"Pray for You," Jaron and the Long Road to Love

Well, glad that's over. My foray into country music lasted 24hrs, which is about 25hrs too long. I did stumble upon this very amusing song though, and it got me to a thinkin about all those imprecatory psalms you read by David and others. Before I offer some thoughts, listen and laugh.



Jaron's prayer is tame compared to the psalmists. Consider Psalms 139:19–22,

O that You would slay the wicked, O God; Depart from me, therefore, men of bloodshed. For they speak against You wickedly, And Your enemies take Your name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate You, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies.

Or again, Psalm 69: 22-28,

Let their table before them become a snare; And when they are in peace, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see; And make their loins continually to shake. Pour out thine indignation upon them, And let the fierceness of thine anger overtake them. Let their habitation be desolate; Let none dwell in their tents. For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; And they tell of the sorrow of those whom thou hast wounded. Add iniquity unto their iniquity; And let them not come into thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of life, And not be written with the righteous.

Squirming yet? One more then. Psalm 109:6-15,

Appoint a wicked man against him; let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is tried, let him come forth guilty; let his prayer be counted as sin! May his days be few; may another take his office! May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow! May his children wander about and beg, seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit! May the creditor seize all that he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil! Let there be none to extend kindness to him, nor any to pity his fatherless children! May his posterity be cut off; may his name be blotted out in the second generation! May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord, and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out! Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth!

Bitter much?

Some look at these and believe they are below the dignity of Christian Scripture, that they conflict with the ethic of the rest of the Bible, especially as taught and modeled by Jesus. But do they? What are we to make of these. Without much elaboration, here's a few points to consider.

1. Some have tried to explain these passages using the prescriptive vs. descriptive distinction. In other words, the psalmist is describing truthfully what lies in his hears, and it ain't pretty. This is a long way from saying the Bible condones such attitudes, let alone commands or prescribes them. However, I don't think this is an adequate approach. For one, we are never given any indication of God's disapproval of such prayers. (BTW, you see such imprecations in the New Testament as well, though not as frequent. Consider what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 16:22, "If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed." Look also at Luke 10:10-16; Gal 1:8; 5:12; 2 Thess 1:6-10; 2 Tim 4:14; Rev 6:10; 19:1-2). Harry Mennega has pointed out that "the New Testament appears not in the least embarrassed with the Old Testament imprecations; on the contrary, it quotes freely from them as authoritative statements with which to support an argument. The New Testament not only quotes passages which, though themselves not imprecations, are found in a Psalm with an imprecatory section; but also, and this is more remarkable, it quotes with approval the imprecations themselves."

2. Also, I'm sure most of us have prayed, without realizing it maybe, such imprecations. Oh, we're not as detailed, but we pray "Maranatha, Come Lord Jesus." We pray, "Let your kingdom come, let y our will be done."  It seems abundantly clear from Scripture that the return of Jesus and the final establishment of the kingdom will mean judgment for untold millions. And we pray for it (and we should).

3. John Piper urges us to "Consider that, in some of these psalms, love for the enemy has been pursued for a long time. 'They requite me evil for good. . . . When they were sick, I wore sackcloth' (Ps. 35:12-13). 'In return for my love they accuse me, even as I make prayer for them. So they reward me evil for good, and hatred for my love' (Ps. 109:4-5)."

4. Sam Storms offers this good observation, "These prayers are not expressions of personal vengeance. In fact, most imprecations are in psalms written by David, perhaps the least vengeful man in the OT (consider his dealings with Saul, Nabal, Absalom, Shimei, etc.; see especially 2 Sam. 24:12). David never asks that he be allowed to “get even” with or “pay back” his enemies. His prayer is that God would act justly in dealing with transgressors. There is a vast difference between vindication and vindictiveness. David’s passion was for the triumph of divine justice, not the satisfaction of personal malice. The OT was as much opposed to seeking personal vengeance against one's personal enemies as is the NT (see Exod. 23:4-5; Lev. 19:17-18)." In essence, the impreccatory prayers are good examples of giving over to God injustice and asking him to judge, to make right. It's David's (or others) refusing to pursue revenge, acknowledging "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:9. I just went all King James).

5. Moreover, we ought to recognize that these impreccatory psalms are simply claiming the promises of God. He has promised to fight for his people, to do justice, to punish the wicked, etc. This is simply asking God to do what he has promised to do.

6. Lastly, the impreccatory psalms express moral repugnance at sin and evil, not simply personal dislike of a person (in fact, rarely are the impreccatory psalms offered against a specific person, but a class of people, i.e. "those who hate the Lord", "the wicked", etc.). Ultimately, the motivation is the vindication of God's righteousness and glory, not personal revenge.

