The Rabbi

Something here I do not understand. I see a triangular relationship: God binds himself to his people through the covenant. This psalm focuses on one specific component in that relationship, the perceived separation caused by sin.

Does anyone ever feel closer to God than immediately after he has pardoned a sin confessed? But prior, when not confessed, sin distances the sinner from God, he of course has not moved at all, he’s just ignored.

On the other hand, the psalmists lament also over distance between them and God, but this distance has another cause. From the writer’s perspective God has moved out of his life. Trials come, ugly stuff happens, circumstances of helplessness; in the vocabulary of psalms, it is they vs. me but where are you? Despair manifests desperate vocabulary—just read the psalms. But it is such desperate vocabulary that attracts God’s ear—always in his time. On the edge, the fringe of life God shows up.

Amazing grace how sweet the reunion with my loved Jesus.

I, Jeremiah, wonder why
G-d chose from the bottom
glory, praise, reputation, his transferred to them
but they apostatized
pride claimed the gift as self worth

blessing given, turned to curse
they count upon G-d’s merciful light
once too often
now it’s his dark side

I, Jeremiah, know they will not listen
I weep for their captured fate
from royal house to rural homesteaders
my tears flow, I am a
spectator of destruction

Jerusalem, once queen of shepherds
has no flock, painfully lost, grief without end
I, Jeremiah, see more than I tell
they never understood G-d they violated
spiritual adultery, G-d turned on them in kind
that sight defies description

Israel, possibly the psalmist’s
sedate tree nourished by tranquil waters
instead habitual sin becomes
chaff sirocco driven
they exchanged yhwh for cold
stone, dead wood

He punished the prostitute by giving more than
desired, she died horribly

I, Jeremiah, stand awed
he told me to offer forgiveness
my G-d, my G-d, I believe
help my unbelief

We will in the future discuss what "a psalm of David" means, for now I will maintain the standard designation of David as this psalm's composer.

The poet begins relating his present relationship with God; he has antagonized Yahweh to the extent that anger manifests. So some preliminary observations. The first of the two synonyms, "anger," is the opposite, for those who remember from Pentateuch or Former Prophets, of long suffering; in this case God has a short nose, he's hot. That's the second synonym, the verb means "to become warm," or "to become hot." Neither of these is a trait of God's that I nor you would want to experience.

My second thought reflects best in a question: how did David realize that God was upset with him? In the blessings and curses, listed in Deut. 28, God physically demonstrates his reaction to his people's behavior in an attempt to influence their conduct to line up with that articulated in the Torah. Verse 2, perhaps helps us diagnose how God put his judgmental finger on David's life, (1) "pinning away" referring to an emotionally stressful situation God manufactured, (2) "bones dismayed" referencing a physical ailment significantly threatening, or "soul (Hebrew does not reference 'soul' as the Greek philosophers, rather it's a person's being, one's entire self, it's who I am versus who you are) is greatly dismayed" indicates a spiritual challenge felt to the depth of his being.

In typical psalmic fashion, David articulates his problem as one of distance, God is far away. "How long" will you stay away from me? David reacts with, vs. 6-7, deeps sighs, constant tears, day and night, and wasting grief--has anyone ever cried over their sin, or the sin of others? He ends this description with a base-addition couplet, now for the first time in this prayer we learn that his grief results from his enemies; their success against God's anointed can only illustrate God's holy war against his own people, again, as a corrective with motive to restore.

Next, I want to bring to your attention two reoccurring psalm themes, vs. 4, 5: (1) God's in-spite-of-ness and (2) the psalmist's use of Sheol as a ploy to gain a positive response, and add a practical thought to each. First, here David does not call upon God to forgive him because of any other reason than that God in his basic essence is a forgiving God, see the golden calf restoration and throughout Ezekiel. To bring this home to us, let's put it this way: in spite of my behavior, because God loves me he will forgive and restore me; he will act non-rationally toward this wandering, sinful believer.

Second, the Sheol--not hell, but rather where OT Israelites thought their dead went, a nebulous gray area whose further description was little known to those alive--reference sought to glean God's consideration: men thank me, dead men don't. David pleas with God to extend his life in order that he would be able to live longer to praise God more. Don't make too much of the theology here about God needing man to keep himself happy.

