quote:

---

You mentioned earlier that you like reading the Psalms. There’s a good model there, I think, for holding interpretations in tension. The following five Psalms are quite different in feel and tone: One, 73, 38, 42/43 (treated as one Psalm), 116. If they were read in that order, though, we go round a peculiarly human cycle debating the relationship between belief and experience:-

1] “The Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish” – the standard view that the righteous person may live with hope under God’s covenant. There speaks a person who is stable, untroubled by stress.
73] “My foot almost slipped...” – a slight questioning of the principle outlined in Ps. 1. The author is aware of the existence of sin as a force in society, but he re-states the principle that rebellion against God inevitably leads to failure.
38] “My guilt has overwhelmed me...” – What, however, happens when experience becomes too much? This writer’s experience is anguish; there is a recognition that mere stating of belief is not enough – the author needs to feel the presence of God to bolster his belief.
42/43] “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God?” Now we are in angst territory. What happens to the author of the last Psalm when he feels alienated from God? He has to push his fear away by hoping that the standard view of Ps. 1 is valid, despite appearances. Will God answer?
116] “Be at rest once more, O my soul, for the Lord has been good to you.” – This author has apparently been through a traumatic experience, similar to that expressed in Ps. 42/43. He is able to re-state the standard view of Ps. 1, but this time from the angle of description, belief recounted from saving experience.

On the face of it, Pss 1 and 42/43 are at odds. The latter doesn’t seem to agree with the former. Is it contradictory, though, or in tension? I guess it’s the play in interpretation that reflects the gamut of emotions, experiences and beliefs that make up human beings; trying to hold the various opinions in the bible together and pulling out the right text for the right occasion, saving the others for a rainy day. Somehow I feel this approach more accurately reflects my experience of worship (so it may be entirely at odds with everyone else’s!): sometimes I feel like having quiet meditation, other times it’s a rave up. One style week in, week out, doesn’t capture the entirety of human needs, it seems. Perhaps this reflects your experience and belief, too, I don’t know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
I am sorry, Nigel; I know you are speaking English, but I don't have a clue as to what you are saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

...This discussion came up because I wondered how we could justify the amount of work necessary to "decode" the Bible; it's obvious that we need the help of scholars to understand much of what's written in the Bible since we don't understand the original contexts at all in many cases. Not so with Psalms; they speak to us directly about the spiritual life. Not much is known, in fact, about their origins, in many cases - but this isn't important, it seems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
I think a degree of studying and searching is needed even in devotions, it may be not at the scholarly level, because clearly not everyone has the ability or the facility to do so. But that’s why we have ministers/ teachers to help us learn (if they are doing their job properly. Sadly, many are not). Indeed, I don’t see why the act of studying and learning itself can not be seen as an devotional act.

---

quote:

---

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-
he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. [Ps. 137:8-9]

Wicked and deceitful men have opened their mouths against me ... May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.
May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes. May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labour. May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children. May his descendants be cut off, their names blotted out from the next generation. [Ps. 107:2, 9-13]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

Ps. 23:5 – “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies.”

Ideas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
Are those really the sort of people that you see coming out of the seminaries around you?

---

CuppaT, perhaps this is where personal experience comes in and we have seen different outcomes. Certainly many of the people I know who have finished their theological studies have gone on to serve in churches and communities in different capacities. Hopefully using what they have learned to serve and teach others. Some of them may even be the prayerful ones.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I agree with much of what you say here, pooka. My question, though, is this: why would God make it so difficult for us to understand anything about Him? Why would God be an obscurantist about His own nature? (I'm using "Him" here for brevity.)

That, to me, is a big problem, of almost Gnostic proportions. We shouldn't have to study, or depend upon someone else to study, in order to have the first idea about what God is about. This is different, I think, from other questions about the nature of God, i.e., Why Doesn't God Answer My Prayers?, or If God Is All-Powerful, Why Doesn't He Stop Disasters?

This is a basic question about the ability of the human being to get in touch with God through what people say are His Holy Scriptures. This is why I take a different view of the Bible, I think, than many people do; I think the experience of God must be, well, experiential. And Psalms are songs of ecstasy and despair (as you say) and longing and sorrow. Anybody can understand that, without having to read the opinions of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CuppaT:
[qb]Are those really the sort of people that you see coming out of the seminaries around you?

---

quote:

---

CuppaT, perhaps this is where personal experience comes in and we have seen different outcomes. Certainly many of the people I know who have finished their theological studies have gone on to serve in churches and communities in different capacities. Hopefully using what they have learned to serve and teach others. Some of them may even be the prayerful ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
Please don't let this thread get killed, y'all. I really didn't mean to get side-tracked. Could we discuss the Psalms one by one, TubaMirum, like in the Gospel thread? We could stay on each Psalm as long as anyone had anything productive to say and then move on to the next.

CuppaT

---

CuppaT, one thing I've noticed about this board is that often people seem to like to mull things over - or maybe look things up? that's what I'm doing! - before posting. Sometimes a thread will go for a week without a comment while people are turning something over in their minds.

So don't worry; it won't die! Nigel has proposed an interesting thought experiment; you and bush baptist have talked about your love of praying the Psalms; Pooka and I are mulling something over together. Things are happening!

It just tends to go slow here, and is more spread out over time. If you would like to discuss any particular Psalm, you should feel free anytime to post on it. Somebody will pick up the thread, I'm sure. Or if you want to go through them all, that might be another good thread in itself.

[ 07. June 2007, 20:55: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I’ve been thinking further (mulling?) about the difficult passages in the Psalms and a devotional reading. Essentially it all boils down to the “What would Jesus have done” method of approaching difficult questions.

There’s an assumption among many Christians that Jesus, during his earthly ministry, sought to overturn an ethic of violence. His recommendation for living as the people of God is built on the line of “love your enemy,” “turn the other cheek,” to be the Good Samaritan, etc., etc. Not for nothing do some Muslim scholars say that Moses brought a religion of violence and Jesus a religion of peace (compared to Islam, where they say you need a bit of both depending on the occasion). It’s with that background that we tend to view the Psalms and feel uncomfortable with advocating the dashing of infants against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), or the quick death of one’s enemies and the destitution of their offspring (Ps. 109:8-13).

While accepting the validity of Jesus’ teaching in this regard, I think the above approach to reading the New Testament doesn’t quite go far enough. I don’t think there is such a complete break between Old and New Testaments. Jesus and his hearers inhabited the world of the ‘Old Testament,’ that was their point of interaction. Jesus’ approach was to tackle head-on wrong interpretations of that Scripture; he argued over texts with the interpreters of the day, he showed that it was important to go back to basics (e.g., Gen. 1-3) to find principles for living as God intended. It’s out of that background that we read the ‘love’ sayings. They are the principles to aim for; but we have also to accept the fact that Jesus’ ethic included confrontation when it was necessary. He was not afraid to have a war of words with his opponents, nor was he adverse to dramatic action (cleansing of the temple). Even Paul, who picked up on Jesus’ method of interpretation (assessing life in the light of Gen. 1-3, for example), could let his strong feelings pour out from time to time. It’s the way we are built.

