Abstract
This article discusses the meaning of Psalm 147 in light of its literary structure, which is created by the repetition of similar elements in an identical order in each of the three stanzas. While this structure contributes to the literary cohesion of the psalm, it also emphasizes the differences between the stanzas, highlighting the divergent nature of the second stanza, and the nuanced thematic differences between the first and third stanzas. The literary analysis of each of the stanzas and the relationship between them leads to the conclusion that Psalm 147 expresses a balance between the conditional and the unconditional perceptions of redemption, and between nationalism and universalism. These perceptions are generally viewed as contradictory, and the balance suggested in Psalm 147 reflects a unique voice in Second Temple literature, as a conceptual bridge over troubled waters.
Keywords
The Literary Cohesion of the Psalm
Psalm 147, a hymn of praise that calls for tribute to be paid to God for his rule over nature and history, 1 historically reflects the era of the return to Zion. 2 The division of the psalm into three parts is broadly accepted, and each part begins with a call to praise the Lord—I: vv. 1–6; II: vv. 7–11; III: vv. 12–20. 3 However, in the Septuagint the third part is a separate psalm, 4 and various scholars have claimed that this part was originally an independent psalm. 5 This claim is based primarily on the varied nature of vv. 12–20, which has a different rhythm, a direct plea to Jerusalem (v. 12), and an emphasis on divine laws (vv. 15, 18–20), all of which are absent from previous stanzas.
Conversely, many scholars believe that the psalm should be read as a cohesive single unit. 6 This claim is based on internal links and parallels throughout the psalm, including a repetition of the word ‘Israel’ at the beginning and end of the psalm (vv. 2, 19); a repetition of divine descriptions using participial verb forms (I: vv. 2–5; II: vv. 8–9; III: vv. 14–17, 19); a repetition of the roots רמז and ללה, together in v. 1, and separately in vv. 7 and 12 respectively; references to Jerusalem and its residents in the opening of the first (v. 2) and third (vv. 12–13) stanzas; and the conclusion of each stanza with an antithetical statement. 7 Additional links between various parts of the psalm include the following: the three stanzas mention God's rule over the heavens (I: v. 4; II: v. 8; III: vv. 15–18), which is expressed in particular in relation to water in the final two stanzas (II: clouds and rain [v. 8]; III: snow and ice [vv. 16–17]). The two final stanzas include a repetition of the sustenance motif (II: bread [v. 9]; III: wheat [v. 14]). All three stanzas include the name םיהלא with a possessive suffix (I: v. 1; II: v. 7; III: v. 12), and the word ‘land’ (I: v. 6; II: v. 8; III: v. 15). Poetic devices also contribute to the literary cohesion of the psalm: parallelism is widely used throughout the psalm, often combining content and structure, 8 as are assonance, 9 alliteration, 10 and various allusions to other biblical texts. 11
An additional reinforcement of the psalm's cohesion can be found in the literary structure. Strikovsky suggests a triple symmetrical structure for the psalm, which correlates with three stanzas, each divided into four parts: (1) strophe (I: v. 1; II: v. 7; III: v. 12); (2) rebuilding Jerusalem (I: vv. 2–3; III: vv. 13–14); (3) God's command over heaven and earth (I: vv. 5–6; II: vv. 8–9; III: vv. 15–18); (4) distinguishing between the righteous and the wicked (I: v. 6; II: vv. 10–11; III: vv. 19–20). 12 He claims that each part includes an internal transition: the strophe transitions from general to specific; the rebuilding of Jerusalem is characterized by the transition from reconstruction to fortification; and God's greatness is described on three levels of transition, from bright summer night to winter day to snow and frost. Finally, the distinction is made between the righteous and wicked transitions from general groups of meek and wicked people, through a representation of the meek as God-fearing people, to the final identification of the righteous as the Nation of Israel. 13
While Strikovsky's suggested structure seems convincing due to the repetition of various elements, the second stanza omits the element of rebuilding Jerusalem, creating a blatant asymmetry in the psalm. Strikovsky noted this asymmetry in his paper, but did not explain the phenomenon or its significance. 14 Additionally, not all of his arguments regarding the suggested relationship between the elements are equally convincing. For example, the claim that God's greatness among the hosts of heaven is expressed in three stages related to climate is hard to accept, considering the fact that the first stanza has no reference to either precipitation or climate. Similarly, the assertion regarding the expanding identification of the meek and wicked is not essential, since each stanza presents an antithesis between various groups, which might differ as regards their identity. Finally, the suggested structure focuses on the associations between the various parts of the psalm, but ignores the internal overtones that present the unique theme of each stanza. Understanding the unique nature of each stanza is pivotal to understanding the relationship between the stanzas, and exposing the general meaning of the psalm.
The present study will examine these issues in order to reassess the meaning of the psalm in light of its literary structure. Based on the literary analysis suggested below for each stanza, I intend to clarify the relationship between the three stanzas, and posit that the deliberate omission of Jerusalem from the second stanza, which disrupts the symmetry of the psalm, means that this stanza has a different nature, which critically affects the understanding of the psalm. This analysis is based on Strikovsky's symmetrical structure, but I intend to suggest different definitions for the elements in each stanza. Therefore, the structure, similarities, and distinctions will be presented, followed by an analysis of each stanza and of the meaning of the psalm based on the sum of its parts.
Structure
As stated above, Psalm 147 comprises three stanzas, which include four elements: (1) a call to praise God; (2) praising God for rebuilding Jerusalem and redeeming Israel, which appears only in the first and third stanzas and is omitted in the second; (3) praising God for ruling over nature; (4) God's varying attitude toward diverse groups. 15
The similar elements in each stanza testify to the cohesion of the psalm, but in light of the similarity several differences are emphasized:
The Call to Praise God
The first and third stanzas call to praise God, but the second stanza adds the elements of thanksgiving. Additionally, the first and third stanzas accompany the call to praise with an explanation, using the word ‘for’ (vv. 1, 13). Those who adhere to the call are only identified explicitly in the third stanza (Jerusalem, Zion).
Praising God for Rebuilding Jerusalem
This element is present in the first and third stanzas. However, most of the verbs in the first stanza (gathers, heals, binds) are directed at people, while only one verb (build) is directed at the city itself. In contrast, the majority of verbs in the third stanza (strengthens, grants peace) are directed towards the city, while only one verb is directed to the people (blesses), and even here the people are associated with the city: ‘your children within you’ (v. 13). 16
Praising God for Ruling over Nature
The first stanza describes God's control over the distant heavens, whereas the second and third stanzas describe God's control over precipitation, the effects of which are felt directly. However, in the second stanza God's control over precipitation benefits the world and revives the living, whereas the third stanza mentions precipitation which can harm humanity: ‘who can stand before his cold?’ (v. 17). 17
God's Varying Attitude toward Diverse Groups
The opposing groups are not identical to one another across the stanzas, and God's deeds toward each group are also diverse in nature. The first stanza distinguishes between meek and wicked, 18 and God improves or worsens their situation accordingly. The second stanza contrasts those who prize their own strength with those who depend on God's care, and God's deeds toward them are in the realm of consciousness, expressed by the roots יצר and ץפח. The third stanza contrasts Israel with the nations of the world; God's unique approach is expressed in his revelation to Israel, which includes commands and statutes, in contrast with the other nations, which did not receive revelation and therefore were not given commands and statutes.
