Don't Bring God Cows

According to the liturgical calendar, today is the 3rd Sunday of Easter. Yes, there is more than 1 Sunday of Easter. As I have said in the past, while we should be living out the truth of the resurrection every Sunday (after all, Christians moved the Sabbath to Sunday because of the resurrection), Easter can be a time to reflect on how much we actually do live out the resurrection, and if we're not, a time to get us back on track. Clearly, doing so will take more than 1 Sunday or 1 week, so Easter needs to extend beyond 1 Sunday. This 3rd Sunday of Easter, let's take some more time to reflect on what the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus did for us. Today, we're going to look in the most unusual place - the life of King Saul, as found in 1 Samuel.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (ESV)-

14 “When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. 18 “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

Before heading into 1 Samuel, I'd like to take a quick pit stop in Deuteronomy, more specifically, Deuteronomy 17. The first question that arises when examining King Saul is, "Did Yahweh really want Saul to become king?" Before asking that question, however, a better question to ask would be, "Did the Lord want Israel to have a king in the first place?" Well, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 has laws for a king, but your interpretation on why those laws exist all depends on whether you're a Calvinist or Arminian, whether you fall more on the side of predestination or free will. If you're Calvinist or believe in predestination, you believe God did predestine Israel to have kings, best proved by the fact that Yahweh established laws for a king centuries before a king takes the throne. The point of the Judges was to prove why Israel could not establish a theocratic government in which the Lord directly ruled over the people. Simply put, according to the Calvinists, the book of Judges proves why Israel can't have nice things. If you are Arminian or believe in free will, you believe God did want to rule directly over his people in a theocratic government, like in the book of Judges, but he foresaw the people of Israel asking for a king. Therefore, Yahweh got ahead of the people by establishing laws for a king, so he could grant their request in a way that was mutually beneficial to both sides. Simply put, according to the Arminian, it is as if the Lord is saying, "I don't like kings, but I will allow kings, as long as I can put up safeguards." Either way, these laws in Deuteronomy 17 prove that God did not disprove of Saul merely because he was a king. If you were to ask me which side of the debate I fall on, however, I would probably say the Arminian or free will side, for I think the life of Saul would support that side of the argument.

So did Yahweh really want Saul to become a king, especially when David is a man's after God's own heart, whereas Saul had no heart for God? After all, if you do the math, David would have been 18 years old when Samuel anointed Saul king of Israel. Surely the Lord could have Samuel anoint David instead of Saul. The best answer to that question is, again, simply put, to prove to Israel why it can't have nice things. Yahweh picks the first king according to Israel's standards. The fact that 1 Samuel 10:23 mentions that Saul was a head above the average Israelite meant that Saul looked the part of a king - he was tall, dark and handsome. The Lord picks the second king in accordance to his standards. David might be ruddy, as stated in 1 Samuel 16:12, but this ruddy boy becomes the man after God's own heart. Yahweh has to remind even his own prophet Samuel to look beyond the boy David's looks to see the heart of a king, as found in 1 Samuel 16:7. Therefore, I would not say God predestined Saul to fail as king, but rather, God foresaw Saul would fail, so he made it an opportune time to teach the people of Israel a lesson.

Indeed, I do believe Yahweh gave Saul a fair chance to serve both Yahweh and Israel as king, as evident in the book of 1 Samuel. To borrow baseball terms, reading through 1 Samuel, it becomes apparent that the Lord gave Saul 3 strikes before he was out, and each strike came with discipline or a punishment. The first strike resulted in loss of a dynasty, as evident in 1 Samuel 13:8-15. The second strike resulted in loss of kingship, as can be read in 1 Samuel 15. The third strike results in loss of life, as recorded in 1 Samuel 28. Of those 3 passages, I imagine most people are most familiar with 1 Samuel 28, as that chapter is the famous (infamous?) Witch of Endor passage, in which Saul consults a medium. The other 2 passages are less familiar, but they are both important passages for Saul's life, for upon closer examining, they reveal the same truth about Saul. Without further ado, take a closer look at Saul in 1 Samuel 13:8-15 and 1 Samuel 15.

1 Samuel 13:8-15 (ESV)-

8 He waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel. But Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people were scattering from him. 9 So Saul said, “Bring the burnt offering here to me, and the peace offerings.” And he offered the burnt offering. 10 As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came. And Saul went out to meet him and greet him. 11 Samuel said, “What have you done?” And Saul said, “When I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines had mustered at Michmash, 12 I said, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favor of the Lord.’ So I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering.” 13 And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the Lord your God, with which he commanded you. For then the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. 14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.” 15 And Samuel arose and went up from Gilgal. The rest of the people went up after Saul to meet the army; they went up from Gilgal to Gibeah of Benjamin

1 Samuel 15 (ESV)-

1 And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ” 4 So Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to the city of Amalek and lay in wait in the valley. 6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart; go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive and devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction. 10 The word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the Lord all night. 12 And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning. And it was told Samuel, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself and turned and passed on and went down to Gilgal.” 13 And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed be you to the Lord. I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” 14 And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” 15 Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the Lord your God, and the rest we have devoted to destruction.” 16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stop! I will tell you what the Lord said to me this night.” And he said to him, “Speak.” 17 And Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And the Lord sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?” 20 And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord. I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. 21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” 22 And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. 23  For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.” 24 Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may bow before the Lord.” 26 And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.” 27 As Samuel turned to go away, Saul seized the skirt of his robe, and it tore. 28 And Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” 30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the Lord your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul bowed before the Lord. 32 Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully. Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” 33 And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. 34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

In both passages, Saul has received commands from Yahweh, in written in the Law or spoken by the prophet Samuel. In both passages, Saul instead does what is right in his own eyes, and he attempts to justify it. It is as if Saul is saying, "No, God really wants this" or "No, I got something better for God that he'll enjoy more." It's like Saul thinks he know God better than God knows God! In both passages, instead of Saul truly confessing and repenting of his sin, Saul opts for doing penance. In other words, whereas Saul should have said sorry, learned his lesson and stopped his disobedience to the Lord, Saul instead tries to do something good in its place, hoping that the Lord will forget about the sin or no longer care about the sin. In both passages, God punishes Saul's kingship, in hope that the discipline would make Saul learn a lesson, but Saul does not learn his lesson. The message should have been clear to Saul: You can't pay off the Lord!

While the message was not clear to Saul, the message became very clear to David, Israel's next king. David saw the mistakes his predecessor made, and he must have vowed that he would not repeat those mistakes. That's why Saul was the man who had no heart for God, and David became the man after God's own heart. One of those ways was the handling of sin. David was by no means perfect. He too sinned. Where David improved from Saul, however, is he knew what do when he sinned. Whereas Saul would attempt to justify his sin or try to do penance for his sin, David knew what the Lord really wanted him to do when he sinned: confess and repent. Just read about it in Psalm 51:16&17.

Psalm 51:16&17 (ESV)-

16  For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. 17  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

Psalm 51:16&17 is a psalm David wrote after he commited adultery against Bathsheba, murdered Uriah and was confronted by Nathan. David had an affair with Bathsheba, got her pregnant, tried to cover it up with Uriah, and then murdered Uriah when the cover up did not work. If Saul would have committed the same sin, Saul probably would have justified as his right as king, or he would have made sacrifices, hoping the sacrifices would make everything go away. Again, David realizes the mistakes Saul made and decides not to make the same mistakes. Instead of justifying it, or making a sacrifice or a burnt offering, he merely confesses and repents. that's why David ends up the man after God's own heart, despite the sins he committed against Bathsheba and Uriah. David's attitude is again reflected in the previous psalm, Psalm 50. Now Psalm 50 is written by Asaph. While not everybody agree with this, I believe Asaph was David's worship leader for the tabernacle and eventually the temple. Therefore, I imagine David and Asaph shared ideas, such as David learning from Saul's mistakes and not making the same mistakes. The lesson David learned from Saul to not make sacrifices or do penance for sins must have stuck with Asaph, for he has a similar reflection.

Psalm 50:7-11 (ESV)-

7  “Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you. I am God, your God. 8  Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me. 9  I will not accept a bull from your house or goats from your folds. 10  For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. 11  I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine.

Asaph understood why you can't pay off the Lord - because the Lord already owns everything! Since Yahweh created everything, he is the owner of everything in the world, including all the wealth of the world. There is nothing that a human being can give God that God does not have because he made it all. Psalm 50:7-11 not only teaches why it is impossible to pay off the Lord, but it also reminds the reader the reason the sacrificial exists in the first place. Sacrifices were never meant as a penance to sin. The point of offerings were to recognize that there has been a loss on the victim's side (even if that loss is a loss of relationship trust, which would be the case for sins against God), which has brought about pain. Thus, the sinner, by performing the sacrifice, was personally and voluntarily taking on a loss himself or herself, which would bring pain upon sinner. Not only would this voluntarily sacrifice allow the sinner to emphathize with the victim, the pain of loss on the sinner's part would deter the sinner from ever committing the sin again. In short, the point of offerings was to provide a way to show how you were sorry or to show how sorry you were, not to be a way do penance or make up for your sin. Therefore, by doing sacrifices or giving an offering, you are not paying off the Lord, but rather, you are disciplining yourself before God to demonstrate your repentance.

Not only does David reflect on how his predecessor Saul made the mistake of attempting to pay off the Lord, the prophets, both major prophets and minor prophets, make the same reflection in the hopes of communicating to the respective audiences how much Yahweh wants them to stop sinning instead of giving offerings and sacrifices alongside sinning. To start, check out the words of the major prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Isaiah 1:11-17 (ESV)-

11  “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12  “When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? 13  Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. 14  Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. 15  When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. 16  Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17  learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

Jeremiah 7:22-24 (ESV)-

22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

This Jeremiah passage I have to pause to comment on briefly because I myself did not believe. Yes, I fact checked the Lord by briefly skimming over Exodus, and indeed, in the book of Exodus, God does not command anything concerning burnt offering and sacrifices. Yes, in Exodus 10:25, Moses casually mentions to Pharaoh that the people of Israel need their livestock for sacrifices and burnt offering, but this line is more of Moses informing Pharaoh of the purpose of going out into the desert to worship, and it is less of Yahweh commanding the the people of Israel how to perform the sacrifices and burnt offerings. True, Exodus 20:22-26 provides laws on how to build altar, which verse 24 states has the purpose of sacrificing, but in the passage, the Lord never goes into detail how the Israelites are to perform these sacrifices and offerings. God holds that all off until the book of Leviticus. In the book of Exodus, all the laws and instructions center around loving God and loving your neighbor, not performing sacrifices and offerings. Clearly, God holds in preference obedience over sacrifices, as the minor prophets will continue to demonstrate.

