Speaking Alternatively
Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash
I have found most suggestive my reading of Undelivered: The Never-Heard Speeches that would have Rewritten History by Jeff Nussbaum. Nussbaum considers his topic under two rubrics. First, he compares original drafts of speeches with subsequent editions in order to see how they have changed and evolved. He reflects on speeches by John Lewis, John Kennedy, and Pope Pius XI. Second, he explores cases in which two contrasting speeches were prepared in order to be able to respond to the outcome of a crisis. The latter includes, most famously, the fact that Dwight Eisenhower had prepared alternative messages in case the D-Day invasion failed; that brief statement was an acknowledgement of both failure and his own responsibility for the failure. And we have in hand the “victory speech” prepared for Hilary Clinton after the presidential election that she lost. These rich examples have set me to thinking about alternative speeches variously delivered in the text of the Bible.
I can begin with two obvious, quite familiar instances of such twinning of alternative speeches. In the Decalogue of both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, the Fourth Commandment concerns Sabbath practice. But the motivation for Sabbath keeping is voiced very differently in the two versions. In the more familiar version of Exodus 20, the basis of Sabbath is that “God rested” on the seventh day of creation (see Exodus 31:12-17). In this latter text, it is most interestingly affirmed that on Sabbath day God “was refreshed.” But the word rendered “refreshed” is the verbal form of the noun, the “self,” so that on Sabbath God received back God’s self that had been lost (or diminished) through six days of arduous labor. The variant in Deuteronomy 5:15 takes as grounding for Sabbath the emancipation from Egyptian enslavement. It is our usual assumption that the version in Exodus 20 is the “original” from Sinai. That, however, need not be the case. It could as well be that the Exodus emancipation was the “original” motivation that was revised when Sabbath practice no longer included those freed from oppressive servitude. The tradition keeps both options available.
A second quite familiar example of such a double reading is Jesus’ teaching of the Beatitudes concerning the “poor” or the “poor in spirit.” Luke’s urgent insistence on economic redress toward the needy leads him to a concern for “the poor,” that is, the poor are the blessed. In the more familiar rendering of Matthew, it is the “poor in spirit” who are blessed in the coming kingdom. We are wont to assume the priority of Matthew’s concern because it is more familiar, and because it is not so immediately pertinent to economic matters. It need not be so. Again, we are not able to establish priority, but we have two renderings that serve two different purposes in two different interpretations. Whereas Luke is preoccupied with economic matters, Matthew is focused on Judaism that had become no more than pro forma exercise of religious obligation. We must simply permit the two readings to have their say, and not give either one priority over the other.
I have been fascinated by the notion of preparing two speeches in order to be able to respond to different outcomes of a crisis. In that context, I have entertained the thought that Psalms 105 and 106 offer alternative renderings of Israel’s life before God. Here I will consider these two long poems as alternative articulations addressed to God that bespeak two very different circumstances, motivations, and intentions.
The long Psalm 105 voices gratitude for and celebration of YHWH’s deep and abiding commitment to the wellbeing of Israel. The Psalm is kept available for seasons of wellbeing in Israel. The Psalm begins with a series of imperative summons to join in praise and thanks: “Give thanks, make known, sing, sing, glory, seek, seek, remember.”
After the introduction, the Psalm consists in the specific recital of Israel’s normative memory. It begins with a recall of the “everlasting covenant” God has made with the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (vv. 7-10). It affirms YHWH’s promise and presentation of the land to Israel (vv. 11-15). Joseph and his rise to power in Egypt receive full expression (vv. 16-25). At the center of Israel’s celebrative memory is the Exodus deliverance (v. 26), the plagues as signs of YHWH’s power and commitment to Israel (vv. 27-38), and the abundance and presence of YHWH in the wilderness including water and quail (vv. 39-42), all understood as fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham (v. 42). The conclusion of the Psalm is jubilant praise as God’s chosen to whom the land and the wealth of the preceding populations are given over to Israel (vv. 43-45). The end result of this entire recital is that Israel’s life will be marked by obedience to the Torah. The Psalm voices the way in which YHWH is completely faithful to Israel, and ends in a consummate anticipation that Israel will be faithful in like manner to the will of YHWH.
The long counter-Psalm 106 anticipates that the relationship of YHWH with Israel will be fraught with disobedience and recalcitrance. It begins with a characteristic summons to praise and an affirmation of YHWH’s mighty fidelity (vv. 1-3). Verses 4-5 voice the conviction that praise of YHWH lives singularly on the lips of the faithful who do righteousness.