These distinctions demonstrate that similar elements are expressed in a different manner in each stanza. An analysis of the stanzas will be presented below, with a clarification of their unique theme.
First Stanza (vv. 1–6)
The first stanza opens with a call to praise God, offering an internal reasoning which glorifies the act of praise: ‘it is good’, ‘it is pleasant’ (v. 1). 19 This motif implies that the praise stems from the positive (or improved) state of those speaking praise, and the emphasis on the improvement of the status of the people in the following verses reinforces this idea. However, information regarding the declaimers is absent from the first verse. Their description in the following verses as the לארשי יחדנ (‘outcasts of Israel’, v. 2) and בל ירובש (‘heartbroken’, v. 3) identifies them as those who have returned from exile (cf. Deut. 30.1,4; Isa. 11.12; 27.9; 30.26; 56.8; 61.1; Jer. 40.12; 32.7; Neh. 1.9; Dan. 9.7), gathered to Jerusalem by the Lord. Reference to Jerusalem and the return of the exiles presents the events in a particular-national context. 20
In contrast with the closeness to God expressed in the second element—‘He heals their broken hearts, and binds up their wounds’ (v. 3)—the third element expresses the distance between humanity and God, who controls the distant celestial bodies; God's actions of counting and naming these bodies (v. 4) do not have a direct effect on humanity. However, God's praise for controlling the cosmos reinforces the concept promoted in the second element, by indicating that God's power to intervene in the historical realm and deliver the nation of Israel stems from his unequivocal control over the cosmic order. 21
The allusion to creation generated by a reference to naming the stars (Gen. 1.14–18) emphasizes God's power and indicates that the process of redemption described in the psalm is a divine act that is initiated by God. by virtue of his infinite power. Additional rhetorical elements in this stanza reinforce the idea: (a) no verb in the stanza is attributed to humanity; (b) people are described as helpless (heartbroken, exiled), in contrast with the healing powers of God; (c) God is described as omnipotent: ‘Great is our Lord and full of power’ (v. 4) and his control over the distant heavens is contrasted with humanity, who can be brought ‘down to the dust’ (v. 5).
How is the fourth element incorporated into this concept? There is a common biblical contrast between wicked and righteous, 22 which is particularly prevalent throughout the book of psalms (e.g. Pss. 1.6; 11.5; 31.18–19; 34.22; 97.10–11). The contrast between meek and wicked, on the other hand, is rare, and only appears a few times in the biblical text (Isa. 11.4; Pss. 9.18–19; 10.15, 17; 37.8–9). 23 The biblical term םיזנע is often used to describe the impoverished who lack any financial competence (e.g. Pss. 29.19; 32.7). 24 It has therefore been suggested that v. 6 contrasts the wicked with the poor, indicating a social-economic-political conflict. 25
While this is a possible reading, it is not unequivocal. The phrase םיזנע can denote a myriad of qualities such as humility, modesty, and submission to God, as signified in the description of Moses (Num. 12.3). 26 It is therefore possible that the contrast of meek and wicked means to emphasize the disparity between specific qualities, and contrast humility with vanity. 27 Such a contrast compliments the content of the first stanza, since humility is the consequence of humanity recognizing the unlimited power of God, which was emphasized in the previous verses, which results in a natural sense of humility.
While the contrast between the meek and the wicked is general and lacks a specific national context, the links between w. 3 and 6 identify the meek with the returned exiles, and imbues v. 6 with national significance: God's improvement of the people's situation in v. 6 (‘gives courage’) parallels his actions in v. 3 (‘heals’, ‘binds’), and stems from the same semantic field. 28 The meekness in v. 6 is also semantically proximate to the broken hearted in v. 3. Additionally, a parallel between the verses can be drawn from a grammatical–structural standpoint, since both use participial verbs instead of nouns. 29
It therefore seems that the fourth element contrasts the returnees to Zion, who are characterized as meek people who recognize God's strength, with the arrogant nations who enslaved them, and will be brought down on account of their sin. 30 Considering humility is a conscious state and not an action, the final verse in the stanza correlates with the general theme of God's actions for the benefit of his nation in a descending order.
Second Stanza (vv. 7–11)
The first element in the second stanza—the call to praise—is not general, as in the first stanza, but rather focuses on thanksgiving and expression of praise with the lyre. 31 Thanksgiving (הדות) might be a ritualistic term with an ancient meaning that was lost, 32 but since the term is commonly used in the Bible with the sense of showing gratitude (e.g. Isa. 51.3; Jer. 30.19), 33 we can assume a similar meaning here. 34 Here too the identity of the recipients is only clarified in the last part of the stanza, as discussed below.
The absence of the second element—the rebuilding of Jerusalem and ingathering of the exiles—creates the impression that the focal point is not nationalistic, and that God's praise is not linked with the redemption of Israel, but rather with his control over nature, while emphasizing the boundless abundance he provides for every living creature: rain, grass, and food. Humans are absent from this description, which instead focuses on providing sustenance for all living creatures including the raven's brood. 35 Presumably humanity's survival stems from these as well. The allusion in v. 8 to Ps. 104.3, 13–14 emphasizes the kindness to all creatures; in contrast with Psalm 104, there is no reference here to human toil, only to God's pure and altruistic kindness. 36 The absence of humans in the third element is metonymically parallel to the absence of the national element in the second stanza: just as the nation of Israel is part of the world of nations, humanity is part of the natural world. Thus, humanity's absence from the third element correlates with the absence of the second element—the national element—from the entire stanza.
While at first glance the fourth element seems unrelated to the previous one, since it does not relate to nature, 37 a number of links connect the two. First, God's contrasting treatment of different groups in vv. 10–11 is described using a nature metaphor: ‘He does not prize the strength of horses’. Second, the word דסח is used to describe people who are righteous in the eyes of God (ודסחל םילחימה, v. 11), which correlates with the motif of kindness (דסח) in the description of God's altruistic manner of ruling over nature (vv. 8–9). 38 Thirdly, the final line in the second element, ‘(gives) to the raven's brood what they cry for’, contrasts the raven's brood with humanity, which is positioned at the center of the fourth element: in contrast with the helpless raven's brood, humans were provided with power, which is symbolized metonymically through his calves and the horse upon which he leans. 39 Whereas the brood calls out in distress without any self-awareness, humans are expected to be mindful of their actions and depend on God's kindness, despite their natural tendency to rely upon their own power. 40
Additionally, the demand presented in the fourth element that humans should place their trust in God stems from the acknowledgment that God sustains the universe, as described in vv. 8–9. Humans should therefore never erroneously assume that their own power can sustain them. The acknowledgment of this divine trait should lead to fearing and depending upon God; therefore, this stanza also presents a direct link between the moral demand expressed in the antithetical closing verses and the previous description of God's rule over nature. However, in contrast with the emphasis on the distance between humans and God expressed in the third element in the first stanza, here the emphasis is on the proximity between God and humanity, who is aware of God's direct providence, which leads to fearing God and depending upon him.