Now, my caveat. I don't trust myself to sort out my self-centered, unholy motives from my noble, holy ones. So, I won't pray impreccatory psalms over specific people. But, the broad categories are appropriate, even if I'm praying in the same prayer, "Father, forgive them and bring them to the grace of repentance."

In case you want to read more imprecations, here's a more full list: Pss. 5:10; 6:10; 7:6; 9:19-20; 10:2,15; 17:13; 28:4; 31:17-18; 35:1,4-8,19,24-26; 40:14-15; 41:10; 54:5; 55:9,15; 56:7; 58:6-10; 59:5,11-14; 63:9-10; 68:1-2; 69:22-28; 70:2-3; 71:13; 79:6,10-12; 83:9-18 (cf. Judges 4:15-21; 5:25-27); Pss. 94:1-4; 97:7; 104:35; 109:6-19,29; 119:84; 129:5-7; 137:7-9; 139:19-22; 140:8-11; 141:10; 143:12.

Jesus, Restore my Simplicity

This week I'm praying a new prayer for myself - "Jesus, restore my simplicity." It's not a prayer about being to materialistic (though I'm sure I am) or too busy (I know I am). No, this is a prayer about my faith. Restore the child-likeness of my faith, restore the ability to be amazed without analyzing.

That's been a struggle for me of late. I remember sitting in an advanced hermeneutics class with Dr. Hans Bayer at Covenant and he said something like, "I feel sorry for you all. Now, after having taken this class, you won't ever be able to just sit with the word and enjoy it without thinking about the nuances of this class coming to play." I've heard professors of preaching say similar things in their classes. And, it's true.

This week I'm preparing for the two classes I'll be teaching - I'm reading in things like myth and ancient cosmologies. I'm reading on the flexibility of language and the impossibility of being precise (and what that means for inerrancy). I'm reading on one of my favorite topics - the Lord's Supper. But it's technical reading. What do we mean by real presence? Is it corporal or spiritual? What's the relationship between the sign and the thing signified? Etc?

I really enjoy these things. Deeply enjoy them. And I think their incredibly important.

But.

This morning my devotional reading was from Mark 10. Two pericopes stood out:

Mark 10:13, And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” 16 And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them. (ESV)

And then, following close on the heels of this passage, comes the story of blind Bartimaeus:

Mark 10:50, And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take heart. Get up; he is calling you.” 50 And throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus. 51 And Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” And the blind man said to him, “Rabbi, let me recover my sight.” 52 And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way. (ESV)

So, my reasoning is as follows: Jesus appreciates the faith of children - humble, believing, without pretense. This isn't at all to say that he doesn't also appreciate deep, intellectual, thoughtful faith (I think both are needed). And, if Jesus wants this in us, and we want it, he's more than capable of granting it. After all, he restored the sight of a blind mind (and brings dead people to life and turns hearts of stone back into flesh, and...). So, I'm praying, restore my simplicity. Not, take away my intellect or my desire to think critically. But, with that, add simplicity.

Best of 2012

Two Thousand and Twelve...the calender only has a few more days on it - but enough to go out and pick up copies of the best albums, books or movies. Here's some of my favorites:

Books (read in 2012, not necessarily published in 2012)

Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church, Todd Billings. This one is an accessible treatment of a doctrine that is getting a lot of attention over the past five years or so. Billings does a great job relating this doctrine to real life concerns of the church.

Grace-Based Parenting, Tim Kimmel. Every parent needs grace. This book was a great reminder of the call in parenting without being legalistic and beating up already beaten down parents.

Calvin's Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension, Julie Canlis. This is the most academic book on my list, but I loved it. Canlis does a fantastic job showing how union with Christ is at the core of Calvin's theology.

Preaching to a Post-Everything World:, Zack Eswine. I read more than 3000 pages on preaching this past year (I can hear the jokes now - "when's it gonn pay off Dan?"), but this was very helpful in that it was very unique. Most dealt with interpreting the text, this highlighted the responsiblity to interpret the world.

Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, Christopher Wright. Ok, this is pretty academic also. It is, however, a fantastic help for the believer looking to the Old Testament and wondering how all the laws and ethical injunctions apply today.

Knowing God, JI Packer. This isn't the first time this book has been on my 'best of' list, and it won't be the last. I reread it again (I think that's number four). It's one of the best devotional books I've ever read, and the best this year.

Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures, Dennis Johnson. This was another very good preaching book. Johnson does a great job navigating the extremes of several approaches. Helpful and worshipful.

Favorite Albums (Released in 2012):

Hard Rock:
King Animal, Soundgarden
Amaryllis, Shinedown
Oceania, Smashing Pumpkins
House of Gold and Bones, Stone Sour
Days Go By, The Offspring

Blues, Southern Rock, Folk, Etc.
La Futura, ZZ Top
Somewhere Beneath These Southern Skies, Dirty Guv'nahs
Wrecking Ball, Bruce Springsteen
Drive Towards the Daylight, Joe Bonamassa
The Longing (EP), All Sons and Daughters
The Peace of Wild Things, Paper Route
Babel, Mumford and Sons
Once Upon a Time in the West, The White Buffalo
Uncaged, Zac Brown Band

Movies (Released in 2012)*:
Dark Knight Rises
The Avengers
The Amazing Spiderman

*This list is sad. I need to see more movies. Cmon Lynn, we're going on a date!