Finally the last three verses. Commentators have long called psalms as this laments. Most laments end as does Psalm 6: David realizes that God has heard. It's not that his enemies have now been defeated, but that the perceived distance between David and God isn't, nor in reality wasn't. Note the verb tenses: "God has heard"--past tense; "my enemies will be ashamed"--yet future. This will be the major point that I would like you to learn from our study of lament. Rediscovering a God presumed far-off, causes our problem, whatever trial we experience, to pale in comparison and become manageable as we realize that God is in control.

They are mine: my home, my heart, my very being
I have chosen to give them up,
to be abused by their enemies

My own turned against me, violently so
I once loved, now I hate them
I open the devourer's cage

My fruitful garden lies waste
green pastures and still waters muddied
What I once populated, now I have plagued
victors become victims

Their work avails no gain
I make deaf my ears to their pleas
They desire their pleasures met
I have heard, what they
need arrives soon

Without remorse I turn loose the invaders
the Janizaries whirl, frenzied for blood

After praying with Kate this evening, I turned back a page where my eyes fell on this interesting psalm. So here are some comments for you to consider. (It was interesting that we both had turned to the identical section in psalm 119 to use in prayer; as I went first, she just used the next section, 41-48. Verse 42 sounds a lot like 1 Peter 3:15 to me)

In the some of the following I am dropping the convention of using an upper case letter for the word "god" in order to demonstrate the comparison/contrast between our god and their god.

vs. 1 "to your name give glory," several reasons come to mind, why I give glory to God. Perhaps a comment or two on your use or not use of the following.

(1) What he has done: often the bible's later writers recount in their stories or letters a brief history of Israel--what God has done for his people. During our times of doubt of God's ability to deliver through present circumstances, perhaps we should turn to the evidence of past instances.

(2) What he is doing: I say it often, but not quite enough, if God is who I (you) say he is, then he knows what he's doing with my life. If I am undergoing tension, stress, or problems, most likely they are there, by God, to test or mature my claimed faith.

(3) What he will do: even I believe in the eschaton. Someday God is going to straighten out this messed up world in which we live; until then I hope he finds me faithful.

The question the psalmist composes in vs. 2, "Why should the nations say, where, now, is their god?," most likely originated because Israel was in exile: the Babylonian god, Marduk, had soundly defeated Israel's yhwh (their god's name). Now here is faith, in spite of the obvious, the psalmist boldly holds onto his god's claim of absolute control: "our god is in the heavens, he does whatever he pleases."

Our poet takes the offense: in contrast to our god, their gods find themselves the mere product of man's craftsmanship. Gods in the image of man: mouths work silently, ears for earrings nothing more, eyes with cataracts, noses hardly savor, hands frozen, feet but not for walking. (Both Isaiah and Jeremiah have similar mocking descriptions of the inadequacies of idol worship, Is. 40, Jer. 10.)

In vs. 8 the writer extrapolates: "as they (that is these gods), so will their makers become." Anyone dumb enough to worship an inanimate idol will one day become the same, one not able to decide for themselves who blindly follows the dictates of others. The opposite holds for Israel: "be holy for I am holy," Israel must strive to live in pattern of their god. Maybe someone wants to comment on the freedom or lack of freedom that a Christian has; is an obedient Christian one who blindly follows the dictates of others?

Now our poet directs his words, vv. 9-16, to god's people, challenging them to recall past divine provision as the motivation to trust in spite of present objectionable circumstances. If they trust, as he has delivered, he will bless. After all the one upon whom they call is the world's creator.

I am unsure about the end, so here's a preliminary thought, let me know what you think. Theologically the psalmist realizes the majesty of his god, concurrently he understands that man in one way or the other rules the earth. Now who are these "dead" ones, vs. 17? Two options: one they could be the dead fathers of those Israelites in exile, those who did not exercise faith in God. If so he writes to his fellow Israelites: let's not follow the ways of dad and mom, it got them dead. Rather let's faithfully expect our God to do what he has in the past, mercifully deliver his own.

For option two, the writer may be picturing for god what life in exile is like, it's as if one were dead. And then he says to god, dead people can't praise you; how about delivering us so that from now on we may bless you.

I am glad I spent time with this psalm. Why would anyone want to replace God with some sort of man created god or idol? But I think I do it quite frequently. What about you?