Hosea 6:6 (ESV)

6  For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Amos 5:21-24 (ESV)-

21  “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. 22  Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them. 23  Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. 24  But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Micah 6:6-8 (ESV)-

6  “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7  Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8  He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Notice the words of the major prophets and minor prophets sound very similar to what the former prophet Samuel said to King Saul. I would argue that the major prophets and the minor prophets here are purposely alluding to or echoing the former prophet Samuel. When the major and minor prophets prophesied these words, they are thinking about what the former prophet Samuel said to King Saul, and they realized that the people of Israel and Judah are acting no different than their king from antiquity. It is as if the major and minor prophets are prophesying to the people of Israel and Judah, "You should have learned from your former king of old that you can't pay off the Lord!" More specifically to Isaiah, Amos and Micah, notice how these prophets substitute Samuel's words of obeying with justice. On the surface level, I believe that this is God, in his grace and mercy, revealing to Israel and Judah their specific sin, so they know what exactly sin from which they need to confess and repent. It is like Yahweh is crying out the people of Israel and Judah, "I don't need sacrifices and offerings because of your sin of injustice; I just need you to stop the injustice and start the justice!" On a more deeper level, however, the prophecies of Isaiah, Amos and Micah teach why you can't pay off the Lord - a God that can be paid off is an unjust God, for a God that can be paid off favors the rich and shows partiality against the poor. Think about it. If somebody can pay off God and is rich, that somebody can afford to sin. It doesn't matter if the rich person has a wild and crazy night of sinning, as long as he or she makes the correct offerings or sacrifices the next morning, that person is fine, and that person can continue the pattern for all his or her life and end up in heaven. If someone can pay off the Lord, but that someone is poor, he or she doesn't dare to sin because he or she cannot afford to sin. If that poor person does sin, that person will be in debt all his or her life, become even poorer and still worry about going to hell because he or she could not afford to give God the payment for sin. This isn't fair; this isn't just. Nobody should be able to afford to sin; no one should fear to sin because they don't have wealth. Everybody should have access to way to repent from sin and seek forgiveness and reconciliation, despite money, assets or other wealth. That is the just God we worship, not an unjust God that can be paid off. We need to worship God in a way that reflects that. Any attempts to pay off God does not reflect that.

So far, all the Bible passages covered have all come from the Old Testament, so the question that then arises is if the 1st century church of the New Testament ever struggled with this sin of attempting to pay off God. As far as my recollection of the New Testament stands, I cannot think of such of an example. Some may bring up Simon the Magician/Sorcerer in Acts 8:9-24, but he's trying to pay John and Peter for the power of the Holy Spirit, not because of sin. Others might bring up Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, in Acts 5:1-11, but their sin is lying about the amount of money offered to the church, not paying off the church for sin. No, the 1st century church does not seem to struggle with this sin, or even is tempted with the sin. This does not mean, however, the church has been immune from this sin. Going through church history will reveal that the church has struggled with this sin.

In the 900s AD, the church began the practice of indulgences, which is a monetary payment paid to the church for the forgiveness of sins. Some church historians have argued this practice of indulgences began in the 600s AD, but at best, this practice of indulgences indirectly exchanged money for the forgiveness of sins. For example, a person could donate a large sum of money to a charity, and the church would recognize this donation to charity as an act of penance. As another example, a person would go to confessional to confess their sins, the priest would tell them, "You need to pray 50 unique prayers as your act of penance," and it would just so happen that the church is selling a book of prayers. Again, this person would be paying for a book of prayers, not paying the church specifically for the forgiveness of sins. No, it's not until the 900s AD that the church would allow a donation of money directly to the church as an act of penance, but even then, indulgences was just 1 of many ways a person could do penance. It's not until the 1500s that the practice of indulgences became a sin the church struggled with, thanks to Pope Leo X. See, Leo X was born into nobility, so he's next in line to become a king of a kingdom, but he gets stuck with the assignment of pope. That wasn't going to stop Leo X from living like a king. He would not only redecorate the Vatican and the papal palace with the best artwork of the day, he would constantly host parties with kings and other nobility to prove he was one of them. Naturally, doing so racked up a big bill, one that dried up the Vatican's funds, which is hard to do, but Leo X did it. Leo X found the solution to the lack of money problem in pushing the sales of indulgences, so much so that many friars and monks pretty much became indulgences salesmen. Things were going smoothly until Martin Luther appeared on the scene. The sales of indulgences became one of the top targets of his 95 Theses. It's worth looking at some of the theses that do target indulgences, for they drive home the point of all the verses examined in 1 Samuel, the Psalms and the prophetic books. Before doing so, however, one other point is worth mentioning. Most Christians today know that putting money in the church offering plate does not forgive sins or bring about salvation. Even the Roman Catholic Church understands this, as they abolished the sales of indulges in the 1970s! Many Christians, however, still sometimes think that God will forgive their sin, or at least forget their sin or ignore their sin if they do some good work or practice some spiritual discipline. With that in mind, I encourage you, as you're reading these theses, replace the word indulgences with a good work or a spiritual discipline that you or some Christian might think they can do as penance for the forgiveness of a sin or to bring about salvation from sin. Without further ado, take a look at these theses from Martin Luther against indulgences.

41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

The 613 Laws can be summarized in the greatest and second greatest commandment, the greatest being to love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and the second being to love your neighbor as yourself. As Samuel said to Saul, the Lord will always desire obedience to the Law over any offering or any sacrifice. Put it together, and God will always want you to love him and to love others over any offering ans sacrifice. No offering, no sacrifice, no spiritual discipline will ever become more important than loving the Lord God and loving your neighbor.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

Again, reflect back on the words of Isaiah, Amos and Micah. The Lord revealed through these prophets that people of Israel and Judah angered him by thinking they continue acting merciless and unjustly towards other people, especially the poor, if they continued the offerings and sacrifices. Instead, God would have been more satisfied if they turned around from merciless to merciful and from injustice to justice. Again, the Lord God will always prefer bringing justice to injustice over any offering, any sacrifice, or any spiritual discipline. No offering, no sacrifice, no spiritual will ever become more important than justice and mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

No joke - Martin Luther observed people passing poor beggars on their way to pay large sums of money for indulgences. This fact carries a sense of irony, for this practice of receiving indulgences for giving money began as a practice of giving alms to charities, not the church! Those poor beggars needing the money more than the pope, for the poor beggars needed the money to survive, whereas the pope needed the money to continue living in luxury. Once again, this fact calls back to the injustice of which Isaiah, Amos and Micah spoke. The poor and needy should not live in poverty, so the church can become rich. If so, then the church becomes guilty of the injustice of which Isaiah, Amos and Micah spoke. If the church has its bank book balanced, and as long as the church does not spend its money wastefully, any offering to the poor will mean more to the Lord God than tithing to a church. If this fact offends the chuch, and the church still insists tithing has more importance than offerings to the poor and needy (and the charities that focuses on the poor and needy), then the church should dedicate a percentage of their tithes to the poor, the needy, the widow and the orphan.

44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

While the Lord does command tithing and offerings, tithing and offerings do not make anybody a good person. Anyone can give tithes and offering, yet that person can still live in sin. A person becomes less like the old, sinful self and more like new, Christ-like self by loving the Lord God will all his or her heart, soul, mind and strength, loving his or her neighbor like the self. That's the sanctification the Lord God requires of every Christian, not giving money. (For the record, I think the phrase "is merely freed from penalties" is Martin Luther attempting to compromise with the Roman Catholic Church)

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.

Since the first half of this thesis already has the same meaning has thesis number 43, the second half of this thesis will take on the main focus here. If anything, thesis 43 and 45 are two sides of the same coin. Thesis 43 puts it in a positive light. Those who give offerings to the poor and needy instead of buying indulgences please the Lord and make the Lord happy. Thesis 45 puts it in a negative light. Those who buy indulgences instead of giving that money to the poor and needy displease God and make God mad. If anybody thinks that good works or spiritual disciplines make the Lord happy enough to avoid the sin, quite the opposite is true. The wrath of God burns against anyone who use good works or spiritual disciples to cover up sin. Again, Martin Luther points out the irony that those people buying indulgences thought they just bought the Lord's pleasure instead bought God's wrath.

46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.

No joke - Martin Luther observe financially-stable families bring themselves to poverty buying indulgences, not just for themselves but also for their dead relatives (another way Pope Leo X expanded indulgences to get more income to the church)! The Lord had a reason for commanding the Old Testament Israelites to tithe ten percent, and not just because Abraham did so to Melchizedek. Whether rich or poor, anybody giving ten percent will always have ninety percent left to take care of the family. Giving tithes and offerings should never bankrupt a family, as the indulgences that Pope Leo X promoted and Martin Luther rejected did.

47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.

Tithing is mandatory; offerings are optional. Thanks to the New Covenant, the New Testament teaches that there is no tithing; there is only offering. In accordance with 2 Corinthians 8-9, Jesus only commands believers to give generously and give joyfully. Such a command does not excuse Christians from giving if they give neither generously nor joyfully, but rather, the command encourages Christians to develop a heart that desires to giving generously and joyfully. If you want to give money because you feel thankful for what Jesus did on the cross for your sins, that's amazing! If you want to give because you want your heart to match Christ's heart, and you want to work with the Holy Spirit to make yourself less like the old, sinful self and more like the new, Christ-like self, that's awesome! If you want to give money because you want to participate alongside the church in a worth cause that needs financial backing, that's excellent! If want to give money because your heart breaks for those suffering in their poverty, that's fantastic! No one, however, should give because they feel like their Savior demands it from them. As witnessed in Psalm 50, the Messiah already owns all the wealth of the world. He does not need yours.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

For the Roman Catholic reader out there, keep this statement as pope. For the Protestant Christian reader, change pope to pastor. A good pope or a good pastor knows more power exists in prayer rather than in money, and therefore, a good pope or pastor asks for prayer more than money. On the flip side, a bad pope or pastor asks for money more than asking for prayer. Thus, Pope Leo X was a bad pope. If you have a pastor who always seems concerned about the income of church, aside from numbers in the red (unless the church spends excessively), then you have a toxic pastor, and you don't need that kind of negativity in your life.

49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.

Any good work or any spiritual discipline should bring the Christian closer to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not further away from him. The difference may lie in whether the Christian believes that the good work or the spiritual discipline determines whether the Christian has salvation and gets to go to heaven. If the Christian put his or her trust in Jesus Christ for salvation and eternal life, all good works and spiritual disciplines, including the giving of offerings, can be beneficial for spiritual growth. If the Christian thinks that good works and spiritual disciplines, including giving offerings, bring about salvation and eternal life, not a relationship with the Lord Jesus, then that Christian has taken a step back in the faith.

