Episode 185: Are we Modeling Good Fruit or Folly?

YouTube link to longer video version here.  If you can’t see the podcast player, click here.

 

 

This is a really sensitive and controversial subject today that I can’t talk to kids directly about so I am coming to you with instead—the question of whether we are discipling our kids into the Scriptural promises of the good spiritual fruit which comes along with trusting God and yielding to the Spirit, or whether we are succumbing to culture and teaching them the opposite. And it’s difficult because oftentimes church culture is incredibly worldly and especially when we have convinced ourselves that our church, our denomination, and/or our faith traditions are somehow immune. Am I just talking to myself here or are you getting uncomfortable too or are you just thinking about someone else’s faith walk? Personally, I am thinking about mine right now! As I should be! My kids didn’t always have the best example when it comes to faithfully doing what it takes to follow a very counter-cultural Messiah—as counter-cultural then as He is today. Actually, let’s be honest, my kids never had the best example except when I was reading directly from the red-letter words, in context. Speaking of which, I recently heard about this thing—a red letter only Bible where I guess it only has the words of Yeshua/Jesus? I went through a few pages of the Gospels, just for fun, and looked at some of what He was saying out of context and it wasn’t good. Having never actually read such a thing, and I am not interested in spending money or time to do so because we need all of the Gospels and not just edited versions, I may have it all wrong but still—it struck me as kinda funny but in an unfunny way. So, if one of you have read a red letter only Bible, please send me an email to enlighten me.

 

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist, and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. However, everything changed about a month ago when the Lord told me in no uncertain terms that my days of teaching adults are over, so now this portion of my ministry is devoted to teaching adults how to teach kids by making sure that we are supporting their growth and faith in the Messiah instead of hijacking it. Which is super easy to do, by the way—hijacking it. I’ve done it, and you’ve done it. Let’s stop doing it and teach kids how to take Yeshua/Jesus seriously as the greater Moses, greater Temple, and greater Prophet whom Matthew tells us He is. So, from now on, this is a satellite ministry of Context for Kids, which has become my primary ministry. Lots for adults to learn still, but geared more toward discipleship and less toward context studies—but still very much contextual. I still have a ton of teachings for grownups at theancientbridge.com and on my YouTube channel, and I think that most of the listeners to Context for Kids are probably grownups anyway so you can catch me there as well if you enjoy crawling through Genesis at a snail’s pace. I also have curriculum books and all that jazz available on Amazon. All Scripture this week is from the CSB, the Christian Standard Bible, unless I say otherwise.

So, yeah, in mid-November the Lord broadsided me and told me to focus completely on teaching kids and equipping caregivers with no more focus on adults. I have known it was coming since 2015 but teaching adults was something I had to learn first because teaching what I teach to kids is much more difficult and the tightrope I have to walk is far more perilous. I would rather teach something wrong to a grownup than to a kid, you know? And I have to stay away from politics and sex, and anything that is going to cause division between children and their parents or undermine that relationship. I have to be doubly careful about the integrity of what I am teaching. And we all teach wrong things—that’s inevitable—but the way we teach things is even more important. Teaching adults, people can get away with a lot of nonsense and some appallingly bad behavior—even though we shouldn’t—but with kids we are laying the foundation for what behavior they will think is acceptable from the pulpit and what isn’t. That’s a scary responsibility. Really, kids became my priority over three years ago when I started the radio show for kids but now, they are the only show in town as far as I am concerned. I still teach and pay attention to you guys when I need to support what I am teaching the kids in ways that I can’t do personally—like teaching Sodom and Gomorrah when we get to Genesis 19 after the series I am teaching now on “Being like Jesus.” Honestly, kids need to have Yeshua (I always call Him Jesus when teaching kids so that everyone is clear who I am referring to—I am not interested in being confusing) as their foundational baseline because dang, those patriarchs and kings did some messed up stuff that the Bible doesn’t make any excuses for and neither should we. When we start with perfection, we can avoid a lot of the problems that come when parents and teachers believe that they have to call the bad stuff good. We have only one perfect example, just one. Not Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Moses, or anyone else. When we normalize the teachings of Yeshua, our own lives change and our kids see it. Okay? Okay.

Oh, and just FYI—I do not teach kids the way I teach you guys. I am not as direct, or confrontational with them or blunt like I have to be on topics like this—I break things down and we explore things slowly from the Bible and from the history of the ancient Near Eastern and first century worlds. I believe we can be confrontational when absolutely necessary while still being kind and gentle but firm and self-controlled. We’ll see how it goes this time. However, not with kids. I don’t find it productive or effective or edifying for them. And they deserve to be able to learn to think critically so that they have the ability to make up their own minds without manipulation or too much interference from a non-parent. So, that’s where my mind is about teaching adults vs teaching kids. Just FYI. That goes for my radio shows and my books.

 

Lots of sermons out there are directed at how we and our kids are worldly, right? And that’s not a bad thing. We should want our kids’ heroes to be people like Mister Rogers and the great saints of the past. People like Gladys Aylward and Cameron Townsend, but they often don’t even know who they are—everything is Taylor Swift and Beyonce and sports stars and actors and influencers and all that. Music and movies and sports are fine, don’t get me wrong as I really enjoy music and movies—but they aren’t our examples of how we should behave. They are cultural and not counter-cultural. And that’s just obvious—not telling you anything you don’t know. The church largely focuses on preaching against all that but is that the biggest problem facing the Body of Messiah? I really don’t think so. Yeshua didn’t really talk about that stuff, at all. And He could have spent time talking about stuff that would make what we deal with now look tame. When was the last time your kid saw someone nailed to a cross along the roadway? Or death matches in the arena? What He did talk about was the character of the believer and especially in the Sermon on the Mount. And before Matthew wrote his account, including the Sermon on the Mount, there were oral traditions of the teachings of the Messiah, passed around among the congregations and Paul must have known them well because his letters are very much obsessed with and focused on promoting the character instructions of Yeshua. In fact, get rid of Paul and you get rid of the hardest teachings in the entire Bible on what it means to love neighbor and enemy in real life. Yeshua spoke in sweeping generalities to a Jewish audience, but Paul confronts the day to day nonsense that believers were getting into with infighting and just generally being jerks.