Let me dig a bit deeper there. I think the key here is the in-built sense of injustice we have. We feel it keenly when we observe – or are the recipient of – an unjust act. Whether it be genocide or someone cutting us up in traffic, we know something unfair and wrong has happened. Something rises up inside us and we feel those so-called “un-Christian” thoughts and emotions. I actually think this deep sense of injustice is God-given. It reflects a part of God – a God who is opposed to injustice and who also ‘feels’ it keenly when his creation is spoilt. When we have feelings of injustice, we are, therefore, acting part of our role as the image of God. This is one of the key links, it seems to me, between the Old and New Testaments: God will act in the face of injustice. I rather fear that holding a lid down on the kettle of our emotions, trying to overcome them by force(!) in an attempt to become totally loving, does two things: it doesn’t do justice to the entirety of the Bible; and it also causes emotional problems for humans – we merely postpone the day of steam to a point when the pressures build up to the point of explosion.

So how do we pray the Psalms ‘literally’ in this light? Well, on one level we can use, say, Psalm 137:8-9, to confess our feelings. I know this is done by many Christians. We read verses 8-9 and pray, “Father, there have been times recently when I have felt anger along these lines and have wished harm on some of your creation. Forgive me...” Yes, this is a valid starting point. I think we can go further, though. We can use the same sense of injustice that the writer of those two verses felt and bring that to God. “Father, today I saw an act of injustice. That act wasn’t right and I know it. It must also be wrong in your eyes...” When we do this we are doing two things:-

1] We are praying for God’s justice and the quick coming of his Kingdom to restore all things. We are, in effect, praying the prayer of the Jews in Babylon for the end of exile; and

2] We want evil to be named and shamed – for the perpetrators to understand the evil they have done when they mar parts of God’s creation – before we can move on to the question of forgiveness.

I should make clear that I am not rejecting the approach that reads these texts spiritually – using them to pray against non-human things (e.g., sin, Satan, death, etc.). I’m sure that’s a valid approach. It’s just that I think there is also a way of avoiding a sense of dualism in our reading; we can read and pray the texts literally – as the author literally intended – as well.
 

---

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Nicely read, Nigel.

This is exactly the reading that many monastics take; they use the Psalms - which they pray all day, every day - as a means of dealing with the human condition as it manifests in themselves and in all of us. Psalm 137, as I see it, is not an instance of an actual act of violence; it is an expression of (and an outlet for?) anger and rage, as you suggest. It, and the others you mention, reflect the reality of our feelings and thoughts; we all have feelings like this at some point during our lives. I think somebody also mentioned that it's an excellent way to to take notice of the sort of damage that oppression, imprisonment, and slavery can (and do) wreak on the human soul. Also a good reading, I think.

I realized awhile ago that the Bible would be essentially useless as a tool (or inspiration) of any sort if it didn't contain rage, self-pity, jealousy, pride, manipulation, violence, and war. How could we see it as an accurate reflection of human history? How could it ever make sense to us, or be in any way useful, if it showed only the "positive" side of human nature?

No, we need a true and real reflection of human life, or else the Bible and our faith are simply false. Above all else, the story we follow is and must be historical and based in reality.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
It might be a good idea to see what we come up with during a reading of one Psalm in its entirety – and perhaps the beginning is as good a place as any to start.

quote:

---

1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, or stand in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of mockers.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.
3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers.
4 Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgement, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish. [Psalm 1, NIV]

---

I imagined a conversation with the author – labelling below ‘author’ as ‘A’ and me, the listener, as ‘L.’

A: How lucky is the one who doesn’t follow the advice of those rebels against God!
L: Luck? I didn’t think we were supposed to have anything to do with luck.
A: Oh I don’t mean it in the way you do, with your strange English language; it’s nothing to do with gambling. I mean it in the sense that they are extremely fortunate; they are well-off.
L: Who are?
A: Anyone whose lifestyle is markedly different from practical atheists. Anyone who steers clear of doing what those who rebel against God do.
L: OK; but what does this fortunate person do, then, to be so lucky?
A: That person is so glad to immerse himself in the rules for life given in God’s teachings.
L: Hmmmm. I’m afraid that sounds a touch dry – I mean, all those laws? Why would anyone enjoy that?
A: Ah! I see another problem with your English language! I’ll tell you the ‘why’ in a moment – but first let me give you a picture so we can understand what I mean. Imagine the wilderness, with its dry, rocky terrain, sweeping up into the hills. It’s too dry for vegetation. That probably sounds like the Torah to you, yes? Now imagine a riverbed, cutting down through that wilderness; it has a good stream of clear, fresh water coming unpolluted from the hills. See a tree, just by the stream, tall and strong. It gives excellent fruit each year and it remains green all the year round. Sounds good, yes? It has a supply of life all the time, understand? That’s the right picture: that person is so well-off because he has an unending supply of life!
L: Well, OK; but I tend to get the picture that in real life it’s the bad people who are well-off.
A: On the contrary. Rebels against God don’t have the roots they need. Take a look outside of the river bed, back at the wilderness. See what happens to anything that tries to plant itself out there. What have you left? Mere husks, good for nothing. No roots, so their entire life is spent being tossed around in whatever direction the current wind of culture is blowing. No substance, you see.
L: It’s about world-view again, isn’t it, and how people find answers to life’s big questions?
A: You probably need to get out more. Nevertheless, that’s the reason why rebels will not be able to withstand God’s questions. Neither will they be able to have the last say before the people of God. You wanted to know why? It’s because God actively guards the life we lead as followers of his guide. The rebels, on the other hand, have a lifestyle that will doom them to destruction.
 

---

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
And if you go here or here, you can here the beginning of the Psalm chanted Orthodox-style by the Boston Byzantine Choir.


 

---

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Here are two short quotes from my EFM materials about Psalm 1:

quote:

---

The first Psalm is a "wisdom" song, a hymn that stands both as a word of comfort to those who keep God's law and a guide to the living.

The Hebrew word translated "happy" in the NRSV ["Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked"] derives from the verb that means "go straight, go on, advance." This is not happiness in the sense of elation, but the happiness that comes with sureness of purpose. That sureness of purpose comes from taking "delight in the law of the LORD," meditating on it "day and night."

---

quote:

---

The sharp division of life into two ways resembles the interpretation found in the Deuteronomic history: loyalty to YHWH results in blessing, and unfaithfulness to YHWH - doing "that which is evil" - results in curse....Psalm 1, however, should not be taken as a theoretical statement, but as a hymn intended to encourage the worshiper to follow the life of righteousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
Just to clarify, regarding the vespers thing, when I said that our Saturday vespers begins our Sunday worship, it is that we pray those Psalms 1-8 (or a portion) and it is called the first portion for the new week. Those Psalms you mentioned 110ff are what I pray on Sunday night for Monday’s vespers. (And the evening and the morning were the second day.) I think the catholic and the orthodox monasteries follow pretty much the same pattern, maybe different readings. I sure wish I could hear the music you talked about for 114. That is one of my favorites, reminding me of the feast of Theophany.