I have sinned
how quickly the "best" falls
decisions for good, for Jesus
all so desire, me more
but self determines not God

without thinking, the tongue murders
vicious, cutting, another victim
well done my good and faithful servant
so Jesus mocks, cries really

now what?
sin atoned, but
stop now before any more blood flows

when will I learn?

In the pre-exilic biblical texts the number one issue addressed was Israel's turning to idols and other gods. Should we not be similarly concerned? What are today's other other gods?, idols? So here are some thoughts:

(1) more subtle today--not overt idols nor gods, though true in some parts of the world Allah is such a threat to Christianity.

(2) watching TV commercials at Matthew's house over break--remember Kate and I do not have a television--continued to prove to me that sex is goddess in the good old usa.

(3) the house finance disaster shows greed and the consumerist "want now" philosophy must be John's second beast.

(4) perhaps fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity's overemphasis on going to church as our number one duty to God illustrates our lack of compassion toward our neighbors.

(5) technology, cell phones, computers, video games--gods every one of them

(6) a passion for sports that consumes life, sorry lot that

The Evolution Controversy by Fowler and Kuebler
Anyone interested in the competing scientific interpretations of evolution should read this book. As neutrally as possibly Fowler and Kuebler compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of four perspectives on evolution: the Neo-Darwinian school, the Creationist school, that of Intelligent Design, and what they call the Meta-Darwinian view. No bible in this book, as the authors work from the scientific foundation, what does the observable data reveal?
I will write some on each.
Neo-Darwinian school—nothing more than Darwin’s thesis after 140 years of modification. Natural selection and random mutation alone are necessary to describe how the world is what it is.
Creationist school—hold to a young earth and supernatural intervention in the process, and that the bible as well as scientific data present truth requiring redress.
Intelligent Design school—spans the previous two, holding most of the first’s but requiring the second’s to explain certain processes that by their complexity demand a designer.
Meta-Darwinian—followers in Neo-Darwinian footprints these final interpreters, a mixed group of theorists, feel those prints cannot explain enough of the data, so they have proposed several conflicting natural alternatives.
I particularly enjoyed the non-bias of the writers, no ridiculing any theory, nor holding any from serious questioning. For example the creationists Fowler and Kuebler view as weak in proof of their claims: (Moses’s science was that of ancient Egypt) making data fit a narrative with a non scientific purpose may be impossible. Even if not, the number of scientists working from the creationist perspective is overwhelmed by the other three, which so far militates against collegial dialogue—scientist with scientist examining the facts discussing alternative interpretations, seeking to answer one of life’s more perplexing questions.
It is a great book, heavy enough, but not enough to discourage amateur readers like myself. Personally I am staying away from the science shelf for awhile, particularly the evolution section. My working on understanding Hebrew poetry far more interests God than this controversy.

"you cannot serve God and wealth"
Interesting comment by Jesus; I wonder what he meant?

Going back several paragraphs, he has made three comparisons of religious practices--each of which could be supported as approved by God.
(1) giving to the poor
(2) praying
(3) fasting
For each Jesus compares two people groups, both of which perform the religious activity--that's got to be good in some sense. So it cannot be the "doing" of the event that Jesus contrasts.

A simple model results--somehow Jesus is a common sense teacher, practical theology: One gives to the poor, but does so publicly; another does it in secret. The first receives his reward from the praises of those who observed, what must have been a most generous gift. The second receives no earthly reward for his gift, no third party observed the act, but God does, and he in his way does count the behavior. The same model applies to prayer and fasting.

Jesus then gives the meaning: do not store up treasures on earth; that is, do not do the right behavior in a manner that brings praise from men. Rather, store up treasures in heaven by doing the right behavior in secret. So, it's not the act but its motivation that Jesus here points to.

Thus "you cannot serve God and wealth" does not contrast serving God vs. making money, since both parties in the model give money away, likewise neither praying nor fasting are income generating activities.

Jesus seeks not the what but the how. Do I live my life--to the fullest extent for God--so that I would receive the praise of men--the american idol, christian version? Or do I do it only before him? Do I strive to earn a good reputation among men, or one before God? There not the same thing!

The closer one examines themselves, the more one will see that we follow the public-praise oriented model; God hardly needs our good deeds to get his job accomplished, what he desires is our unselfish behavior in our obedience to his will.