The list could go on and on, as Martin Luther mentions indulgences in 45 of his 95 theses, yet for the sake of time, the list stops here. While worth reading all 95 theses, especially the 45 that cover indulgences, these 9 theses testify to the same points the Scriptures mentioned. You can't pay off the Lord! God will always desire obedience, especially obedience in terms of justice, over any offering or sacrifice.

To conclude the way I introduced this topic, as we reflect back on Easter and the resurrection, I want everybody know that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ paid your debt of sin in full. There's is nothing more that you need to do. You don't need to pay off the Lord for your sin because Jesus already paid his Father with his life. Again, I repeat, Jesus paid it all. With that in mind, if you are a Christian, who believes Jesus paid it all, stop trying to pay off the Lord with your good works. If you're doing good works as a sign of thankfulness for the salvation Jesus has given you, that's amazing! If you're doing good works because you're working with the Holy Spirit to create that clean heart that's less like the old, sinful self and more like the new, Christlike self, that's awesome! If you do good works because you want to see the kingdom of God on earth, that's excellent! If you do good works because your heart breaks for those suffering in their sin, that's fantastic! If you're doing good works, however, hoping the Lord will ignore the sin in your life or to justify the sin in your life, you are attempting to pay off the Lord. Once again, you cannot pay off the Lord! If that's the case, stop doing good works and start confessing and repenting.

Easter has another importance. Easter marks the end of Lent. Many Christians choose to fast for Lent. This teaching should get you reflecting on why you fast during Lent. If you fasted from something during Lent because you realize you've made that something a higher priority in life than the Lord, and you chose to fast from it to put the Lord back in the number 1 spot in your life, you've done your Lent fast correctly. If you fasted from something during Lent because you were going to that thing for something when you really should have been going to God, and you fasted from it to put your dependency back in God, then you did your Lent fast right. If you fasted from something during Lent because you think it impressive God, then you did your Lent fast wrong. What "impresses" the Lord is a repentant heart, not spiritual disciplines.

In closing, for those disappointed that I did not use a New Testament verse, let me throw in 1 New Testament verse-

Matthew 4:17 (ESV)-

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

In the few couple theses of Martin Luther's 95 Theses, Martin Luther cited Matthew 4:17 as the start of the downfall of the church. No, it has nothing to do with what Jesus said, it has everything to do with St. Jerome said. Jerome is the man who translate the Bible into the Latin Vulgate. When Jerome got to Matthew 4:17, he took Jesus's first word μετανοέω (metanoeo), which most English translations accurately translate as "repent," and Jerome translated it as poenitentia, or "do penance." This mistranslation got the ball rolling into a Roman Catholic church that accepted indulgences for a payment of sin, which Martin Luther saw deserving criticism. Still, the truth remains that the kingdom of heaven is not seen at hand when we give offerings, do good works or practice spiritual disciplines. No, the kingdom of heaven is seen at hand when people repent of their sin.

Practicing the Positive Presence of People (Psalm 133)

Some people will erroneously attempt to put Christianity and Islam together, claiming Islam and Christianity are similar or the same religion. While numerous approaches can prove such a belief as completely false, one of those ways involves looking at the five pillars of Islam, the five basic yet mandatory acts required by all Muslims to be part of the Muslim religion. One of these pillars Muslim call the hajj, or “the pilgrimage.” Sometime during their lifetime, all Muslims have the requirement to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, and the “good” Muslims make this trip annually. Christianity has no equivalent on this and for good reason. Christians rightfully believes that our bodies are temples of God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in essence, Christians do not have to go to God because God comes to them. While Christians could not relate at all to Muslims in regard to a pilgrimage, ironically, the ancient Jews could. A few of the Jewish holidays, like Passover and Pentecost, mandated all the Jews report before the Lord, whether at the tabernacle or at the temple. Therefore, the holiday became just as much a pilgrimage. Indeed, the Jews could truly say about these holidays that the journey had just as much importance as the destination.

An examination of Psalm 133 will reveal that the psalmist learned piece of a wisdom from his pilgrimage, which he willingly shares with anyone pursuing wisdom. Therefore, when observing Psalm 133, imagine an ancient Israel making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, like Passover or Pentecost. It will make Psalm 133 clearer.

In ancient times, the book of Psalms consisted of five scrolls or books. Psalm 133 lies within the fifth book or scroll. This fifth book or scroll has a group of psalms nicknamed Songs of Ascents. This group of psalms received its nickname because most, if not all, of the psalms in this section of the scroll were sung by pilgrims ascending Mount Zion to Jerusalem (hence the “Ascent” in “Songs of Ascents”) for those three holidays requiring pilgrimage. Psalm 133 joins Psalms 127 & 128 as one of three wisdom psalms in the fifth scroll commemorating the family unit and society. Indeed, this psalm falls under the category of a wisdom psalm, for this psalm aims more to teach about the Lord and less of adoration towards the Lord. One can see the psalm as an extended proverb, more specifically, an emblematic proverb. Some have even gone as far as suggesting this psalm as possible greeting for distant relatives joining up with the family. The psalm begins with piece a wisdom: the positive experience of dwelling with family. The middle of the psalm utilizes two metaphors which highlight the positivity. The psalm ends with another wise statement to tie together positive impact of family together under God. 

133:1. The psalmist begins by exclaiming “behold” to get the attention of the audience. He wants his audience to observe something carefully. He follows up with the adjectives “good” (טוֹב, tov) and “pleasant” (נָעִים, nāʿîm) , which should not come across as redundant. Each has its own meaning. The adjective “good” (טוֹב, tov) reminds the audience of the creation account in Genesis 1, in which God declares every aspect of his creation as “good.” The family and community are part of God’s good creation. The adjective “pleasant” (נָעִים, nāʿîm) comes from the root נעם, and from this root comes Hebrew words meaning “attractive,” “friendly,” “good,” “joyous” and “lovely.” It constantly pairs with “good” (טוֹב, tov) throughout the Old Testament. Therefore, the two adjectives do not come off as redundant, but rather, as emphasis. These two adjectives together declare something positive as something very positive. Then why not just say “very good” (ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד, tov meod)? When “good” (טוֹב, tov) and “pleasant” (נָעִים, nāʿîm) do distinguish in meaning, “good” (טוֹב, tov)  means positive in an objective way, and “pleasant” (נָעִים, nāʿîm)  means good in a subjective way. Family dwelling together is both objectively and subjectively positive, further cementing the very positive nature of family dwelling together.

In this case, the very positive thing would be brothers, or families, dwelling together. In ancient Israel, nuclear families would live together with their extended family. When sons married, the son would bring his newlywed wife back home to live with in his father’s house until the time of his father’s death, in which the eldest son would inherit the house, and the other sons would move away to build houses of their own. Daughters, when married, would move into their husband’s father’s house. Even when the father died, the oldest son inherited the house and the younger songs moved away, the younger brothers did not move far. Therefore, quite commonly, the family’s neighbors also shared a common ancestor with his neighbors. As seen in the first verse alone, the psalmist seems to praise this practice, both nuclear families continuing to live with extended family and communities consisting of related families. Not only did the people living in community have nationality ties, they also had blood ties. Soon, we will learn they had a third tie: religious ties.

See, keep in mind that, back in ancient times, no one could guarantee safe and secure long-distance travel. Therefore, when the holidays required pilgrimages to far off lands, no one left alone. The whole family unit, and sometimes the whole community, would travel together because traveling in numbers created safety and security. Again, the psalmist seems to praise such a practice because of unity it brings. Not only do these people have nationality ties and blood ties, they have religious ties because they all embark toward Jerusalem for the same cause: to worship the Lord. This imagery of people tied together in three aspects paints a picture of hope that a perfect peaceful unity can happen.

Concluding Psalm 133:1, imagine somebody, like the psalmist, traveling with his family and with his community up to Jerusalem for the holiday. Quite possibly, the stressors that happened in the ancient caravan match the same stressors that could happen in the modern-day Dodge Caravan. Babies crying. Children annoying and teasing one another. Slowing down for the elderly to allow them to catch up with the rest. Unexpected bathroom stops. While the psalmist probably experienced the like, he also observes, however, people helping each other. People protecting one another. People providing for one another. Therefore, he can confidently say, “What a wonderful time traveling with family and with community!”

133:2. The Holy Land had an abundant amount of olive trees, so Israelites learned to utilize olives to their fullest capabilities. One of these uses involved mixing olive oil with scented spices, like calamus, cassia, cinnamon and myrrh, to create a lotion for body care, especially for hair and skin. In a way, it kind of acted as a shampoo to wash hair, and for men, beards. Therefore, when a guest visited a home, the host would follow up the washing of feet by washing with oil. More specifically to this case, anointing oil consecrated the high priest to serve as the high priest. Moses anointing Aaron as the first high priest (see Exodus 29:7 and Leviticus 8:10-12), and every high priest after him followed that law. Therefore, in this case, Aaron represents the high priest. Before the high priest would perform any important ritual on any of these significant holidays, he underwent consecration, including anointing by oil. This anointing in the presence of the people would remind the people that the Lord had established the priesthood as man’s arbiter to God. The consecration of the high priest demonstrated that the people had the utmost respect for God and entering his dwelling place, the temple. On the flip side of that, the priests anointing the high priest with oil represents Yahweh as a good host, taking care of his guest as he enters the house. Thus, the anointing of oil served as a two-fold reminder that the people of Israel dwelled in community with God himself, and they themselves, as a community, dwelled with God.

Twice Psalm 133:2 has the verb “going down” (יָרַד, yārǎḏ) to describe the flow of the oil. The verse ends with the oil reaching literally the “mouth of the robe,” in essence, the collar. If anointed with a healthy heaping of oil, which is probable, the oil would flow down to the breast place of the high priest, which had twelve gemstones representing the twelve tribes of Israel. If the case, connecting the imagery of anointing oil flowing down the high priest to brothers dwelling together makes clearer sense. It paints a picture of God’s blessing flowing down from heaven and touching the entire community, the entire nation.  Do not take for granted the direction of flow for the anointing oil. Obviously gravity will drag the oil down the head, over the face, down the beard and down to the collar. When the psalmist observed this very literal downward movement, he also saw it could have symbolic downward movement. Some have argued for a more social justice downward flow, as in the richer or older brother helping a poorer or younger brother. Other believe in a more spiritual downward, as in God from heaven pouring down blessing on the earth below.

