Theology for the Masses

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Most scholars agree that the 24^th Psalm, despite its ambiguous compositional history, was employed in processional ceremonies pertaining to the return of the Ark to Jerusalem.[1] The antiphonal aspects of the Psalm, composing of two-thirds of its content, suggest a dramatic, liturgical movement between the priests within the city gates and those who bore the Ark back into the city.[2]

Traditionally, scholars thought the psalm originated in the initial relocation of the Ark from the residence of Obed-edom to Jerusalem by King David (2 Sam. 6:12). This association most likely accounts for the ascription, “A Psalm of David” (rAmðz>miñ dwI©d”l.), and while the psalm may have ancestry in that event and the early monarchy,[3] the ascription must nevertheless be questioned. The most likely explanation of authorship and composition is exilic or pre-exilic[4] monarchial priests.[5]

With that background in place, the remainder of these posts will concern themselves with working from within the text itself, beginning with a brief sketch of the structure of the psalm and concluding with a lengthier set of comments on the noteworthy features. The persistent premise throughout is that the proclamation pertaining to Yahweh’s acts in creation are the controlling thought for the entire psalm. The moral requirements and the kingship metaphor and inseparably linked to the idea of Yahweh’s defeat of the forces of chaos in creation.

STRUCTURE

The structure of the 24^th Psalm is straightforward, splitting into three distinct elements: First, verses 1-2 herald Yahweh’s sovereign ownership of all creation. Second, verses 3-6 reveal the moral requirements of those who aspire to admission into the “holy place.” Finally, verses 7-10 are a declaration of the identity of the “King of Glory” as “Yahweh Sabaoth.”

While the structure of the psalm is easy enough to examine, the thematic intention of its arrangement is the crux of the interpretive process.[6] Most scholars suggest the central subject matter of the psalm is Yahweh’s kingship, secured in the first section by His subdual of the forces of chaos, strengthened in the second section by the maintenance of His moral requirements, and finally in the overt announcement of his kingship in the third section.

The principal theme, connected of course with Yahweh’s kingship, is Yahweh as creator. This theme substantiates the kingship metaphor, not the other way around. Thus Yahweh’s creative activities have exegetical priority in that all that follows should be read though that lens. This is supported, most specifically, in the first two verses, which, as I will argue, form a general assertion which gets particularized throughout the entirety of the psalm.

---

[1] One of the key indicators suggesting the connection between this psalm and the Ark is the divine title “Yahweh Sabaoth.” This was a popular designation when referring to Yahweh’s warrior-like actions, which were often associated with the presence of Ark of the Covenant during battle.

[2] Related to this, it has been suggested that this Psalm was a hymn used during the procession whereby the two voices the antiphonal liturgy are actually two choirs of alternating singers. Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50. The Anchor Bible: Vol. 16. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 151.

[3] Anchoring the psalm in the early monarchy helps explain the otherwise unknown title “King of Glory” in vs. 7-10. Even if the psalm is not in its final compositional stage in the early monarchy, it seems clear enough that aspects of it go back that far. The priests in the early monarchy would have easily linked the rise of the monarchy with Yahweh’s kingship.

[4] Furthermore, a pre-exilic dating is indicated by the fact that the employment of antiphonal liturgical movements in this Psalm are well attested to long before the Exile and are imitated by both the prophets Micah and Hosea. Hermann Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), 318.

[5] Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. 1, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 196. Eichrodt also suggests the psalm is related to the royal festivals on Zion where by there was a “visitation of the people by their God.”  The purpose was not to re-enthrone Yahweh, but to reaffirm Yahweh’s election of Zion and the establishment of Israel’s king (127).

[6] Gerald H. Wilson, Psalms. Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 446.

When was the last time you describe your relationship with God as a "personal" one?

A recent article I read last week pointed out that when it comes to a personal relationship with Jesus:

As far as the Bible is concerned, this doctrine is simply made up by evangelical Christian theologians.

The article seems to be a response to something Rick Warren wrote.  The author then goes on to debunk the doctrine by quoting some Bible verses (I don’t know if the author is quoting Rick Warren or making his own apologia).  In any case,  the verses used are totally not something I would have thought of using and I don’t know how one would use them to defend the idea of a personal relationship with God. 

John 15: 1-13 | John 10:1-16 | Revelation 3:20 | Revelation 19: 7-9 | Revelation 19: 17-21

With that said, I thought it was worth a discussion here at MassTheo. 

If you believe in a personal relationship with God, how do you define it?  What Bible verses would you use to back up this doctrine or teaching?

p.s. the original article is from an atheist site so I don’t want to link to it from here unless you want me to. 