Who is the fourth element discussing? Who are those God-fearing people, who depend on his faithful care? Fearing God is a central religious element in the Bible, which essentially expresses an acknowledgment of God as Lord of the Universe. 41 Promoting fear of God is the primary purpose of the revelation at Sinai as presented in Deuteronomy (4.10); 42 however, this can also lead to an appropriate moral standard outside of the religious–legal or national context (e.g. Gen. 20.11; Exod. 1.17). 43 Recognizing God as the exclusive God is an objective set not only for the nation of Israel, but for all the nations of the world (e.g. Isa. 40.5; 43.8–10; 45.5–7,22–23). 44 God-fearing people are mentioned in various places in the biblical text, often identified with Israelite figures such as the prophet Obadiah (1 Kgs 18.3) or the nation of Israel (Mai. 3.16). However, in psalms dated to the return to Zion, and particularly in hymns of praise (Pss. 113–118), Weinfeld identifies God-fearing people as a new circle of believers among the gentiles who chose to join the nation of Israel as part of the spread of monotheism throughout the world in the Second Temple period (e.g. Mai. 1.11, 14), and the universal recognition of the God of Israel (e.g. Zech. 8.23). 45 This identification is based on the reference to those who fear God as a separate group alongside ‘the house of Aaron’ and ‘the house of Israel’ in Pss. 115.9–11 and 118.2–4, and the universal perspective in these psalms, which describes an acknowledgment of God by the nations of the world (113.3), a similar expectation to that found in other literature from this period. 46
Information regarding the nature of those who fear God is absent from our psalm, apart from their recognition that God sustains the world; it is therefore difficult to know whether the psalm is referring to actual converts, as Weinfeld suggests regarding those who fear God in hymns of praise. However, it is also possible to assume following his logic that this is a separate group which is characterized as God-fearing, but is not an integral part of the nation. This is a plausible reading due to (a) the absence of the national motif of rebuilding Jerusalem and the redemption of Israel in the second stanza; (b) the strong connection between this psalm and Psalm 33, 47 which also mentions the demand to fear God. which is directed toward all people (‘let the whole world fear the Lord’. 33.8); (c) God's attitude toward those who fear him is expressed by his will alone, not in actions which actually facilitate redemption, in contrast with his deeds for the benefit of parallel groups in the First and Second Temple; (d) the nature-oriented character of the second stanza—which emphasizes God's actions with regard to nature, but not history— reinforces the impression that the God-fearing people mentioned here are non-Israelites, who acknowledge God through looking at nature, instead of the Torah law. 48
If we accept the suggestion that the God-fearing people in the second stanza are foreigners who acknowledge God's sustenance of the world, we can assume that these are the recipients of the call to praise God in the first element. The second stanza therefore lacks national elements, and the main theme of the stanza relates to nature and universalism. 49
Third Stanza (vv. 12–20)
In contrast with the two previous stanzas, which omit the recipients of the call to praise God, the third stanza mentions them in the opening verse: ‘Jerusalem, glorify the Lord; praise your God, O Zion’ (v. 12), indicating a national motif in this stanza. 50
The second element is directly connected with the first by the causal word ‘for’ (v. 13), and through the description of God's actions for Jerusalem and its residents, which are also embedded in an unequivocally national context. The image of Jerusalem emphasizes the positive conditions in the city, and justifies the need to praise God for the situation.
In a similar vein to the first stanza, here too there is a connection between the redemption of the nation in the second element, and God's rule over nature in the third; however, the latter might cause harm to and difficulty for humans. The movement from God's improvement of the people's situation in the second element (v. 13) to the possibility that their situation will deteriorate in the third element (vv. 15–18) demands interpretation: why is God's rule over nature in the third stanza expressed through the endangerment of humanity? And why is the rebuilding of Jerusalem linked with this aspect of God's rule over the universe? I believe the answer lies in the emphasis on nature's submission and obedience to God's command in the third element (vv. 15, 18), which implies that humanity too is required to obey God's command, 51 and that God's dangerous power might lead to people suffering should they fail to comply. 52
This clarifies the connection between the third and fourth elements (vv. 19–20), where the contrasting groups are Israel and the nations of the world. God's rule over nature by fiat and hints to submit and note the sanctions that might follow the failure to comply, lead to an essential distinction between Israel and the nations, which stems from the fact that only the nation of Israel was issued statutes and rules that demand submission (vv. 19–20). 53
Thus, the concluding verses parallel Israel with nature: the nation of Israel is obligated to obey God's commands and statutes, just as nature functions as a result of God's command. The repetition of the word דנד (‘word’) in both contexts (vv. 15, 18, 19) reinforces this connection.
The motif of God's command and the demand to comply, which emerge from the third and fourth elements, indicate that in a retrospective reading the redemption of Jerusalem in the second element of this stanza is conditional upon keeping the commandments. In other words, the process is reciprocal, instead of one-sided. According to this reading, the second and third elements in this stanza express both sides of the revelation described in the fourth element: the rebuilding of Jerusalem stems from God's choice of the nation of Israel—the recipient of his command, but simultaneously implies that redemption is dependent on adhering to the voice of God, and that a lack of obedience on the nation's part can lead to retribution.
The Meaning of the Psalm
The analysis above demonstrates that the first and third stanzas have a distinctively national emphasis, primarily expressed in the second element of each stanza, but also underlined by other elements therein. The second stanza omits the second element of Jerusalem, and the other elements in the stanza join in constructing the nature-oriented and universal nature of this stanza. However, a distinction between the first and third stanzas touches on the nature of redemption: the first stanza includes no hint of an active demand from the nation, only a recognition of the power with which God acts on the nation of Israel's behalf. Conversely, the third stanza explicitly mentions God's revelation, which includes the issuing of commands and statutes to Israel. The danger that stems from God's rule over nature implies that Jerusalem's redemption is conditional upon the nation's deeds, and a lack of adherence to God's laws will lead to retribution. Additionally, the first stanza emphasizes the improvement in the status of the exiled, whereas the third stanza emphasizes the improved status of the city. What is the meaning of the psalm in light of all this?
The structure and literary design of the psalm portrays varying perceptions as complementary when balanced delicately, with regard to two matters: (1) the perception of redemption as conditional, or unconditional; (2) the perception of Israelite identity as national, or universal.
