Cultic Praise - Dr. Holtz

Aryeh Sklar

Lament and Praise in Cultic Praise

When one considers the Temple and cultic rituals, one usually thinks of ritualized objects and physical sacrifices of animals or other living things. Though there may be chantings, incantations, or prayers, these are imagined to be solely in conjunction with some act. But could simple “praise” be an act? James Kugel and Gary Anderson propose the idea that praise itself was a cultic act in the Temple, that it was a worthy act similar to sacrifices.

Kugel points to several verses throughout Psalms that indicate praise and sacrifice are equivalent acts to each other, as well as verses that mention praise and the idea of being in the Temple doing so. He argues, as does Anderson, that the original purpose of praise in the Temple was alongside sacrifice, a la Psalm 27:6, “And I will offer in His tent sacrifices with shouts of joy...I will sing praises to God,” and many more. Kugel argues, importantly, that there is a purpose in the cultic role in that to praise God is “a kind of prise de position.” Both describe the act of coming to the Temple as a message that is part of the praise psalm.

If so, one can view the opening lines of several praise psalms in this light. Psalms 30, 71, and 118 make references to cultic elements of the Temple. Psalm 30 very clearly begins this way. “A song at the Dedication of the House of David… I will praise You, God, for You have raised me up.” Psalm 71 begins with, “In You have I sought refuge.” And Psalm 118 begins, “Give thanks unto God, for He is good...” and goes on to say, “It is better to take refuge in God than to trust in man.” However, each of these Psalms go on to confuse this categorization of Psalms. For example, Psalm 30 goes on at times to describe God’s actions in lamenting terms, “You hid your face,” and others about his enemies, “My enemies speak concerning me.” Though much of Psalm 118 is praise, there are notions in 118:11-12 describe the pain of how his enemies surround him. How Anderson responds to these types of lament is that praise can only happen with the resolution of problems, the rescuing from death. If cult is life, then praise can only happen in the absence of death. Thus the Psalmist needs to mention and show why the problems of death and pain can be solved by God, and this allows for joyful praise. However, Anderson’s solution is too simplistic.

Anderson examines Psalm 30 toward his argument. Much of it contains lament - which sticks out in a Psalm that proposes to “praise God” in its opening lines. Anderson responds, “The moment of praise marks a boundary in [the] cultic sequence. To begin the active praise of God is to signal one's departure from the state of lamentation.” There are references to being brought from the dead, which Anderson sees as being distant from God, and this is when joyous praise can start. “Sickness took him down; God’s healing power raised him up.”

Anderson’s argument, however, that there are such clear boundaries like that of Psalm 30 begins to blur when we look at other Psalms. The basic idea is true, in my opinion, but the boundaries are intentionally played with and blurred. What this means, to me, is that lament can be used as part of praise, not necessarily as its counterpart and contrast. It isn’t necessarily an either/or boundary of lament, death, and pain, versus praise, joy, and life.

For this, we can look at Psalm 71. It does indeed begin with lamenting and petition for God to protect him. The Psalmist is intensely concerned with his well being in the face of enemies. The Psalmist says, for example, in verse 9, “Cast me not off in the time of old age… forsake me not.” This goes on until verse 14, where there is a stark turn to praise. “But as for me,” the Psalmist exclaims in verse 14, “I always hope, and I will add to all Your praises.” However, the praise and the lament are actually wrapped into the same narrative, which transfers the lament into praise. He states in verse 10-11, in what seems to be continued lament, “My enemies speak concerning me... Saying: God has forsaken him; pursue and take him; for there is none to deliver.” Then he begs God to protect him. However, those verses of 12 and 13 are parenthetical, since we can clearly see that verse 14, beginning with, “But as for me…” is a response to what his enemies say. So really the lament of what his enemies say, are turned into a praise which could be written as, “My enemies say you don’t help me, but I continue to believe you do and I’ll always praise you for it.” Thus, there is a blurring of boundaries, and are not as stark as Anderson would have it.

Psalm 118, too, has elements of lament, as we noted earlier. Though I marked where the lament is, it is in the middle and very short, among other praises. Among a song that begins and ends with the declaration, “Praise God for He is good, His mercy is forever”, we have four verses, 10-14, which describe his enemies surrounding him and wishing his downfall. But then we go right back into praise. We can also note that this is where the repetitious nature of the psalm ceases, though elements of it remain. What do we make of this? I suggest that, again, we find the elements of lament are actually a praise. Constantly his refrain is that though he is surrounded enemies, he retains the “name of God.” Giving thanks and praise of God is brought to the fore even when surrounded enemies. Thus, though on the surface, these verses seem to lament his position in having enemies who wish his downfall, he is actually praising God and declaring his continued trust in Him. Verse 8 and 9, immediately preceding this, are the prism in which to view the following verses, “It is better to take refuge in God than to trust in man… in princes.” And this is actually what he describes doing in the following verses.

Kugel does not seem to address this issue at all, in terms of the element of lament present in praise psalms. However, he does describe the purpose of praise poems as similar to that of Anderson. Kugel says that the praise psalm, said in the Temple, is its own message. “To represent the sender in statuary bearing the message is, as it were, to offer nothing less than oneself.” He also uses this to explain how there was a transition from acts of sacrifice to acts of praise separate from the sacrifices. He argues that it went from sacrificial ritual, to ritual of written message, to ritual of self-delivery at the Temple.

If so, the blurred lines of lament and praise can also fit into this message. Anderson describes it as a “journey” from death to life, lament to praise. But if the lament and praise are really one and the same, the journey represents both these elements. Not, “I was outside the Temple, now I’m inside the Temple,” but rather, “I am on one journey, in which my presence before God turns laments into praises.”