Get rid of the Sermon on the Mount and Paul, and Judaism and Christianity both get a whole lot easier to live out—and since Constantine brought the military into the faith—that’s exactly what started to happen. Did you know that the early church took the Sermon on the Mount and the commands to be peacemakers and meek and loving toward enemies very seriously? This while they were being thrown to the lions in the arena! If anyone ever had a reason to not take Yeshua’s hardest commands seriously, it was definitely them. But their witness brought down normative paganism in the Roman Empire. It’s crazy and upside-down but no one can argue with the success. Paul spent a lot of time giving individualized instructions to the different congregations he founded throughout the Roman Empire based upon what was and was not respectable within the different cultures. Obviously, Rome, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Corinth, and Antioch are all going to have very different local laws, ideals, and traditions even though they were all under the umbrella of the Roman Empire. In some places, women weren’t even allowed to be educated. In others, the majority of the population was enslaved or retired military and their families. Imperial Cult was celebrated zealously in one city but was more of an afterthought in others. So, they had to be taught to be counter-cultural within the culture. It was a tricky situation—to be respectable in all the right ways but to be very different where the culture was oppressive and antichrist.

 

The difference, and this is where we can most help our kids, was in the character they were commanded to have on display at all times. Their character was not to have a shred of worldliness, and character, of course, is about our mental and moral qualities. It’s not only about how we think but about how what we think (or claim to think) manifests in what we are actually doing. Men of the Roman Empire were expected to be adulterers while women could be executed for it. But when it came to ground zero and Yeshua was speaking to His fellow Jews, He told the men quite plainly that they couldn’t exalt themselves over the gentile men whose perceived masculinity was enhanced by being sexually aggressive—when they were looking at women lustfully or divorcing their wives over frivolities in order to marry some other woman. He was saying that it is all the same thing as what the Roman men were legally doing in broad daylight. Yeshua was saying, frankly, that lust isn’t inevitable and that when we view one another truly as human beings, brothers and sisters of the same Father in Heaven, that we will not degrade each other with lustful and dehumanizing thoughts. In fact, it should be difficult (if not impossible) when we see others as siblings. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, by the way, that was the jist of the philosophical virtue of self-control—controlling oneself sexually. Obviously, despite many philosophers valuing that virtue, others didn’t and the general public—not so much.

Meekness and humility were also very counter-cultural and still very much are. First century honor/shame culture prized and rewarded aggression in males—whether that be verbal, physical, or sexual aggression and Judaism wasn’t that much different from the rest of the world in that. Men engaged in aggressive verbal wars to see who would come out on top and who would sink to the bottom. This was normal life, but Yeshua made certain to stress the absolute worldliness of gaining honor in such a way, and that the way of the Kingdom of Heaven rewards the meek, the merciful, and the peacemakers and that it is the peacemakers and not the bullies who are the sons of God. Again, the audience would have been flipping out because Yeshua was telling them that the female virtues were also supposed to be the male virtues. Yeshua was telling them not to practice Greco-Roman and ancient Near Eastern modes of masculinity. He told them that the Kingdom of Heaven was so completely different than what they believed they needed to be, that their entire lives needed to be turned upside down. And this should have been very obvious after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple when God didn’t reward the Zealot rebellion—which was worldly in every way you can imagine; if you haven’t read what the first century Jewish historian Josephus had to say about how the Zealots made the Romans look like saints, you should.

 

As I said before, the early church practically used the Sermon on the Mount as the handbook for acceptable behavior until, all of a sudden, they were no longer a persecuted minority and had an army at their beck and call. That’s what happens to everyone, right? It’s the way of this world and its kingdoms, which is why it is very hard for the church to be countercultural in all but the most glaringly obvious ways. Sure, we do a good job of teaching our kids not to twerk or to do drugs but those are just symptomatic of larger issues—we aren’t teaching them to be Kingdom people because it isn’t safe or culturally masculine. But that’s why we have always been taught to take up our crosses and follow Him—because His way isn’t safe in the here and now. His way requires courage and transformation away from what brings honor in the world. The way of the Kingdom isn’t power and hierarchies and wealth and worldly honor but oftentimes the exact opposite. I want to look at Galatians 5. I mean, look, I could teach on this for years and not exhaust it but I really don’t want to do that here. You guys can connect the dots. What I want is to set the stage for teaching kids what the Bible tells us about actually being like Jesus—what it really means to be disciples and what Galatians 5 tells us we will become as we let go of the world and take hold of the Spirit. People rarely read more than just verses 22-23 because what comes before is just painful to our worldly desires for artificial set-apartness and self-righteousness and safety. I don’t like it any more than you do so let’s just get it over with, starting in verse 16:

I say, then, walk by the Spirit and you will certainly not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is against the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you don’t do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar. I am warning you about these things—as I warned you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. The law is not against such things. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. (Gal 5:16-26, CSB)

 

So, what’s “obvious” here in the works of the flesh? Are they really obvious? I see a lot of that stuff masquerading as ministry on social media and from the pulpit. Our carnal minds are actually drawn to the people who are doing a lot of these things and because of that, we make excuses for the others too. But if you belong to political party A and would roast alive a person from political party B who did such and such, but you excuse it in your candidate and from the pulpit then we have to ask exactly how un-obvious these terrible things have become. Let’s look at the works of the flesh that are actually now celebrated from the pulpit and in our political, public, and private lives that we turn a blind eye to when we are enjoying it.

Idolatry—politics is probably our worst example here in America and something I never discuss with kids. I have watched people excuse behavior that actors in Hollywood would get cancelled over—if the politician is good for their issues. And it’s frankly worse in the church than outside it. And whatever we excuse, our kids are listening and watching and internalizing. If we can exalt a politician who is not only committing the works of the flesh but bragging about it, we will never be able to wrestle our own children out of endorsing and copying the same behavior that they see us admiring. What’s our political legacy? Who is it okay to destroy as long as the economy is good and our issues are being promoted? Do we have credibility with our kids when we turn a blind eye in the name of politics and promote commandment-breakers and bullies as bastions of masculinity to be emulated? And worse, the cult of personality within our churches and exacerbated by social media where the worst behaving people in ministry draw the biggest crowds and get to write books telling men and women how to be men and women—for the purpose of attracting the world into the faith by being more like the worldliness of another era, not less. And when these people fall into adultery or financial crimes or whatever, we defend them because the “message” feeds our flesh. Is that okay? Does that line up with anything Yeshua ever taught?

