Thanking God in Psalm 100

 Psalm 100 is one of the shorter psalms in the Psalter, coming in at only five verses. It has a heading, "Psalm, for thanksgiving," which is more expansive than 98's "Psalm", but doesn't give us much more information. However, that this psalm is "for thanksgiving" is reinforced throughout the psalm, as v4a encourages entry to be "in thanksgiving", and v4c is an imperative to "give thanks." This whole psalm is a noisy and an active psalm. 1b has all the earth shouting, 2a joyfully serving, 2b entering with rejoicing, 4c giving thanks, 4d blessing his name. And I can only imagine the acknowledging (v3) was similarly vocalised.

Structure

The psalm could be divided in two, with the first half (1b-3) praising Yhwh as God the creator (all the earth; he made us, his sheep), while the second (4-5) praises Yhwh as God the king (his gates, his courtyard).

There are a couple of noteworthy features in this psalm. The first is what appears to be an ABAB structure; two pairs of alternating panels. The first (1b-2, 4) give instructions to give thanks and praise, while the second (3, 5) explain the reasons that Yhwh is praiseworthy.

A 1-2 Shout, serve, enter before. All the earth.

B 3 Why? Because we are his creation, his people, his sheep.

A 4 Enter, thank, bless.

B 5 Why? Because Yhwh is good, steadfast, faithful.

This leads to the second feature, which (and I could be wrong here) are the two cases of ellipses. The first ellipsis is uncontroversial and rather assumed, in v4 באו (enter, come) is implied:

enter his gates in thanksgiving,

[enter] his courtyard in praise.

The second however relies on the alternating panels, and assumes the דעו (acknowledge, make known) of the first B panel (v3) is implied in the second B panel, v5, so that we have:

3 Acknowledge that Yhwh, he is God...

5 [Acknowledge] that Yhwh is good...

There's also one fun little text issue, which could really go either way. In v3, after "he made us," the written text (ketiv) has "and not we ourselves" (i.e., we did not make ourselves). Although true, this sounds a bit weird. So the read text (qere) suggests "and for him are we" (i.e. and we are his, or we are made for him). The qere makes more sense in the context, and due to their being homophones, it seems simplest to trust the Masoretes' suggestion here.

Psalm 100 as an Exodus psalm

Throughout Book IV I've been asking how we might read these psalms as Exodus psalms, and there's a nice little shout out to Exodus 3 here in the last line of the psalm. His goodness, his steadfast love, and his faithfulness are his characteristics forever, from generation to generation. And in Exodus 3, where Yhwh reveals his name to Moses, he concludes with,

This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation. (Exodus 3:15)

Exodus has לדר דר, while the psalm has עד־דר ודר. So not the same, but the repeated דר (generation) in the context of Yhwh's character seems fitting. It's also worth briefly noting that similar phrases (the double דר) occurs in Book IV at 90:1 (בדר ודר); 102:13 (לדר ודר), 25 (דור ודורים) and 106:31 (לדר ודר). So 16 times outside of Book IV and 5 times within. So it's not quite unique to Book IV (unlike the use of Moses and Aaron, for instance) but it seems that the context matches.

The other potential link might be the repeated use of בוא (enter, come) in this psalm, which might link with the similar use in Exodus 15:17-18

You will bring (בוא) them in

you will plant them in a mountain of your inheritance

a place you made for your dwelling, Yhwh

a holy place, Lord, founded by your hands.

Yhwh will reign forever and ever.

What is a promise in Exodus 15 has become a reality to celebrate in Psalm 100. The promise to bring them in is answered with them entering the gates, his courtyard. The promise that there will be a holy place for Yhwh to dwell is precisely where Israel now "serve Yhwh with joy" (2a).

Psalm 100 as Christian Scripture

How doe we read Psalm 100 as Christian Scripture? There are plenty of images here which point to Jesus, perhaps primary being his identity as the good shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep. The one who made us, who spoke creation into being, is the same one who gave himself for his sheep. Romans 12 encourages the response to this in similar language and with a similar dynamic, to offer yourselves as living sacrifices as your true and living worship. 

