Pslam 127
Psalm 127 is a very interesting Psalm with a message that is extremely apt considering the events of our current day. There is a general consensus that the overall purpose of Psalm 127 is to illustrate the complete futility of relying solely on our human efforts to accomplish anything meaningful and enduring. Whether we are building a skyscraper or a building a family, if God is not the foundation of those efforts, we will fail. Anyone who watched the World Trade Center crumble into an ashen heap within mere hours can surely appreciate the wisdom of this Wisdom Psalm. Still, the interpretation of the Psalm is not without controversy.
One of the biggest points of contention goes to the overall structure of Psalm 127. While most commentators agree that Psalm 127 is intended to advocate the wisdom of making God the focus of everyday life, some questions arise as to whether the five verses of the Psalm were originally written as one piece. As noted by Allen, "The unity of the psalm is by no means assured. A sizeable number of scholars have regarded it as an amalgamation of two separate, unrelated sayings."
According to the more extreme proponents of this view, verses 1 and 2 are completely unrelated in subject matter to verses 3 to 5 which celebrate God's blessing on a family through the gift of children. For instance, Weiser suggests that "[t]he psalm clearly falls into two parts which are quite unrelated as far as subject-matter is concerned. Verses 1 and 2 emphatically point out the significance of divine providence in human life; vv. 3-5, on the other hand, praise the blessing of God as exhibited by a goodly number of children. Both parts are in the form of an enlarged 'Wisdom saying' and for that reason have probably here been combined in a single 'psalm.'"
Others, while believing the two parts of the Psalm to be somewhat independent, acknowledge a correlation in thought. For instance, Gaebelein and Polcyn argue that while the psalm is separated into two distinct themes, these themes are inter-related through contrast. "The first strophe teaches the lesson of divine sovereignty over human enterprise by way of warning against self-sufficiency. It pursues a negative course until it reaches a rhetorical climax of direct address in v 2a. It ends on a positive note, which is developed in the second strophe in terms of praise of God and commendation." Verses 1 and 2 teach the wisdom of a Christ-centered life by showing the futility and anxiety of life without God's blessing. By contrast, verses 3 to 5 show the blessings of a God-centered life and encourage the godly to trust in the Lord in all matters of life.
A. A. Anderson would agree in seeing the Psalm as a unified piece. Anderson, noting the tendency to impose arbitrary divisions, quotes G.W. Anderson, saying, "the desire to separate the two parts is simply a manifestation of the occupational disease of commentators." Rather than forcing a dissection of the two parts, it seems the better view to read the psalm as a unified whole. As Estes observes, both thematic logic and literary structure support the conclusion that Psalm 127 is a cohesive piece.
A detailed look at the Psalm supports the conclusion that the five verses of the psalm were to be taken together. The Psalm reads as follows:
Unless the Lord builds the house,
its builders labor in vain.
Unless the Lord watches over the city,
the watchmen stand guard in vain.
2 In vain you rise early and stay up late,
toiling for food to eat---
for he grants sleep to those he loves.
3 Sons are a heritage from the Lord,
children a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one's youth
5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their
enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127: 1-5 RSV)
From a thematic standpoint, Estes argues for a unified view by noting that "the references to the house which Yahweh builds (v. 1) and the sons which he gives (v. 3) are viewed by some as thematic links." In this regard, Estes points out ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one's youth
5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their
enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127: 1-5 RSV)
From a thematic standpoint, Estes argues for a unified view by noting that "the references to the house which Yahweh builds (v. 1) and the sons which he gives (v. 3) are viewed by some as thematic links." In this regard, Estes points out "[t]he Sumerian hymn to the goddess Nisaba cited by Kraus provides a more weighty argument: it celebrates her as one without whom no house, city or palace is built and as the one who gives children" The song says:
Nisaba, where you do not establish it,
The human being builds no (house), builds no city,
Builds no palace, appoints no king,
Performs not the cleansing cults of the gods.
You are the mistress who grants joy of the heart,
Good seed you introduce into the womb,
You let the fruit of the womb mature,
Grant to the mother a love for the child.
Both Estes and Allen argue the parallel of motifs found in this hymn and the Psalm suggest the Psalm's unity. This Psalm consists of two parts: verses 1-2 depict the ultimate futility of all human enterprise if God is not taken into account, while verses 3-5 show that many sons, or a large family, are a blessing of God (and not the result of human error). Kraus notes particularly that verses 3 to 5 speak of progeny and, as is proper, it deals especially and exclusively with the sons through whom alone a "house" experiences continuity. Similarly, Allen points out that the phrase "build a house" (v. 1) in Hebrew can be viewed metaphorically "in terms of establishing a family," as in Genesis 16:2; 30:3; and Exodus 1:21, further pointing "to unity in the Psalm." Kraus also interprets verse 1 in this way, but is "reluctant to allow verses 3-5 to determine the role of the whole composition so specifically: rather, [in Kraus' view] the two sayings which make up the psalm are both concerned with establishing a family refer to the suffering and joy in store for the father." Along these same lines, H. Schmidt finds unity in interpreting Psalm 127 as a "song greeting at the birth of a son." As such, the Psalm "refers to the establishment of a family and includes the sorrows and joys that are in store for the housefather. . .[where verse 1] in the widest sense, applies to the establishment of a family, which is illustrated in the erection of a house." Once the "house has been built," i.e., the family has been established, the question arises regarding protection of the family. This is where the statement comes in: "If Yahweh does not guard the city, the watchman is on the lookout in vain." Thus, the theological subject that unites the topics of work [verses 1 and 2] and children [verses 3 to 5] is the blessing of the LORD, a subject characteristic of the collection as Mays notes in his observation that fruitful work and fruitful family as the blessing of the LORD are topic and subject of the following song, Psalm 128.