Hatred—that’s like the drug of choice in the church. We are specifically commanded not to hate in the Sermon on the Mount. And it is specifically modeled for us that we are to bless and forgive. But nowadays, if you are grieving and concerned for Palestinian children (which any feeling human being is when they take time to think about it calmly), you are accused of hating the Jews. How can love for Jews manifest as hatred for children, when 50% of the population of Gaza was born after the last free election in 2006? It can’t. We can and should and must love both, okay? When does love for the innocent on one side mean hatred for another side unless that is the general state of our hearts? Did loving and forgiving those who killed Yeshua mean that He endorsed their governments? We treat hatred as though it is a right and a virtue when one of the fruits of the Spirit is specifically a promise that as we yield to and mature in the Spirit that our love will grow and overpower and defeat our casual hatred. Hatred compromises us, it is one of the underlying themes of the Gospels. Sometimes I wonder if, when Yeshua commanded His followers to love their enemies, if someone accused Him of hating the Jews. That’s a flesh response. That’s what we do these days. It’s natural but not representative of a cruciform life or mature fruit. It’s worldly to hate and to preach and support hate.

Strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy—some of the most popular preachers out there have all of these on open display under the auspices of being zealous and speaking the truth in love. People who thrive on being angry and promoting anger even over the smallest things, who cannot tolerate any form of disagreement, who label everyone who is not in lockstep as other, dangerous, heretic, enemy, stupid, etc. Leaders who do not make disciples of Yeshua but of themselves—openly ambitious instead of humble and meekly serving. Cutting down anyone who seems threatening, creating factions and envious of the influence of others over the people around them. Teachers who would rather make up an answer to a question than to send the questioner to another teacher. Gosh, I have received some terrible made-up answers from people who simply didn’t know how to admit that they haven’t studied such and such. The creation of these hierarchies where we lord authority over one another the way Yeshua warned the pagan gentiles did (which was actually a challenge lobbed directly at the politically powerful Sadducean priesthood). No wonder such things go hand in hand with sexual and financial abuse in the congregations.

How about violence? Oh, we bristle with fear when we read the Sermon on the Mount and immediately say, “But what if?” instead of saying, “Lord, I am listening. My flesh is crawling and I don’t like it but I am listening.” How do we teach our children to take Messiah seriously when the first thing we say after each verse of the Sermon on the Mount is, “Yeah, but, He can’t mean that because that’s dangerous and hard and scary.” That’s the Beast Kingdom in us, in all of us, and we teach it to our kids because it has been drilled into us. That Jesus couldn’t possibly mean for us to actually be in danger—like the church usually has been throughout history whenever it isn’t backed by political power and an army. That’s anti-Christ because when we say things to countermand Yeshua, or use the Constitution to negate Him, or “common sense” to sweep away His commands—we are doing exactly what the persecuted church never has done because they never could.

Some of the last recorded words of Yeshua by Matthew are that we are to go into the world, teaching people to do everything He commanded. There are five teaching blocks in that Gospel and the first and foundational one is the Sermon on the Mount. That’s the manifesto of the Kingdom of Heaven in the New Creation age. That’s the narrow path. That’s the meat we move on to after we learn to digest the milk of the basic commandments. That’s the upside-down way we are called to live and be different and when we do, we prosper spiritually. But it requires a lot of trust. It’s hard and everything in us screams against it. It’s never been any different for any generation—none of us like it. We want to be safely enmeshed in some sort of artificial 1950’s John Wayne type masculinity where we can trust in big, strong, white dudes to protect us while trying to avoid being forcibly kissed and even spanked instead of trusting in God despite His requiring us to live in a meeker way that exposes us like a huge raw wound floating in a cesspool of infection.

Now, I don’t teach the kids anything like that. I just teach them about Jesus and what love, joy, peace, patience, etc. looks like and I allow Him and parents to do the rest. They are still children and don’t need to unlearn all the stuff we need to unlearn. I don’t want them to turn against the adults in their lives or to feel unsafe in their homes. They aren’t the ones choosing what to listen to from the pulpit or from politicians or whatever. They still see some things very clearly and while we have come to force ourselves to see as good and normal, they are still very pliable and teachable. That’s why we are supposed to be more like them and why the Kingdom belongs to them and not to us. But they are walking away from the faith and from our politics—because neither are modeling Messianic character for them. And I can say that regardless of denomination or political party. Our walks have to be in line with the teachings of the Messiah and not something we have to make excuses for being the opposite of. Remember, Yeshua could have called down ten thousand legions of angels but all He ever did was to flip over some tables and chairs once, and to herd critters off the Temple Mount. That’s self-control. And then He died for all those people involved. We can’t ever forget that. That’s radical, and not worldly.

So, over the last few on Context for Kids, we covered self-control and what Jesus did compared to what He could have done and last week, it’s mercy/gentleness in the parable of the ungrateful servant. Yesterday I recorded a program on faithfulness—which is more complicated than it sounds. I won’t, of course, be talking to them about rogue preachers or politicians. Jesus is enough. He really is. They can spot the counterfeit as long as we don’t try to pass it off as the real thing. Frankly, the reason we see so many church abuse situations is because we have learned from our parents to accept abuse and bad behavior from “anointed” people and we have been passing it down to the generations that follow us.

 

 

 

 



Episode 184: The Gospel of Matthew #3—The ‘Greater Than’ Motif/Second Moses

A huge early theme of the Gospel of Matthew that carries throughout is the portrayal of Yeshua as the latter and greater Moses. In addition to this, He also declares Himself to be greater than the Temple and a whole lot of other sacred cows of the first century. This week, we will investigate these claims and find out why they are so important to Matthew’s particular audience.

If you can’t see the podcast player, click here. If you prefer YouTube, click here.

Throughout the Gospel of Matthew, we see Yeshua/Jesus telling His audience that “something greater than this or that” is here. He outright claims to be greater than the Temple, Jonah, and Solomon. Through parables and teachings, He also makes it clear that He is greater than Moses, any interpretation of the Torah apart from His own, the Sabbath, sacrifices, paying Temple taxes, and King David. But, by far, the most obvious of these is the ongoing comparison to Moses—from his birth story to His role as a teacher far greater than Moses, who only prophesied about Yeshua but failed to enter into the Land because of his sin and rebellion. I will just be glossing over most of these as I will cover them in depth when I get to them in the series, but I want you to get a feel for what Matthew is saying here because it will be important from the very beginning.