CuppaT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I was interested to read the phrase "wisdom song"; it does seem related to Proverbs and other such books in how it sets out its theme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
I am glad you picked up on the word Beatitude that I used, Nigel. I understand your using Happy as a translation, but it seems a weakening of the meaning to me. I am all for being happy, but I would far rather be blessed of God, even if it means difficulties and persecution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum in response to CuppaT:
I do look at Psalms in a very different way than you do, in one sense: I don't read them as talking about Jesus, but as the prayer of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
How about a question. Rahab is mentioned in Ps. 87 & 89. How is it that she has traditionally come to be interpreted as Egypt? I would think that Jericho would make more sense since that is where she was from. I have wondered why Jericho is never mentioned in the history psalms 77,104, & 105. Do you think it is because the city had gotten rebuilt by then? I do not know the sequence of events very well, but I know that it was rebuilt eventually.

---

quote:

---

...Egypt, whose help is utterly useless. Therefore I call her Rahab the Do-Nothing. [NIV]

---

It looks as though the name 'Rahab' in that sense was convenient to use as poetically synonymous with Egypt, but was not intending to refer to the lady Rahab in Jericho.

I'm not sure why the city doesn't feature in the Psalms. Perhaps it was a level of detail that was not necessary in the grand sweep of God's involvement on Israel's behalf? There is a lot of emphasis on the exodus, but only passing references to Canaan as God's gift.
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
I don't want to put the cat among the pigeons here. But two common threads seem to be slightly at odds to an observer. One is that the Psalms encompass the whole human condition, and this is soething I am wholeheartedly in agreement with - they are almost unsurpassable as poetry.

The other thread is that the Psalms are all about Christ. This seems to be slightly in tension with the human aspect. CuppaT said "it's not all me, me, me." Which seems to imply that praying the Psalms is not to be used as psycho therapy. I guess that's a gross oversimplification of what she meant.

The Psalms were written by and for Jews. If they are all about Christ, that poses a problem for non-Christians. But maybe they just shouldn't be involved in this? It looks like a pretty effective devotional exercise - so far as an agnostic can tell.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I sympathise with the view above but also believe in archetypes - so I can say that they are ALSO about Christ.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
I think I'd want to say that those two threads can be put together.

They are genuinely about the human condition (well, most of them).

Therefore they are genuinely about Christ, who is the Truly Human One, and who shares in the current human condition in everything except sin. They are, to quote a theological lecturer who did a series of talks at a church weekend away, "The Songs that Jesus Sang". And Jesus is the True King, from whom all kingship derives its value, and the Truly Righteous One, etc.
 

---

Posted by CuppaT (# 10523) on :
 
Yes, the Psalms were written by Jews, and for Jews first, even back then for all God-fearers. But Jesus is the fullfilment of the Old Testament prophesies, the archetype -- exactly! Did King David know he was a prophet? I don't know if he did. But he was. And Christ is the completer of it all. That does not mean that we "spiritualize" everything, and cannot apply things personally to ourselves; it just means that we must also focus on the big picture and not see each Psalm as applying only to ourselves and our partictular situation.

CuppaT
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
Thanks for the clarification.
 

---

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Well, it would be easy to turn that argument on its head, though, CuppaT: In making the Psalms about Christ, we have then forced them to become about "ourselves and our particular situation" as Christians. We're not allowing them to speak the way they originally spoke - to Jews, and to worship of the One God in the Temple. Christ was a Jew himself, and would have seen it this way, I'm sure; that's what interests me, personally.

So IMO there are two ways to look at this. I don't mind going with Leo's view about archetypes, but I think we should recognize that these songs come out of another, earlier tradition - and tread gently here.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
This is maybe where the push-pull effect comes into operation. One thing that stands out clearly from the Jewish scriptures is the yearning for the better life – a recognition that:

If there is a God who created and formed all that is, and if that God is a good and just God, then that God would not be satisfied with anything less than perfection. Injustice is an imperfection, therefore God is not satisfied with it. Because God is good and just, he will correct imperfections for the better of his creation.

From this we get that casting forward we find in the texts, a “When can I go and meet with God” (Ps. 1:2), or the more obvious future references to the restoration of creation. When it came time to compile the canon and decide on the order of the books, Genesis 1 came up front. I don’t think this was an accident; I think it was placed there because the compilers recognised that it provided a very important framework for assessing the perfect against the contemporary imperfections. The rest of the Jewish books could be held up against that standard.

Jesus and his followers were then able to look back, through the lens of those texts, and feel the yearning. Part of the yearning covered the identity of a servant of God who would suffer on behalf of creation. This figure emerges gradually through the textual history – a figure that also looks for completion. Recognising Jesus as that figure could then be said to be in line with the yearnings of the older authors; part of the same story.

Reason and purpose, backwards and forwards, push and pull?
 

---

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Well, it's all an interesting question, Nigel. Yes, I think there is that "push-pull" thing going on; just right now I started thinking of it almost like a person thinks of the two natures of Christ: 100% human and 100% divine.

This one goes: the Hebrew Scriptures are 100% prophecy-of-Christ and 100% Jewish-Scriptures-and-songs-for-worship.

That's in order to give proper respect to original intent (and to our Jewish brothers and sisters, since these Holy Scriptures were originally theirs, and which we have borrowed) and also to whatever might be found there - I go with Isaiah on this, mostly - that looks forward to Christ, perhaps in that archetypal way that Leo mentioned. For me - and especially given the history of the Church - it's crucially important to respect the Hebrew Bible for what it is, and to try to understand it from a Jewish point of view.

But I grew up listening to Messiah, and seeing Isaiah as prophecy seems almost second nature to me now, too. (Actually, Isaiah is the hardest one for me to look at in the other way!)

So the push-pull is within me at this point, too. Another Christian Koan, maybe?

[ 19. June 2007, 14:45: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 

---

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :
 
The search for levels of meaning within the biblical text is rarely about selecting an either/or but a both/and. And, in the case of the Psalter it's a both/and/and/and/and/and...

They can be read as human expressions of emotion in regard to their circumstances.

They can be read as the words of Christ prayed concerning his Church.

They can be read as products of Israelite liturgical poets as they negotiated their context in light of Canaanite/Ugaritic--even Akkadian influences

They can be read as the songs of the saints on the moral life (the babies we dash against the rocks are the incipient vices taking root in our souls...)

And the list goes on... It really shouldn't be one or the other--all of the levels inform and enrich the others IMO.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Ænglican:
It really shouldn't be one or the other--all of the levels inform and enrich the others IMO.

---

I can certainly see the force of this. There are multiple readings, or angles of reading, that can lead to a variety of significances for each age. Is there an overarching method of validation for this, though, do you think? If, for example, the author literally intended to refer to the physical bashing of babies against rocks, then would that not rule out an interpretation that sought to spiritualise it away (or internalise it as referring to our negative emotions)?
 

