Unity in Psalm 133

June 17, 2021 at 11:58 am (OT-Psalms)

Psalm 133 is very often quoted or sung in presbytery and general assembly meetings in the PCA and OPC. Rightfully so. It makes unity look very attractive indeed. However, whether the psalm is always rightly understood (in terms of how this unity comes about) may be doubted.

Two images serve to make unity attractive. The proprietary anointing oil coming down on Aaron’s beard, and the dew of Mount Hermon coming down to Zion (quite a ways from Mount Hermon, incidentally!) have one thing in common: both the oil and the dew come down, a fact noted by several commentators. It is not too much of a stretch to see a sort of geographical irony here, in that a psalm of ascent has something coming down.

More theologically, however, something coming down in this manner, particularly the dew of Mount Hermon, points to God’s grace. This unity is not so much an achievement, as it is a gift (see Kidner’s commentary, 134). All too often, unity is preached as law, not as gospel, as something which we achieve with little or no reference to God’s grace at all. Even when we pray for unity, our thoughts often run more along the lines of God’s simple enabling, rather than God’s grace actually accomplishing the unity.

The unity in question is a powerful one. If the dew of Mount Hermon (which is located in the far north of Israel) has repercussions for Zion, in the south, the implications have to do with the north-south tension already in evidence in David’s day. If this is a psalm of David, then the north-south tensions were already a matter for prayer. All the more so later on, when the two kingdoms split, but people still sang this psalm when they went up to Jerusalem for the feasts.

In Christ’s person and work, the potential for a unifying truth in the gospel has become a reality. Paul takes the widest sociological gaps he can think of (race, class, and sex) and claims that the gospel of Jesus Christ transcends those natural barriers. Notice something important about Paul’s claim. It is a unity built on the truth of the gospel, not a unity for unity’s own sake. The latter would be something that has no foundation and is inherently unstable. Contrary to the CWAGA folks (“Can’t We All Get Along?”), the prophets say, “How can two walk together unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3). Truth unifies. It does not divide. Modern Christianity needs to be reminded of this simple fact. Perhaps more unity could actually be achieved if these things could be remembered. Then we would pray for God to do it, to change our hearts towards the truth and towards those with whom we disagree. We need to pray for a unity based on truth.

Leave a Comment

Heaven’s Message to All Us Rebels (Ps 2:4-12)

October 10, 2020 at 4:30 pm (Christology, Jesus, OT-Psalms)

Posted by R. Fowler White

It’s crucial that we in the church see our lives, history, and culture in terms of the conflict between the heavenly city of God and the earthly cities of man. When we turn to Psalm 2, that’s the way, in sum, that David views the world. His lyrics tell us of heaven’s message to all us rebels on earth. In words of warning and pardon in Ps 2:4-12, we’re told to realize what God’s response is to our rebellion and what our duty is to Him.

David gets right to the point in the second stanza of Psalm 2 (2:4-6): God the Father has responded to our revolt with scorn and ridicule, and He has taken measures to counter our rebellion. As Father of the King, He has put His Son, Christ Jesus, on the heavenly throne in heavenly Jerusalem on heavenly Mt Zion. From heaven Christ the Son now reigns as King of kings and Ruler of the nations, and He is commanding rebels everywhere to repent and believe in Him as their only hope of salvation from the wrath to come. We—especially those of us in pulpits and pews—need to recover the too-long-ignored truth of God the Father’s response to our rebellion: He declares, “There is a King. He is King of kings. His name is Jesus. His capital city is heavenly Jerusalem, and everyone must do whatever is right in His eyes.” Note to self: wise up and realize how the Father of the Anointed King has responded to your insurgency.