Remember from last time, Matthew is a polemical text making the case to post-Temple Jews of why they should follow Yeshua instead of the Pharisees, who were growing in power after the destruction of the Temple and the subsequent ruin of the Sadducean high priestly family. Pharisaic Judaism was morphing into the Rabbinic Judaism of the Middle Ages but it wasn’t there yet, not by a long shot. Matthew is making the case that it is Yeshua who represents true Judaism, as opposed to the more mainstream Pharisees who (by and large) didn’t accept Yeshua as the long-awaited Messiah and therefore the only true teacher and arbiter of the will of God. In fact, during the second century, led by Rabbi Akiva (a former Gentile), they would side with Shimon bar Kochba in his temporarily successful rebellion against Rome, which disastrously led to the permanent expulsion of the Jews until the 7th century.  But when Matthew was written, this was all in the future and the battle was on for which sect within Judaism would come out on top. Matthew obviously wanted the victor to be Yeshua so he had to make sure to make a strong case for it. To accomplish this for his Jewish audience of Jews evangelizing other Jews and proselytes, he had to make a clear case that Yeshua is greater than anyone in the Torah and also greater than the Torah, as Paul had also written decades earlier. In Galatians 2:21 and Romans 8, Paul explains that Torah was weakened by the sin of the hearers and unable to save or render a person truly righteous within. Although Yeshua was likely considered to be the living law, as were all ancient kings, that is a reflection of His unique position as the arbiter of justice and instruction in righteousness and not a way to make Him simply co-equal with the Torah, the five books of Moses or even the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist, and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have years’ worth of blogs at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on Amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids. I also have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for adults and kids. You can find the links for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com, and transcripts for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah. All Scripture this week is from the CSB, the Christian Standard Bible, unless I say otherwise.

Let’s look at the collection of “greater than” verses as well as where Yeshua implicitly claims authority over and on all things held sacred by the Jewish world:

 

I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. (Matt 12:6)

The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at Jonah’s preaching; and look—something greater than Jonah is here. (Matt 12:41)

The queen of the south will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and look—something greater than Solomon is here. (Matt 12:42)

For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Matt 12:8)

While the Pharisees were together, Jesus questioned them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They replied, “David’s.” He asked them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’: The Lord declared to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet’?  “If David calls him ‘Lord,’ how, then, can he be his son?” (Matt 22:41-45)

“You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, Do not murder, and whoever murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you… 27 “You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. But I tell you… “It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce. But I tell you… “Again, you have heard that it was said to our ancestors, You must not break your oath, but you must keep your oaths to the Lord. But I tell you… “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you… “(Matt 5:21-38, edited)

As Kevin said in Home Alone, I have to say to those who claim that Yeshua never claimed to be anything other than a normal human being, “You guys give up, or are you hungry for more?” Greater than Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived but who tore the Kingdom apart with forced labor to build palaces for his bevy of booty call beauties. Greater than Moses, who gave the law but made allowances for human hard-heartedness (Mark 10). Greater than the Temple, which was supposed to be inhabited by the presence of God but had been abandoned since the days of Ezekiel before the Babylonian conquest—even though God commanded Haggai and Zerubbabel to rebuild it and continue with the offerings. Greater than Jonah who preached to the Gentiles but out of a wrathful and bitter heart, wanting them to perish and afraid that God would have mercy if he obeyed. Greater than the Sabbath because He understands that Sabbath is a gift so that men and women could rest and not something burdensome that people need to be paranoid about breaking. Greater than David because, well, you know but also because David himself recognized that Messiah was his Lord. Greater than the Torah, because He can do what the Torah never could—allow for perfection through the circumcision of the heart. Torah still allowed the evils of the world while lessening them, according to Yeshua, but Yeshua made allowances for perfection and provided the only way to the New Creation life. Torah prophesied about Yeshua, and so it serves Him and not the other way around. We obey it as a starting place but Yeshua beckons us to strive for perfection and not be satisfied with treating the commandments like an inclusive “to do” list or to search them to see what we can get away with while still claiming to be “Torah Observant.”

Let me just say this—many people would rather be Torah observant (or at least pretend to be because so much of it is land, cultural, and Temple based that it is impossible) than to follow the Messiah because it is a heck of a lot easier. You can still do some nasty, selfish, and evil things to other people and claim to be obedient, but Yeshua strips away all our pretensions with the Sermon on the Mount and we are so aghast that we come up with reasons why He wasn’t really serious about putting us in danger. Folks, until the time of Constantine, the church took it seriously. But with a standing army comes less trust, more fear, and the desire to conquer, dominate and convert by force. The teachings of Yeshua were often pushed aside in favor of using examples from the OT out of context to justify war for pretty much any reason to the point that, today, we pick and choose our wars based on financial motives and other worldly concerns and call it good while referring to ourselves as a Christian nation. Last month, I saw people calling for the deaths of innocent Palestinians and even children to avenge what their terrorist political leadership has done. But if we are going to follow Yeshua, we need to pray for and bless our enemies and if we are to do that for actual enemies, we should do even more for those who are suffering right now because they were born into an impoverished terrorist state. They could be us, under different circumstances. Condemn evil. Condemn violence. But be careful not to become the types of people who would want a people group slaughtered wholesale just because their leadership wants to do that to Israel. As in the Bible, it was the leadership responsible for the death of the Messiah and not the regular folks. We are all products of environments that we never chose for ourselves.

But the good news is that Yeshua came, promoting Himself as greater than everything and everyone on earth. Greater than the wisdom and wealth of Solomon. Yeshua is greater than the prophet Jonah, who ran away from God’s will instead of diligently carrying His own Cross toward a terrible death. Yeshua is greater than the Temple, which had become a source of false security and national pride. Yeshua was the presence of God, without priestly mediation and go-betweens, with no buffer between Himself and humanity. Blessings flowed from Him as they were supposed to flow from the Temple, but no longer were due to corrupt leadership. Yeshua was greater than David, who became the sort of ancient Near Eastern king whom Samuel had warned the Israelites about. Yeshua was greater than Moses, putting Himself over and above Moses with the “but I say to you” statements after speaking the words of Moses. Sometimes He kept the traditions of His day and at other times, he utterly ignored them.