The Perception of Redemption as Conditional / Unconditional
The difference between the first and third stanzas reflects two separate perceptions regarding the redemption of Israel. According to the position that views redemption as unconditional, God's initiative to renew the covenant is independent of the nation's actions, whereas the position which views the nation's actions as a condition for redemption emphasizes reciprocity. These positions are generally presented in different texts, primarily in prophetic writings. The unconditional position is expressed in various prophecies in Isaiah 40–54 54 (e.g. 40.1–11 55 ), in various prophecies in Jeremiah (e.g. 31.30–31; 56 32.40–42 57 ) and Ezekiel (e.g. 34.11–16 58 ). The conditional position is distinct in Deut. 30.1–5, and in Isaiah 1–39 (e.g. 1.16–20 59 ), Jer. 3.6–13; 3.19–4.2; 60 24.4–7; 61 31.15–22, 62 and 29.10–15, which is closely associated with Deut. 30.1–10. 63
A variety of explanations have been offered to resolve the different approaches, especially in a work attributed to a single prophet. In our case, a variety of theological responses from different historical periods might be a plausible explanation. 64 For example, it is possible that the unconditional approach is relevant for times of theological crisis, when doubts arise regarding the validity of the covenant with God. 65 At such times the nation needs encouragement that redemption is certain due to God's kindness and desire, independent of the nation's actions, and despite their sins. In contrast, the conditional approach is required when the nation prospers, and there is a danger that the nation will abandon the covenant of their forefathers, 66 and needs encouragement to maintain their commitment to God's laws to prevent punishment and exile.
Presenting these approaches side by side in Psalm 147 reflects the possibility of complementary concepts, instead of mutually exclusive ideas: it should be believed that God redeems the nation even in their undeserving state, which should be a source of encouragement during hard times; however, the nation must keep God's laws in order to remain in the land, and should not become complacent during good times. This suggestion is reinforced by the fact that the unconditional position is presented in the context of the first stanza, which emphasizes the improvement of the status of the brokenhearted exiles by mentioning their difficult situation, while the conditional position is presented in the context of the third stanza, which focuses on the positive state of the city, emphasizing its prosperity.
The striking of a delicate balance between these two perceptions of redemption might be appropriate for the era of the return to Zion: the theological crises induced by the destruction still resonate, while signs of hope are palpable in the rebuilding of Jerusalem and ingathering of the exiles to Zion. This complex message of a multifaceted redemption is deeply appropriate for this era.
Perceiving Israelite Identity as National / Universal
The alternation from nationalism to universalism in the psalm reflects a unique perception of a delicate balance between the two approaches, which attributes a universal acknowledgment of God without blurring Israel's identity as the chosen people.
In his classic article on universal and particular trends during the era of the return to Zion mentioned above, Weinfeld pointed out the tension between these perceptions in the literature of the time. 67 On the one hand, there was a prophetic voice calling for a universal acknowledging of God, and a bringing of the nations closer to Israel. This is exemplified in Zech. 2.15, 68 Isa. 56.3–7 and 66.21, where the nations are offered actual participation in temple sacrifice. 69 On the other hand, there was another trend that strove to reinforce the national element through separation from other nations, expressed for example through the description of banishing the foreign women in Ezra (ch. 9–10) and Nehemiah (10.29–31; 13.23–27), 70 and the opposition to allowing other nations to participate in the construction of the Temple in Ezra 4.1–4, 71 Hag. 2.10–14, 72 and Ezek. 44.6–16. Based on the similarity between Ezek. 44.6–16 and Isa. 56.6–7, 73 some theorized that the text in Isaiah was a polemic against the position expressed in Ezekiel 44, 74 and Isaiah's use of the root לדנ (56.3) indicates a polemic against the separatist trend in Ezra and Nehemiah. 75
Despite the fact that Psalm 147 does not include any practical information, the two perceptions appear side-by-side harmoniously in the psalm. On the one hand, the psalm addresses Israel as an ethnically separate group, emphasizing the essential distinction between the chosen nation and other nations, both in the first and third stanzas. There is a distinct emphasis placed on a particular national identity, and a call to the nation of Israel to praise God for the redemption and return to Zion and Jerusalem. On the other hand, God-fearing people are desired by God, and called upon to praise and thank him, as expressed in the second stanza. This stanza addresses those who are not chosen, while emphasizing that the entire world is required to thank the Lord, Master of the Universe, for sustaining the world.
The integration of these two perceptions is unusual, since the shift from universalism to nationalism can be problematic: bringing foreigners into the fold can create cultural influences which might threaten national identity and endanger its foundations, 76 while segregation might hinder the realization of the universal religious ideal, which seeks to spread belief in God and recognition of his power throughout the world, particularly to those who seek out God. 77 The movement from nationalism to universalism in the psalm therefore states that a confident and distinct separate national identity enables the nation to bring God-fearing people from among the nations closer, 78 presenting a unique and original voice regarding the correct balance between nationalism and universalism in the era of the return to Zion.
Conclusion
The preceding pages have discussed the meaning of Psalm 147 in light of its structure. The psalm comprises three stanzas, which include four comparable elements that differ in detail. An analysis of each stanza shows a similarity between the first and third stanzas regarding the redemption of Jerusalem, centering primarily on a national theme, while the second stanza omits the reconstruction of Jerusalem, and centers on a universal theme. Despite the similarity between the first and third stanzas, the nature of redemption described in each stanza differs: whereas the first stanza emphasizes God's deeds for the nation, the third implies the demand to adhere to God's commands and statutes.
We suggested that the varying nature of redemption in the first and third stanzas reflect two perceptions of redemption—one that is conditional, and another that is unconditional. Presenting both in the same psalm indicates a complementary approach toward the two types of redemption. This message might prevent desperation on the one hand, and complacency on the other—an appropriate message for the era of the return to Zion, when the elation over the process of rebuilding Jerusalem is intermingled with the fresh memory of destruction.
The alternation between national and universal in the psalm indicates a delicate balance between a national and universal perception, rather than the tension between the two as presented in other texts from that era. This balance is facilitated by a clear national identity, which prevents the danger of foreign influence, and allows the integration of God-fearing individuals who acknowledge the God of Israel.
The unique theological message of Psalm 147 therefore balances between the positions expressed therein, forming a conceptual bridge over the troubled waters of the return to Zion.
Footnotes
1.
A. Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (trans. H. Hartwell; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1965), p. 834; A.A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms (73–150) (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, 1972), p. 944; J.L. Mays, Psalms (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1994), p. 442; L.C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 (WBC, 21; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), p. 385.
2.