Singing the new song - Psalm 98

 Psalm 98 is a bit loud:

• v1 sing
• v4 make noise, break forth, exult, praise
• v5 make music
• v6 make noise
• v7 roar
• v8 clap hands, exult

Why the racket? In v1-3 the psalmist looks back for reasons:

• Yhwh has done wonders
• Yhwh has wrought salvation
• Yhwh has remembered his steadfast love and faithfulness

Three times Yhwh's salvation is mentioned:

1. In v1 it is seen in his right hand and his holy arm.
2. In v2 he has made his salvation known before the nations.
3. In v3 the ends of the earth have seen his salvation.

And it is his faithfulness in the past that means those who sing this psalm can look forward in the final verse:

• he is coming to judge the earth
• he will judge the cosmos with righteousness
• and he will judge peoples with uprightness.

The beginning and the end of the psalm then speak of his acts of salvation, some past, some yet to come. And the praise in the centre of the psalm looks backward and forwards in light of this. The noise from the peoples (singing and playing instruments) in v4-6 seems to be looking back to what has gone before, while the noise from creation in v7-8 (the sea and cosmos roaring, rivers clapping, mountains exulting) looks forward to the salvation which is to come.

1-3 Past salvation

4-6 The people rejoice and give thanks

7-8 All creation makes noise looking forward

9 Salvation to come

Of course, this unravels a riddle from v1 which didn't become apparent until we hit the end.

Sing a new song because he has done wonders.

What is confusing is the new song refers to past events, things which have already happened and already been revealed. But at the end we see that the new song begins with the old story, in order to look to the future with confidence.

Psalm 98 as an exodus psalm

For those who came in late, part of my project in going through Psalms 90-106 is to think through them as potentially telling the story of the exodus. And in this psalm v1 in particular shouts out to me as an exodus psalm. The נפלאות (wonders) sung of here consistently speak of the wonders done in rescuing Israel from Egypt (cf Exodus 3:20; 34:10; Micah 7:15). Similarly, the mention of "his right hand, his holy arm" is a clear call-back to the language of Exodus 6-7 (6:1,1,6,8;7:4,5) as Yhwh promises Moses that his mighty hand will bring them salvation.

Psalms 98 recalls Yhwh's salvation out of Egypt, and looks forward (as does Micah, above) to his future acts salvation along similar lines.

Psalm 98 as Christian Scripture

The creation language of this psalm directs me to the language in Romans 8 as Paul writes of the groaning of creation; here the creation has a certainty which causes it to pre-emptively sing and rejoice.

Psalm 98 proclaims Yhwh as the king (v6); this side of the cross we know Jesus as the king who gave his life to bring salvation, and we look back to that event for our hope in the future and in living now, trusting that God continues to remember his steadfast love and faithfulness (v2) for all who call on his name, for all who know his salvation, even tot he ends of the earth (v3).

no fall put to the test

last night at bible study we did the final in our series based on Tim Keller's "The Reason For God". we looked at Sin, through the lens of Genesis 3:1-13, Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:21-26.

as you would know, i've just finished an essay on the consequences of denying an historical fall (here, here, and here). the position i finished at was that the idea of "the fall" is not what Genesis 3, nor the rest of the testimony of the bible, is trying to get across.

rather, as Karl Barth agreed with me, "the first man was immediately the first sinner." (CD IV.1 §508)


so as we discussed the idea of the fall, we didn't use the terminology of "fall", but analysed what the story said. and it said that sin consists of disobedience, selfishness, disrespect, but primarily trusting Satan's lies. we agreed that none of us would have been different, and that this grasping against God is something we all continue.

i can perhaps post some of the best bits of my essay a little later, but i just thought it would be helpful to show where this thinking has ended me up (if that sentence makes sense!).

Historical Fall in the key of B

so far i've narrowed my doctrine essay down to the following points:

• Babes or bound (the historical debate - Pelagius vs Augustine)
  
  
• Blocher or Barth (the current debate)
  
  
• (Bavinck and Bloesch - minnows, relatively, yet helpfully starting with a B)
  
  
• Bible (Romans 5 and Genesis 3)

and finally, inevitably, painfully:

• Bibliography

i'll probably talk about Ricoeur also, but i may have to deliberately rename him Bicoeur for the purposes of this essay.

check here and also here for the background.

don't know why all this matters? this is why.