But before that, we have His origin story which is purposefully tied to Moses. A miraculous birth, unlike Moses, but followed by persecution from a modern-day Pharaoh in Herod who also killed Jewish baby boys. Journeys to and from Egypt to escape danger. Following the Spirit for forty days of temptation in the wilderness echoing the forty years of Moses following the Spirit in the wilderness where Israel was tempted and failed. A mountaintop sermon delivering the law of the Kingdom of Heaven. The division of Matthew into five sections echoing the five books of Moses. Yeshua is going to not only be compared to Moses but also to Israel. Yeshua will succeed in everything Israel failed. Yeshua will be the perfect Son of God—not the stiff-necked generation in the wilderness. This is the story Matthew is telling, post 70 CE when the nation is having to face another Temple destroyed due to what the Talmud later described as “gratuitous hatred” among the factionalized Jews (Yoma 9b). Follow Yeshua, who got it right, endured to death like the prophets of old, resisted temptation, and who was vindicated by God as the first raised permanently from the dead and who has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Live in this radical way He showed us to live because doing things the Pharisaic way didn’t stop our Temple from being destroyed, our people slaughtered, and our nation scattered.

It is time for new leadership—true leadership. That’s the story Matthew is telling. Yeshua is the greater Israel, the greater Son, who did everything right and was killed for it by the leadership—and some of those leaders were Pharisees. Even if they didn’t cause the problem, they did nothing to stop it when the Sanhedrin met to consider the recommendation of the High Priest’s informal hearing the night before. Matthew didn’t even include Yeshua’s request that they be forgiven because they didn’t know what they were doing because to do so would weaken his argument. Yes, there is forgiveness for all who repent but Matthew was portraying the Pharisaic influence as to be avoided and not as forgiven.
Those are the things I want us to notice as we are going through this Gospel. Everything in it is designed to show Matthew’s fellow Jews, living either in or in close proximity to the Land, the way forward for true Judaism, the way of the Kingdom of Heaven, at their cultural crossroads after the destruction of the Temple.



Episode 182: Matthew #1—The who, what, why and when of the “first” Gospel.

Why is the Gospel of Matthew called a biography when it looks absolutely nothing like our modern biographies? What were the rules of writing an ancient life story and how did Matthew use this genre to communicate the story of the Messiah to his very unique audience at a very tumultuous time in history?

(My affiliate links for Amazon products are included in the post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)

Welcome to my first episode in this new series on Matthew, which I am teaching in tandem with the Psalms because they truly do go great together as will become more obvious as we get deeper in.

If you can’t see the podcast player, click here. If you prefer a longer video version, click here.

Just as we did with the Gospel of Mark, overwhelmingly believed to be the first written Gospel, we need to take some time to explore the author, what exactly they were writing, when they wrote it, and what purpose it served within the community where it originated. Mark is largely attributed to Peter’s companion John Mark, most famous for ditching Paul in Pamphylia and for being the cousin of Barnabus plus the reason for the splitting up of certainly the greatest missionary team in history. So, not likely an author that anyone would have made up, as his history is a bit sketchy. Mark was almost certainly written to a Roman audience and not a primarily Jewish audience because of his frequent usage of Latin loan words and his explanations of concepts unique to first-century Judaism that wouldn’t need explanation if the audience was Jewish. Mark was likely written sometime around 60 CE, give or take a few years. His intention was to declare Yeshua/Jesus as the fulfillment of “Jewish” prophecy in being the Yahweh-Warrior and Arm of the Lord prophesied in Deutero-Isaiah, and we covered that in a series as well–performing miracles, feedings, and healings for both Jews and Gentiles as a glimpse of the future Messianic Kingdom that was inaugurated at the Cross and Resurrection. I mention all of this because it will be important in understanding how Matthew is very different even though it uses over 90% of the material found in Mark—but adds a whole lot more and emphasizes the same material in different ways.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist, and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have years’ worth of blogs at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on Amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids (affiliate link). I also have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for adults and kids. You can find the links for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com, and transcripts for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah.

Let’s look at the author of Matthew; the earliest church tradition identifies him as the apostle Matthew, certainly one of the more obscure apostles whom we certainly wouldn’t even think twice about without this Gospel and the fact that before conversion, he was a traitor to his people, being a tax collector for the Romans. Not in terms of going to ordinary Jews and collecting taxes like the Sheriff of Nottingham, but specifically collecting tolls from merchants in places like Capernaum among those who shipped fish throughout the area. Maybe it wasn’t that Matthew at all, but Papias claimed it was, and he was born only 30 years after the Resurrection, placing him within a stone’s throw of the events. Doubting him really serves no purpose. Eusebius claimed that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic) and translated, but experts tend to agree that it really doesn’t read as though it was. The current “ancient” copy of Hebrew Matthew dates to like the 14th century by the Ba’al Shem Tov, and there is no reason to suspect it was the product of a scribe copying an earlier document. Scholars tend to believe that it was translated from Catalan, which was derived from a manuscript in Provencal, which was itself based upon the Latin Vulgate. The Baal Shem Tov was a polemicist against Christianity in favor of Judaism, and it was in his best interest to translate the Catalan into Hebrew. But it is a very layered manuscript, showing the telltale signs of having gone through many translations. And, of course, the originals for the Vulgate translation were in Greek. Truth be told, all of our manuscripts of “Hebrew Matthew” are dated from the 15th through 17th century, and none claim ancient roots. There are only 28 manuscripts out there. So, there is no benefit in claiming these represent the originals, and we gain nothing—although more than a few people speaking outside their field of expertise have made a lot of money doing it. Nuff said.