The psalm is generally attributed to this time period based on content relating to the restoration of Jerusalem and return of the exiled, as well as the grammatical links to other texts from the same era. For example, Ginzberg demonstrated late grammatical forms such as the root סנכ, the word הואנ, and perhaps the root חנש, and pointed out the psalmist's adaption for texts from Deutero-Isaiah which attest to a later period. See H.L. Ginzberg, ‘A Strand in the Cord of Hebraic Hymnody’, Eretz-Israel 9 (1969), pp. 45–50. However, scholars disagree on the specific identification of the period. Dahood attributes the psalm to the early days of the Return to Zion, while Allen, Kraus and Hossfeld and Zenger attribute the psalm to the days of Nehemiah and the construction of Jerusalem's walls. See M. Dahood, Psalms 100–150 (AB, 17A; New York: Doubleday, 1970), p. 344; Allen, Psalms, p. 385; H.J. Kraus, Psalms 60–150 (trans. H.C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 556; F.L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (trans. L.M. Maloney; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), pp. 618–28 (esp. 622). For theories relating the psalm to a later period, see, Weiser, Psalms, p. 834; CA. Briggs and E.G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), p. 534.
3.
See among others: Weiser, Psalms, p. 834; Briggs and Briggs, Psalms, p. 532; Kraus, Psalms, p. 556; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, p. 622. The psalm ends with an additional call to praise God (v. 20), creating an inclusio with the first verse, similar to the last five psalms in the book; however, in contrast with proximate psalms, in which the call to praise at the beginning and end of the psalm does not seem integral to the psalm, in this case only the call for praise at the end of the psalm seems like an addition, while the call to praise at the beginning of the psalm is an imminent part of the text, because the call is immediately followed by the causal word יכ. See H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen (GHKAT, 2/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), IV, p. 615; J.P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible, II (SSN; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000), p. 318 n. 79, and J. Goldingay, Psalms 90–150 (BCOTWP; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), p. 715.
4.
In the Septuagint, Ps. 147 parallels vv. 12–20 of the masoretic Ps. 147, and is attributed to Haggai and Zechariah, whereas 147.1–11 parallel Ps. 146.
5.
Dahood, Psalms, p. 344; W.L. Holladay, The Psalms through Three Thousand Years (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 68; and recently, Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, pp. 620–21. Lohfink claimed that the third part was a late extension based on the psalm in vv. 1–11. See N. Lohfink, Lobgesänge der Armen: Studien zum Magnifikat, den Hodojot von Qumran und einigen späten Psalmen (SBS, 143; Stuttgart: Katholisches Biblewerk, 1990), pp. 115–16. However, Leunberger believed the foundation of the psalm is found in vv. 12–20, whereas the expansion is in vv. 1–11. See M. Leunberger, Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Redaktion der the akratischen Bücher IV–V im Psalter (ATANT, 83; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004), pp. 349–51. Briggs and Briggs (Psalms, p. 534) believe that the weak relationship between various parts of the psalm might indicate that it is comprised of three different psalms.
6.
Anderson, Psalms, p. 944; K. Schaefer, Psalms (Berit Olam; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2001), pp. 340–41; Allen, Psalms, pp. 383–84.
7.
See Schaefer, Psalms, p. 341; Allen, Psalms, pp. 383–84. For a detailed account of all linguistic and grammatical parallels, see P. Van Der Lugt, Cantos and Strophes in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: III. Psalms 90–150 and Psalm 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 550–56.
8.
E.g. v. 4 is a complete chiastic structure: ארקי תומש םלוכל//םיבכוכל רפסמ הנומ. Verse 8 is a parallel structure that includes three parts: םימש הסכמה//ריצח םירה חימצמהרטמ ץראל ןיכמה//םיבעב. Verse 16 is a chiastic structure that include two parts: גלש ןתנהרזפי רפאכ רןפכ//רמצכ.
9.
The first stanza includes an assonance in the words הלהת/הןאנ/הרמז/הי (v. 1), all words that end with the vowel a. The second stanza includes an assonance between the words ריצח/םיבע (v. 8) whose final vowel is i, and המחל/המהב (vv. 8–9) whose final vowel is a. The third stanza reflects an assonance between five words that end with the vowel e: רזפי/רפאכ/רמצכ/גלש/ןתנה (v. 16), in contrast with Allen (Psalms, p. 384) who believes this feature is characteristic of the third part.
10.
In the first stanza there is a repetition of the consonant נ at the beginning of the words הלהה הואנ םיענ (v. 1). In the second stanza there is a repetition of the consonants ע and ד: ידע/דדועמ (v. 6). In the third stanza there is an alliteration in the words דינב דרבדבדקב (v. 13), which all begin with the consonant ב, as noted by Berlin; see A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 117. An additional alliteration can be found in in the words רפאכ רופכ רמצכ (v. 16), which begin with the consonant כ.
11.
The psalm is primarily linked with Ps. 33 and Isa. 40–67; see the precise textual references in Allen, Psalms, pp. 384–85; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, p. 621. Some of the references will be discussed below.
12.
A. Strikovsky, ‘Symetriya be-Tehillim 147’, Beit Mikra 13 (1968), pp. 43–48 (Hebrew), and see the diagram on p. 44. Viviers suggested a structure reminiscent of Strikovsky's suggestion, but did not reference him directly; see H. Viviers, ‘Why Is Psalm 147 Still “Catchy”?’, in R.L. Foster and D.M. Howard (eds.), My Words Are Lovely: Studies in the Rhetoric of the Psalms (LHBOTS, 467; London: T&T Clark International, 2008), pp. 171–86 (172–76). Viviers primarily noted the repetition of God's rule over nature and history in each of the stanzas interchangeably, culminating in an antithetical proclamation. Variations on these distinctions have been noted by others; see, e.g., Allen, Psalms, p. 308, and n. 6 in Viviers’ study.
13.
Strikovsky, ‘Symetriya’, p. 45.
14.
Strikovsky, ‘Symetriya’, p. 44.
15.
It is noteworthy that despite the structural repetition, the psalm prevents monotony by using three methods to describe God's actions: (1) description of God's deeds in the third person with a plural participle and the definite article (ה): ןתנה/חלשה/םשה/חימעמה/ןיכמה/הסכמה/אפרה; (2) descriptions of God's deeds in the third person with the plural participle without the definite article (ה): דיגמ/דילשמ/העור/ןתונ/ליפשמ/דדועמ/הנומ/שבחמ/הפוב; (3) description of God's deeds in the third person with the imperfect tense, without the definite article (ה): רזפי/ץזרי/דעיבשי/הערי/ארקי/סנכי.
16.
The duality of improving the state of the city and improving the state of its residents is emphasized in Ps. 147, and repeated in both the first and the third stanzas. The order is maintained in both parts: the construction of the city is followed by the improved state of its residents, perhaps to indicate that the material infrastructure is a prerequisite to improving the emotional state.
17.
This rhetorical question emphasizes the response, creating a dramatic effect. Regarding the roots of this poetic device in Ugaritic literature, see W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (JSOTSup, 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), pp. 338–42.
18.