the shapely redemption

1st bible study on exodus tonight, 1st sermon last sunday

one thing i noticed was the similarity to romans 5, the opening up and narrowing and reopening of sin and salvation:

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.(5:18-19)

in and up to the book of Exodus you have a similar thing, the openness to a bottleneck and then the broad inclusiveness:
--> the broadness of blessing all creation
--> blessing of Israel and family
--> blessing of Joseph
--> oppression of Israel
--> oppression of Moses
--> redemption of Moses
--> Redemption of Israel
--> Redemption of all creation

makes you think of a coke bottle... or an hourglass... and bad american day-time soaps...

smiting or giving over?

we had a talk tonight at Wild Street, entitled "Hotter than Hell - God and Global Warming", which drew upon Genesis 1:26-31, for our mandate to care for creation, as well as 2 Peter 3, reminding us of the Christian expectation, and the way we are to live in the meanwhilst.

my question, particularly regarding global warming, is whether this is a smiting-thing, or a giving-over-thing?

Romans 2:18-32 has the logic of God letting us go, when it comes to sinfulness. that is, he says, "if that's the way you want to live, go for it. see what life looks like without me," the result being death and destruction.

there is of course the examples of God striking down sinful individuals, couples, cities and even the world, which isn't a direct cause-and-effect thing, but a punishment.

so what is global warming? simply the result of our sinfulness? or is there also an element of God smiting us because of our failure to care for his creation?

Römerbrief

meine bücher sind angekommen!
my interest in Barth in particular was reignited after reading this really well thought through article by Ben Myers

considering it's 85yrs old, i thought it would be impossibly hard to read, but the German is refreshingly easy going. so it'll just be really really hard.

any comments or tips about Barth's hermeneutical paradigm would be appreciated

wishing for mercy

1/ apologies for absence of posting

2/ what place is there for critiquing the theology of the Bible?
FOR, we get our theology FROM the Bible, so when it says something we don't like, at what point are we able to say, "no, that's not how God is," without

for example, Jonah:
now, i've always read Jonah 2 as a great poem, expressing noble truths about God's character.
UNTIL, that is, i heard it critiqued, saying that Jonah was an arrogant man, presuming upon God, he had NO right to pray as he did, to just ASSUME that God was gonnaget him out of the lurch.

3/ so then, what do we say when reading, for example Lamentations (c/f many Psalms), which wishes atrocities upon atrocities, upon their enemies and neighbours for their nonintervention?

i would like to say, "that's wrong, you should be wishing them mercy, just as you desire mercy from God," because this attitude isn't so much redeemed in Jesus as refuted.

indeed, neither does Paul agree with this view, in Romans 14:10-12;

Why do you pass judgment on your brother?
Or you, why do you despise your brother?
For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;
for it is written,
As I live, says the Lord,
every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

it all seems very log-in-the-eye to me.

Four Ways To Live

I've heard of 2WTL, some have even suggested there may be 3, but my recent reading of things such as Luther v Melancthon, as well as hearing sermons from the sermon on the mount in Matthew's biography of Jesus, plus my recent work on eschatology and restoration, has led me to a 4th way to live.

Now, I'm not trying to suggest there isn't two ways to live, either under, or against God's rule, that every person needs to either accept, or continue to reject Jesus as God's appointed King. I'm just trying to add a few shades in this fairly black or white picture.

For some explanation, the crown with a J means accepting Jesus as King. The little drawing of a round thing is my attempt at a 2D globe, symbolising accepting the God-given role of caring for this world, it's inhabitants, as per Genesis 1, which in this stylised description, would also include the so-called "golden rule" of loving one's neighbour as oneself (one's self?).

This is partly trying to think through the place of works in the Christian, as well as the non-Christian.

1. The top one is obviously the person that God desires we all be - firstly, accepting God's rule, and because of the great gift of forgiveness in Jesus, being spurred on to good works.
   
   
2. In the middle, on the left, we see the type of "Christian" that non-Christians always hold up as the reason they wouldn't want to become a Christian. The type of person that knocked Jesus off the top spot (behind Mohammed) of the most influential people, simply because his followers can't take him that seriously, coz they don't do what he says!
   
