Psalms 149:1

PSALM 149

A SONG CONCERNING THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN

This psalm is allowed to be one of the most difficult in the Psalter; and the misunderstanding and abuse of it by the Catholic princes who brought on the Thirty Years War,[1] as well as abuses by the Protestant war-monger Thomas Munzer "who stirred up the `Peasants' War,"[2] have resulted in rejection and even enmity against this psalm. The facts noted here, "Have encouraged a hostile attitude toward Psalms 149 as though anything said in its defense is reprehensible."[3] We have studied the "interpretations" of dozens of scholars regarding this psalm, finding ourselves in almost total disagreement with all of them.

The interpretations offered by the scholars whose writings are available to us are loaded with all kinds of impossibilities, which we shall note in the notes below. Of course, in isolated instances, they have stated many helpful things.

The Occasion. The most probable occasion spoken of in the psalm is that shortly after the conquest of Jericho by the Children of Israel under Joshua, making the psalm not merely pre-exilic, but pre-monarchical also. The only thing in the psalm that might cast a doubt on this is the mention of "their King," (Psalms 149:2); but that is a reference to God (indicated by the capital letter "K" in the ASV), as in Psalms 145:1.

There are many who date the psalm in post-exilic times. Briggs said, "It is expressive of the vengeful military spirit of the Maccabean wars."[4] Barnes placed it, "After the return from the captivity."[5] Rawlinson declined to date it at all. Ballard wrote that, "The date is late";[6] but he admitted that, "We must allow that the psalm may have reference to some earlier event in Jewish history."[7] Dummelow allowed this psalm only a hundred words of comment, and McCaw finished his analysis in fifty-five words. There is certainly a lot of uncertainty about this psalm.

Maclaren placed the psalm after the captivity, stating that, "The restored Israel becomes the executor of God's judgments on those who will not join in the praise which rings from Israel."[8]

This image of "restored Israel," in full possession of the favor of God, and as God's executor of judgments upon pagan nations is contradictory to everything in the Old Testament. During the post-exilic period, during all of it, racial Israel had lost their status as God's Chosen People, except in the very limited sense of Gomer's being protected as a slave and not as a wife (Hosea 2). During this period, Israel became "worse than Sodom and Gomorrah" (Ezekiel 16); during this period, the total apostasy of Israel progressively developed into the terminal state of their judicial hardening, as explained by the apostle Paul (Romans 2; Romans 11). It simply is impossible to relate the great victory Israel had just enjoyed, and for which the early part of this psalm pours out praise and thanksgiving, and their joyful anticipation of many more victories, to anything that occurred after the captivity and prior to the First Advent of Christ.

The explanation of this psalm is possible only in the light of a full understanding of the prophecy of Hosea 2; Hosea 3; and Hosea 9. Those passages declare, in tones of thunder, the end of Israel's status as God's wife. If there should be any doubt of this, the reader is referred to our extensive comment on this subject in Hosea 9, in Vol. 2, of my minor prophets series, pp. 151-168.

We have not been able to find very much scholarly support of our conviction that the "occasion" extolled in this psalm is the "conquest of Canaan," except in piecemeal admissions here and there which collectively not only support, but prove, our view on this to be correct.

"This psalm was sung on the eve of a battle against the heathen nations. Therefore, Weiser appears to be correct in that `the verdict written' (Psalms 149:9) alludes to the destruction of the pagan nations of Canaan. In this interpretation the psalm would be of pre-Exilic origin."[9]

There can be no denial of the truth that only the conquest of Canaan fits the picture that emerges here. We must admit that the, "children of Zion," (Psalms 149:2), which is a reference to Jerusalem, is a difficulty, because in the conquest of Canaan, Jerusalem had not been designated as God's Zion. However, our explanation of this is that the psalmist who wrote this (probably during the post-exilic period) used the terminology for Israel then in vogue. We freely admit that the psalm might indeed have been written at a very late time, our contention being only that the event he extolled in it was the conquest of Canaan.