Not only that: wise up and realize how the Father’s Son Himself, the Anointed King, has responded to your rebellion. David gives us the headline in stanza 3 (Ps 2:7-9). The Son tells us in 2:7 about the proclamation that His Father published about Him. It reads, Today I have begotten You. The Father looks on His resurrected Son Jesus and declares: “By resurrection, I have made You ‘the Firstborn from the Dead.’” And there’s more. In 2:8-9 the ascended Son tells us about the promises made to Him by His Father. Those promises include victory over His enemies, the nations as His inheritance, the ends of the earth as His possession. As others have said, there is not one inch of this world on which His Royal Highness Jesus doesn’t look out and declare, “Mine!” The present days of salvation and grace will give way to the day of judgment and justice, and then all of us rebels will give an account to God’s Anointed King. Until He comes again, we do well to remember: “the Lord neither negotiates with rebels, nor adjusts himself to suit their demands, but simply reaffirms his royal plan: His king is installed and that is the end of the matter.”[i] Another note to self: wise up and realize how Jesus, the Anointed King Himself, has responded to your rebellion.

One more thing, and it’s big too: wise up and do your duty to God and His King as described in stanza 4 (Ps 2:10-12). His demands are simple and direct. To us, to our fellow citizens, and to our government officials in all branches at all levels, He says, “Wise up! Stop your foolishness! Show discernment! Take all necessary precautions! Open the Bible and believe the gospel of Christ; obey the commandments of Christ. Worship the LORD, the God of heaven and earth. Rejoice with trembling. Pay homage to the Son. Repent of your rebellion. Find refuge in God’s Anointed King, Jesus. To the ruling class and the ruled classes, Christ Jesus, the Son of the Father, is both just and merciful. He is just in that He rewards and punishes according to His law. He is merciful in that He pardons all who forsake their sins and take refuge in Him alone. Heed these words of warning and pardon!”

The faithless want to live life not on God’s terms, but on their own terms, in pursuit of rights, privileges, and “cancel culture.” It’s crucial that we in the church see our lives, history, and culture in terms of the conflict between heaven and earth. So, are you in the ruled classes? Are you in the ruling class? David reminds every one of us: on the authority of God’s written word, heed His warnings of wrath, embrace His promises of pardon. Wise up, repent, and take refuge in God’s Anointed King, Jesus, the Lord!

[i] D. A. Carson et al., eds., New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 489.

1 Comment

Hey, Horde of Reckless Fools: Wise Up! (Ps 2:1-3)

October 7, 2020 at 4:30 pm (Christology, Jesus, OT-Psalms)

Posted by R. Fowler White

Until recently we liked to believe that a majority (silent or outspoken) in Western culture still lived off the capital they borrowed from the historic Christian faith (or at least from the Judeo-Christian tradition). But that belief is now all but demolished. Most of the faithless want to live life on their own terms, not on terms borrowed from natural revelation, much less from special revelation. The social influencers among us have us thinking that they’re just promoting rights and privileges, when they’re actually remaking our world, step by step, as a pagan earthly knockoff of the heavenly city of God (bereft of common grace, of course). With an agenda so shameless, it’s crucial that we in the church see our lives, history, and culture in full awareness of the conflict between heaven and earth. And that is just what we find when we turn to Psalm 2. Here David sings of the faithless in conflict with our God and His Christ. And in the lyrics of his song, David tells us of heaven’s agenda that we all, faithful and faithless, need to heed: words of warning and pardon, simple and direct. David starts off in Ps 2:1-3 with a warning to us: wise up and confess our rebellion against God and His Christ.

David is flabbergasted and incensed at our rebellion against the government of the God of the Bible and His Anointed King. He says we’re in a rage, an uproar, staging a revolt. And this uprising, David would have us know, is all in vain. Rejecting what God reveals of His moral will in nature, in conscience, in His law, and in Scripture as a whole is simply reckless. Rejecting the gospel of Christ and His commandments is just foolish. It’s either God’s government or man’s government. Choose life with God—or die.