In contrast with Strikovsky (‘Symetriya’, p. 45) who claimed that this was a distinction between wicked and righteous which stems from the significance of the specific term used to describe the group; see the discussion of the first stanza below.
19.
The meaning of the phrase הלהת הואנ םיענ in v. 1 is debated due to the grammatical status of the word הואנ, which might be a verb from the root האנ, or an adjective related to the niphal participle, parallel to the word בוט in the parallel line. Blau believes this is an infinitive piel, in contrast with Pss. 33.1 and 133.2, which were adapted by the psalmist to change the meaning of the word הואנ; see: Y. Blau, ‘NĀWĀ
20.
The term ‘particular–national’ reflects a Judean attribution which includes religious, cultural, and social patterns, but not necessarily the geographical–political aspect sometimes accompanying this term, which is inappropriate in the context of the Persian era, as noted by J.L. Berquist, ‘Constructions of Identity in Postcolonial Yehuda?’, in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), p. 56. It is noteworthy that prophets also mention Jerusalem outside of a national context (e.g. Isa. 2.3), but rebuilding the city along with the ingathering of the exiles indicates that in this instance the reference is to a national context.
21.
This point was previously made by Gunkel, Die Psalmen, p. 614, followed by many, including among others Kraus, Psalms, p. 556; Allen, Psalms, p. 385; E.S. Gerstenberger, Psalms (FOTL, 15; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 443; Schaefer, Psalms, p. 341; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, p. 623. The relationship between God's rule over the heavenly hosts and his ability to redeem the nation stems from his power as a being outside of time and space. This perception is expressed in many biblical texts, particularly in Isa. 40.26–29, which parallel our verse almost entirely, but see also Isa. 42.5–9; 44.24–28; 45.12–13; 48.12–16.
22.
The contrast between wicked and righteous is found in the Pentateuch (e.g. Gen. 18.25; Exod. 9.27; 23.7; 25.1), in the Prophets (e.g. Isa. 3.9; 26.8), in Second Temple literature (Ezra 3.18–21; 18.20) and in Wisdom literature (e.g. Eccl. 10.3,6–7; 11.10,23; 12.5). See also H. Ringgren, ‘rāšaʾ’, TDOT, XIV, p. 1.
23.
Isa. 29.19–20 contrasts the humble with the tyrant and the scoffer, and the diligent with the evil one, which reflects negative qualities just like the wicked, and shares the same semantic field (see Isa. 13.11; 55.7; Pss. 1.1; 37.35; 101.8; Job 15.20; Prov. 9.7). A contrast between the humble and the villain is also found in Isa. 32.5–8, and while the villain is not quite on the level of the ‘wicked’, the term carries a similar negative denotation, particularly in this verse. See J. Marböck, ‘nā
24.
Regarding numerous interchanges between ינע and ונע in the Bible, see Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (Jerusalem: Bialik-Dvir, 1964 [Hebrew]), p. 685.
25.
Gerstenberger, Psalms, p. 443, based on the verb דדועמ in adjacent Ps. 146, in relation to bettering the situation of the oppressed. See also Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, p. 624, who questions whether the conflict is internal or between Israel and neighboring nations.
26.
This is reflected in various translation such as KJV (‘meek’), NRSV and ESV (‘humble’), and possibly also in JPS (‘lowly’). Perhaps the semantic meaning of physical poverty was abstracted to refer to the quality of humility, since both concepts are based on modesty and social marginality, the former in the physical realm, and the latter in the emotional realm. On the relationship between the verb and noun, see E. S. Gerstenberger, ‘ʾānâ II’, TDOT, XI, pp. 236, 247–48, 250. Regarding a similar reading of Isa. 11.1–10, see Y. Zakovitch, Mashmia Shalom Mevaser Tov: Shivah Pirkei Hazon li-Shlom Yerushalayim (Haifa: Haifa University Press, 2004 [Hebrew]), p. 86.
27.
The hubris of the wicked is also featured in Pss. 94.2–3 and 75.5, representing only one of many negative traits, including cruelty (Pss. 11.5; 140.5), deceit (Ps. 58.4), etc. However, in the context of redemption of the meek in contrast with the humiliation of the wicked, the parallel to Ps. 18.28 seems more probable: ‘It is you who deliver meek folk, but haughty eyes you humble’.
28.
The word דדועמ from the root דוע in the polel stem, signifies assisting (HALOT, III, p. 795) and providing comfort (fifth interpretation in DCH, VI, p. 289), and is therefore similar, physically and emotionally, to healing and binding.
29.
Gerstenberger, Psalms, p. 443.
30.
The pride of the nations is a central motif in prophecies against the nations, for example, the prophecy against the pride of Moab in Isa. 16.16, and parallel in Jer. 48.29; the prophecies against Edom in Obad. 1–9, and parallel in Jer. 49.16; the prophecy against the pride of Assyria in Isa. 12; the prophecy against the pride of Tyre in Ezek. 28.2, 17, and many more. These present the disgrace of the nations as a measure-for-measure punishment for their pride. Assis recently discussed the pride motif in prophecies against the nations: E. Assis, ‘Structure, Redaction and Significance in the Prophecy of Obadiah’, JSOT 39 (2014), pp. 216–17, and references therein.
31.
Regarding the lyre as an ancient musical instrument, see E. Werner, ‘Musical Instruments’, IDB, III, pp. 474–75.
32.
Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, p. 624.
33.
See in particular the combination of ‘thanksgiving’ and ‘singing’ in Isa. 51.3.
34.
See Weiser, Psalms, p. 835; Kraus,Psalms, p. 557; Gerstenberger, Psalms, p. 443; Allen, Psalms, p. 386. Ross (Psalms, pp. 728–29) suggests that the thanksgiving song is related to the thanksgiving sacrifice, which expresses the gratitude of the one bringing the offering. However, the verb ונע (from the root ינע), which expresses verbal expression, appears in biblical contexts of singing (Exod. 15.21; 32.18; Num. 21.17; Ezra 3.11) combined with the absence of a sacrificial motif in the verse, indicating that this is more likely to be a verbal song of thanksgiving, without a sacrificial element. See Dahood, Psalms, p. 346; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, p. 624.
35.
The ‘raven's brood’ breaks the assonant rhyme between the last words of each line in vv. 8–9 (םיבע//דיצח; המחל//רטמ), creating a dissonance which focuses the reader on the last line, emphasizing the disparity between the large independent creatures and the small dependent raven's brood.
36.
Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, p. 625.
37.
Gerstenberger, Psalms, p. 444.
38.
It is noteworthy that the term דסח has multiple meanings in the Bible; in addition to the denotation of divine generosity here, other meanings include mutual commitment, particularly in interpersonal relationships. See HALOT, III, p. 336.
39.
