagined as a procession of God out onto the battlefield to contend against God’s enemies? And who exactly are God’s enemies, anyway? Based on vv. 13–15, one would think that the kings of some unspecified nations must be God’s enemies. Yet vv. 6–7 sound like the 8th-century prophets, among whom God’s enemies were often to be found within Israel or Judah themselves. I suppose these various possibilities could be bridged if we take the “orphans,” “widowed,” “lonely,” and “imprisoned” of vv. 6–7 to be individuals who have been bereaved by war.

Could Ps 68 be a kind of liturgical mirror image of Ps 44? That is, Ps 44 is clearly a prayer in reaction to military defeat—perhaps a specific defeat, or perhaps it’s a stylized prayer suitable for any military defeat. So too Ps 68. Is it merely an entrance liturgy suitable for a variety of worship occasions, or is it specifically an entrance liturgy to be used in conjunction with the celebration of military victories?

Well, enough of these cult-functional ramblings. I am not going to attempt a rigorous exegesis of Psalm 68 in these posts, but I will share my impressions. Perhaps Suzanne, John, Bob, or others will find something here of value.

———

1 In this series of posts on Psalm 68, inspired of course by the current blogabout on Psalm 68 that Suzanne started about a week ago, I’ll be looking chiefly at the Masoretic Text as printed in BHS. I won’t shy away from text-critical issues when appropriate, but I’m not terribly interested in unpacking the text’s prehistory. (I’m not terribly interested in quantiative analysis either, but don’t tell John I said so.) I assume—yes, this is just a bald assumption—that the canonical form of the text was meaninginful to whoever put in into that form, and I’ll try to explicate the psalm on that basis.