As for the “what,” Matthew covers the same material as did Mark but in sometimes completely different ways and to highlight a very different story. For Mark, Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah who didn’t destroy the armies of the Gentiles but instead the armies of the demonic powers and principalities oppressing both Jew and Gentile. Yeshua combatted hunger, spiritual and physical deafness and blindness, sickness, physical and mental infirmities, demonic oppression, as well as the leadership of the Temple and the regions of Judea and Galilee (which were not united as one country and had entirely different power structures and political realities). The only thing they had in common was the presence of Jews and being ruled by the Roman Empire through vassals and governors. But the culture was incredibly different, and so were the accents. Matthew, on the other hand, is clearly a Jew who never feels the need to explain Jewish concepts because his audience already knows that information. Parchment is expensive, and this is a long Gospel as it is! Matthew’s Gospel is in the form of an ancient biography, so that’s what we will be talking about today. Ancient biographers didn’t play by our rules but according to their own cultural expectations for what it meant to properly communicate the life story of an important person. A fabulous book on this is Keener’s Christobiography (affiliate link)–not light reading, let me tell you.

Matthew is presenting the story of Yeshua in a way that proves He is the (1) Second Moses, (2) heir of the Davidic throne, the “Son of David” who is ruler over the Greater Kingdom of Heaven, (3) Israel’s definitive teacher, (4) the divinely conceived Son of God, (5) the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, (6) the one who is “greater than” the Temple, Jonah, Moses, etc. because He is the unique incarnation of the Son of God, (7) the true way of Judaism, as opposed to the Pharisees and the now defunct priesthood (if this was indeed written after the destruction of the Temple) and (8) the one who gathers the Nations into faith in Yahweh. Matthew puts Yeshua on such a high pedestal that it should be no shock that his last recorded words of Yeshua are that He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth and that we all need to obey all He commanded. Yes, that would include the Sermon on the Mount!

As for the when, that’s a bit more tricky. It wasn’t likely written before Mark, and anyone studying the transmission of ancient stories knows that they get longer and not shorter with time. There were no Reader’s Digest Abridged Versions of the Gospels. Matthew is most likely longer because he took the material gathered together by Mark (from Peter—things Matthew didn’t see because he wasn’t one of the inner circle “three”) and used that as a base to tell the story that best served his own community of Jewish Christians, but also a community inclusive of Gentile Christians. But the real question that scholars grapple with is whether it was written before or after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 CE. There are good arguments for both, and so I am going to suggest a date after the destruction for a few reasons—but mostly because I believe the problem faced by Matthew’s community is a battle between his sect and the Pharisees for dominance of the hearts and minds of the Jewish people after the destruction of the Temple, when tempers were running high and intra-Jewish controversies and infighting were feverish, to say the least. At this point, the Sadducees were gone because without a Temple, the upper echelon of the priesthood was shattered and they were powerless. The Essenes/Qumran sectarians were always a small offshoot who mostly kept to themselves anyway and so were never very influential. The Pharisees had moved to Yavneh and other locations, setting up learning centers and trying to salvage the remains of Palestinian Judaism (Palestine being the name used by the Greeks from 500 BCE (derived from ancient Assyrian), which was used by Josephus and Philo and which was later made official during the second century by Rome—so not to be confused with referring to the modern Palestinian people).

Imagine a post-apocalyptic world (yes, I am aware I am using that word wrong, but everyone knows what I mean) where different factions are trying to shape the world around their unique way of thinking and doing things. I cannot stress enough how devastating the loss of Jerusalem and the Temple were to the Jews. Their identity was in tatters, and the future of the faith was anything but certain. It was the perfect time to make their case for who truly represented the authentic people of Israel and whose ways were more pleasing to God, whose ways would bring the nation that was so divided into sects that really hated one another with a vengeance—long before Yeshua was born—back together in worship and observance of the Torah. What did the nation need to do in order to merit the Messiah who would overthrow the Roman legions? As for the people, what do you hope for when the world is a shambles around you? Do you go with the Pharisees as they began their journey into the Rabbinic Judaism of the Middle Ages? Or do you follow the nutty believers in a crucified Rabbi who they actually believed rose from the dead? The infighting between the Jewish believers in Yeshua and the Jewish unbelievers had gotten Rome into such a state of irritation that Emperor Claudius expelled them all. Rome didn’t care for religious drama—after all, they were a “peaceful” people bringing peace and joy to all the world. *cough*

Of course, Christians made up about 20% of Jews in the Roman Empire in the first century, which is a lot. However, that left 80% who weren’t, and the Pharisees won both the day and the overall battle even to modern times. In addition to the Jews killed in the Temple revolt, about half as many were recorded as killed in 135 CE at the end of the Bar Kochba Revolt. Some estimates have the number of dead at as much as 1.7 million in all. I don’t think it was anywhere near that high, but I also don’t want to have anything to do with counting such things. The decrease in population is just staggering. People were desperate—how do you please God without a Temple in the ancient world? The Pharisees promoted Torah learning, prayer, and charity as equivalent to Temple observances. The Christians, on the other hand, promoted allegiance to a crucified Messiah. Let’s just say it was a hard sell in an honor/shame society.

And so, it would have been a time of polemics between Jews who did and did not ally themselves with Yeshua. It is no different than we see in ancient schools of Philosophy among the Greeks and Romans. Teachers would gather disciples, lay out standards of moral living through stories and proverbs, and do verbal battle against rival teachers to grow their own school and decrease the following and honor of other teachers and schools. Really, the Rabbi/disciple model we see within first century Judaism was very much inspired by the Greek model. Apart from all the shameful polemical name-calling (a lot of it would make you blush, I promise), it really was an effective system. If the Greeks and Romans were good at anything, it was organization and administration. The Jews actually benefitted greatly from it in some ways and not so much in others.

What do you do when two factions are battling for the hearts and minds of their own people? You promote your teacher, promote their teachings, promote their teaching abilities, promote their authority in all things pertaining to virtue and wisdom, lay out the way of life advocated by that teacher, increase their honor, and decry the other schools of thought. This was the way of the ancient world, including the Jewish world. It was how things were done. It was how John the Baptist did things and how Yeshua did things—not because it represents an ideal form of communication but because it was understood. We look back, and we base our political conversation on it—I mean, Thomas Jefferson’s campaign called John Adams a hermaphrodite. Like, dang. So harsh.