---

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :
 
Well, Nigel, we've got a couple of things going on there. First is a debate about authorial intent, second a debate about the literal meaning. I think you're actually going for authorial intent because I read that passage as hyperbole which would alter a flat literal meaning to a more nuanced function of the language--yes, to shock, horrify, and to communicate the author's experience of pain at the hands of the Babylonians and Edomites--but not necessary prescribe practice.

I'm not trying to fudge the text or overly soften it, I just believe that a literal meaning has to take schemes and tropes into account.

What you seem to be getting at (and please correct me if I've misread you) is that authorial intent is in some way a controlling category that should restrict the range of possible meanings. Therefore, a "responsible" interpretation is one that would fall inside the scope of the author's intent. Philosophically and hermeneutically I'd disagree. Authorial intent *is* important--but a text has a life of its own apart from its author.

[ 20. June 2007, 13:43: Message edited by: the Ænglican ]
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I've spent the better part of two decades wondering about that authorial intent control! I see the need for some form of control and authorial is the least of all control evils out there at the moment, I think. I define the literal meaning as the meaning the author literally meant - whether it be figurative, historical, poetic (which can include historical), etc. So linguistics underlie interpretation (and therefore underlie theology). This is to distinguish interpretation from literalistic methods which can put preconceived theology (or views of God) before interpretation...

I was never that convinced by the arguments for the text having its own life - the sound of a tree falling when there's no one around! I accept that a tree falling will make a sound and a text carries denotations, but meaning and significance surely only reside - or come to fruition - through the human interface?

Nigel

[ 20. June 2007, 14:54: Message edited by: Nigel M ]
 

---

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :
 
At the end of the day, I come down that the real locus of control is the community in which the texts are being read and enacted. Out of the range of possible meanings that responsibly proceed from the text (i.e., that are possible given the grammar, syntax, and diction), certain reading communities will privilege some over others at their discretion.

Where this becomes a problem is when we start asking how "communities" get defined and who gets to define them--after all, that's one of the problems in today's Anglican Communion... Too, people may well exist in negotiation between several reading communities.

I realize this may come of as very postmodern and all, but it's the best way I've found to hold in tension the fact that Jewish communities, Christian communities and academic communities all read these texts differently and that none of them have the one exclusive "right" meaning.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I found it interesting that the process of understanding these Scriptures for me has turned out to be the reverse of what I now consider to be the right process. I grew up in church environment – all that Sunday School, bible class, sermon scene – and later went to study theology. So the first thing I am taught from an early age is theology – the structures, schemes and so on; the ‘what we believe.’ Later, after I had been theologised properly, I was introduced to the process of interpretation: how one gets to the theology - all that hermeneuting and exegesising. Finally I took myself into the realm of linguistics – how language is structured and how it operates.

It was after reflecting on all this that I realised I should really have done it the other way round: we get our understanding of God and how to live as a person of God (the theology) from the way we as humans interpret the Bible (yes – we can read the giants of theology before us, but they get their understandings ultimately from the Bible). We reach understanding as a result of using language; we read, communicate and think using language. So in order to understand we need to ‘know’ language. Hence, ultimately everything is derived from language usage (I include non-verbal communication in this, though in practice we are pretty much deprived of that source when we come to written texts). There is a case for saying that we can know God only through language, though let me quickly temper that by agreeing with Michael Polanyi when he said that we can reach a point where “We know more than we can tell.” This is a small area of knowledge, though, and if we cannot tell, then we are somewhat hard pushed to theologise!

So, the order basically is: language => interpretation => theology.

This gives me some hope for lasso-ing validated meanings: grappling with linguistics before tackling other contextual issues. This involves the usual culprits: establishing the text, consideration of genre and structure, co-text... but also crucially gives credence to the author behind the text as someone who seeks to achieve something in writing; he has a reason (looking backwards) and a purpose (looking forwards) in doing so. I think it is possible to get a decent way towards establishing that purpose – enough at any rate to provide a framework that validates various readings of a text.

And then there is the role of the Holy Spirit in all this.... though it is harder to adduce him as evidence!
 

---

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :
 
I think it's precisely the factor of the Holy Spirit, though, that de-stabilizes the importance of the author... While I don't believe in direct verbal inspiration I believe that a significant part of the Spirit's activity in and with the biblical text is in the act of interpretation. The record of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, well hell, the sermons *throughout* Acts have Luke showing us the Apostles discovering new meanings and senses in the text when read in light of the resurrection. As I believe the Spirit is a prime mover in the Church through the ages, I'd suggest that how Spirit guided communities have interpreted the text are at least as valid as the meanings of the author. Again--they all should be held in a creative tension together.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
That’s interesting, because I take the role to HS as a support for the author, rather than de-stabilising him. At the same time I agree that the HS guides interpretation today. My take would go like this: I link author-ship to author-ity, in the sense that the inspiration for authoring texts lies in the human author’s relationship with God as the one with authority. If the author of Psalm 1, for example felt inspired by the HS to write that particular piece of poetry, he did so because he already had a relationship involving communication with God (it’s that language thing again!). His inspiration didn’t come out of the blue, as it were.

Similarly, because the same HS is available today to assist with interpretation, a valid interpretation would have to be one that is based on the meaning that was authored with authority, if you see what I mean – the combination here of human and divine authorship in Psalm 1. My view is that it is unlikely that the HS would author one particular meaning only to inspire a ‘meaning’ today that would be mutually incompatible.

It might help if I drew on E. D. Hirsch’s distinction between meaning and significance here (from Hirsch, Jr., E. D. Validity in Interpretation, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1967). ‘Meaning’ is what the author meant by his use of a particular series of words in a text. ‘Significance,’ on the other hand, is what emerges from the interaction between a reader and that text – it is what the text ‘means’ for today, if you like: its interpretation.

Using this distinction, there are multiple significances that have been drawn from single texts. Psalm one on this thread thus far, for example. As you say, the community of believers have been producing these significances from day one- and continue to do so. Hey are applying the meaning to make it relevant for each occasion. I certainly like the idea of the community acting as a sort of quality assurance process, sifting those significances to ensure validity. That at least provides a boundary within which interpretation can take place. What drew me along these paths, though, was the question in my mind: What do we do when the community produce mutually incompatible significances / interpretations? What test of validity do we have then?

As an example: in 1983 R. T. Kendall published a book, Once Saved, Always Saved (second edition 1992), arguing for assurance that believers will get to heaven, no matter what work or lack of work they did in their earthly lives. In 1996, David Pawson responded with Once Saved, Always Saved? in which he criticises this view in favour of the need for our staying ‘in Jesus’ to ensure we will get to heaven. In other words, salvation can be lost. That’s a modern example of two popular teachers within evangelicalism, both referring to the same texts, yet reaching opposite conclusions. They merely reflect a history of debate on this. This sort of example could be replicated on issues across Christendom, from the early church onwards. So, I am left with a predicament. As a Christian, who do I believe? The only test of validity, it seems to me, is to persevere with analysing authorial intent. Until something better comes along, that is!

Thanks for pursuing this issue - I'm finding it helpful.

Nigel
 

---

Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :
 
Sorry to kill discussion of the actual psalm in favor of technical stuff...