Concluding Psalm 133:2, imagine someone, like the psalmist, has finally arrived in Jerusalem for festival. He or she find himself or herself in a large crowd gathered at the front of the temple to watch the high priest. The opening ceremonies begin the priests consecrating the high priest to begin the rituals and sacrifice, which would include anointing the priest with oil. Now remember, Leviticus 19:27 forbid shaving the corners of the beard. Sometimes priests so afraid of accidently snipping these corners would avoid shaving altogether. Thus, the high priest’s beard could grow quite long, rivaling that or a hippy or a civil war general. Therefore, imagine someone with the longest, most epic beard anointed with oil. The oil gushes down the head and over the face like a waterfall. Each drop of oil clings to every follicle of beard hair, sliding down drop by drop, until it reaches the collar. When the psalmist sees this in the crowd, so many thoughts go through his mind. He sees a priest honored to represent humanity before God, and he sees the Lord as hospitable host. He remembers the abundant blessings of Yahweh, like the abundant oil on the head of the high priest, whether the blessings directly from the Lord or indirectly through his family and through his community.

133:3a. For the second simile to illustrate the positive benefits, the psalmist utilizes dew on Mount Hermon as a simile. In between April and October, Mount Hermon had thick layers of dew, so thick a person wearing socks and shoes would still have wet feet walking through it. Mount Zion, however, usually experienced a dry spell during that same time period. Without a supply of moisture, Judah would experience deadly droughts.  If Mount Zion could somehow gain Mount Hermon’s dew, it would bring relief to Jerusalem. Mount Hermon, however, locates itself about 125 miles north of Mount Zion. Dew normally does not migrate, and even if it could, it would have a long distance to go. Some have proposed that טַל (tal) better translates to “light rain,” which makes slightly more sense. Rain on Mount Hermon would roll down into tributary rivers to the Sea of Galilee, which empties into the Jordan, which, through irrigation, would make its way to Jerusalem. Others suggest, however, that the psalmist sets up a hypothetical scenario to colorfully illustrate relief and refreshment, which seems more probable. Someone might assume the Lord would make his dwelling on a naturally blessed mountain (as some Canaanite associated Mount Hermon as Baal’s home), yet God made Mount Zion his home. Since Yahweh resided on Mount Zion, not Mount Hermon, Jerusalem, in reality, had the real blessing. Again, the Lord’s presence on Mount Zion compares to Mount Hebron’s dew suddenly ending up on Zion during its dry season. It paints a picture of refreshment. The psalmist uses this metaphor to argue brother dwelling in worship together bring the same refreshment and invigoration.

Again, imagine a pilgrim in Jerusalem for one of these Jewish festivals, like the psalmist. Quite possibly, the psalmist pilgrimed during the Judean summer, and in this year, Jerusalem suffers from drought. He feels hot and sweaty, yet he has a hard time securing water to think. He remembers Mount Hermon, whether he lives close to there or he just visited there one time, and he recalls how much dew gathers on the plants. He thinks to himself, “Man, if we could just take the dew on Mount Hermon and put it on Mount Zion, that would bring so much relief from this heat and drought. Then he remembers something, or rather someone, better dwells on Mount Zion: Yahweh. While hot and parched, he remembers he pilgrimed to Jerusalem to celebrate God’s blessing to the Israelites, like God blesses Mount Hermon with dew.

133:3b. From Zion, Yahweh dwelled. From there, the Lord would give blessing his people. The Hebrew noun “blessing” (בְּרָכָה, b^erāḵâ) reminds the audience of what God gave Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (see Gen 12:3 & 32:29) and what God gave the Israelites when wandering in the desert (see Deut 2:7). The people of Israel have rightly communed in their desire for blessing. If the Israelites wanted blessing, it only made sense to go to the place where Yahweh resided.

Once again, imagine a pilgrim, like the psalmist on the long journey back home. Just like the journey up to Jerusalem, the family might have driven him crazy, especially traveling in close proximity. This time, however, the pilgrim sings Psalm 133. That person would have remembered that their family brought pleasantness to their lives. Even if that person couldn’t picture family as good and pleasing at the moment, the metaphors in Psalm 133 would remind them that just like oil is good, and dew on a dry land is good, so family is also good. The closing colon further teaches that tighter than blood relation, the community ties together under their God. As the family ascents toward Jerusalem to celebrate the holidays, they should celebrate the greatest blessing God has given them: their family and their community. God calls his people to come together for three festivals for a reason: to promote unity of family and community. These three holidays reminded those gathered in Jerusalem of the common unity of religion, nationality and blood, and this common unity made them a true community. On the next pilgrimage for a holiday, that person will remember to sing Psalm 133 to prepare his or her mind for worship when the family and the community arrives in Jerusalem.

To review, the psalm begins with piece a wisdom: the positive experience of dwelling with family. The middle of the psalm utilizes two metaphors which highlight the positivity. The psalm ends with another wise statement to tie together positive impact of family together under God. While structurally this forms a chiasm, logically it does not make sense. Typically, the main point falls in the middle of the chiasm, yet here, the middle of the chiasm has similes. Analogies usually support the main point. No way would typical secondary information become the primary information. Quite possibly, the psalmist anticipated that expectation, and he “tricks” the audience. He flips it around so that that outside pieces become the emphasis. The most important of the psalm lies within the outside points, not the inside points. That opening and closing colon, the brothers dwelling together and Yahweh’s blessings become the focal point. Then what does brothers dwelling together have to do with the blessing of Yahweh? They connection has to do with worship. Because the foundation of the psalm lies within that first verse and the last colon in the third verse, and because of the chiastic structure, the brothers dwelling together in one must specifically refer to brothers coming together to worship the Lord.

I have problem with Christians who view themselves as “Christian islands.” These Christians call themselves “non-practicing” Christian or “self-practicing” Christians. According to them, they can sign off on mentally agreeing with the doctrines of Christianity, but they don’t act out their faith, especially in terms of worshipping at a church. “Non-practicing” Christians or “self-practicing” Christians really throw off secular surveys. When secular surveys ask about religion, they mark down a person who says “Christian” as a Christian just because that person said “Christian” with no further qualifications needed. (Christian surveys typically fix this problem by requiring affirming certain beliefs to qualify as Christian.)

See, I understand how Christianity got this point. Earlier in modern church history, some legitimately thought of themselves as good, born-again, saved Christians because they saw in the pew for an hour a week. Pastors had to do a lot of work to teach people that salvation comes by grace, through faith alone, and not by works (Eph 2:8-9), which includes going to church. Unfortunately, the pendulum swung to the other extreme. Some people conclude, “If I can become a saved, born-again Christian by grace through faith, and works does not save, why do works?” which would include going to church. Thus, church attendance dropped.

Psalm 133 reminds Christians of the importance of communal worship. First, God commands it. All the feasts and festivals in the Torah Yahweh mandates. A few of those holidays, like Passover and Pentecost, require the Israelites to assemble before the tabernacle or temple to properly celebrate them. Failing to assemble results in a failure to celebrate appropriately. With all the blessing the Lord gives humanity, from salvation to protection and provisions, God has the right to demand Christians to gather for worship. Second, worshipping in community builds unity. Remember the exegesis of Psalm 133 revealed that the pilgrimage strengthened the bonds of blood times, nationality ties and religious ties. No wonder the New Testament uses the same metaphors to describe the church! The New Testament calls Christians brothers and sisters and Christ to create “blood ties” or “family ties.” The New Testament calls Christians “fellow citizens” (Eph 2:19) of the kingdom of God, creating “national ties.” Christians who do not worship together do not build the religious ties God desires his people to have. Third, Psalm 133 also reveals that God has designated the church, the community of believers, as a blessing to Christians. Yes, part of the purpose of the church should involve blessing Christians. As a matter of fact, sometimes the Lord sends blessing to individual Christians by blessing the community of the church. Christians denying themselves church deny themselves God’s blessing!

These three points I can illustrate the best with a [heated] conversation I had with a Unitarian Universalist. Unitarian Universalists believe in universal salvation, meaning they believe God will ultimately save everybody in the universe in the end. In our [heated] discussion, I contested his claims by asking, “Well, if God will save everybody in the end, why bother becoming a Christian?” His rebuttal went along the lines of, “You sound like you’re selling spiritual fire insurance. Becoming a Christian should have more positive benefits than escaping hell and entering heaven. How about having a loving community to support you through the hardships of this life?” While I still ultimately disagree with universal salvation, this unitarian universalist did make a good point. Christianity should have more positive benefits than just escaping hell bound for heaven. As his example, he named the church as a loving and supporting community. Quite possibly, his example came from his experience. His Unitarian Universalist church loved and supported him. If the Unitarian Universalist church can promote this love and support, Christian churches of all denominations need to both speak of and act out this love and support. Again, Christians communing in worship both promotes unity and blesses the Christian, just like it blesses the Lord.

The Early Church understood the importance of community in celebrating the blessings of God. In the Early Church, Psalm 133 would circulate as one of the Eucharist readings because it brought together people in the family of Christ. Early Church Father St. Augustine used Psalm 133 as a defense of monasteries because monasteries developed brotherhoods that blessed the men who joined them. Do not think that this means the Early Church had the perfect churches, with no inner conflict. Trust me, the Early Church knew how conflicting the church could get. That same Early Church Father Augustine once blatantly put it, “The church is a whore, but she’s my mother.” Augustine knew that sometimes Christian in the church could struggle with sin, but also knew how much the church had taken care of him and blessed him. Christian philosopher and scholar Erasmus once put it more nicely when he said, “I put up with this church, in the hope that one day it will become better, just as it is constrained to put up with me in the hope that I will become better.” If I may paraphrase, Erasmus said, “I put up with the church because the church puts up with me.” People commonly will point out the faults in others, but they rarely will point out the faults in themselves. If Christians could focus less on how the congregation members upset them, frustrate them and disappoint them, and focus more on how they themselves have fallen short and work on that, Christians would more easily see themselves as that blessing of a loving and kind family.

Instead of a closing prayer, listen to this closing worship sons “Hineh Ma Tov (Psalm 133)” by Joshua Aaron. Some people call Joshua Aaron the modern-day Chris Tomlin, most likely to the fact he has translated many of Chris Tomlin’s songs to his native Hebrew tongue. More importantly, Joshua Aaron has put many psalms to music, using a combination of classic Hebrew music and modern Hebrew music because, honestly, discovering the original music may never happen. Indeed, Joshua Aaron has put Psalm 133 to music, and he did an excellent job, for the upbeat music captures the joy of the psalm. May the music also put you in a joyful mood to commune with your fellow believers.

Bibliography

Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 101–150 (Revised). Vol. 21. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002.

DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. “The Songs of the Ascents: Psalms.” The Book of Psalms. Edited by E. J. Young, R. K. Harrison, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014.

