The End in View
Then the Lord awoke as if from sleep, like a warrior overcome by wine. He drove His adversaries backward; He put on them an everlasting disgrace. He also rejected the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which He loved. Psalm 78:65-68 NASB
Rejected – Now the politics comes galloping over the horizon. God “rejected” Joseph. He chose Judah, and, of course, that means David. Doesn’t this seem a bit harsh? Did God really reject Joseph? It hardly seems so. Joseph was chosen by God to save Israel, to establish God’s presence in Egypt, to provide us with (eventually) one type of the Messiah. Joseph was absolutely essential to God’s plan. How can Asaph use the verb māʾas to write about one of the heroes of Israel? You’ll recall the force of this verb (see 78:59). It can also be translated “despise,” but is there any justification for thinking of Joseph in this way? I can’t imagine there is. Of course, Asaph modifies this a bit when he writes that it was the “tent” of Joseph that was rejected. The word is ʾōhel. It is a metonym for the lineage of Joseph. Asaph is correct. God did not choose Joseph’s line through Ephraim to be the ruling dynasty of Israel. He chose Judah. But the choice was hardly motivated by despising Joseph or Ephraim. māʾas seems like overkill. So why does Asaph employ this volatile word? The answer is, at last, political propaganda. We have finally come to the real reason for Asaph’s long excursus on the history of Israel. What is that reason? They need a king—exactly like David.
Asaph probably likes Joseph. Joseph is no less important to him than the other forefathers of Israel. But justifying the Davidic monarchy means showing that God always had David’s line in mind, and Joseph represents a potential claimant. Therefore, he needs to be set aside. In ancient Israel (and the rest of the ancient Near East), this is accomplished by demonstrating that divine election was instrumental in the choice of the monarch. And no one can argue with God. Asaph uses very strong language in order to stop any contender in his tracks. God discarded Joseph’s line and chose the line of Judah. Nothing more needs to be said.
Except, of course, that history is written by the winners. Perhaps Asaph is the official poet of the Davidic kingdom. At least this much should be clear. He’s one of the campaign managers. He’s on the side of the winner, and his poetry reflects the winner’s view. Everything that God tried to get the people to do through the long story of the exodus and the wandering ended up in disaster, but now the true king from the right tribe has come to Zion and now everything will be wonderful. Sounds a lot like virtually every candidate’s election claims, doesn’t it? Except this is the Bible! And it’s not supposed to have words like these in it, right? When do you suppose we will come to terms with the human elements in Scripture? Probably after we stop thinking that God wrote it instead of men. (Oh, did I just write that?) There’s quite a difference between God influencing what men wrote about their views and experiences with him versus God writing the text with a human hand.
Topical Index: politics, rejected, māʾas, inspiration, Psalm 78:65-68
A NEW BOOK IS AVAILABLE: CLICK HERE