Calves enable walking and running, providing one with a sense of power and self-control. Similarly, the horse's power is expressed through speed, and it runs in training for war. The horse is mentioned in this context many times (e.g. Exod. 14.9, 23; 15.1, 19, 21; Deut. 20.1; Josh. 11.1; 1 Kgs 20.1, 25; 22.4), as a symbol of power in and outside of Israel. See D. O'Daniel Cantrell, ‘“Some Trust in Horses”: Horses as Symbols of Power in Rhetoric and Reality’, in B.E. Kelle, F.R. Ames and J.L. Wright (eds.), Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), pp. 131–48. Perhaps the verse intends to connote a threat of war, indicating that in this case as well one should look to and trust in God.
40.
In many psalms, use of the root לחי expresses hope that stems from trusting in God; see, e.g., Pss. 33.17, 22; 38.16; 42.6, 12.
41.
Perhaps fearing God originally denoted terror, but later developed into a broader religious ethical concept which denotes a practical readiness to worship God. See H.F. Fuhs, ‘yārē’, TDOT, VI, pp. 297–98, 300–303, 306–14. Scholars disagree regarding whether fearing God is achieved epistemologically, or perhaps includes an ontological aspect as well. Regarding the former, see M.L. Barré, ‘Fear of God and the World of Wisdom’, BTB 11 (1981), pp. 41–43; regarding the latter, see J.Y. Jindo, ‘On the Biblical Notion of the “Fear of God” as a Condition for Human Existence’, BibInt 19 (2012), pp. 440–53.
42.
Regarding the prevalence of the term in Deuteronomy and in the Deuteronomistic history, see S.Z. Aster, ‘“They Feared God”/“They Did Not Fear God”: On the Use of yērē Yhwh and Yārē’ ‘et Yhwh in 2 Kings 17:24–41’, in C. Cohen et al. (eds.). Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), pp. 135–47.
43.
J.D. Levenson, ‘The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism’, in M.G. Brett (ed.), Ethnicity and the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 143–69 (149); M. Greenberg, ‘Mankind, Israel and the Nations in the Hebrew Heritage’, in J.R. Nelson (ed.), No Man Is Alien: Essays on the Unity of Mankind (Leiden: Brill, 1971), pp. 15–40 (20); Jindo, ‘Biblical Notion’, pp. 434–35.
44.
C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary (trans. D.M.G. Stalker; OTL; (London: SCM Press, 1969), p. 176; S.M. Paul, Isaiah 40–48 (Mikra leyisra'el; Tel Aviv: Am Oved; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2008 [Hebrew]), p. 17.
45.
M. Weinfeld, ‘Universalism and Particularism in the Period of Exile and Restoration’, Tarbiz 33 (1964), pp. 228–42 (232–33) (Hebrew). Note that Weinfeld believes the trend stemmed from the influence of the exiled Jews on their surroundings.
46.
E.g. the similarity between the universal recognition of God in Mai. 1.11 and Ps. 113.3; so too between Isa. 53.3, 45.22–23 and Ps. 22.23–32, which in his opinion comprise a separate and later section.
47.
E.g. the repetition of the phrase ‘glorious praise’ (33.1; 147.1); use of the word ‘lyre’ (33.2; 147.6); objection to trusting in the strength of horses (33.17; 147.10); and parallel between those who fear God and those who depend on him (33.18; 147.11).
48.
This perception is particularly emphasized in Wisdom literature, where universal terminology is common, and there is an emphasis on universal ethics, achieved by acknowledging God through inspection of nature. See: Levenson, ‘Universal Horizon’, pp. 149–50.
49.
Use of the term ‘universalism’ with regard to the Bible is not always clear and consistent, as demonstrated by Levenson, ‘Universal Horizon’, pp. 144–45 and Joel S. Kaminsky, ‘The Hebrew Bible's Theology of Election and the Problem of Universalism’, in H. Assel, S. Beyerle and C. Bottrich (eds.), Beyond Biblical Theologies (WUNT, 295; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), pp. 375–79. In the present study I use the term in reference to humanity's recognition of the God of Israel as Lord of the Universe, and the positive attitude toward gentiles who subscribe to this concept, without eliminating the element of Israel being God's chosen people, as suggested by the abovementioned scholars.
50.
The name ‘Zion’ appears in many psalms, primarily in the fourth and fifth books, which emphasize Jerusalem as a Jewish center. See the lengthy discussion in C. Körting, Zion in den Psalmen (FAT, 48; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).
51.
A. Horovitz, ‘Psalm 147’, in N. Sarna (ed.), Psalms 73–150 (Olam Hatanach, 17; Tel Aviv: Davidson-Eti, 1995 [Hebrew]), p. 276; Viviers, ‘Why Is Psalm 147 Still “Catchy”?’, p. 176.
52.
This idea is alluded to by Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, p. 626, but not developed there; Goulder also indicates a link between God's words in vv. 15, 18 and Pentateuchal laws; see M.D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return: Book V, Psalms 107–150 (Studies in the Psalter, 4; JSOTSup, 258; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), p. 291.
53.
The use of the words pn and UflWQ with regard to Pentateuchal law is common (e.g. Lev. 26.46; Deut 4.8; 1 Kgs 8.58; Ezra 7.10; Neh. 1.7), and Deuteronomy emphasizes in particular the uniqueness of Israel in relation to the nations due to the commandments (e.g. Deut. 4.6, and see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy [Olam Hatatnach; Tel Aviv: Davidson-Eti, 1994 (Hebrew)], p. 61). Therefore, Gelander's postulation that this verse represents the cosmic laws of creation seems unlikely. See S. Gelander, The Religious Experience in the Psalms (Jerusalem: MosadBialik, 2013 [Hebrew]), p. 120.
54.
Regarding God's initiative to redeem the nation without the condition of behavior in Isa. 40–66, see McKenzie's introduction to his commentary on Isaiah: J.L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah (AB, 20; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968).
55.
See Y. Hoffman, Isaiah (Olam Hatanach; Tel Aviv: Davidson-Eti, 1999 [Hebrew]), p. 195; Paul, Isaiah 40–48, p. 87. See also Paul's commentary on Isa. 40.22 (p. 206) and 48.9–11 (pp. 272–74).
56.
Regarding the New Testament interpretation of Jer. 30–31 as a redemption which nullifies the conditional aspect due to God's nullification of sin, see J. Unterman, From Repentance to Redemption (JSOTSup, 54; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), pp. 107–10; Y. Hoffman, Jeremiah 26–52 (Mikra Leyisra'el; Tel-Aviv: Am Oved; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004 [Hebrew]), pp. 568–69, 573; idem, Jeremiah 1–25 (Mikra Leyisra'el; Tel-Aviv: Am Oved; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004 [Hebrew]), p. 84. Note that according to Hoffman's position the prophecies describe redemption as an unconditional promise; repentance is not a prerequisite, but rather part of the process of redemption. Cf. Ezra 36.26–27.
57.
See Hoffman, Jeremiah 26–52, p. 614; Unterman, Repentance, pp. 111–16. Unterman adds vv. 36–39 to this prophetic unit.