And so, Matthew wrote an ancient biography of Yeshua, doing all that and more. Now, biographies in the ancient world weren’t like the biographies out there today, which are often written about people who are still alive or recently died. In fact, that’s what makes Yeshua’s biography strange. Ancient Historians generally wrote about people long dead, who no one alive had ever had contact with. Easier and safer that way! Their biographies played fast and loose with the historical facts in order to tell a story about the person in question—but you shouldn’t mistake that for ancient biographies qualifying as fiction. People expected a story and not just boring facts and figures. Biographies, then and now, are always an act of interpreting someone else’s life. We don’t know what really happened behind closed doors or who said what and how it was said without it being recorded. And even if it is recorded, the different people in the room will have different vantage points and might perceive the same situation differently. And, in their own way, they might all be correct.

A lot of people get their panties into a bunch when multiple Gospels describe the same exact story in different ways—with a different number of people or changing the circumstances a bit. But that was not only normal but expected in the ancient world. There is no chance in heck that the Gospel writers would divert from the other accounts if there was even remotely a chance that they would be perceived to be untrustworthy. And notice that Rabbinic writings have zero problems with how the Gospels were written—because they did things the exact same way. All the ancient world wrote these types of texts with just enough creative license to tell the truth—which is sometimes easier if you aren’t bogged down with a need for scientific-level accuracy. Accuracy being important is part of our culture because of the Age of Enlightenment and the scientific revolution. And believe me, when you are combining chemicals, accuracy is absolutely important. I know this personally as a chemist. But for Mark to show Yeshua as a warrior, and for Matthew to show Yeshua as the greater Moses, and for Luke to write “an orderly account” of the life and ministry of Yeshua and for John to be utterly esoteric, they had to emphasize some aspects of the story and ignore others that didn’t contribute to that particular facet of the diamond. If I were to tell the story of my own life, I would first decide what I wanted to emphasize and then pick and choose material and decide how to present it to make my point. Otherwise, history is super boring for most people.

And remember, they didn’t consider this to be fiction. From Genesis through Revelation and from narratives to poetry to wisdom literature to biographies to letters to apocalyptic literature, God entered into our world through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in speaking to Israel; He did it through the various writers during their different historical periods and according to the literary constructs of the time (after all, how could they understand Him with no common ground for reference?), languages, legends, and understandings of things like science. Peter Enns calls this Incarnational Biblical Authority (affiliate link)—in that Yahweh inhabited our lives first and foremost through communicating with humans on their terms in ways they could understand. In the same way, Matthew presents Yeshua as God doing the exact same thing in entering the world in flesh (and specifically in the flesh of a Jewish male who was descended physically from a son of David and was adopted into the royal Davidic line). As such, He was perfectly situated to communicate to the very audience He would send out into the world. At the age of thirty, given the high death rate in Judea and Galilee, at thirty years of age, Yeshua was an elder in the community—giving Him voice and a measure of honor. He was a male, which meant that people in that culture would listen to Him. He spoke like a Biblical scholar, worked miracles, and performed exorcisms—which the people of that time and place were primed to see as proof of the legitimacy of His ministry. Both Jew and Gentile, actually. He was brilliant in verbal confrontations, a must in that culture. Were Yeshua to appear today, He would appear in somewhat different ways while saying the same thing with different words, but how different is anyone’s guess. Whatever form He would take would be based upon common modern shared experience and values. Yahweh enters into our world to communicate with us, and thank God He does not communicate with us according to where He is. What a nightmare that would be when we are less than toddlers compared to Him.

And this is where we need to understand that the stories about Yeshua weren’t taken down by a scribe following Him around. In the ancient world, oral accounts were believed to be superior to written because (1) oral accounts could be expounded upon in a superior fashion to written notes, (2) they understood that tone is every bit as important as words, and (3) not much was really written down because it was largely impractical and literacy rates were extremely low until just recently. This means the Gospels were oral accounts until after the time of Paul and his letters. It was only when the Church had spread out so far and wide that certain people took to compiling the accounts of Yeshua that were being taught in the synagogues, private homes, open-air gatherings, and rented halls. These accounts were then copied for nearby congregations, and the best of them survived in the forms of the three synoptics plus John. As heresies began especially creeping into the ever-expanding Church, there was a need for formal accounts based on apostolic witness or at least those who were the safe keepers of the memories of the Apostles, many of whom were dead or elderly by the time the accounts were actually formally written down. The business of the Church, of course, was to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth in anticipation of the return of Christ. Likely, they originally believed (as it is clear that Paul and many others did) that the return would be very soon. In fact, every generation has looked at the Scriptures and believed the exact same thing. So, the need for written accounts that could be disseminated and largely controlled didn’t exist in the beginning—as we should expect and respect in an oral culture where everyone had terrific memories but very few could read. We are the opposite and have books so we don’t have to memorize everything.

Next time, I think we will focus on Matthew’s love of the phrase “the Kingdom of Heaven” and what it meant to Him and the story He wanted to tell about the Messiah to his largely Jewish, post-Temple audience and how and if it differs from Mark and Luke’s “Kingdom of God.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Episode 176: Psalm 2–More than Messianic

Psalm 2 is one of the most famous “Messianic” psalms out there but it also pairs with Psalm 1 to teach the readers how to view the entire collection of hymns, laments, and royal tributes. How do Psalm1 and Psalm 2 work as a team in introducing the rest of the psalter? Why is it important for wisdom and kingship to dwell side by side in Covenant relations?

(My affiliate links for Amazon products are included in the post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)

If you can’t see the podcast player, click here.

If you would like to watch a slightly longer video version, click here.

Hey, there, this is the second week of my new series on the Psalms, and I will go back and forth every four episodes doing four Psalms and then four teachings on the Gospel of Matthew. I am doing this because they will help us read one another and especially when we get to the Beatitudes. Matthew presents Yeshua/Jesus as the Greater Moses, the giver of the wisdom of Yahweh and Israel’s definitive teacher whereas Moses was a lesser mediator who sometimes spoke his own words and did his own rock whacking—which got him into trouble. I will post a master book list sometime soon if you want to know what resources I am using for this series.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist, and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have years’ worth of blogs at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on Amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids (affiliate link). I also have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for adults and kids. You can find the links for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com, and transcripts for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah.

As we did last week, the Psalm itself will be read initially from Robert Alter’s excellent The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (affiliate link).. After that, I will pull all Scripture from the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). Alter is famous for his translations, which capture more of the flow and the brevity of the Hebrew. Sometimes it will make a big difference, as in this Psalm but with Psalm 1 we noticed that it didn’t really change much at all.  And we can agree or disagree with his translation, and that’s okay too. I am kinda on the fence about this one and you will probably notice why right away—but his decisions aren’t entirely out of left field because each translator makes interpretational choices. Nothing is a true translation—that’s impossible. In order to communicate meaning, the text must also be interpreted.