When we reject God’s government or see others doing the same, what are we to think? Are we human beings not obligated to honor what God calls good and to reject what He calls evil? Is God’s gospel of forgiveness and justification good? Is His law of love good? Or are they “hate speech”? “A dog whistle for bigots”? Do we recognize all this for what it is? Friends, David would have us understand that when members of a society don’t share the moral vision of God and His King, that society is a mob of insurgents against divine government. That insurgency appears not just in others, in our fellow citizens, or in our government officials, but in us, in our families, in our pulpits and pews. We’re all by nature rebels against the Lord and against His Christ. So we all should bear in mind this truth from the first stanza of Psalm 2: if we throw off the government of God and His Anointed King, we’re just a horde of reckless fools whose revolt is sure to fail. Isn’t it time you and I, along with our fellow citizens, wise up and repent of our rebellion against God and His Christ?

Leave a Comment

An Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody

June 20, 2017 at 10:19 am (Music, OT-Psalms, Trinity, Worship)

Let it be known at the beginning of this post that I love the Psalms, and that I believe the Psalms should be sung in worship frequently, just not exclusively. I heard this argument recently from a new friend of mine in the OPC, by name, the Rev. Brett Mahlen. He used to be EP himself, and so he knows the position from inside, as it were. The argument goes like this: the way most EP proponents phrase the matter is that we can only sing in worship words that are inspired, and that the Bible commands us only to sing the Psalms (usually they interpret Colossians 3:16 to refer to the Septuagintal division of the Psalter into psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs). The argument from my friend addresses the first half of the statement. If we may only sing inspired words, then we cannot sing in English, since the translation into English is not itself inspired; only the autographs are inspired. If we then say that the English translation (into meter, which involves considerable paraphrasing!) is inspired, then we are undermining our doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. English metrical Psalms, as beautiful as they can be (and most worthy of being sung, I might add!), are not inspired Scripture.

Furthermore (and this is now my addition to the argument), by saying that only the very words of the Psalter may be sung, proponents of EP commit a word-concept fallacy. To remind ourselves, the word-concept fallacy is an error in logic that happens when people believe that words are the same thing as ideas, whereas the truth of the matter is that we use words to express ideas, even though those ideas could be expressed with different words. To flesh it out a bit more, an idea can be present even though a specific word is not used. Similarly, just because a specific word is present does not mean that the idea is also present. In this case, the word-concept fallacy is committed by saying that what is meant in the Psalter can only be obtained by singing the very words themselves. Then the error is compounded by saying that the English metrical Psalters can fit the bill of singing the ipsissima verba (the very words) of Scripture. Ironically, in other places in their Reformed theology, EP proponents would not commit this fallacy. For instance, Reformed EP proponents all (as far as I know) hold that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, even though the word “Trinity” nowhere occurs in the Bible. They recognize that the concept of the Trinity is very much present (even obviously so!), and yet the word “Trinity” is not present. The word “Trinity” is our shorthand to express the fact that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there is only one God. So there is not a consistency here with EP proponents: they say that we may only sing the very words of the Psalter, and yet they advocate English metrical Psalters to accomplish this, which English Psalters are not the very words of the inspired Psalms.

To push the point a little further, we may remember that several commentators on the Psalms have said that the Psalter is a mini-Bible. My description of the Psalter would be that it is an emotional commentary on all of Scripture, mostly in the form of prayers. The Psalter thus extends its influence on all the rest of Scripture in one way or another. If this is so, then it is by no means unreasonable to assert that any hymn that is biblical in content reflects the teaching of the Psalter.

Of course, no case whatsoever can be made for a position that says we must all learn Hebrew so that we will sing the Psalter in the original language. That would again commit the word-concept fallacy. The content of Scripture can be translated into other languages, and it is the content of Scripture that we want available to us. Translation of Scripture is implied in the Great Commission of Matthew 28, among other places.

So the EP proponent, if he admits the force of this argument, might respond by saying, “Well, as long as we have the content of the Psalter, then we are good.” However, once one has gotten over the hump of the word-concept fallacy, the whole game is given away, because of what I wrote two paragraphs ago. It seems to me that the claim that we must only sing the inspired Psalms is an essential linch-pin in the EP argument. Without it, the whole thing collapses to the ground. The EP proponents singing metrical Psalms in English are not singing the inspired Psalms, because they are not singing the original Hebrew.