58.
Regarding the unconditional nature of redemption in this chapter, see M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB, 22A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1997), p. 705; D. Rom-Shiloni, God in Times of Destruction and Exiles (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2009 [Hebrew]), p. 373. Note the use of the root חדנ in Ezek. 34.4,16 in presenting sheep as a metaphor for the exiled who will be returned to Israel by God, which parallels the use of this root in the first stanza of the psalm (147.2), as well as the use of the root שבח in the prophecy in Ezek. 34.16, which also appears in the first stanza of our psalm (v. 3).
59.
See J. Milgrom, ‘Did Isaiah Prophesy during the Reign of Uzzia?’, VT 14 (1969), pp. 164–72 (169–70).
60.
See Unterman, Repentance, pp. 35–36.
61.
Hoffman (Jeremiah 1–25, p. 487) interprets the words of v. 7: ‘when they return to me with all their hearts—only when they return to God wholeheartedly, the covenant will be valid’.
62.
Unterman, Repentance, pp. 48–52.
63.
For parallels and contrasts between the texts, see Unterman, Repentance, pp. 64–67.
64.
See, for example, the discussion regarding the perception of redemption in Jeremiah's prophecies in Unterman's Repentance, where the author suggests a historical explanation for the changes in Jeremiah's prophecies. A similar interpretation was suggested by Kasher regarding the new perception that emerges in Ezekiel's prophecies of comfort and redemption. See Rimon Kasher, ‘Remnant, Repentance, and Covenant in the Book of Ezekiel’, Beit Mikra 44 (1999), pp. 15–34 (19–20) (Hebrew). Both claim that conditional redemption prophecies are typical of the pre-exile period, whereas unconditional prophecies are typical of the post-exile era. It is noteworthy that the Talmud discusses the dual approach toward redemption in the Bible; see the controversy between Rabbis Eliezer and Joshua in b. Sanh. 97b and 98a.
65.
This type of theological crisis developed after the destruction, and accompanied the period of the return to Zion, when destruction and exile led to the belief that the nation was abandoned by God, and that the covenant was no longer valid. See, e.g., Lam. 3.8; 5.22; Isa. 49.14; Ezra 37.11. This concept has been discussed extensively in academic literature; see B. Becking, ‘Continuity and Discontinuity after the Exile: Some Introductory Remarks’, in B. Becking and M.C.A. Korpel (eds.), The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post Exilic Times (Oudtestamentische Studiën, 42; Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 1–8 (3–5), and, in the same volume, J.E. Tollington, ‘Reading in Haggai: From the Prophet to the Completed Book, A Change Message in Changing Times’, pp. 194–208; E. Assis, ‘Haggai: Structure and Meaning’, Bib 87 (2006), pp. 531–41 (537–38); idem, ‘Why Edom? On the Hostility towards Jacob's Brother in Prophetic Sources’, VT 56 (2006), pp. 1–20 (12–14).
66.
The danger of abandoning God due to abundance is mentioned explicitly in Deut. 32.15: ‘Jeshurun grew fat and kicked’. See also Deut. 6.10–13; 8.12–18.
67.
Weinfeld, ‘Universalism’, pp. 228–42. See also K.L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998), pp. 285–319.
68.
For more on Zechariah's universal outlook, see D. Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th–5th Centuries BCE) (LHBOTS, 543; New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), pp. 59–60.
69.
Assuming this prophecy is referring to gentiles and not to the Nation of Israel; see D.L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), p. 129. According to Blenkinsopp, Isa. 56.1–8 enables gentiles to serve as Levites. See J. Blenkinsopp, ‘Second Isaiah—Prophet of Universalism’, JSOT 41 (1988), pp. 83–103. But see a contrasting view in Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity, p. 124 n. 64.
70.
The public confession described in Neh. 9, which includes the theme of segregation (9.2), might also be related to the banishment of foreign women. See the discussion regarding the placement and function of this chapter in general, and specifically vv. 1-5, in F.C. Fensham, The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 222–23.
71.
These verses in Ezra refer to ‘the enemies of Judah and Benjamin’ (4.1) and ‘the people of the land’ (4.4) as ‘others’ that require segregation. The working assumption in the present study is that these are people from foreign nations, or descendants of the Samaritans. See Weinfeld, ‘Universalism’, p. 238; J.M. Myers,Ezra-Nehemiah (AB, 14; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), p. 35.
72.
Assuming ‘this nation’ in Hag. 2.14 is not referring to Israel, but to other nations. Rothstein hypothesized that this is a reference to Samaritans, and many followed. See J.W. Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner; Die grundlegende Scheidungvon Judentum und Heidentum (BWAT, 3; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1908), pp. 53–73; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and also the works of similar type from Qumran: The History of the Formation of the Old Testament (trans. P.R. Ackroyd; Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), pp. 427–28; and recently, Assis, ‘Haggai’, p. 538.
73.
See the detailed diagram in C. Nihan, ‘Ethnicity and Identity in Isaiah 56–66’, in O. Lipschits, G.N. Knoppers and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 67–104 (78).
74.
See M.A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 138–43; Blenkinsopp, ‘Second Isaiah’, pp. 96–97; J. Schaper, ‘Rereading the Law: Inner-Biblical Exegesis of Divine Oracles in Ezekiel 44 and Isaiah 56’, in B.M. Levinson, E. Otto and W. Dietrich (eds.), Recht und Ethik im Alten Testamet (Altes Testament und Moderne, 13; Münster: Lit Verlag, 2004), pp. 128–44; S.S. Tuell, ‘The Priesthood of the “Foreigner”: Evidence of Competing Politics in Ezekiel 44:1–14 and Isaiah 56:1–8’, in J.T. Strong and S.S. Tuell (eds.), Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel on Honor of S. Dean McBride Jr (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), pp. 183–204; Nihan, ‘Ethnicity’, pp. 80–81.
75.
See esp. Ezra 6.21; 9.1; 10.11, 18; and Neh. 9.2; 10.29; 13.3; as well as the use of the root אצי in Neh. 10.3 and 19. For the understanding of these verbs as a semantic field indicating distance, resistance and dismissal, see Y. Dor, Have the Foreign Women Really Been Expelled? Separation and Exclusion in the Restoration Period (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2006 [Hebrew]), pp. 70, 214–15.
76.
In Neh. 13.23–27, this concern is expressed through the loss of language, a distinctively national designation.
77.
Zakovitch describes the tension between isolationism and universalism in light of the effects non-Jews have on Jewish faith. In the context of Isa. 2.2–5, he suggests that ‘isolationism was appropriate for the infancy stage of the nation; now that the Children of Israel have matured and reinforced their faith, they can withstand a gathering of nations in Jerusalem, and benefit from such a gathering’ (Zakovitch, Mashmia Shalom, pp. 158–59).
78.
See the similar position taken in Kaminsky, ‘Theology’, p. 384.