Garrett, Duane A. “The Poetic and Wisdom Books.” Holman Concise Bible Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Motyer, J. A. “The Psalms.” Pages 485–583 in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Edited by D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Ross, Allen P. “Psalms.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. Psalms. Vol. 3. The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909.

Living Stones (1 Peter 2:4-8)

In August 2016, the 31^st Summer Olympic games took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. One of the first games to launch the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics was cycling. Early on in the cycling route, one of the struggles the cyclists had to deal with was cobblestones. The cobblestones caused quite the havoc. They were breaking bikes. They made the water bottles fall out of their holders, giving the cyclists additional obstacles to dodge. The cobblestones caused such a hassle that when a stretch of the cobblestone part had pavement, a majority of the cyclist went out of their way to bike on the paved part than to continue on the cobblestone part. The Bible doesn’t talk about cobblestones, but it talks about another stone that starts with a c: the cornerstone. If you’re not on the right side, the cornerstone will cause you trouble, just like bikers on cobblestone, but if you’re on the right side, you’ll find attitudes and behaviors worth imitating.

I invite everyone to turn in their Bibles to 1 Peter. You’ll find 1 Peter near the end of your Bibles. In fact, it’s the 7^th to last book of the Bible. It is an epistle, meaning it’s a letter, and it’s a general epistle, which simply means this epistle is not written by Paul. It’s written by Peter to churches in what they knew back then as northern Asia Minor, but today we know as northern Turkey. Peter was probably a bishop, or overseer, of these churches. To set the scene, a new emperor has come into power, and he’s not too fond of Christians. A new persecution has broken out across the land. Peter provides hope so the Christians in northern Asia Minor can stay strong, and he also gives them instruction how to behave in such a time. Let’s look at 1 Peter 2:4-8.

While I have much to disagree with when it comes to the theology of John Calvin, one thing I do appreciate about his hermeneutics, or the process he interpreted Scripture, is that he always put God first. It’s a hermeneutic I have adopted myself, but I give it an Anabaptist-Mennonite twist. I believe the best application starts with understanding what the passage teaches about Jesus, and then to apply it, I ask myself, “How do I respond to that?” I believe Peter is thinking the same way. Peter wants all who are reading his letter to understand they are living stones. In order to understand what it means to be a living stone, Peter first wants us to understand that Jesus Christ himself was the ultimate living stone. To prove Jesus is the living stone, Peter does not turn to the life of Jesus, but rather the Old Testament. After looking at these 3 proof texts from the Old Testament, you too will believe Jesus is the living stone.

Before we get into any of proof texts, we need to talk about cornerstones, for the cornerstone are found in both texts. The cornerstone typically was a big stone that supported two walls coming together to form an angle. And when I say big, I mean big. Archaeologists found cornerstones of public buildings measuring up to 37 feet long and weighing over one hundred pounds! The whole foundation rested on the cornerstone. The whole building’s strength and stability relied on a strong, durable cornerstone. The building’s structure and design started at its cornerstone, and it worked around the cornerstone. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the 2 proof texts.

This is the Western Wall inside of the tunnels. The Wailing Wall you are familiar with are in the southern part of the Western Wall. This is more of the northern part. This specific part, the lower part of the walk on the picture, is believed to be the cornerstone of Western Wall. It is the biggest stone on the Western Wall. It is 40 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 15 feet deep. It is estimate to weigh 570 tons. Not only in this the biggest stone on the temple mount, but the biggest stone in Israel.

As a proof text that Jesus is indeed the living stone, Peter quotes Isaiah 28:16. I’m going to turn to the actual Isaiah 28:16, for the wording a little bit different. I’m not going into all the details of textual criticism, but let’s just say that Peter is most likely quoting the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which might have paraphrased and abridged this passage. Since our English Bibles looked at the Hebrew manuscripts first, it has the full text, so I’m going to read out of that one. In Isaiah 28, Yahweh, through the prophet Isaiah, pronounces judgment on the nation of Israel in order to warn Judah they could face the same impending doom. Assyria was on its way to conquer Israel, and Judah would be next on the hit list if they too did not turn back to the Lord. Of course, the response God wanted was a response of repentance and obedience. Instead, Judah turns to making alliances, from alliances to the foreign nations to alliances with the foreign gods. Their latest alliance was with a foreign god, the god of the death. The people of Judah believed that their alliance with the god of death would hold off their time with death. Yahweh informs Judah, through the prophet Isaiah, that if anything, by turning to the god of death, they have hurried along their own death. Rather, the Lord God calls on Judah to trust him instead of trusting in foreign nations or foreign gods. The Lord assures Judah that Judah can trust in him because he has laid a stone which will become the cornerstone and foundation. Those who believe in it, God promises, will not be in haste. Whereas the god of death will hasten Judah’s death, the living God, who has the laid the foundational cornerstone will bring salvation and not hasten death.

Now this is the part where I’d like to pause and tell you what the cornerstone is in original context (that is, how the Jews living in Judah during Isaiah’s lifetime would have understood the cornerstone to mean), but to be honest with you, no one knows! Jewish and Christian scholars alike have debate what it means. They have hypothesized the cornerstone refers to the temple, the Law, the covenant, the city of Jerusalem, the nation of Judah, faithful Jews, the Davidic king, or even Yahweh himself, but no hypothesis has brought up enough proof or evidence to stand out as the leading theory. Yet when Peter quotes in 1 Peter 2:6, and Paul quotes it in Romans 9:33, they declare, without batting an eye or breaking a sweat, “This is about the Messiah, Jesus Christ.” Therefore, many Christian scholars have sided, stating this text to be purely messianic, simply because Peter and Paul said so.

When Peter reads Isaiah 28:16 and he quotes it 1 Peter 2:6, Peter only mentions certain parts of the verse because he wants to highlight those certain parts. Peter chooses to focus on the two words used to scribed this stone: chosen (or elect) and precious (or honored). The Greek word for chosen more specifically refers to a specific one chosen out of many because it is special. The Greek word for precious means to be held in high honor. Together, the emphasis is on God’s master plan. God’s master plan always had Jesus chosen as Messiah, and his death and resurrection honors him as precious. God’s actions also differed from that of the Jewish religious leader. Where God chose Jesus and held him in honor as precious, the Jewish religious leaders of the day rejected Jesus and declared him worthless. More on that later. Instead of closing with the believers “not being in haste,” Peter closes with the phrase “will never be put to shame” as the NIV puts it (I prefer the NIV here. The Greek uses a double negative of the word “no,” which in English, best translates to “never”). The Septuagint chose a more generic word for “haste,” kataischunthēi It best translates to the word “shame,” but it could also mean disappointed, dishonored or humiliated. Put it all together, Peter makes a strong theological statement. Never has the cornerstone brought shame, disappointment or humiliation in the past, and the cornerstone will never do so in the future. God has always been victorious in the past, and so he will be in the future. Therefore, the believer will never be disappointed or ashamed for having faith in the cornerstone. The believer has nothing to fear, for security in Jesus is secured.

As another proof text, Peter quotes Psalm 118:22. From a plain reading of the verse alone, the verse already carries a great irony. The word “rejected,” used here to describe the stone, carries this idea that builders saw it and decided it was useless and good for nothing. What a twist of fate that the stone would go on to become the cornerstone, a very important and significant stone.

Let’s talk about Psalm 118:22 in its original context. Psalm 118 is what Bible scholars call a “declarative praise psalm,” meaning that the psalm is praising and thanking God for his rescuing. Both Jewish and Christian tradition states the psalm was written after the Jews returned from exile, and it was written for the first Jewish holiday the Jews could celebrate back in their home land. How fitting that holiday was the Feast of Tabernacles! Not only does the Feast of Tabernacles celebrate God’s provision of a bountiful harvest, but it also celebrates God rescuing Israel from Egypt, pulling them out of wandering in the desert and putting them in a land of their own, where they could go from hunting and gathering to growing crops, from living in tents to living in houses, and from worshipping in a tabernacle to worshipping in a temple. The Jews returning from the exile must have felt the same way. Coming out of Babylon and coming back into Israel, the Jews had many reasons to celebrate God giving them a home of their own. Coming down to Psalm 118:22 specifically, the worship leader (probably a prophet, priest or king/governor) marvels at the Lord’s decision for a people of his own. Of the great nations and empires of the world, the Lord picked the smallest. While so many of those great empires have dismissed Israel as a bunch of useless people wasting a good land (or maybe won’t even recognize them as a sovereign country!), God has made that nation the foundation of history.

When Peter reads Psalm 118:22, he reads it as if the Psalm 118:22 is looking forward to Jesus Christ, what later theologians would call reading it cristocentrically. So when Peter reads Psalm 118:22, he’s not just thinking about Israel in general, but he’s think about a specific part of Israel, specifically the Davidic king. While the foreign nations and empires rejected Israel as a nation in general, they have also rejected its Davidic king, not seeing him as a legitimate ruler. Centuries later, during Peter’s lifetime, even the rejected nation of Israel would reject their own Davidic king, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Instead of the foreign rulers rejecting the Davidic king, now the Jewish religious leaders reject him. Little they know that the man they rejected as useless and good for nothing would become the king of the kingdom of God. On the flip side, we know Jesus ministered to Gentiles: a Syrophoenician woman, a Roman centurion, even some Greeks, just to name a few. Therefore, Peter concludes the issue no longer lies in the nationality of the person, but rather in their faith. In fact, I believe a better translation of the Greek should start out 1 Peter 2:7 by saying, “It is precious to the believer, but to the unbeliever…” Those who believe will find Jesus, as the living stone, as precious. Those who do not believe, the like foreign rulers and the Jewish Sanhedrin, will find themselves in the same judgment.

For a third proof text, Peter goes back to Isaiah, but this time, he goes to Isaiah 8:14. Once again, Peter uses only the part of the verse relevant to him, so let’s read the passage in its original location, and let’s look at it in its original context. Remember that Israel has chosen to side with foreign nations and foreign gods over the true living God. By doing so, they have made themselves enemies of the Lord. So many Jews have done so, even the prophet Isaiah needs a reminder from God himself not to fall into peer pressure and do the same. In Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah describes the Lord using the metaphor of a rock, and he uses it both ways. When a rock or stone come together to make a sanctuary, that sanctuary can become a fortress of protection and security for someone. On the flip side, a rock or stone can also bring harm to a person when used as a weapon or a trap. Those who side with the Lord find themselves protected, while those who side against the Lord find themselves in danger.