The main body of Psalm 106 begins with verse 6 voicing Israel’s troubled life with God. On the one hand, Israel rebelled and rejected God’s abundant steadfast love (vv. 6-7). On the other hand, with an abrupt, interruptive “yet” YHWH saved Israel in the Exodus (vv. 8-12). This wondrous inexplicable deliverance culminates in Israel’s glad praise.
But the rescue by YHWH did not persist for Israel. Instead, the main body of this Psalm is a detailed, canonical account of Israel’s rebellion and disobedience (vv. 13-39). This inventory includes:
Israel testing God (vv. 14-18);
The golden calf (vv. 19-22)
from which Israel is saved only by the intervention of Moses;
Israel complained in the wilderness as though YHWH’s goodness were not adequate
(vv. 24-26);
Israel is seduced by Baal Peor (vv. 28-29)
from which Israel is saved by the fidelity of Phineas;
Israel rebelled at Meribah (vv. 32-33);
Israel “mingled” and mixed with the Canaanites, thus compromising its singular loyalty to YHWH (vv. 34-39).
It is not a surprise that this dread recital of rebellion evoked the anger of YHWH who caused Israel’s defeat before the nations (vv. 40-43).
After establishing this pattern of Israelite recalcitrance and YHWH’s forbearance, the Psalm affirms that the pattern is reiterated “many times,” not unlike the parallel recital in the book of Judges. But the “many times” of disobedience by Israel are answered by the great “nevertheless” of verse 44. As Israel sinned “many times,” so YHWH extended compassion, mercy, and steadfast love “many times” to Israel. The Psalm is dominated by a full acknowledgement of Israel’s lack of trust in YHWH. But the decisive claim of the Psalm is that YHWH’s commitment to Israel prevails in the face of all such idolatry:
Nevertheless he regarded their distress when he heard their cry.
For their sake he remembered his covenant,
and showed compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love.
He caused them to be pitied by all who held them captive (vv. 44-46).
It is on the basis of the affirmation of verses 44-46 that Israel in verse 47 dares to offer a petition that YHWH may “save” and “gather” Israel from among the nations where it has been scattered. Israel’s petition, contrary to its conduct, can only appeal to the reliability of God. The petition ends with a resolve to engage in praise and thanks, conduct that finally contradicts its long record of faithlessness. (We may see that verse 48 is no proper part of the Psalm, but is an editorial note that concludes Book IV of the Psalter.)
We may be amazed that Israel’s hymnic collection could so readily juxtapose the affirmation of Psalm 105 and the negative counter-recital of Psalm 106. I suggest that this juxtaposition of Psalms is not unlike the preparation of two speeches that are available in response to very different historical circumstances. Psalm 105 is kept for Israel as a recital for good times, such as a productive harvest or a military victory. Conversely, Psalm 106 is an offer for seasons of failure, defeat, suffering, and humiliation. Israel kept both recitals available as alternative ways to engage with YHWH in various circumstances. Psalm 105 concludes with a joyous resolve for obedience (vv. 43-45). Psalm 106 ends with an urgent petition for rescue (v. 47). We get the singing of Israel in circumstances of life and wellbeing and in seasons of death and dismay.
This pair of articulations put me on the alert for other teaming of possible articulations of faith:
- Just for fun I am glad to cite the dueling speeches of Ahithophel, advisor to King David (II
Samuel 16:15-23) and his rival Hushai (II Samuel 17:5-14). Both offered to David advice in his dire circumstance before the threat of Absalom. It turns out that the cynical advice of Ahithophel was designed to serve Absalom. Hushai, faithful to David, gives Absalom foolish bombastic advice that Absalom accepted. The narrative affirms that the foolish choice made by Absalom between these two speeches was at the behest of YHWH so that Absalom would be defeated and David would be saved. The narrative is compelling in its ability to juxtapose two speeches and thus to exhibit the providence of God at work to protect David from choices that would result in his defeat. The narrative allows us to see how the competing speeches served to protect David, and attest the hidden governance of YHWH.
As I thought about “two speeches,” I remembered two other examples. In the parable of Luke 15, the “prodigal father” has two speeches prepared for his two sons. The two sons were very differently related to their father. One son was eager to be away and on his own, albeit dependent on his father’s largess. The other son was steadfast and plodding, playing by the rules of primogeniture, with all the duties of that role. The father had two different speeches for his two sons and needed both speeches. Neither of his two speeches could serve the “other” son. For his renegade son, the father quickly organized a welcome home party as he declared:
Quickly bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive; he was lost and is found! (vv. 22-24).