If we attempt to answer the question of why such an ancient event was selected for the theme of his psalm, it may very well have been merely for the purpose of the encouragement of the returned captives.

It also appears as a near-certainty that the great majority of Israel grossly misunderstood the purpose of this psalm. They apparently believed, that Israel was destined to complete the destruction of "all Gentiles," after the manner of the conquest of Canaan, a destruction which God had surely commanded in that instance, and an instruction which they had not in any sense adequately obeyed. The returnees evidently thought that they saw in this psalm, "the chosen people of God in vigorous action to bring the whole world under the divine sway."[10]

There are definitely overtones of eschatology in this psalm:

"Other scholars including Gunkel and Kittel believe the psalm is eschatological, that it was written to celebrate the great day in the future when Israel will, in fulfillment of the written promises of the prophets (Psalms 149:9), execute judgment on kings and nations that have oppressed them."[11]

We disagree with this quotation, except in the sense that it accurately states exactly what the majority of the racial Jews of the post-exilic period mistakenly thought the psalm meant. That accounts for the popularity of the psalm and for its appearance in this final collection in the Psalter. We cannot tell whether the psalm was actually written in this post-exilic period, or if a much older psalm (which is probable) was reworked and moved to this place in the Psalter. This would account for the term "Zion" in Psalms 149:2.

Pertinent to the questions which arise here, are the following comments of Rolland Emerson Wolfe and W. J. Deane.

"The Jews looked for a new era in which the deity himself would be their special champion, miraculously intervening in history, subduing Israel's enemies permanently, ushering in an age of world dominion and grandeur for Israel."[12]

A less elegant statement of that widespread Jewish opinion is that, "They expected God to show up on a white horse, kill all the Gentiles, or enslave them to the Jews, and turn the government of the whole world over to the chosen people."

"When the heathen should be thus judged, all the enemies of Israel defeated, then Israel would be exalted to the highest pitch of prosperity and dominion without regard to their moral condition."[13]

It is easy to see how this psalm would have fed and encouraged such attitudes on the part of Israel. We may not suppose that the psalmist himself had any such errors in mind; but that something of that attitude certainly infected the people of Israel in the pre-Christian period cannot be denied. The only reason they rejected Christ is that he did not fit their false view of a Messiah who would rally the troops, kill all the Gentiles, and turn the world over to the Jews.

Psalms 149:1-4

"Praise ye Jehovah. Sing unto Jehovah a new song,

And his praise in the assembly of the saints.

Let Israel rejoice in him that made him:

Let the children of Zion be joyful in their King.

Let them praise his name in the dance:

Let them sing praise unto him with timbrel and harp.

For Jehovah taketh pleasure in his people:

He will beautify the meek with salvation."

"Many interpreters understand the closing verses of this psalm as eschatalogical rather than historical. However, the first four verses are clearly related to a present reality of God's deliverance."[14]

"The children of Zion" (Psalms 149:2). This means the "children of Jerusalem," but depending upon the time when the psalm was written, or possibly adapted to the post-exilic period, it might have been a term developed later than the origin of the psalm.

"Praise his name in the dance, ... timbrel ... harp" (Psalms 149:3). "Dancing to the accompaniment of timbrel and lyre (harp) was characteristic of the period of the exodus and the Judges (Exodus 15:20; Judges 11:34)."[15] That points not to post-exilic times, but to the period of Joshua and the conquest of Canaan.

"Timbrel" (Psalms 149:3). "The mention of percussive instruments means that the psalm has overtones of the martial."[16] Here again, the military assault upon Canaan is suggested rather than any event after the captivity. God did not send Israel back to Jerusalem with any kind of a military commission.

"Jehovah taketh pleasure in his people" (Psalms 149:4). This may not appropriately be referred to the post-exilic period. Any thought of such a thing is absolutely forbidden by the prophet Malachi. The reference here is to that vigorous generation who crossed the Jordan on dry ground when the river was at flood stage and who captured Jericho.