Colossians 2:15 “Jesus disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them.”

In the ancient world, victorious armies made ‘public spectacles’ of their defeated opponents. These spectacles involved parading the defeated soldiers and generals through the main center of the town, naked and shackled, humiliated and utterly defeated, trailing behind the glorious, victorious, conquering army dressed all in white and reds, mounted or marching proudly. The cultural effects of this sort of parade cannot be missed: the victors are strong, unconquerable, glorious. The enemy is weak, defenseless and beaten. The Other is unable to stand before the We.

As I read Paul’s words in Colossians, I thought of Jesus’ parade through the streets of Jerusalem. I thought of how he was tried as a traitor to Rome and condemned as a rabble-rouser, an insurrectionist, for daring to claim kingship of a kingdom other than Rome. For this crime, Rome reserved its most heinous, brutal, and humiliating punishment: execution by crucifixion. Jesus was tortured, then stripped naked and strapped to a crossbeam. Led by brightly dressed, exquisitely disciplined Roman soldiers, he was paraded through the town and out of the city, then hung naked from a cross for all to see until he died. Rome’s message was clear: see, Judea, your king, your messiah. We have made a public spectacle of your savior, your christ. Such a pitiable thing cannot stand before the glory of Rome. Rome is mighty. Rome is powerful. And because of this, Rome is glorious. Rome is able and willing to strike down all who dare to dream of another kingdom, for Rome is eternal. See the consequences of your folly. See and worship Rome. This is Rome’s parade. This is Rome’s spectacle.

But Easter Sunday revealed Rome’s spectacle to be Jesus’ spectacle, God’s spectacle. Rome did not take Jesus; Jesus gave himself. Rome did not torture Jesus; Jesus submitted to Rome. Rome did not lead Jesus down the city streets to display his weakness; Jesus gave himself to the soldiers to expose the ultimate failings of Roman justice – the innocent are punished, the oppressed are destroyed, and evil assaults good. In Jesus’ parade, Rome is seen to be a sad caricature of God. Where Rome flaunts its power and might, God offers arms spread in love. Where Rome crushes those who are it enemies, God submits to them and dies for them so that God may redeem them. In submitting to the violence and death-consumed politics of the “rulers and authorities”, Jesus subverts them and turns their spectacle back upon themselves, revealing them for the ineffectual parodies they are.

And, of course, he ultimately triumphs over them. By inverting their spectacle, Jesus (re)creates a new possibility for humanity. No longer must we abide by the laws of “philosophies and empty deceits according to human tradition and the elemental spirits of the world” as Paul says earlier (2:8). Rather, we are free to live in a community conformed not to the world, but transformed into the image of Jesus himself. We call this community the Church, and as his body, Jesus has invited us into his Parade. As Rodney Clapp has elaborated, our communal worship is to be the time when we as the Body of Christ join together and participate in Jesus’ Parade of the Cross. We are to come together and affirm (through the songs we sing, through the sacraments we observe, through the teachings we hear and discuss, through the prayers we pray, etc.) the Way of Jesus rather than the way of the world. We are to remind ourselves (and the world in which we live) on at least a weekly basis of the radical way Jesus triumphed over the rulers and authorities of this world. We are to join with Jesus in becoming a public spectacle that will expose the violence and evil of the world for what it is.

How often do our worship services do this? That is, how often do we engage in Parades that challenge the ways of the world? And how often do we allow our Parades to become nothing more than reinforcements of the violence, opulence and oppression that so characterizes our “Christian Nation”? I think of our Independence Day services, of our Battle Hymns of the Republic and crying out, “Onward, Christian Solder, marching as to War, with the Cross of Jesus going on before”. I think of these and wonder what we plan to do with that cross that goes before us. Do we plan to die on it? Or are we, as Rome, going to crucify the Other so that We can feel strong?

May we remember that ultimate Other, who “emptied himself, taking the form of a slave… and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” He “was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.” This is what true Glory looks like. And that’s something Rome cannot understand.

What new mystery is this? What blessed backwardness? The Immeasurable One is held and does not resist. Struck by wicked words and foolish fits of senseless men, the Almighty One does not defend. — mewithoutYou

Brad, over at relevintage, discusses worship and some of the conundrums that come along with it. Good stuff. I especially like his idea of “sing-prayer,” the idea of using the signing of a song to pray to God. It bypasses the “sit-and-soak” approach to worship that people sometimes find themselves trapped in.

relevintage :: the manifest presence of God: pursuing the Holy of Holies in our hearts