So let me add this: I've often been struck by the agricultural metaphors in the middle section of Psalm 1. The righteous are *literally* rooted in God's creation. They're well sunk with good roots. The wicked on the other hand are the dessicated chaff with no integral connection to anything--they blow and are ephemeral. There's something about that construct I've always liked--the righteous are those who are hooked into reality--God's reality--whereas the wicked not only don't "get it" but are somehow less substantial for it.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Ænglican:
Sorry to kill discussion of the actual psalm in favor of technical stuff...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Ænglican:
...the righteous are those who are hooked into reality--God's reality--whereas the wicked not only don't "get it" but are somehow less substantial for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Still on Ps. 1: has anyone any idea why this particular Psalm was chosen to head up the entire Psalter? I'm assuming it wasn't accidental; the fact that the Israelites divvied up the Psalms into 5 separate sections or books suggests that there was a plan. The whole Psalter ends with a series of doxologies / Hallelujahs, which is interesting because quite a few English language hymnals put those sort of praise songs up front. Is Ps. 1 meant to be a scene-setter for what follows? A major theme? A summary of the rest?

---

quote:

---

"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse" (Malachi 4:5-6 NIV)

---

quote:

---

"This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you—may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up' " (2 Chron. 36:23 NIV)

---

quote:

---

Why‍ do the nations rebel?
Why‍ are the countries‍‍ devising‍ plots that will fail?‍
The kings of the earth‍ form a united front;‍
the rulers collaborate‍ against the LORD and his anointed king.
They say,‍ ‍“Let’s tear off the shackles they’ve put on us!
Let’s free ourselves from‍‍ their ropes!”
The one enthroned‍‍ in heaven laughs in disgust;‍ ‍
the Lord taunts‍‍ them.
Then he angrily speaks to them
and terrifies them in his rage,‍ saying,‍ ‍
“I myself‍ have installed‍ my king
on Zion, my holy hill.”
The king says, ‍ “I will announce the LORD’S decree. He said to me:‍ ‍
‘You are my son! ‍ This very day I have become your father!
Ask me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance,
the ends of the earth as your personal property.
You will break them with an iron sceptre;‍ ‍
you will smash them like a potter’s jar!’” ‍
So now, you kings, do what is wise;‍‍
you rulers of the earth, submit to correction! ‍
Serve‍ the LORD in fear!
Repent in terror!‍ ‍
Give sincere homage!‍ ‍
Otherwise he‍‍ will be angry,‍ and you will die because of your behaviour,‍ ‍
when his anger quickly ignites.‍‍
How blessed are all who take shelter in him! [NET Bible - I removed the verse divisions to keep the flow]

---

quote:

---

1. WHY do the heathen so furiously rage together : and why do the people imagine a vain thing?
2. The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together : against the Lord, and against his Anointed.
3. Let us break their bonds asunder : and cast away their cords from us.
4. He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh them to scorn : the Lord shall have them in derision.
5. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath : and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6. Yet I have set my King : upon my holy hill of Sion.
7. I will preach the law, whereof the Lord hath said unto me : Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
8. Desire of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance: and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9. Thou shalt bruise them with a rod of iron : and break them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings : be learned, ye that are judges of the earth.
11. Serve the Lord in fear : and rejoice unto him with reverence.
12. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and so ye perish from the right way : if his wrath be kindled, (yea, but a little,) blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

---

Sorry, but I love Handel, and like to see these words.

Anyway, sometimes it's good to have a couple of different translations to work from.

I'd say this one is about the "Golden Age of David the King," who ushered in an era of peace and prosperity, maybe? David is the favored Son and Anointed here? And it's a song that announces that God is with David, and that the kings should listen to David's admonitions about submitting to God.

What's interesting about Psalms is that the narrative point-of-view often changes in midstream. For instance, it looks like this happens between verse 5 and 6 here; first, the POV is David's - then all of a sudden it's God's - then back to David in verse 7, as far as I can tell. I wonder if this change is something that was acted out in liturgical worship, or sung antiphonally or something?
 

---

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
BTW, I just read that Psalm 2 may have been used liturgically at the coronations of kings. Here's an article about that.

There is also, apparently, a strand of thought that there is indeed a Messianic theme here, and that numerous top-level Jewish scholars through the ages (including Maimonides) have thought so. Here's something about that at Jews for Jesus. There's a lot of wild stuff online about this Psalm and the Messianic message, actually. Here's another Jewish messianic website, for instance. This must be sort of a risque topic in Judaism, because it's only the Messainic sites that have these sorts of discussions.
 

---

Posted by Travelling_Wheelbarrow (# 11029) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

...This discussion came up because I wondered how we could justify the amount of work necessary to "decode" the Bible; it's obvious that we need the help of scholars to understand much of what's written in the Bible since we don't understand the original contexts at all in many cases. Not so with Psalms; they speak to us directly about the spiritual life. Not much is known, in fact, about their origins, in many cases - but this isn't important, it seems.

---

Throughout history, there have always been people who devote themselves to the study and interpretation of Scripture and who pass their findings down to the wider faith communities. Perhaps we forget just how much we owe them in terms of a clearer understanding of the scriptures, even the Psalms. I remember when I first became a Christian, most of the Bible was jarring and strange to me and mostly irrelevant. As far as I was concerned, the only bit I had to follow from the OT was the ten commandments. NT was a bit better because 'I am a Christian now, so I guess I had better do my four Christian rules' (read bible every day; go to church; pray daily; witness). The Psalms were all right because they're nice, but they were just as foreign to me as anything else. If I had stayed at a purely devotional level of my understanding, I would be tragedy truly personified because I would never have grown.

Psalms can be taken at many levels but in a sense it is no different from other parts of the scriptures, in that there are parts that we understand, there are parts that we think we understand, and there are parts that make no sense at all. It is more pleasing because it has rhythms and rhymes and it appeals to our sense of beauty, but that doesn't immune us from misunderstanding or having no understanding. If we only take those bits that we like and understand (or think we understand) there will be lots of gaps in our understanding of the greater scheme of things in both width and depth. The result of this could be that we stay at the drinking milk level all our lives.

Just to give an example of what I mean and a possible misunderstanding: 'As the deer pants for water...so my soul thirsts for you' (Ps 42:1). It's possible for me to imagine Bambi with his big cute dewy eyes skipping lightly around looking for a stream to have a drink. Because I have never seen deer in their natural habitat, I get my reference from a Disney film. I may not be wrong, in that ‘Bambi’ is thirsty and that's what the verse said, but I would never have appreciated the depths of desperation and ugliness that comes from drought and famine and the struggle for life that this panting is about, which the later verses imply re: despair (which were the verses that I couldn’t relate to because I am not David and they are not nice. Something about shattering bones. Yuk!) So I would have missed out on the depths of the longing for God that this verse is talking about if I were not taught and learned or had tried to dig deeper into what this verse is about.

I think a degree of studying and searching is needed even in devotions, it may be not at the scholarly level, because clearly not everyone has the ability or the facility to do so. But that’s why we have ministers/ teachers to help us learn (if they are doing their job properly. Sadly, many are not). Indeed, I don’t see why the act of studying and learning itself can not be seen as an devotional act.