Estes further strengthens his argument that the Psalm is a unified piece by pointing to observable semantic and literary bonds between the opening and closing verses observed by various scholars. For instance, Dahood notes that the "protection of the city in verse 1" ("´ir, 'city'") "is counterbalanced by his beloved's defense of the city in ar, 'gate' (of the city)." Dahood further points to the?verse 5" ("ša alliteration of "b sounds in vs. 1a, [where] yibneh bayit... bonayw bo is echoed by vs. 5b, yebosu... ydabbru.. oybim bassa'ar; and the repetition of "s" (=sh) sounds in vs 1b, [where] yismor ..saw' saqad somer recurs in vs. 5a, asre... ser aspato" as a further indication that the Psalm was written as one literary piece. Allen observes further parallel features, more precisely, "the repetition in v1 corresponds to in vv 3-4, while the divine name... occurs twice in v 1 and once in v3. Also, 'thus' appears in vv 2 , 4 and the (doubled) negative of v 2 is inclusively repeated in the last line of the second strophe, in v 5." "There is also evidence of a chiastic relationship between the strophes. Both vv 2b and 3 feature divine gifts; in v 2a 'the bread of labor (thus)' is paralleled in '(thus) the sons of youth' in v 4b; and 'fortunate' in 5a corresponds to 'in vain' in v 2a." "At its core lies the twin evidence of divine blessing, 'the bread of labor' and 'the sons of youth.' Before and after are placed amplifying statements, negative in the first case and positive in the second."
All in all, considering the Psalm from either a thematic and literary point of view, there does not seem to be any profound reason to assume that the psalm was not originally written as one unit. As Miller observes, unless there are compelling reasons for the dissociation of verses 1-2 and 3-5, they should be seen and interpreted as a unity.
In addition to questions as to the whether the Psalm was written as one piece, there are also some questions as to its authorship. Beside the general fact that Solomon could and did write many songs such as the one found in Psalm 127, there are several internal evidences that suggest Solomon as this Psalm's author. These evidences are:
(1) the psalm talks about the Yahweh's building a house, and certainly the thought of building the House of Yahweh cannot be forgotten in applying this text to the activities of life;
(2) the psalm places a heavy emphasis on the motif of vanity, a motif best known from the book of Ecclesiastes, which has also been attributed to Solomon;
(3) the psalm refers to Yahweh's giving [in] sleep to His beloved, and this may have some reference to the fact that Solomon was granted wisdom in such a way; and
(4) the mention of "His beloved" may [very likely] reflect the real name of Solomon, Jedidiah, which means "beloved of Yahweh."
So the argument that Solomon wrote Psalm 127 is not that far-fetched. This position concurs with some historical superscriptions that, although perhaps not part of the original text, are not as unreliable as more liberal critical scholarship would have us believe.
Freedman points out that these historical superscriptions are probably due to the fact that the word "bayit" in verse 1 was interpreted as "temple," rather than just the common "house," and the word lidido was interpreted "to his beloved," referring to David's naming of his son, Solomon, as "the beloved of Yahweh" in 2 Samuel. Allen makes note that "the incorporation of this Psalm into the collection of processional songs raises the question whether the references to 'house' and 'city' in verse 1 would not naturally in such a context be interpreted as indicating the temple and Jerusalem, and function as a warning to be alert to Yahweh's personal will rather than trust in these mighty religious symbols. Kraus finds such interpretations as unnecessary, calling it a "sacralization of a song that was originally bound up with everyday life" and blames such overreaching on the "obviously cultic understanding of the Psalms in Judaism." Weiser would agree with Kraus' analysis, reasoning that "[s]ince the psalm is couched in general terms it is not possible to assign it to any particular historical situation; it belongs to the timeless world of the proverb." Weiser further contends that it was the "intentions of the author to take the statements about building the house and watching over the city as referring quite generally to human toil and care," and not to make them specific to Solomon's building of the temple. Miller would agree that the term "house" refers to the home and family of the general "every" man but Miller goes on to make an interesting observation regarding the connection in the Psalm between "house" and "city." Miller notes that there is a great deal of parallelism between "house" and "city" in the literature of that day and that many "prayers and hymns declare. . .that no actions can take place without the god's acting or that cities and buildings cannot be built apart from god. . .". In the final analysis, it seems that whatever the interpretation of "house" or "city," the message is consistent-nothing, whether it be a temple, an average home, a city, or a family will endure if God is not its purpose and foundation.