My position is that we must sing only what is biblical. But by the term “biblical” I mean what is biblical in content. We do not need to sing only the very words of Scripture. Otherwise we would have to sing in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. We need to sing the content of Scripture. There is a continuum, therefore, of “biblicalness” when it comes to what we sing. Some can only marginally be called Scriptural. Songs like “In the Garden” have content that can be argued as being anti-biblical (really, an experience that none other has ever known? Are you the recipient of direct divine revelation or something? What kind of walking and talking with me is the song singing about?). We should aim, therefore, to ask the right question: is this hymn biblical in its content?

55 Comments

Psalm 2 Prayer

June 4, 2017 at 12:18 pm (OT-Psalms, Prayer)

Our one true and only king, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not only do we desire to worship you, but we also desire to submit to you. We both lament the fact and are righteously angry that the nations to do not desire to submit to you. How dare the nations rise up in anger against you! How dare they conspire against the Lord, thinking that they can throw off the bonds of your sovereignty! How dare they use the intellect you gave them and resources that you gave them to rebel against you! How dare they seek to dethrone Jesus Christ, whose throne is utterly secure, beyond the reach of any who oppose you!

We know, Father, that such attempts, while offensive to us, are simply ridiculous to you. To you it must seem like these pitiful ants are crawling around on the ground seeking a way to bring down an elephant. And yet, you have also said that your mere words will be enough to put them in their place. For you have established your Son as King on Zion, high and exalted. You crowned Him with glory and honor, and have made all the nations his inheritance, the entire earth his possession.

These brittle nations who oppose you, you will break with a rod of iron, like a piece of pottery. Father, give us the words to say to these nations and rulers. Help us to advise them to be wise, such that they would serve you all their days, that they would fear you, instead of being arrogant; that they would rejoice in your name and your righteousness, and your kingdom. Father, may we all kiss your Son Jesus, submitting to him with deepest reverence, for we know that we want to avoid your wrath, and instead find in you the most blessed refuge for us.

Leave a Comment

Psalm 1 Prayer

May 28, 2017 at 6:24 pm (OT-Psalms, Prayer, Worship)

I have taken to praying the Psalms in corporate worship, and what I am doing is making the wording corporate, interpreting the Psalm christologically, and seeking to make the Psalm ours. This is my effort at praying Psalm 1:

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you have revealed to us that we are blessed if we do not walk in the council of the wicked, stand in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of the scoffer. Make us instead to delight in your law, that we might meditate on it day and night. Make us to be like trees planted by streams of water, yielding their fruit in their season, never withering, gaining an internal, invisible nourishment so that, in anything that we do for you and for your kingdom, we will prosper. Make us not like the wicked, who have so little weight that the wind can drive them away. Though we feel alone in this, though we see and feel the pressures against righteousness by the world outside, we know, Father, that the whole congregation of the righteous will stand with us. Above all, you stand with us, for you know our path, the end from the beginning. You know that path of wisdom, and you delight to show it to us. You also illuminate for us the path of the wicked, and you show us its end. We praise you that Jesus walked not in the counsel of the wicked, nor did he stand in the way of sinners, nor ever sit in the seat of scoffers. We praise you that He delighted to do your will, that He delighted in your law, that He always meditated on it, that He therefore has become for us the life-giving vine who nourishes our faith always.

7 Comments

God at Your Right Hand

March 18, 2016 at 11:45 am (OT-Psalms, Sanctification)

Psalm 16:8 has always been comforting to me. However, it just became even more so when I understood the imagery involved. One commentator has explained that this is military imagery. To be at someone’s right hand infers that the shield a soldier holds is in his left hand. He holds the sword with his right. This means that he is vulnerable to attack on his right side. However, if you have a good partner at your right hand, his shield (held in his left hand) can protect you from attacks coming from that direction. In other words, the Psalmist is saying that God protects you in those very places where you are most vulnerable to attack. This is immensely comforting to me, and should be comforting to all Christians.