---

quote:

---

I will be his father, and he shall be my son... [2 Sam 7:14, NIV]

He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.' I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth. [Ps. 89:26-27, NIV]

---

quote:

---

We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.' [Acts 13:32-33, NIV]

I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty. [2 Cor. 6:18, NIV]

For to which of the angels did God ever say, You are my Son; today I have become your Father? Or again, I will be his Father, and he will be my Son? ...
So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, You are my Son; today I have become your Father. [Heb. 1:5; 5:5, NIV]

---

quote:

---

We've grown accustomed to hearing 'pre-existence' and 'incarnation' when we read the likes of Acts 13:33 (eternally begotten?), but Paul seems to have in mind the resurrection as a point when Jesus became the vindicated son-king to the parent-God. This isn't to say that we cannot derive 'eternally begotten' from the bible, it's just that I'm not sure we take it as read from this passage.

---

quote:

---

The Bible text designated YLT is from the 1898 Young's Literal Translation by Robert Young who also compiled Young's Analytical Concordance. This is an extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings. The text was scanned from a reprint of the 1898 edition as published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids Michigan. The book is still in print and may be ordered from Baker Book House. Obvious errors in spelling or inconsistent spellings of the same word were corrected in the computer edition of the text.

---

quote:

---

• Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 4th ed. (Prentice Hall, Inc. 1986), pp 540-567.
• Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2 vols. (Abington, 1962)
• J.W. Rogerson and J.W. McKay, Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, 3 vols., (Cambridge University Press, 1977). For most readers this is the best commentary on the Psalms. It exists in paperback at a reasonable price.
• Arthur Weiser, The Psalms, The Old Testament Library Series. (Westminster Press, 1962).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
If you would like something a little lighter, though very though provoking, J.S. Bach, you could read Christ in the Psalms by Patrick Henry Reardon and use its meditations as a springboard for discussions.

You hit my favorite Psalm, Nigel -- 118 (LXX).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
There's a similarity in theme between 1 and 118/119, isn't there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
There's a similarity in theme between 1 and 118/119, isn't there?

---

How so? I don't see it yet, but we can all think on it while you are replying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
In the Orthodox tradition, this psalm is chanted in part at funeral services. It is also chanted during the Lamentations of Holy Friday when we lament with the women and the disciples over Jesus' death, each verse interspersed with a lament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
Having the habit prayer already in place, and praying the psalms in particular forced a regularity that I could not have mustered otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Have we posted the Benedictine Psalm schedule on this thread yet?

---

quote:

---

• Psalm 1 we already covered above.
• Psalms 8, 104, and 19: These are “hymns of praise”
• Psalms 14 and 53: These two are almost identical, except in the use of “Elohim” vs. YHWH, respectively, in the Hebrew (which normally indicates that they come from different sources). These are laments over the wickedness of humankind and they look forward to the day that God will bring deliverance.
• Psalms 15, 24, 42, 43, and 122: Psalm 122 is one of the “Songs of Ascents” (more about that later); the others are thought to be for use in preparation for Temple worship.
• Psalm 22: Was included in particular to note its use among Christians during Holy Week, and for the fact that it contains Jesus’ words from the Cross.
• Psalm 34: This is a hymn of Thanksgiving, and an acrostic (other acrostics are Psalms 9-10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119, 145).
• Psalm 119: This is the Longest Psalm; it is a long meditation on the Law and the joy that comes from keeping the statutes of the Law.
• Psalm 58: This is a cursing Psalm, calling for God’s judgement on the Psalmist’s enemies, who are declared to be breakers of the Law.
• Psalms 78, 105, 106: These are recitals of God’s saving deeds in Israel’s history. Psalms 105 and 106 are different in tone, though; one praises Israel, one accuses Israel.
• Psalm 137: The really bad Psalm, which contains a “blind hate and rage that the Psalmist is no longer able to master.” Much-discussed in several threads here.
• Psalms 146-150: “Hallelujah” Psalms. “Hallelujah” means “Praise YHWH.” These are songs of praise for and of all creation.

Some Psalms seem to have a liturgical use:

• Psalm 92 is labeled “A Song for the Sabbath.”
• Psalm 100 is labeled “A Psalm for the Thank Offering.”
• Psalm 38 (and others) are “designated for use at ‘memorial offerings’.”
• A few Psalms have tune names associated with them, and some have instructions to the "Choirmaster."

It is theorized that Israel ritually renewed its covenant with YHWH fairly often, perhaps even annually.

• “Psalm 81 suggests that the covenant is remembered on a regularly appointed feast day.”
• “Psalm 105...may also be a covenant renewal Psalm.”

“Royal theology”: These are Psalms that glorify Zion and which speak in kingly terms of God and God’s anointed (or Son).

• Psalms 93 and 95-100 are called “coronation Psalms”
• Psalms 46, 48, 76, 84, 87, 112 are “Songs of Zion.”
• Psalms 2, 20, 21, 45, 72, 110 glorify the Davidic king as God’s anointed.

Psalm 110 contains imagery used by early Christians to speak of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

The “Songs of Ascents” are Psalms 120-134. There are many theories about this designation. Possibly these were “sung by pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple.”

Isn't that an amazing and wonderful picture?

The materials further say that a theory developed among Jewish scholars during the early years of the Christian church was that “the Levites sang one of the 15 Songs of Ascents on each of the fifteen steps leading up to the place in the Temple where the worshipers stood.”

Which makes an even more amazing picture!

Another theory is that the word “ascents” refers “to a literary practice: the last word of one verse would be used as the first word of the following verse, thereby forming a ‘staircase’ of words running through the Psalm.” (See Psalm 121 for an example of this.)

Most scholars believe these Psalms had something to do with the approach of worshipers to the Temple, at any rate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So that's what I have, JSBach. I love this last stuff best, but it's all quite interesting. I'd like to get one of the books they recommend, too, to look at all this in more detail.

---

TubaMirum, special thanks to you for sharing some outstanding material! A previous group I was in studied the Psalms of Ascent, and I could see spending a few weeks on them again. The other EFM groupings seem to hit the major categories while providing a manageable selection to study.

The EFM course must be quite rewarding. Our church used to offer seminary courses (for graduate credit or audit), but they went by the wayside a few years ago. Thank you again!

Blessings,
JSB
 

---

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
FYI, I just saw this posted in Ecclesiantics: "Psalter Schemas (the ways the Psalms are arranged in various breviary texts)."

There are literally hundreds of 'em! But the first on the list is a link to a table containing Benedict's ordering: The Monastic Psalter. It's Vulgate Numbering, which is always confusing to me, and it includes Matins, the night service, which isn't done very often anymore. But there it is, and there are others to choose from, too.

And here's a page comparing four different schemes at once, which is also interesting.
 

---

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
(Yours is a lot simpler, though, CuppaT. Thanks for posting it.