   
3. On the right then, is perhaps the group Paul refers to in Romans chapter 2, "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law." This is the group many of my non-Christian friends would fall into. They are great people. Really nice. As infallible as a fallen human can be (please excuse the oxmoron). And, all this, despite not knowing God, not living for eternity, compelled by naught, but their love for their fellow creature.
   
   
4. At the bottom, perhaps rightly so, is the group who both reject God, and live in all ways despite his desires for this world. The people who say, "it doesn't count if you don't get caught."

Now, the third group i've mentioned, doesn't get too much of a mention in the New Testament. The latter gets a fair turn in the OT; Jesus' focus seems to be railing agaist the Pharisees for their impenitent hearts, and arrogance due to their nationality and position. The epistles are directed towards the 2nd (Jewish) and 4th (Gentile) groups.

We have good precedents, then, in talking to the 2nd and 4th groups, and a clear goal, in the 1st. I think, however, we find it hard to know what to say to the 3rd. To the "good person". To the honourable, kind, caring, selfless, genuine person.
Who happens to be a non-Christian.



Man, I need to start writing some short, witty posts. Just go to Crikey.com.au and have a look through the videos of the day (especially the Pasha Bulka Transformer, and the iPhone isn't bad either!).

the problem of evil

are things as good as they can be?
no.
why aren't they?
God uses bad stuff for 3 reasons:

1. as judgement because of sin (c/f isa45:7 dan9, 1cor11:30)
   
2. to discipline us as his children (c/f heb12:10)
   
3. to test/make sure of our faith (c/f 1pet1)

therefore we should be satisfied that God is in control over all, knowing he works all things for good (Rom8:28)

right?
wrong.

reading this article by Matheson Russell, it was good to see his righteous indignation at this "ideology", this apathetic, laissez-faire view of the evil.

Theodicy [This idea of God using evil for good] misrepresents evil by saying that evil is necessary for the good; God is weaving a tapestry and he needs the light and the dark thread to make the picture beautiful. But the analogy won’t wash: while the weaver may need the light and dark threads, the creator of heaven and earth made a world that was good, very good without a drop of blood being spilt. And theodicy puts us in the wrong relationship to evil since it asks us to put our pain, outrage and opposition to one side and to see the bigger picture, the harmonious and rational whole of the universe in which evil has its place. But this does not do justice to victims of pain, loss and injustice. And even more importantly, it doesn’t do justice to the good news of the gospel [...]

and what is the good news of the gospel?
that God is seeking to right the wrongs.
that he will not be content with a world that is self-destructive, consuming itself in hatred.
that no price is too great a price to pay, that this world might be redeemed for that which he purposed it.

the question of the phoenix

following my most successful post ever (one of these days i'll crack 10, is there anything more gratifying? that's a retorical question, btw), the question below was raised from my good friend alphabet soup:

"Some Christians are against embryonic stem cell research. For argument's sake, if such research were approved in Australia and did yield cures for some diseases, should those same Christians refuse the resultant treatments e.g. for Alzheimer's?
"Should Christians who have a problem with Maccas also not use Ronald McDonald's House on principle?"

i guess i would argue that the genesis of the technology may be less important than the technology itself.
that is to say, from my interest in science history* that the way particular inventions came about were often at best chance, often by-products (think alchemy) of ingenious, yet mad, or greedy, or misled "scientists", would lead me to say that there would be very little we could continue to use, were we to determine the morality of the wakening of each invention. not that we shouldn't be discerning. that is something i believe each person should be, rather:

Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[...]

we know that when men do things we may perceive as evil, intended for evil (such as Joseph and his bro's), God uses them for his good purposes. we can have confidence, so long as it does not offend our consciences - for that is sin, that God uses all things for the good of those who love him.

just as the phoenix was reborn from the fire, alzheimers sufferers may be reborn from embryonic stem cell research, and go on to love and serve the LORD. that we may disagree with their means and methodologies, may believe that the same, or even better result may be gained via use of adult stem cells, reflects on our views now towards research. not towards the good that may be gained thru it.

again, Acts 24:16 So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.
if your conscience is not clear, don't do it. if it is, especially towards God, then that's between you and God.

(and no, i'd probably see if there was someone who would be able to show hospitality to his brother in Christ and stay on their couch rather than at ronald's place. i think.)

* read the left hand of the electron by isaac asimov. just do. you won't regret it!