The Book of Psalms may look like a largely disorganized book of Hebrew poems but that’s not really the case. This apparent confusion comes from the fact that the Psalms have many different authors, speak of different situations and are not like historical narrative with a story that flows from chapter to chapter. One of the great things about preaching Psalms as a guest preacher is that I don’t have to spend a lot of time setting up the context. Each Psalm is a fairly self-contained unit of thought.

But that isn’t the whole picture. If you read through the Psalms systematically you’ll come across division markers. The divisions are titled Book I (Psa. 1-41), Book II (Psa. 42-72), Book III (Psa. 73-89), Book IV (Psa. 90-106) and Book V (Psa. 107-150). These are part of the Hebrew text and not modern publisher additions. At the end of each Book, or at each ‘seam’, is a doxological conclusion that appears to have been appended to the Psalm it follows. Also, each Book has some internal unity. Book I is largely composed of Davidic Psalms. Book II tends to use Elohim as God’s name more than it does Yahweh. Book III has fewer Davidic Psalms and more by Asaph. Book IV begins with a Psalm by Moses and he is a prominent character in the Book. Book V is more jubilant and ends the entire collection with celebration. It appears that the editors of the Psalms were careful and thoughtful in what they did. That shouldn’t be a surprise, right?

So I recently finished reading Book III and was struck by its seam. Psalm 89 is the final Psalm of the Book and it is a Psalm of Ethan the Ezrahite. ¹Ezrah was a descendant of Judah (1 Chr 4:1, 17) so if this Ethan is a son of that Ezrah then he isn’t the musician mentioned in 1 Chr 15:19 since that Ethan was a Levite. There is an Ethan the Ezrahite who is compared to Solomon in wisdom. (1Ki 4:31) That doesn’t necessarily mean that he was a contemporary of Solomon only that Solomon was wiser than he. It could be like saying that George Washington was wiser than Ronald Regan. They weren’t contemporaries it is just that while both are wise, one is wiser than the other. The first third of the Psalm (1-18) is all about God’s faithfulness. The second third (19-37) is about God’s covenant with David. The final third (38-51) is a lament that God has cast off David. The doxology in verse 52 is very brief, especially compared to the doxology at the end of Book II in Ps 72:18-19.

What got my attention is how Ethan counts on God’s faithfulness even in the face of a broken covenant. David was promised a son on the throne forever but now his crown is in the dust (39) and his throne is cast to the ground (44). And that’s how the Psalm ends and the Book ends. David is cut off. The next book contains three Psalms of David and those are the only mention of his name.

However, the Psalms generally move from sorrow to praise so we shouldn’t be surprised to find that the discussion of the kingship isn’t over with Book III and David’s crown in the dust. The Royal Psalms of Book IV (93 & 95-100) pick up the theme of the king once more and even extend it. The restoration of the kingdom now moves from David to Yahweh himself; “make a joyful noise before the King, the LORD!” (Ps 98:6). These royal Psalms largely relocate our hope and the king to God himself!

And isn’t that what happened in redemptive history? David is the ideal king, Solomon is his mostly successful son but after them the kingdom is divided and the kings wax and wane (ok, mostly wane) in faithfulness till the are exiled by Assyria and Babylon. After the return there is no legitimate king on the throne. When Jesus comes, he is both the son of David and the Son of God. The role of king has moved from David’s failed line to God himself.