And I hope the info will be helpful, JSB - and that your study group will be great. I'm looking forward to Year 2 of EFM: New Testament. And thank God about a tenth of the reading! )
 

---

Posted by J.S. Bach (# 9633) on :
 
Our group study of psalms is going well. Thanks again for all your suggestions.

This week, I learned of Robert Alter's new The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary.

It has only been out less than 2 weeks, so there haven't been that many reviews yet. A Boston Globe article states, "Alter aims to reproduce the rhythmic energy of the Hebrew texts in an English that adheres as closely as possible to the meaning and style of the original."

It sounds like it is worth investigating. A trip to the bookstore is in order.

Blessings,
JSB
 

---

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by J.S. Bach:
Our group study of psalms is going well. Thanks again for all your suggestions.

This week, I learned of Robert Alter's new The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary.

It has only been out less than 2 weeks, so there haven't been that many reviews yet. A Boston Globe article states, "Alter aims to reproduce the rhythmic energy of the Hebrew texts in an English that adheres as closely as possible to the meaning and style of the original."

It sounds like it is worth investigating. A trip to the bookstore is in order.

Blessings,
JSB

---

quote:

---

Psalm 3 - A psalm of David. When he fled from his son Absalom.

1 Lord!
How numerous are my enemies!
How many rise up against me!
2 Many are saying of me,
"There's no saving for him from God!"
Selah
3 But you, Lord, are a shield protecting me;
my glory and and lifter of my head.
4 To the Lord I cry out,
and he answers me from his holy hill.
Selah
5 Me? I lie down, I sleep,
I wake up - for the Lord supports me!
6 I'm not going to be afraid of the masses
coming at me on all sides.
7 Rise up, Lord!
Save me, my God!
You strike all my enemies on the jaw;
and break the teeth of the wicked.
8 The Lord saves!
On your people be your blessings!
Selah

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
On a day in England when a survey suggests that many National Health Service dental patients are being forced to go private or go without treatment, there's a timely picture here of the teeth of God's enemies being scattered all over the countryside.

---

Oh, God!

(Where did my false teeth go?)
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
On a day in England when a survey suggests that many National Health Service dental patients are being forced to go private or go without treatment, there's a timely picture here of the teeth of God's enemies being scattered all over the countryside.

---

Oh, God!

(Where did my false teeth go?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
...Not sure how [Alter] translates Psalm 3, but here's a stab to move things on (English versification - the Hebrew takes the heading as verse 1):-
Psalm 3 - A psalm of David. When he fled from his son Absalom.

...
3 But you, Lord, are a shield protecting me;
my glory and and lifter of my head.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
...the image in 3:3 of God as "lifter of my head" is an odd one to my ears. It certainly calls to mind the Genesis story of Joseph and the interpretation of dreams for Pharoah's attendants, but I can't quite get a handle on what the image is intended to convey. Is the use with the baker intended as a joke, or can the phrase cover both positive and negative recognition by higher-ups?

---

quote:

---

Judges 8:28 -
Thus Midian was subdued before the Israelites and did not raise its head again.

Job 10:15 -
If I am guilty—woe to me!
Even if I am innocent, I cannot lift my head,
for I am full of shame
and drowned in my affliction.

Psalm 24:7 -
Lift up your heads, O you gates!
be lifted up, you ancient doors,
that the King of glory may come in!

Psalm 83:2 -
See how your enemies are astir,
how your foes raise their heads.

Psalm 110:7 -
He will drink from a brook beside the way;
therefore he will lift up his head.

Zech. 1:20 -
"These are the horns that scattered Judah so that no one could raise his head..."

---

quote:

---

Job 11:15 'face', rather than 'head' -
then you will lift up your face without shame;
you will stand firm and without fear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Thanks to J. S. Bach for drawing our attention to Alter's book on the Psalms. I don't have it either, but given Alter's background of work on Hebrew poetry it certainly sounds a worthwhile investment. Not sure how he translates Psalm 3, but here's a stab to move things on (English versification - the Hebrew takes the heading as verse 1):-

---

quote:

---

Psalm 4 [NIV]
For the director of music. With stringed instruments. A psalm of David.
1 Answer me when I call to you,
O my righteous God.
Give me relief from my distress;
be merciful to me and hear my prayer.

2 How long, O men, will you turn my glory into shame ?
How long will you love delusions and seek false gods ?
Selah

3 Know that the LORD has set apart the godly for himself;
the LORD will hear when I call to him.

4 In your anger do not sin;
when you are on your beds,
search your hearts and be silent.
Selah

5 Offer right sacrifices
and trust in the LORD.

6 Many are asking, "Who can show us any good?"
Let the light of your face shine upon us, O LORD.

7 You have filled my heart with greater joy
than when their grain and new wine abound.

8 I will lie down and sleep in peace,
for you alone, O LORD,
make me dwell in safety.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
Ah, I see that you have moved on. I never did figure out how to say what I was going to on Psalm 3.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
...I came upon one of my favorite phrases this morning and wanted to ask you all if you knew of any others like it anywhere. It is not the sort of thing one can look up. It is a double word use...

---

quote:

---

1 Give ear to my words, O LORD, consider my sighing.
2 Listen to my cry for help, my King and my God, for to you I pray.

3 In the morning, O LORD, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait in expectation.

4 You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell.
5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong.
6 You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the LORD abhors.

7 But I, by your great mercy, will come into your house; in reverence will I bow down towards your holy temple.

8 Lead me, O LORD, in your righteousness because of my enemies— make straight your way before me.
9 Not a word from their mouth can be trusted; their heart is filled with destruction. Their throat is an open grave; with their tongue they speak deceit.
10 Declare them guilty, O God! Let their intrigues be their downfall. Banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against you.

11 But let all who take refuge in you be glad; let them ever sing for joy. Spread your protection over them, that those who love your name may rejoice in you.
12 For surely, O LORD, you bless the righteous; you surround them with your favour as with a shield.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Is there a middle way between ignoring the unpleasant bits and spiritualizing them away? Are we forever stuck between Marcion and Origen?

---

quote:

---

Eph 6:10-12
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
I am not sure what you see as an Origen-ic spiritualizing away of the text...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Prayer should be honest, including praying the psalms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
I am not sure what you see as an Origen-ic spiritualizing away of the text...

---

Hi Anslem,

It was the "This is a picture of [enter favourite NT spiritual match, e.g., Christ and the Church...]" approach that I was thinking of there. It would be interesting to investigate where the line should be drawn on this approach to the OT. I would want to take the whole OT on its own terms before seeing if it was necessary to apply any figurative layer on top; I guess that is because I tend to see it as some kind of defeat if I have to! In other words, I can't stomach some part of the OT so I duck out by spiritualising it away.

---

quote:

---

I agree that there is a 'NT' view that can be taken -

---

quote:

---

the recognition that there are spiritual forces over (or behind) the material. Certainly it's worth keeping that in mind when reading or praying the likes of Psalm 5. I think my concern is that we lose sight of the material in the fight against the spiritual. Is it 'un-Christian' to pray both?

---

quote:

---

A question which links with...

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Prayer should be honest, including praying the psalms.