This is especially relevant in terms of those sins that are habitual in us, to which we are most prone to fall. We need to stop thinking of God as adversarial to us in this struggle, and start thinking of Him as our greatest (and first!) resource to fight the sin. He is at our right hand. I know that I have had trouble thinking the wrong way about God in these kinds of situations. I am tempted to think of God only as accusatory, or disappointed. Now, God our Father does not like our sin, and He wants it gone from us. And he can be a stern Father, allowing us to face the consequences of our sins for our good through discipline. However, there is more to the situation than that. After all, there must be a reason why these sins are not completely conquered at conversion. There must be a reason why God does not wave a magic wand and all our sin is gone. There are so many layers to our self-reliance that God strips away throughout our Christian lives. A realization that all power to conquer sin comes from God is the goal here. Until we stop thinking of God as a last resort, we will still fall prey habitually to those sins. It is only when we run first to Jesus at the first sign of temptation that we can make any progress in fighting these sins. Run first to your Shield-Mate. When we run away from Him, our entire right side is exposed to the attacks of Satan. It is not wise, but it is all too often what we do.

3 Comments

A Friendly Intro to Biblical Theology, Take Three

November 21, 2014 at 6:02 pm (Acts, Bible, Biblical Theology, Ephesians, Instructing the Body, Jesus, Mark, Matthew, New Testament, Old Testament, OT-Genesis, OT-Isaiah, OT-Pentateuch, OT-Psalms, Women)
Tags:

(Posted by Paige)

Here is a link to a 30-minute talk that I gave at a Bible study conference this October. It’s another introduction to redemptive history, this time tracing the theme of God’s inclusion of the Gentiles through the Old and New Testaments. I also play around with a connection between the Syrophoenician woman and Paul’s words about the “mystery” of Gentile inclusion in Ephesians 3. It’s on YouTube this time NOT because it’s a video of me speaking, but because I made slides to illustrate the audio. Please listen if you like, and pass the link on to others who might benefit, especially those who are just getting to know the Word.

Soli Deo Gloria!

2 Comments

2k – 2nd Table Only – Another Biblical Argument

February 22, 2011 at 6:13 pm (2 Kingdom, Hebrews, OT-Psalms, Ph-Government, Ph-Politics, Romans, Uncategorized)
Tags:

(Reed DePace)

In a previous thread I presented a biblically based argument for the 2K proposition: in the new covenant era the civil magistrate’s duties are limited to the 2nd Table of the Ten Commandments (from honor to parents to no coveting of neighbor’s possessions). A number sought to challenge that argument by referencing Psalm 2, verses 10-12 in particular.

Some prayerful reflection on that passage led to a few observations, which when taken together, I believe present another biblically based argument in support of this Reformed 2K proposition. While you’re reading Psalm 2, go ahead and read Rom. 13:1-5 and also Heb. 13:17.

To begin, let’s note the context of Psalm 2:10-12. For the sake of the discussion here, let’s ignore the initial audience, the pagan civil magistrate under the Old Covenant era. (Although there appears to be an additional huge supporting biblical argument from reflections in that direction – maybe later).

Surely, given the reference in v. 6 (Zion) in part in view in Psalm 2 is Christ’s rule over His Church (2K terminology: the Sacred Kingdom). Yet it is also clear that the primary focus of the Psalm is Christ’s rule over the pagan nations of the world (2K terminology: the Secular Kingdom). In this context, the commands in Ps. 2:10-12 can only be understood as a direct command applicable to the pagan civil magistrates in the New Covenant era.

At the very least, it is a command for these civil magistrates to recognize from Whom they have their authority, and thus to Whom they are accountable for its use. Even more we could say the Psalm promise judgment to these civil magistrates for the failure to rightly use their God-given authority. Jesus is the Great King Who will demand an accounting of the civil reigning “in his name” as it were.

So now imagine the pagan civil magistrate who hears this warning? What’s the first question he is going to ask? “O.k., how do I rightly use this authority?” In the New Covenant era, the passage that best answers that question is Rom. 13:1-5. Here we see Psalm 2’s divine ordination of civil authority picked up and explained in practical terms. Again, tracking with the previous thread’s arguments, at the very least the civil magistrate would conclude he is responsible to use his authority with reference to 2nd Table issues, those dealing with man’s relationship with man.

