Creation and Re-Creation: Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1-4:13 -- By: Peter E. Enns

Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 55:2 (Fall 1993)
Article: Creation and Re-Creation: Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1-4:13
Author: Peter E. Enns


Creation and Re-Creation:
Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1-4:13

Peter E. Enns

Psalm 95 does not read like a “typical” psalm. The first half, vv. 1–7a, is an exhortation to praise Yahweh. The second half, vv. 7b–11, is a word of warning against hardening one’s heart and ends on an altogether sour note: “As I swore in my wrath: ‘surely they shall not enter my rest.’“ This second half follows abruptly upon the first, apparently without the slightest indication that these two halves belong together. As a result, many form-critics have argued that Psalm 95 is composed of two songs that were sung in the cult. Congregational praise was followed by a prophetic warning, in what Gunkel called wechselnde Stimmen.1 This overall approach divides into two general camps: (1) those who recognize two distinct parts but say that this structure is original to the psalm,2 and (2) those who say that this two-part structure is a sign that they were originally two distinct songs with two distinct Sitze-im-Leben.3

The form-critical approach is not unjustified since there are clear differences between these two parts with respect to mood, person, and subject matter. The first half is praise, the second half a warning; in the first half the worshipers are speaking, in the second half God is the speaker; the first half deals with creation while the second half deals with rebellion in the desert. All of these factors certainly suggest that there are differences between the two parts that need to be discussed. Nevertheless, we question whether past approaches have been helpful in explaining why Psalm 95 looks the way it does. Whether one argues on form-critical grounds for either original unity (Gunkel) or disunity

(Cheyne), the question still remains why these two parts are together. One cannot simply argue for original disunity by taking refuge in an inept redactor who, for no apparent reason, brought together two distinct and unrelated songs for use in the cult. Nor does arguing for original unity settle the question. One would still have to ask why an author would write a psalm with such apparently distinct parts for use in the cult. It is a curious situation that the problem created by an alleged incongruity in subject matter, etc., is supposedly solved by appealing to the <...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()