---

Yes - I think a nail is smacked on the nut here: for me, I wonder if I am being really honest if I pray Ps. 5 in a way that ignores or 'fixes' the phrases that condemn wicked people.

This may be a western cultural thing, but few Christians that I have met are at ease with passages that direct condemnation at people. If Psalm 5 was directed at "wickedness", rather than "the wicked", I'm sure it would be prayed more often without a feeling of guilt or unease. However, as it stands, it sounds as though I am praying for rebels against God's Kingdom (= sinners) to be excluded (banished) from God's presence forever.

And this, too, has its counterpart in the NT - again focused on people as much as the acts / motivations.

So - if I am honest - I should conclude that the Bible adopts a rigorous stance against individuals who rebel against God.

---

quote:

---

Indeed, I should pray for their downfall.

---

quote:

---

As an associated anecdote to this; during part of the '80s I was a member of a Christian community in Northern Ireland, where prayer for reconciliation, forgiveness and renewal was a core element of activity. It was a constant question on our minds: how far do we go in praying for men of violence to cease their activities? Do we leave it at a general petition for peace? Do we pray that God would intervene in people's minds and hearts? Do we pray that security forces would "arrest" those involved in violence? Or should we pray that violent people should be rejected by God? Nigel

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
If someone is able to link me to Origen’s commentary on Psalm 5, I for one, would be interested. Apparently, he wrote a commentary on the first 25 Psalms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuppaT:
Why do we pray against the wicked? That they may turn around! So absolutely pray against the forces of evil that assault us. Pray also that God would stop the horribly wicked and evil men that we see. But finish your prayer -- that those that rebel against God may repent of their wickedness and rise up and become saints in his kingdom!

---

quote:

---

I know this probably sounds like an inversion of the approach taken in parts of the early church: there interpreters felt that the 'surface' or material sense of a passage was deficient in some way and that there was a deeper, spiritual sense to be acquired. I feeling is that things might have gone too far and that for many Christians the only approach to interpretation is to seek a spiritual meaning – and that this has become the 'surface' level reading. Little or no attempt is made to dig deeper into the text for a canonical reading that includes the meaning 'meant' by the author at the time of writing. The challenge, it seems to me, is to find an approach that is both honest to the OT in its setting and at the same time honest to the NT in its fulfilling. Simple, eh?!

---

quote:

---

What do we do, though, in those situations where specific people act in ways we would consider evil, or wicked, and are acting now in those ways? Where they have not shown any inkling to repent? Where the offer of forgiveness is rebuffed? A NT example, perhaps, is where Paul advised a church to expel someone from the fellowship, or where he takes a church to task for harboring people who were excluded from God's Kingdom. I wonder if a point is reached when it becomes clear that there can be no forgiveness without repentance and where repentance is not forthcoming, then forgiveness can no longer be offered? These tricky questions have been tackled before, I know; it's the role of interpretation in all this that intrigues me.

I know that a proper response from Christians in situations like that would be to at least keep open the hope of reconciliation, even though there is no immediate evidence of a turning around on the part of aggressor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
It was the "This is a picture of [enter favourite NT spiritual match, e.g., Christ and the Church...]" approach that I was thinking of there. It would be interesting to investigate where the line should be drawn on this approach to the OT. I would want to take the whole OT on its own terms before seeing if it was necessary to apply any figurative layer on top; I guess that is because I tend to see it as some kind of defeat if I have to! In other words, I can't stomach some part of the OT so I duck out by spiritualising it away

---

1. Israel is a scaled down model of both fallen humanity and the Kingdom of God
2. Israel is an incubator for God's saviour
3. Israel acts as a catalyst for God's salvation

quote:

---

As an associated anecdote to this; during part of the '80s I was a member of a Christian community in Northern Ireland, where prayer for reconciliation, forgiveness and renewal was a core element of activity. It was a constant question on our minds: how far do we go in praying for men of violence to cease their activities? Do we leave it at a general petition for peace? Do we pray that God would intervene in people's minds and hearts? Do we pray that security forces would "arrest" those involved in violence? Or should we pray that violent people should be rejected by God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
My problem with the example that you gave is not the typological ("spiritualising") approach, but that a lot of preachers I have heard are lazy in the parallels they draw - squashing the OT incident into a preconceived theology without allowing the OT passage to speak with its own nuances, without allowing the OT to inform and shape our NT theology.

---

quote:

---

Psalm 6
O Lord!

Don't rebuke me when you're angry; don't discipline when you're furious!
Be merciful, Lord - I'm fading out; heal me, Lord – my bones are shaking!
I am completely terrified; and you, Lord, how long?
Come back, Lord! Take me away!
Save me! It's your covenant duty!
For no-one remembers you when they're dead; who in a grave will give you thanks?

I'm exhausted with crying.
Every night my bed's like a swimming pool; my tears drench it.
My eyes are worn out by my anger; tired out by my enemies.

Leave me alone, you rebels! The Lord has heard my weeping.
The Lord has heard my appeal; He has granted my application.

Let all my enemies be ashamed; let them be terrified!
Let them be sent away and unexpectedly humiliated!

---

quote:

---

Lord, my God!

I have put my faith in you for protection. So protect me! Rescue me from those who chase me!
If you don't, they will rip me to shreds like a lion; tearing, with no rescue.

Lord, my God!

If I have done this: “my actions are unjust,
I have not protected those faithful to me”;
Then, of course, let my enemy chase and catch me,
Let him crush my life and leave me dishonoured in the dust.

Stand up in anger, Lord! Rise up in your furious rage!
Wake up for me and pass sentence!
The Council of nations is in your court;
Retake your proper position of authority over them!

The Lord judges the nations, so judge me Lord;
I am not guilty; I am blameless, Most High.
May the evil of the guilty fail, but may the innocent be successful,
You who examine hearts and minds, the Just God.

My loyalty is to God, he protects the truly faithful.
God is a just Judge, he pronounces judgments all the day long.
If someone does not admit their guilt, God prepares his weapons, ready to fire.
He sets his deadly sights on his enemy and puts his finger on the trigger.

Look at the person who plans evil! Like a pregnant woman he labours to give birth to evil;
He digs out a trap pit – and then falls into the same pit he dug!
His own mischief rebounds on him; his violence hits his own head.
I will thank Lord for his justice; I will sing about the name of the Most High Lord!

---

quote:

---

Yahweh! Our Lord!
How majestic is your name throughout the earth!

You've made your majesty clear above the skies.
From the mouths of children and babies you have ordained praise;
On account of your adversaries you forced Enemy and Rebel to stop.

When I see your skies, the work of your fingers,
the moon, the stars, that you set in place,
What's a human, that you would bother with them?
Dust-kids, that you would notice them?

Yet, you placed them a little lower than the divine council;
Honour and majesty you granted them.
You appointed them to rule over everything you made;
Everything was placed under their control -
Sheep, cattle, all together;
Wild animals, sky birds, the fish in the sea;
Everything swimming through the currents of the sea.

Yahweh! Our Lord!
How majestic is your name throughout the earth!

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0