Peter links the stone or rock mentioned in Isaiah 8:14 to the cornerstone mentioned in Psalm 118:22. Not only has the stone builders rejected become cornerstone, but it has also become the stumbling stone and the rock of offense. Not only has the Jesus that the religious leaders rejected become the foundation of the faith, the Jewish religious leaders’ disbelief and disobedience towards will be their downfall, just like the Jews disbelief and disobedience in the Old Testament led them to exile in Babylon.

Now it’s time to put our 3 proof texts together. Remember our hermeneutic process. We start by asking “What does this passage teach me about Jesus?” and we end by asking, “How do I respond to that truth?” What did we learn about Jesus from 1 Peter 2:4-8? Overall, we learn that Jesus is chosen and precious, or elect and honored. Yahweh chose/elected Jesus as Messiah and King of the kingdom of God, so Yahweh held Jesus as precious and honored. No shame, disappointment, dishonor or humiliation can fall on Jesus. Even when governors, kings, emperors or rulers reject Jesus, Jesus will always have the victory. All 3 proof texts defend Peter’s position that Jesus Christ is the Living Stone.

How do we respond to this truth that Jesus is the Living Stone? 1 Peter 2:5 makes it clear. If Jesus Christ is the ultimate Living Stone, then if we as Christians believe in Jesus, we too are living stones. We are precious and honored in sight of God. God holds us in high esteem. We too have been chosen and elect. God has big plans for us, better than the best we could have ever imagined. But that means we have to take the good with the bad. Just as Jesus faced rejection as the Living Stone, so we too, as Christians and living stones, must also face rejection, persecution and maybe even martyrdom. But that bad side even had a good side on the flip side. By believing and trusting in Jesus as the Living Stone, we find our protection in Him. The enemies of Jesus, however, will find themselves in harm’s way.

How do we act in response to this truth that we, as Christians, are living stones? Once again, I point you to 1 Peter 2:5. The only active verb in 1 Peter 2:5 is “offer” as in “offer living sacrifices.” How do we live as spiritual sacrifices? The other place that mentions spiritual sacrifices in the New Testament is Romans 12:1, so I suppose we go could there for more instructions, but I believe a more immediate context gives better instructions. Just look up at 1 Peter 2:1. The verse reads, “So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.” Then 1 Peter 2:2 goes on to say, “Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation.” All those words in 1 Peter 2:1 have a negative tone to them, but the word “salvation” in 1 Peter 2:2 associates with the gospel, or the good news. Put it all together. The Christian, as a living stone, offers a spiritual sacrifice by rejecting all evil and other bad things, while growing in the gospel, or good things. 

While a plain reading of the text of 1 Peter 2:4-8 might have realized the same answer as looking deeper into the 3 Old Testament passages, the 3 proof texts give us an extra enlightenment. The Jews, God’s chosen people of the Old Testament, failed to live up to their role as livings stone. Not until Jesus came to this earth did God’s chosen one succeed and to live up that role. Let us, as Christians, not fail God again, but let us live up to that role as living stone.

Is Your Happy Place God's Dwelling Place? (Psalm 84)

Introducing Psalm 84

I wanted to start out with a visual, but I quickly realized that I, in my limited artistic ability, could not create such a visual. So I need you to create your own visual using your imagination. Close your eyes. I want you to go to your happy place. Have you ever been told to go to your happy place? It’s some kind stress reliever to help with anxiety, depression or other kinds of stress. Now that you’re in your happy place, where are you? For some of you, I imagine that you’re in a log cabin, or a ski lodge that looks like a log cabin. You look at window and see the glistening snow softly drop on the snow-capped mountains and hills. You can’t feel the cold, though, because you’re sitting in front of the fireplace, wearing your favorite sweatshirt, wrapped in your favorite blanket, drink coffee, tea, hot cocoa, or whatever your choice hot beverage is. For others, it’s the complete opposite. You’re sitting on the beach of a Caribbean island. You’re reclining in a beach chair, toes buried in the sand. You’re overlooking the sea, so blue that you swear God created with 3,000 Flushes. The warm sun beats down on you, but’s it’s not too hot or too humid. Your beach umbrella gives you shade. A soft, gentle breeze provides cool relief every now and then. And you’re sipping on your cold beverage of choice, and that might just be an iced coffee or iced tea. Perhaps for some of you, your happy place is in the middle of the forest. The only man-made structure you see is the tent you just pitched. You’re sitting on a log, roasting a hot dog or marshmallow over the campfire. Besides the crackling of the campfire, the only sounds you can here are from nature. You look up at the night time sky, and the stars are the brightest you’ve ever seen them. For others, maybe your happy place is quite the opposite. You’re sitting on a park bench in the middle of the city park. You watch the elderly feed the birds and squirrels, you watch the children play on the playground, and you watch the cars just drive on by. On a similar note, when I told you to go to your happy place, you might have found yourself in the food plaza of the mall. You are people watching. Not the judgmental kind, but you’re awestruck and amazed at all the kinds of people God made. They come in all shapes, sizes, colors, characteristics, personalities and traits. And still yet for others, you might be on a boat out in the middle of one of Great Lakes. You recline in your boat, waiting for a fish to tug at your reel.

But let’s get honest and be sincere. When I told you to go your happy place, who find themselves in their church on Sunday morning, worshipping the Lord God? I don’t mean to guilt you, and yet I do. If I would have asked the poet who penned Psalm 84 to go to his happy place, that’s exactly where he would go in his mind. He would be in his place of worship, worshipping.

Explaining Psalm 84

84:0. Most Bibles will some kind of heading before diving into the poetic words. It would seem that the heading provided more information for the original audience, more specifically for the choirmaster or director, but for the modern-day audience it feels like it provides less information and more confusion. The heading says, “According to the gitteth.” The scholar’s best bet is that the gitteth is some kind of tune or instrument, but that’s all we know. Some commentators have suggested the word come from root meaning “winepress,” hinting that the tune might be one familiar around the fall harvest, but that’s more of a guess and less of a hypothesis. The heading also states that this psalm is “of the sons of Korah.” The “of” here more likely means “belonging to” or “performed by,” and less likely means “wrote by.” Even if it did mean that, no one could pinpoint a certain Korahite that wrote. Therefore, the author is unknown, and this commentary will refer to the author as “the psalmist.” On a similar note, no one knows the date the psalm was written. As you imagine, this heavily affects the interpretation. If you believe this psalm was written in the time of David or earlier, the dwelling place refers to the tabernacle. If you believe this psalm was written in the time of Solomon or after, the dwelling place is the temple. Each side has its own reasons, but we really can’t be sure. Both the tabernacle and temple had courtyards. Yes, Psalm 84 does later on use the word Zion, but we have to remember we are dealing with a psalm, which loves using figures of speech. “Zion” could simply be a figure of speech for meeting God. After all, Abraham met with God on Zion. In this commentary, I will simply refer to it as “the dwelling place.”

 

84:1. In the opening verse of Psalm 84, the psalmist blurts out how he admires the beauty of Yahweh’s dwelling place. This will be the theme for the first stanza of Psalm 84. In the opening, the psalmist literally calls Yahweh “the Yahweh of hosts,” as most literal English translations follow. The title for Yahweh hints at this idea that Yahweh has invited the worshipper and is hosting the worshipper.

84:2. Awestruck by the beauty of Yahweh’s dwelling place, the psalmist expresses that his whole self, both the material and immaterial, desires to dwell with Yahweh in his dwelling place. Both the verbs “long” and “faints” demonstrate an intense desire, even to the point the soul exhausts itself to fainting. The phrase “cries out” (one word in Hebrew) better translates into “sing for joy,” as most literal translations do translate it. When coupled with the word “faint,” however, the phrase adds a layer of sorrow. Together, they paint a picture of a worshipper, so overjoyed about dwelling in the presence of the Lord, and when the worshipper does not stand in the Lord’s presence, he or she suffers in pain. Rob Lacey depicts in perfectly in his paraphrased version of the Bible, The Word on the Street, where he writes, “Your place is best, God; I’m gasping for it, almost collapsing for it, God; My skin, my soul, the whole of me screams for more of you, vibrant one.” The synonymous parallelism in verse 2 demonstrates that at the heart of the psalmist longing for the Lord’s dwelling space is the longing for the Lord Himself. Whereas most Psalms, like Psalm 138, focus on the building itself, Psalm 84 focuses on the worshipper meeting God in that place. What the psalmist finds most amazing, awesome and beautiful about God’s dwelling place is that God dwells in it.

 

84:3. The psalmist then appeals to nature, in the form of a synonymous parallelism, as proof to justify his feelings. Both the sparrow and swallows are birds found aplenty in Israel. Here, “altar” is a metonym for Yahweh’s dwelling place. I can imagine that, as the psalmist wrote Psalm 84, he noticed a bird, like a sparrow or swallow make its nest nearby (or even on!) the temple. He must have thought to himself, “Hmm, even that bird knows how important it is to be close to the Lord. Should I not be the same way?” For whatever reason that bird put its nest there, the human can learn a lot from it. Perhaps the bird built its home because it felt safe there. If so, the human can learn he or she lives safely in the presence of the Lord. Maybe the bird nested there because the bird knew all it needed was nearby. In the same way, the human can learn that he or she will have all that he or she needs in the presence of the Lord. The author of Psalm 84 closes out verse 3 by calling Yahweh his king and his God. The audience should not take this as a redundancy. By calling Yahweh King, the author submits to Yahweh’s reign. By calling Yahweh God, the author acknowledges only Yahweh is worthy of worship.

84:4. The psalmist closes out his first stanza with a synthetic parallelism. He concludes that those who stand in the dwelling place of God receive a special blessing by just being there just because God is there. The psalmist goes on to explain that that the natural reaction of such emotions would cause the person standing in the presence of God to praise and worship him. The worshipper praises the Lord because he or she realizes how much privilege he or she has for standing in the presence of the Lord. The people the psalmist refers to in Psalm 84:4 most likely refer specifically to the priests and Levites, but it in general encourages the reader to seek to live in the presence of God just as much as the priests and Levites.

 

84:5. Now the psalmist has expressed his love for Yahweh’s dwelling place, the psalmist moves to describe a pilgrim’s journey getting there. In the second stanza, the psalmist wants to make it clear to his audience that blessing does not solely come from dwelling with Yahweh, but blessing can also come from the journey to Yahweh’s dwelling. Therefore, in the second stanza of Psalm 84, the psalmist describes a pilgrim on a pilgrimage to dwell in Yahweh’s dwelling place. The psalmist opens the stanza with a synthetic parallelism, granting pilgrims a blessing of strength. That blessing of strength cannot come from anyone or anywhere buy the Lord. Only those who had their hearts set on worshipping the Lord in his dwelling place would solely rely and trust on the Lord’s strength and power to get them there.