The father does not directly address his son, but speaks of him, disregarding the son’s confessional speech. Concerning the older son who is distraught at the welcome his wayward brother receives, the father speaks differently and reassuringly:
Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found (vv. 31-32).
The father addresses his son directly and properly as “son,” the one who belongs, the one who will inherit. Along with the affirmation he makes to his older son, the father also seeks to include his heir in the welcome to the prodigal. The older son does not say anything in response, perhaps bewildered by his father or perhaps now made even more angry. But the father is clear. He has no confusion or misgiving. One son gets a party; the other son gets the property. Case closed; speech ended. The father speaks to each son at just the right moment in just the right tone of welcome and assurance, as he knows his two sons require very different responses.
The other twinned speech that occurred to me is in the Song of Deborah, the victory song in Judges 5:1-31. In this poem Deborah and Barak sing and make triumphant melody to God. They recall how YHWH marched out as a conqueror from Sinai (v. 5), how the peasantry of Israel prospered (a “peasant revolt” against exploitative landowners (vv. 6-12), and how they themselves, Deborah and Barak, led the tribes to victory.
In verses 19-21 the poetry describes the way in which Canaanite kings were decisively defeated. The victory came to Israel because all of creation (the stars and rushing wadis of water) were mobilized by the creator on behalf of Israel. Creation tilted on behalf of Israel in the same way that creation supported Israel in Joshua 10:12-14. But this cosmic vision of victory is completed and matched by a quite specific and local tale of bravery on behalf of Israel (vv. 23-27). In these verses the entire conflict comes down to a contest between a weary Canaanite soldier (Sisera) and a brave Israelite women, Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite. The soldier seeks hospitality and rest. The Kenite woman pretends to offer what he requires. Except that after she feeds him, she violently kills him; he offers no resistance:
She put her hand to the tent peg;
and her right hand to the workmen’s mallet;
she struck Sisera a blow,
she crushed his head,
she shattered and pierced his temple.
He sank, he fell,
he lay still at her feet;
at her feet he sank, he fell;
where he sank, there he fell dead.
We might have expected the celebrative poem to end there. After all, what more can we say after the detail and specificity of the murder of the Canaanite? It was enough to focus on such a specific heroic human act, enough for gladness and thanks.
But the poet does not stop in verse 27. In verses 28-30, the poem abruptly shifts scenes and reflects a very different tone. Now we are led by the imagination of this poet into the living room of the mother of the Canaanite soldier, Sisera. This is a bold poetic maneuver, exhibiting the capacity and willingness to portray in sympathetic fashion a Canaanite safe house. We have witnessed the violent disposal of Sisera, the Canaanite. But his mother does not yet know of his violent death. Like the mother of every military person, she frets about his safety. She eagerly awaits his safe return home. She anxiously looks out the window to see if he approaches. This is all taking longer than she expected; he is only facing the rag-tag disordered Israelite peasants. After all, defeat of Israel should be quick and easy; but he has not yet come home. Maybe Sisera and his troops are taking time to divide all the rich spoils they have taken from Israel. In her worry she lives in expectation. We know what she has yet to discover. And because we already know, the poet cannot resist adding, in verse 31, one last victorious gloat. The contrast of this gloat and the building sadness of the Canaanite mother is sharp and complete. The contrast turns on the capacity of YHWH to weigh in on behalf of the peasants, a leverage the Canaanite mother can little expect or understand. In this remarkable poem, the artist has held together two contrasting scenarios, as different as the two sons of the prodigal father.
Before I finish, I add a note concerning a presidential speech. I recall that Lyndon Johnson once had a disgruntled speech writer. As was the practice for small informal addresses in the Rose Garden, the president was handed a series of 3x5 note cards he had not seen with the speech. From this disgruntled speech writer Johnson took the note cards he had not seen and began:
First card: “You want to know how we will finance health care; today I will tell you”;
Second card: “You want to know how we will settle the auto strike; today I will tell you”;
Third card: “You want to know how we will better support Israel; today I will tell you”;
Fourth card from the disgruntled aide: “You are on your own. Lyndon.”
The speech writer had it right; we are on our own in speaking, except for images, metaphors, traditions, and familiar cadences. We are always on our own in such matters; but we draw on a rich legacy of the poets who have preceded us.