Two Very Different 'O Come' Songs

Take a moment and listen to these two wonderful Christmas songs.

David Crowder Band, "O Come O Come Emmanuel"



Justin McRoberts, "Come all ye Faithful" (you're lucky, I almost posted the Stryper version of his carol!)



These two songs were a part of the last Connexion of the fall semester when Bob preached the sermon "Merry Christmas from the Old Testament".  We actually sang these two songs back to back, 'O Come O Come Emmanuel' first, then "Come All Ye Faithful".  The band sounded absolutely fantastic - I was overwhelmed, especially during 'O Come O Come Emmanuel'.

But something hit me as we sang these two songs back to back - the tone of these two songs is so different. I don't just mean musically, but lyrically as well. The first, while certainly speaking of rejoicing, set's it in the context of mourning and exile, of gloom and 'death's dark shadow'.  The second speaks of choirs of angels, of exultation and of the 'happy morning'.  What hit me is that both are true now of the church - mourning and exile, joy and exultation.

No one makes more clear our status as exiles in this world than Peter. Three times, at least, in his short epistle he uses the word exile or exiles (1Peter 1:1, 17 and 2:11). Peter highlights that this is a time of suffering and trial, and who among us doesn't fee this.

But, the truths of 'O Come all Ye Faithful' should not be ignored either. Maybe Paul emphasizes joy more than Peter (though Peter does say in 1 Peter 1:8 that believers, even in the midst of their suffering, 'rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory'). Paul though wrote the letter to the Philippians that has become known as 'The Epistle of Joy'.  This epistle, however, was written from jail as Paul was suffering for his faith!

The mourning and gloom of 'O Come O Come Emmanuel' is a reality for the church until the second advent of Christ. The joy and exultation of 'O Come All Ye Faithful' is a reality for the church because of Christ's first advent. We live between the two, between the climax of history and the end of history. We need to hold to both truths or our message will be misshapen and not reflect the full reality of who we are as the body of Christ.

Is God Schizophrenic?

Is God schizophrenic? I believe a lot of the debate about whether science conflicts with Scripture can be boiled down, from a Christian perspective, to this question.

Both nature, which is the scientists realm of exploration, and the Bible are God's speech, God's word. One is more general and the other more specific (special), but both nature and Scripture are God's speech.

Scientists make reasonable guesses as to what the laws of nature are, try to determine the orderliness of the world around us. This is a very good endeavor, and only possible because there is order to be discovered and laws to be ascertained. But, as Vern Poythress reminds us, "The real laws, according to the Bible, are God's speech" (Inerrancy and Worldview, pg. 190).

Consider Psalm 33:6, "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and the breath of his mouth all their hosts." Think also of Genesis 1 where God speaks, sends forth his word, and all that is comes into being. Or Hebrews 1:3, "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power." Or John 1:1-3, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

So the wonderful work of science is the investigation of God's word which lies behind all order in the universe.

So, can science conflict with the Bible? Is God's word that upholds the universe a different, conflicting word than what he spoke through the prophets and apostles?

The same questions could be posed to the historian. Who guides history to its proper telos? Is there any stream of history that is outside the purview of God's sovereign control?

It's beyond the scope of this post to give a detailed account of all the aspects of history that God explicitly says he controls, but they include the casting of lots, the decisions of kings, the locations of all the peoples on the earth, the rising and falling of kingdoms, etc. In essence, the study of history is the study of God doing all he pleases - it reveals his wise plan for the cosmos. Consider Psalm 135:5-6:


For I know that the LORD is great,
      and that our Lord is above all gods.
Whatever the LORD pleases, he does,
      in heaven and on earth,
      in the seas and all deeps.

(The immediate context of this psalm goes on to speak of God's sovereign control over nature in things like the sending of snow and ice AND his sovereign control over nations, delivering Israel from Egypt and bringing down many nations that surrounded Israel.)

So history is God's self revelation (of his purposes and his will), and the Bible is God's self revelation. Would God's self revelation conflict with itself?

Without a doubt, this still leaves open the questions concerning how we understand what science is saying or what history is telling us, or what the Bible is communicating. Maybe history has misread the data and come to erroneous conclusions. Maybe science's guesses regarding the laws of the universe and attempts at discerning order have been misguided. Maybe my understanding of Scripture is flawed. All could be true, but in the end, there can be no conflict between history or science properly understood and the Bible properly understood. After all, God is not schizophrenic.