84:6. The Valley of Baka may have been a place all pilgrims would have taken to the tabernacle or temple. The context clues in verse 6 alone already hint that the Valley of Baca is a dry and arid desert. In Psalm 84:6, the psalmist paints a picture that as the pilgrim marches through the Valley of Baca, springs of water come forth, as well as pools, as a result of early rains, which, in the Hebrew seasons, is early autumn. The psalmist depicts a place going from a dry and arid desert to an oasis full of vegetation. Once again, the psalmist illustrates to the readers that the pilgrim receives such blessings because the Lord is with the pilgrim. Once again, the psalmist makes it abundantly clear that the Lord and his blessings do not have to stay confined to his dwelling place. God can dwell with his people anywhere and bless them, even in places where it may seem blessing cannot happen.

84:7. The first cola of Psalm 84:7 has caused some confusion, as the phrase “go from strength to strength” only appears here in the entire Old Testament. Some commentators have proposed it means they get stronger as time goes by, while other scholars suggest it means they travel from refuge to refuge. The latter seems to make more sense in context, especially in light of Psalm 84:6. Psalm 84:7 explicitly explains what the psalmist is trying to illustrate in Psalm 84:6. The pilgrim relies on bits and pieces of Yahweh’s strength from place to place, until the pilgrim reaches his final destination. Not a single worshipper will fall out of God’s sight or man. The Lord will make sure each and every worshipper appears before God in Zion.

84:8. The psalmist closes out his second stanza, using a synonymous parallelism. The psalmist petitions Yahweh that what he described in Psalm 84:5-8 may be so, that the pilgrim will be rewarded with blessings of provision and safety as he makes his way to Yahweh’ dwelling. The psalmist may also feel led to pray that, now that he or she has made such a journey to worship, God will indeed receive the worship as an acceptable offering.

 84:9. The closing stanza wraps up Psalm 84. First, in verse 9, the psalmist reminds Yahweh of his relationship with His people. That’s why the psalmist can use with confidence the plural possessive pronoun. Yahweh’s shield is our shield because Yahweh and his people are now in covenant.

 

84:10. Second, in verse 10, the psalmist re-iterates his love for the Lord’s dwelling. The psalmist states that a day in the courts of Yahweh is better than a thousand elsewhere. Interesting enough, the Hebrew text does not have the word “elsewhere.” Honestly, most English translations add the word “elsewhere,” with the exception of the King James Version, which leaves it out. Most scholars deem the addition necessary, for without the addition, it would sound like the psalmist says that one day in the Lord’s courts is better than one thousand days in God’s house. Some commentators, however, have suggested the psalmist might have attempted to convey another truth. If given the choice of a one-day life in the Lord’s courts or a thousand-day life outside God’s house, the psalmist would choose the one-day life, knowing he spent it in the presence of Yahweh. Either way, the second bicolon in verse 10 reaffirm the psalmist’s love for the Lord’s dwelling. If given the choice, the worshipper would rather sit at the threshold, or door, at Yahweh’s house than dwell among the tents of the wicked. Being close to the presence of God is better than no presence at all. Being the most humbled at the house of God is better than being the exalted among the wicked. While the wicked may have possessions, God is the source of all those possessions, as so much more. The singers, the Korahites, would have understood this metaphor the best. Their ancestor, Korah dwelled in the house of wicked men, as seen in Numbers 16:26. The Lord truly redeemed them. He pulled them out of that situation and gave them the role of serving as the doorkeeper to the temple (see 1 Chron. 9:19; 26:12–19)

 

84:11,12. Third, the psalmist assures himself that God has heard and answered his prayer, that God will bless those who make a pilgrimage to God’s dwelling place. The psalmist remembers that the Lord, in his very nature, wants to protect and provide. Therefore, the psalmist calls the Lord both a sun and a shield, adding to the title given in verse 9. In fact, this is the only time in the Bible the Lord is directly called a sun. Then the psalmist reminds himself that God delights in giving good things to those who done good things. If in the goodness of a person’s heart that person desires to worship God in his dwelling place, then God will bless that person with what the person needs to get there.

Illustrating Psalm 84

After reading Psalm 84, only 1 question, consisting of 2 simple words, comes to mind: "What happened?" How did we go from Psalm 84, about a person who loves the dwelling place of God so much that when he is away from it, his body and soul are hurting, to today? If you were to ask a lot of pastors today what the biggest sign is that society is becoming more secular and less friendly to Christians is, it's not something that's happening in the government, it's not something that's happening in politics, it would be that more and more children sports games are happening on Sunday mornings. And the worst part is that it's sneaking into the church. Parents will take their children to their sports games, not even blinking an eye, not even pausing to think if skipping church for the sports game is wrong or what the right decision is. It's so bad that pastors can't even feel like they can bring this concern up to their congregation. They're afraid they'll be tagged as judgmental or selfishly greedy about the tithe money or their popularity if they try to convict their congregation that is wrong to skip church for sports games. How did we get to this point?

I've studied church history and I've studied ecclesiology (that is, theology of the church) and through the study of both, I've noticed there's a lot of what I like to call "pendulum swings" in church history and church movements. The importance and significance of church is one of them. Earlier in modern church history, believe it or not, we did believe that going to church was necessary for salvation. Our thinking went somewhere along the lines of this: Real, true, good Christians go to church every Sunday. Therefore, if you do not go to church every Sunday, you're not a real Christian, you're not a true Christian, you're not a good Christian. One of the strengths of this view is that, by golly, it got people to show up for church. Your life depended on it. As you can imagine, though, it also quickly led to some very negative drawbacks. People literally thought that because they were sitting in the church pew for an hour a week, they were born again Christians, saved from hell, on the road to heaven. Heck, you even had non-Christians showing up once a week for an hour of church, just so they could tell their Christian parents that they were going to church, and their Christian parents could believe that they were good, real, true Christians, just because they were attending church. Made it a little less tense at the next family get together. Even if some people did not literally think in their minds that going to church saved you, some people would still subconsciously act like it did. In the season finale of season 3 of the hit sitcom Big Bang Theory, Sheldon Cooper meets his girlfriend Amy Farrah Fowler for the first time. Their first conversation consists of this bit of dialogue-

 

Amy Farrah Fowler: In any case, I'm here because my mother and I have agreed that I will date at least once a year.

Sheldon Cooper: Interesting. My mother and I have the same agreement about church.
Amy Farrah Fowler: I don't object to the concept of a deity, but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.
Sheldon Cooper: Well then, you might want to avoid East Texas.

Well, Amy Farrah Fowler, I, too, am baffled by the notion of a God that takes attendance. But when you believe that going to church is a part of your salvation, you also believe God takes attendance. Then, you start acting like it, some more literally than others. When I was studying my undergrad at Lancaster Bible College, I was required to attend chapel three times a week. To prove that I was actually there in chapel, I had to scan my school ID badge before entering. I had another friend who went to a different Bible college. They too had mandatory chapel three days a week, but unlike Lancaster Bible College, they didn't have the technology to scan in, so they literally had to sign in for chapel. Yeah, obviously church is not like this. I don't have to scan in or sign into church, yet we still sometimes act like it. It's like we expect one day for Jesus to return in bodily form at our church, and the first thing he's going to do is start taking roll call. It's like we expect that when we appear before God, whether that be before the great white throne or the bema seat, we expect God to bring up our church attendance. We fear he may say something along the lines of, "You only came to church about 67% of the time? Geez, you know that 67% is a failing grade in some places. This is really going to hurt your participation points." Once again, this is all a side effect of believing that your salvation is affected by your attendance at church. And it wouldn't surprise me if some Christians today still think or act this way.

So a lot of pastors got the message out that going to church did not make you a born-again Christian, and it did not save you from the fires of hell. They emphasize that each and every person must make a personal committed relationship with Jesus Christ. That's what saved you from your sin, death and hell, and that's what put you on the path to heaven. After salvation, they emphasized a personal devotion time with God, consisting of private Bible reading and private prayer, to live out salvation. This all cause the church pendulum to swing in the opposite direction. The evangelical church has a theological term for this: reductionism. What is reductionism? If you haven't caught on yet, you'll notice what I just described emphasizes individualism: individual salvation, individual relationship with God, individual Bible reading and individual prayer. Reductionism is when the Christian faith is reduced down to these three concepts: individualize salvation through an individual relationship with Jesus, individualized Bible reading and individualized prayer. 

 Now, believe it or not, reductionism does have its strengths. As crazy as this sounds, earlier in church history, you would've been told that you cannot have a meaningful spiritual experience with God outside of church. Reductionism reminded us that you can indeed have a meaningful spiritual experience with God, even if you are alone, even if you're by yourself, even if you're out in the middle of nowhere. We go doubt that Moses had meaningful spiritual experiences with God on Mount Sinai (or Elijah for that matter in 1 Kings 19), nor do we doubt Jesus had meaningful spiritual experiences with God when he went alone to pray to his Father. But as you can imagine, this has some negative drawbacks as well. Think about it. If you individualize everything about the faith, good luck convincing anyone to do anything corporate. Therefore, the evangelical church is having the hardest time convincing people to come to church. If everything about the faith of individualized, and salvation is not dependent on church, then why bother to go? The best thing the evangelical church can do to get people into church is to convince them that the church is a service, not for God, but for you. The church is there to make sure you are spiritually healthy and spiritually fit. Just like you go to the doctor when you're sick, or you go to the mechanic to get your car fixed, the church is there to serve you, so when you get spiritually unhealthy, the church can make you spiritually healthy again, and when you're spiritually broken, the church can spiritually fix you. This view can only do so much. Let's stick with our metaphor of the doctor and the auto mechanic. You've probably been in this position before. You went to your doctor to get in your annual physical. The doctor does some tests. At the end, the doctor says, "Yeah, you're healthy. That'll be $25” (and that's assuming you have good health insurance). Similarly, you didn't do your auto mechanic to get the car inspected. Your mechanic runs a few tests. At the end, the car mechanic reports to you, "Your car is running just fine. That will be $88." In both instances, you're thinking to yourself, "Gee, I could have told them that for cheaper than what they are charging!" Well, that's how a lot of people feel about the church. If they feel like they're spiritually healthy, they see no need to go to a place that will either verify that they are spiritually healthy or disagree with them, telling them their spiritually unhealthy, and all at a price of a 10% tithe!

To sum up reductionism, I would like to quote D.G. Hart, a leader in the evangelical church, who is struggling alongside the evangelical church to decide the importance and significance of the church. D.G. Hart is quoting saying, "If, as the evangelicals believe, the most important aspect of Christianity is a personal friendship with God through private Bible reading and prayer, then who needs the ministry of the church?" And that's exactly what reductionism has done to the church. It’s left everyone questioning, “Why do I need the church?” and it has no answers.