Verse 2 ends saying, "for he grants sleep to those he loves." This phrase has stirred some discussion among scholars. Generally, it is agreed that this phraseology means that "God's beloved, true believers who live by faith, are recipients of His blessing-'sleep.'" However there are some who believe that this interpretation is incorrect. J.A. Emerton states that this translation "is sometimes thought to amount to saying that God gives things to men without their making an effort to obtain them." He goes on to say that "[i]t may be doubted whether the idea that God blesses men when they do nothing would have been congenial to the ethos of Israelite wisdom literature, to which this passage belongs." Emerton states that the word sena quite possibly does not actually even mean "sleep." Instead he suggests "that the root meaning 'to be, or become, high or exalted in rank' and 'to shine' is found in a number of places in Hebrew, as well as in Arabic, Syriac, and Ugaritic" and therefore would be a more likely translation. As a result, he believes that the translation instead should be: "Surely [or, if ki is read, 'For'] he [i.e.God] gives high estate, or honour, to him whom he loves."
The second part of Psalm 127, vv. 3-5, is said to spring "from a wholesome delight in life and a conviction that the source of strength of a nation lies in the family; it praises children as a gift entrusted by God." The main discussions that surface are about the significance of the word "sons" and its relation to the metaphoric illustration of the warrior with his "arrows" and "quivers." Estes states that "many exegetes have viewed the arrows as representative of the protection which the man receives from the efforts of his sons." Weiser further expounds this theory by explaining that these sons, if they are "[b]orne to the father in his youth. . . will be able to protect and defend him like a weapon when he is getting old and is in need of support." In this section of the Psalm (vv. 4-5) "God gives a sense of security and protection in the godly family." As VanGemeren notes, here "[t]he psalmist uses a metaphor of war as he likens the children of one's youth to 'arrows' (v.4). As the arrows protect the warrior, so the godly man need not be afraid, when blessed with sons. Continuing the metaphor of arrows, the psalmist speaks of the quiver. A house full of children, born before one becomes old, is a protection against loneliness and abandonment in the society." Together, these verses demonstrate God's blessings and protection in a picturesque way.
Certainly, in today's age of terrorism, when we do not know where or when the next attack may come, it is important that we heed the message of Psalm 127 and trust God in all things. The first two verses of Psalm 127 caution of the dangers, anxiety and futility of trying to live life of our own accord. Just look around you and you can not help but see people rushing here and there, working long hours, ignoring their families, just to "succeed." But are they happy? No. And, are we safe? After the "9-11" tragedy, there are few of us that do not realize that despite all our Country's efforts, we are constantly vulnerable to attack. Psalm 127 gives comfort by telling us that we do not need to worry about any of these things. We are not capable of accomplishing anything or of protecting ourselves on our own, but we can rest or "sleep" knowing that God can handle it all. The scholarly questions as to whether verse 1 of Psalm 127 relates to building the temple, building your average home, or building your family is interesting but the answer does not really impact the message. Solomon, with all his wisdom and money, could not succeed in building the temple. It seems that the message here is universal-it applies to everyone, rich or poor-weak or strong. It also applies not only to the futility of building physical things like houses and temples, but equally to the futility of building families and relationships apart from God. Although there is dissension on the question of whether verses 3 to 5 were originally combined with verses 1 and 2; it seems that they fit in perfectly. Verses 1 and 2 caution one how to live to receive blessings and verses 3 to 5 paint a beautiful picture of the blessings one will receive if they heed God's advice. This message also foretells the message in the New Testament of Christ as Savior. God can and will save us, but it is not of our own accord, not of our works, but only through God's great gift and blessing.
Bibliography
Allen, Leslie C. "The Secret of Human Achievement." Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 21, Glen W. Barker and David A. Hubbard, eds. (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983): 175-181.
Anderson, A. A. "Psalm 127: 'Unless the Lord, It is in Vain.'" New Century Bible Commentary, Ronald E. Clements, ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995): 866-869.
Danhood, Mitchell. "Psalm 127." The Anchor Bible, William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, eds. (New York: Doubleday, 1970): 222-226.
Emerton, John A. "Meaning of šéna' in Psalm 127:2." Vetus Testamentum, 24, no. 1, (1974): 15-31.
Estes, Daniel J. "Like Arrows in the hand of a warrior (Psalm 127)." Vetus Testamentum, 41, no.3 (1991): 304-311.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. "If Yahweh Does Not Build the House." Psalms 60-150: A continental commentary. (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1993): 452-456.
Mays, James Luther. "Psalm 127: Unless the Lord Builds the House." Interpretation, Patrick D. Miller, Jr., ed. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994):400-402.
Miller, Patrick D. "Psalm 127: The House that Yahweh Builds." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 22F (1982): 119-132.
VanGemeren, William A. "Psalm 127: The Blessing of the Lord." Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn, eds. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan): 793-795.
Weiser, Arthur. "Everything Depends on God's Blessing." The Psalms: A commentary, G. Ernest Wright, ed. (Bloomsbury Street, London: SCM Press LTD, 1962): 763-766.
