Green, “Christ’s Shepherd,” 33–46.
152. Ibid., 40.
153. Ibid., 41.
154. This is essentially the view of McCann (Theological, 130). It represents an allegorical interpretation of Ps 23 in the exilic and postexilic periods. Green also notes the movement of Israel from pasture to wilderness to temple (“Christ’s Shepherd,” 40).
155. Green, “Christ’s Shepherd,” 41.
156. Ibid., 43–44. Green (44n27) uses Ps 16 as a similar example where the original context speaks of the psalmist’s protection from death, while Peter interprets it as a prophecy of the Messiah’s rescue from death via the resurrection (Acts 2:25–31).
157. Eaton, Psalms, 124.
158. See Green, “Christ’s Shepherd,” 38–46.
159. Ibid., 41.
160. Eaton, Psalms, 124.
Psalm 29
“We worship the Creator who has revealed himself as the Redeemer.”—Dietrich Bonhoeffer
History
The Hebrew Scriptures begin with the story of creation, and creation themes permeate the OT. Sometimes the psalmists reflect on the creation narratives of Gen 1—2 (e.g., Pss 8; 24:1; 33:6), while at other times on God’s providential maintenance of the natural world (e.g., 19:1–6; 29; 104; 148). The Psalter declares that God’s glory is evident through the things he has made, and the world is the theater of his glory.161 Psalm 29 has been classified as an enthronement psalm162 or a hymn of praise,163 and these two are not mutually exclusive for God’s enthronement calls forth praise. In Ps 29, both his enthronement and resulting praise stem from the manifestation of himself in nature, specifically the thunderstorm. Psalm 29 affirms God’s sovereignty over creation, as well as his providential care of it.
The ancient Hebrews had a strong perception of the distinction between the Creator and the creation. They were not pantheists who saw nature itself as divine. The biblical doctrine of creation implies a greater-lesser relationship between God and his natural creation. In the words of C. S. Lewis, “To say that God created Nature, while it brings God and Nature into relation, also separates them. What makes and what is made must be two, not one. Thus the doctrine of Creation in one sense empties Nature of divinity.”164 The Israelites were creationists who believed that Yahweh was the creator who stood apart from his creation, while at the same time infusing it with his glory so that it continually testifies to his majesty. Again, Lewis summarizes the relationship between the Creator and the creation: “Nature and God were distinct; the One had made the other; the One ruled and the other obeyed.”165 God’s sovereign rule over creation permeates Ps 29 as he uses nature to reveal his glory in the heavens above and on the earth below.
Psalm 29 may be the oldest of the psalms.166 Its structure reveals the following three divisions: the call to worship and testimony (vv. 1–2), the appearance of Yahweh in the storm (vv. 3–9), and the acknowledgement of Yahweh’s enthronement as king (vv. 10–11).167 Its imagery evokes ancient Canaanite theophanies (i.e., appearances of a god to humans) of Baal, who was often symbolized by a thunderstorm. In fact, it was common in ANE religions to associate various gods with the power of the storm. The Egyptian god Amun was the great storm god who provided rain for crops and animals.168 In Canaanite mythology, Baal was the “rider of the clouds,” and is often pictured wielding thunder in one hand and lightening in the other.169 Baal worshipers said that the voice of Baal was heard in the thunderstorm.170 Therefore, the imagery, linguistic forms, and rhythmic patterns shared between Ugaritic poetry and Ps 29 invite comparative analysis. However, scholars debate whether or not a Canaanite hymn had influenced the psalmist. One view sees Ps 29 as an adaptation of an older Canaanite hymn where the name Yahweh is substituted for Baal, making it a polemic against Baal and appealing to the power of Yahweh in the storm. However, no specific Canaanite hymn actually exists, so this view rests on a flimsy hypothetical document at best.171 To be clear, it is not as if a hymn to Baal is known to us, but there is a wealth of extant Ugaritic poetry that predates Ps 29 and that shares stylistic similarities with it.172 Another view sees the psalm as an original production of the Hebrew psalmist, whose style and phraseology reflect that of the Canaanites. In other words, the psalmist has used terminology and modes of expression common to his ANE context.173 It can be said with a significant measure of confidence that “thematically it is clear that this Israelite poem borrows from its Canaanite environment.”174 Such borrowing was likely polemical or apologetic to teach Israel that it was not Baal who was the power of the storm, but Yahweh.175 It is worth noting that the LXX superscript for this psalm associates it with the last day of the Festival of Tabernacles at the end of the dry season: “On the occasion of the solemn assembly of the Tabernacle.” A storm would be a welcome relief, as well as a forecast of God’s provisions for another season.176 Psalm 29, then, is a potent polemic against any notion that the pagan god Baal was responsible for the refreshing rains.
The thunderstorm is no mere natural phenomenon; it is Yahweh’s work and does his bidding, resulting in his praise and glory. The fact that the covenant name of God, Yahweh, occurs eighteen times in Ps 29 underscores the anti-Baal polemic. If the Israelites were tempted to associate Baal’s voice with the thunder and lightening of the storm, the psalm makes it clear with the sevenfold repetition of the “voice of the LORD” that only Yahweh speaks through the storm. Patrick Reardon believes the psalm uses onomatopoeia—a poetic device in which a word imitates the thing to which it refers—in its repetition of the “voice of the LORD” where the word “voice” (qol) is pronounced with the full glottal shock of the Hebrew letter qoph (which sounds like a strong k or kh in Eng.). Put differently, the word mimics the sound of a repeated thunder roll.177 With seven being the number of completeness or fullness in the Bible, the point is that the thunderstorm reflects Yahweh’s all-powerful strength.178 These poetic devices—onomatopoeia and repetition—illustrate God’s voice as a reverberating thunder roll.
The psalm’s polemical thrust begins with the address in 29:1 to “heavenly beings” (bene elim, lit. “sons of gods”). This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret. Some English translations struggle to capture the literal sense of bene elim, and tend to soften it to “mighty ones” (NIV) or “heavenly beings” (ESV) because it, along with the plural noun elim, refers to gods in ANE literature. Therefore, translators may be reluctant to admit the possibility that Israel may have acknowledged the existence of other gods alongside Yahweh.179 Gerald Wilson notes that we cannot rule out the possibility that some of the early Israelites were polytheists, especially given the biblical data that records many instances where Israel ran after other gods. The biblical portrait demonstrates Israel’s repeated efforts to worship pagan gods in the polytheistic milieu of the ANE. Wilson comments that this propensity to worship other deities eventually led to the exile where idolatry in Israel was ultimately stamped out. In other words, only after the exile were the Hebrews considered to be absolute monotheists.180 Psalm 29, therefore, does not reject altogether the existence of other gods, but rather puts them in their proper place—beneath Yahweh in subordination to him, and who worship Yahweh themselves (29:2).
When warning Israel against worshiping other gods, the OT does not unilaterally call into question