Applying Psalm 84

At this point, I imagine you too have some questions you want answered. You might be wondering, “How can we avoid this pendulum swing? How can we get the pendulum to stop right in the middle, a balance between public, corporate church and private, individualized church, a balance between needing church for salvation and church being an optional, only desired when wanting a spiritual tune-up? What can we do?” Would I sound blasphemous or heretical if I suggested that there is nothing that we can do?

I italicized do because I want to do draw emphasis to that word. When we say we want to do something, we mean we want to act, but I think acting and doing in this case can actually be a roadblock. I assume that many of you reading this have been born again Christians for years. You know what to do. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you're already doing them. Even if you don't know what to do or how to act, there are tons of books and websites out there that will exhaustively list all the spiritual disciplines you can practice and how to practice them. They would do a better job than I could here and now, so anything I attempted would be redundant. Doing and acting also can be a roadblock because not all applications have to involve activity. Application can be passive, just simply be. Of course, the natural question to follow is, “How do you passively just be?” and then my temptation would be to give you a list of dos, which would be counterproductive. Trust me, I know there’s a very thin line between doing and being.

One of my pet peeves is when people start categorizing Bible verses into doctrine verses and application verses. I actually believe all the Bible is application. It's just a matter of how to apply it. That falls into 3 categories. The first category you're most familiar with as application. It is known by the theological term of orthopraxis. This theological term comes from the Greek language. The Greek prefix ortho most literally means “straight,” “upright,” “right,” or “correct,” but it also carries a connotation of “sameness,” “like-minded,” “agreement” and “consensus.” Don’t get me wrong. This does not mean “This is the right truth because we all agree on it.” Rather, it means quite the opposite. It means, “We all need to come a like-minded consensus on this truth because it is the right truth.” Once again, we already see that true Biblical application is just as much about community as it is about truth. The Greek verb praxis means “to do” or “to act” (this is where we get the English word “practice”). Therefore, the goal of orthopraxis is to get everyone to act correctly that is, acting in a godly, Christ-like manner. This is what we think of most often when we think of application, but it’s not the only application. Another application you might think of is orthodoxy. The doxy orthodoxy means “thinking.” Therefore, the goal of orthodoxy is to get everyone to think correctly, that is, thinking in a godly, Christ-like manner. I sometime call this “checking off on your doctrinal statement.” Again, a common application, but there’s still one more. The last application is orthopathy. The goal of orthopathy is to get everyone to feel correctly, that is, feeling in a godly, Christ-like manner. I believe that’s where Psalm 84 falls.

Psalm 84 isn't commanding you to do anything or act in a certain way. As stated above, you're probably already doing enough, and if not, there's plenty of other Bible verses that can teach you what to do. Psalm 84 isn't instructing you to think a certain. Psalm 84 states the truths matter-of-factly, like it's common sense. The purpose of Psalm 84 is to get you to honestly and sincerely ask yourself, “Do I have a heart to dwell in the presence of God just as psalmist in Psalm 84?” If not, then Psalm 84 motivates you to make your heart match the heart of the psalmist in Psalm 84. So does your heart match the psalmist in Psalm 84? Do you have a heart to dwell in the presence of God? Do you desire the presence of God in your life above everything else, so much so that it hurts to be apart from God’s presence? Would you go any distance just to be in God’s dwelling place? I hate to be this blunt, but if you answered no to any of those rhetorical questions, there's something wrong with you.

I know the 2 most common objections that will come up right now, and to be honest, you could target right back at me. The first and foremost object has you thinking along the lines of, “But Graham, some people just have to work on Sunday mornings to stay alive and provide a living for their family. Heck, weren’t you even working a Sunday morning job at one point?” Indeed, I was at one point in my life working every other Sunday just so I could move out of my parents’ home and move closer to my then-fiancée now-wife Carrie. (But to be fair to me, in my defense, my boss told me at my interview that Sunday mornings were voluntary. He failed to inform me that if no one volunteered, I have to work every other Sunday. If I would have known that, I probably wouldn't have taken the job.) So yes, I do understand that some people just have to work on Sunday mornings to stay alive and support their family, I get it. Heck, I would even go as far as to say that if a person worked 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, and that person slept in on Sunday mornings because it is their only day to sleep in, I understand that, too. After all, the Sabbath is to be a day of rest. I could easily accuse those who work of Sunday morning of not having enough faith to trust God to provide a job that doesn't interfere with Sunday morning worship, but a feel that’s a cop-out. What if the Lord did provide that job, in order that the person may in turn provide for his family? What if that person’s act of worship is providing a godly, Christ-like work ethic to his boss (I can relate to that)? Furthermore, I don't like that accusation because I once again feel like that's focusing too much on the do. Psalm 84 brings up questions of feeling. How do you feel about working on Sunday? For me, I hated and dreaded it! I wanted to be at church, not at work. Once the boss dismissed me, I would race to church (I will not mention how much over the speed limit I was going) hoping to catch some church, even if it was the benediction. When I no longer had to work on Sundays, I felt a joy swell up in my heart, not because I had full weekend off now, but because I could now go to church every Sunday morning to worship my Lord and King. If don’t go to church out of necessity, but your heart hates or dislikes it, then your heart is in the right place.

If you don’t go to church out of necessity, but your heart doesn’t mind it, likes it or enjoys it, I might question your heart. I will wonder and be worried that you might end up like one of Bible quizzing friends. When I was a Bible quizzer, I quizzed with this one quizzing girl. This certain girl I came to know as a sister in Christ who was really seeking God. She wanted to know all the spiritual disciplines, and she wanted to practice each and every one of them. She knew all different ways to read the Bible, and she knew all types of prayers. She practiced everything from evangelism and discipline to fasting and retreats of silence and solitude. So many Christians looked up to her for spiritual discernment. Shortly after graduating high school, she started seeking work, so she could move out of her parents’ home. The first job she found was for the local grocery store. They wanted her to work Saturday and Sunday mornings. At first, she was appalled. She had grown up going to church every Sunday as a child. Soon, though, she quickly justified skipping church work, using the extreme sides of the pendulum swing I just mentioned. She told herself that going to church doesn’t bring about salvation, so she was still a born again Christian, even though she did not attend church. She told herself that she could individually practice her faith, through private Bible reading and private prayer. Just before she took this job, we talked about it over Facebook chat. I tried to remind her of the pros and cons, but she seemed set on taking this job. I offered her my prayers, and that’s where the conversation ended. We pretty much stopped communicating after that (which might be just coincidence), but Facebook kept me updated on her, and I started noticing changes. She started smoking. She started drinking. She started cursing. She got a tattoo. Now, she’s a single mother. Now, although she no longer has that Sunday morning job, she no longer attends any church because she doesn’t like any church.

I know we could debate on whether those things I just listed are sins or not, and I’d be more than glad to have a conversation about the purpose of God giving people laws and commands (that’s for another time). What I’m trying to illustrate is that I noticed a girl go from very godly, very spiritual and very counter-cultural, to a girl who is very cultural and very worldly. I don’t want to oversimplify it, but I can only see one common denominator: she ceased going to church. Christians can no longer fool themselves into thinking they can practice the faith alone. We turn into the people around us, in one way or another. I’ll admit that one of the reasons I avoid sin is because I know that if I sin, you might stop listening to me for Biblical insight, and you might be the least judgmental person in the world! As a church, we equip, edify and encourage one another to live out godly, Christian lives. This alone is a good reason why Christians should develop hearts that desire church.

The second objection goes something along the lines of this: “But Graham, the Sabbath isn’t meant solely for worship. It’s also meant to be a day of rest. You yourself even admitted earlier that you understand if a person working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week would want to sleep in on a Sunday morning. Heck, I’ve seen you on Sunday mornings during the fall. You dart out of the church, so you can make the 1 o’clock kickoff of the football game!” Indeed, I did say that I understand a person working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week wanting to sleep in on Sunday mornings. But once again, I ask you, “Where is your heart?” If you are sleeping in on a Sunday morning to get the rest you to be a godly witness to your boss, supervisor and co-workers for the rest of the week, I get it. But if you sleep on Sunday mornings for church, but you get up early on Sunday mornings to leave for your week-long beach vacation or to grab your coffee at Starbucks before you go on a morning, then there’s a heart issue. That’s what Psalm 84 is asking us to do. Psalm 84 encourages us to honestly and sincerely ask ourselves, “Where is my heart?” and to fix it if it needs fixing.

So yes, I will confess that I do want to make the 1 o’clock football kickoff, but I know where my heart is. One time, my wife Carrie offered to buy me tickets to a 1 o’clock Philadelphia Eagles football game. I looked at her sadly and said, “But then I’ll miss church.” One time, my wife Carrie and I were planning to attend Philadelphia Eagles training camp. When I found out the only days left were Sunday mornings, I immediately cancelled those plans because I did not want to miss church. Once, Carrie and I went down to Virginia Beach for the weekend. She asked me what the one thing I wanted to do was. Of course, I told her I wanted to go to church! I can look deep inside my heart and honestly answer that I put church before football. Can you look into your heart and sincerely say that you put church before everything else?

In the commentary Opening Up the Psalms, pastor Roger Ellsworth tells this story: “One of my fellow-pastors had a church member who refused to attend church because he claimed to be unable to sit on a pew for any length of time. But one day this pastor passed by the pool hall and noticed this gentleman sitting there. Three hours later the pastor went by the pool hall again and noticed the man sitting in the same place. The pastor, thinking the pool hall must have had some very comfortable seats, went inside. The only seats he found were old, unpadded church pews!”

I’ve heard it once said, “There is no such thing as ‘busy.’ There are only priorities.” Think about it. When you say, “I’m busy,” you’re really saying, “There is something else of higher priority I must do instead, which will not allow me to do what you just asked.” We should never be busy for God or his dwelling in our lives. God and his dwelling place should be our highest priority.

Concluding Psalm 84

I get. Sometimes the struggle to desire God and his dwelling place is because we don’t have a God that we can visually see or audibly hear. That’s why we can spends hours with family or friends, yet a half hour, even a quarter hour, with God can seem like a struggle. If you do struggle with that, read the book of Revelation. To borrow the words of the Apostle Paul, right now, when we dwell in the presence of God, it is looking into a poor reflection of a dimly lit mirror. One day, though, we will dwell with God, face-to-face. Remember practicing the presence of God is just that. It’s practice for the day when we will walk with God and talk with God side-by-side, right to his face. May that thought fuel the fire of desiring God’s presence in your place of worship.