But what about the 1st Table issues? Where in the New Covenant might I find insight into whether or not the civil magistrate’s authority includes these issues, man’s interaction with God? Hmm …

Turn to Heb. 13:17 and notice the some interesting comparisons and contrasts with Rom. 13:1-5. In both there is mention of a God-ordained authority. In both there is the notion of accountability for the exercise of that authority. Yet there are two critical differences between these passages. In the Hebrews passage, the ordained authority is the elders of the Church, not the civil magistrate. Further it is an authority that involves 1st Table matters, man’s relationship with God.

The parallels are pretty clear: both passages have in view the authority of the Great King Jesus, delegated to an ordained human authority, who will be held accountable for his use of that authority.

The differences are pretty clear as well: 2nd Table authority is delegated to the civil magistrate, and 1st Table authority is delegated to the church elder.

To be sure, these aren’t the only considerations for the authority of the church via its elders (i.e., they do exercise 2nd Table authority, but only spiritually, not materially). Nevertheless, the parallel/contrast does support the 2K argument that the civil magistrate is given authority only over 2nd Table issues.

I’m drawn to the hermeneutical principle that the unclear in Scripture is to be understood in light of the clear. This particularly applies from OT to NT. Psalm 2 is best understood in light of NT passages that inform its subject matter, such as the two here. This comparison/contrast between Rom 13:1-5 and Heb 13:17, coupled with the contextual considerations outlined in the previous thread, given me strong reason to believe the 2K proposition is right here: 2nd Table only for the civil magistrate.

(Reed DePace)

19 Comments

Psalms and Prophets, part 2

July 9, 2007 at 11:36 am (Federal Vision, Heresy, OT-Psalms)

Leithart next looks at Psalm 35. his main point here seems to be that, since the language of courtroom and battlefield are so mixed here, that therefore forensic language “is not always strictly tied to ‘forensic’ situations” (p. 219). However, he only cites verses 2-3 as evidence of a military setting. But this is no different from what we might say today, “I fought a courtroom battle today.” The question here is this: how is the language metaphorical? Which set of metaphors is more basic/more prevalent? I believe that the clear answer with regard to Psalm 35 is that the courtroom language is far more prevalent and controlling than the military language. Therefore, the military language is metaphorical of the courtroom. First of all, the Psalm starts with the courtroom imagery, as Leithart notes (p. 218). But surely, the idea that “coutroom language emerges now and then throughout the Psalm” is an understatement. Witness (!) the following data: “put to shame” (vs. 4); “malicious witnesses” (vs. 11); “look on” (vs. 17); “you have seen” (calls on God as witness, vs. 22); all of verses 23-26 are clearly determined by courtroom language, with such words as “vindication,” “righteousness,” “shame,” and “dishonor” occuring regularly. Through and through, this Psalm is riddled with courtroom imagery. It is certainly the most prominent set of images. Leithart’s argument here makes me feel that he is trying to jumble up all the metaphors so that everything describes one act. The language does not force that to be the case.

Two other things must therefore be argued: firstly, the other metaphors do not have to be interpreted in such a way that the courtroom imagery has to include the others within its own conceptual framework. Again, Leithart has not proven his point here by excluding all the alternatives. Even if his claim were true that the imagery was so mixed, that would not justify (!) us in saying that the metaphors have to be all jumbled together. For instance, an unfavorable verdict for David’s accusers results in deliverance from them. The text nowhere forces us to say that they are the same act. The one can be the perfectly logical and ordinary result of the other. This leads us to the second point: being vindicated in a courtroom results in dignity and honor commensurate with the confirmed status of being innocent. This is not the same thing as being delivered from sin. It is the same as being delivered from guilt. So, here, to a certain extent, I can use Leithart’s term “deliverdict,” as long as it is understood of deliverance from guilt, and not deliverance from power or presence.

7 Comments

« Older entries