Why are the nations aroused, and the peoples murmur vain things? Kings of the earth take their stand, and princes conspire together against the LORD and against His anointed. “Let us tear off their fetters, let us fling away their bonds!” He Who dwells in the heavens will laugh, the Master derides them. Then will He speak to them in His wrath, in His burning anger dismay them: “And I—I appointed My king on Zion, My holy mountain.” Let me tell as is due of the LORD. He said to me: “You are My son. I Myself today did beget you. Ask of me, and I shall give nations as your estate, and your holdings, the ends of the earth. You will smash them with a rod of iron, like a potter’s jar you will dash them.” And now, O you kings, pay mind, be chastened, you rulers of earth. Worship the LORD in fear, and exult in trembling. With purity be armed, lest He rage and you be lost on the way. For His wrath in a moment flares up. Happy, all who shelter in Him.

And we have mostly been taught to read this with a Messianic eye, right? This Psalm certainly was never fulfilled through David or any of his descendants, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a double meaning here that was in the mind of the original author. This might have been composed partially in response to some real-life crisis or just as a general ranting against foreign aggressors. I don’t believe that there are any purely predictive Psalms, but that each one made sense when it was written in some way or another that might be lost to history. Certainly, the Bible gives us a very narrow historical view. For the space of thousands of years, we are told relatively little and what we are told is related to us so that we can see God’s character. It is not a human history-centered document but a God-centered document. Sometimes we tend to forget it because we are naturally human centered in our own interests! But this Psalm is God’s story and not the story of any person—God is the main character despite there being three speakers/voices here working together. Do you remember when we studied Isaiah 40 and how many voices there were and how difficult that can be to unravel? Well, this one is much easier. According to Acts 4:26, the author/narrator is David inspired by the Holy Spirit in verses 1-3 and 10-12, and we have Yahweh’s reaction in verses 4-6, and the Anointed Son who is King in verses 7-9. Likely there is a lot more going on here than we will ever know.

For reasons I don’t have time to fully explore right now, there is a great deal of evidence that Psalms 1 and 2 were originally a matched set—maybe one Psalm instead of two. If you remember from last time, Psalm 1 is a wisdom saying, much as we would find in Proverbs or in the Beatitudes. It lays the foundation that the Psalms are to be experienced by the wise in order to grow in wisdom for the purpose of God’s people flourishing and the rest of the world also flourishing as a result (which will be an important thing to remember when we start our Matthew studies). But there is another side to the Psalms and that is the importance of the Kingship of God over His people. Even when speaking of David, David cannot be separated from God’s rulership because David only reigns through the allowance of Yahweh—this is why Psalms like this one are called Royal Psalms. Together, the wisdom focus and the kingship focus point us to the underlying foundation of Covenant relations. Covenant life with Yahweh must be lived out as an expression of both wisdom in knowing and learning and living according to His teachings or instructions (which is the proper translation of Torah) and recognizing Him as, fundamentally, the one true King of kings and Lord of lords.

These two Psalms set the stage for the rest of the collection, so we are to read every single one of them with these firmly in our minds. To read them apart from the lessons they teach can cause us to use them in some really wrong ways—along with the rest of Scripture, for that matter. Scripture, and the Psalms in particular, doesn’t give us the answer to every problem and question but it does teach us the wisdom we need in order to navigate life’s problems and questions. So, that was a really long introduction—let’s talk about the actual Psalm using the CSB.

Why do the nations rage* and the peoples plot* in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand, and the rulers conspire* together against the Lord and his Anointed One: “Let’s tear off their chains and throw their ropes off of us.”

We have our first speaker here, asking an important question. The tone is incredulous, meaning that the narrator can’t even believe these people can be so foolish. And this, of course, ties in with the wisdom theme. Wise nations do not rebel against the rulership or authority of Yahweh and/or His chosen leader. Note that this cannot be applied to church leaders, okay? Not the same thing. Man, have I seen this sort of thing misused. As far as the language goes, we have the goyim and the ummim—the goyim being the outside pagan nations and the ummim generally translated as “peoples” which can mean God’s people or the nations outside Israel and the clear context here is that these are foreign nations. What are they doing? Do you remember in Psalm 1 where the wise man mutters (translated as meditates but is also a verbal expression) the teachings of Yahweh all day long? Here in Psalm 2, we also see verbal reactions to Yahweh in the form of raging and muttering, but this time what they are doing doesn’t stem from or result in wisdom but is entirely in vain. This is classic ancient language for the actions of “fools.” Almost like the Tower of Babel, these people coming together to make a great name for themselves.

The ”kings of the earth” are taking a stand against Yahweh and His chosen king, and the word used is Maschiach aka anointed one, and the rulers are conspiring, another verbal action directly opposed to those who meditate/speak the instructions of God all day. And let’s talk really quick here about parallelisms. There are a few different kinds and it is commonly taught that they are all of the sentence A=sentence B sort of thing but that isn’t actually true. You can also have a sort of sentence A, and then “what’s more” sentence B, which adds to the concept of A. In this case, the second sentence elaborates on the first, saying the same sort of thing but being far more specific. The nations and the peoples aren’t simply grumbling but their leaders are also plotting and scheming and deciding to be opposed to Yahweh. They talk to one another about rebellion—but as we will see, they are all talk and no action. It sounds as though the nations see themselves as somehow vassals of Yahweh—why else would they be wearing a yoke or be bound? Yahweh’s response is very illuminating and yes, is supposed to be taken humorously. The Bible is a funny book.

The one enthroned in heaven laughs*; the Lord ridicules* them. Then he speaks* to them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath: “I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.”*

There are always people who take this sort of statement as proof that Yahweh is a mocker and so they can be jerks if they disagree with something but that isn’t what is being expressed here. We are looking here at incredulity. Imagine a toothless miniature dachshund with no claws bum-rushing you. I mean, it would be hilarious and we would all sit around laughing about it, right? We might even collectively pee our pants as he tries to gum you to death. But then, what would happen when it stopped being funny? “Bad dog! Cut that out!” And the dog would top and whimper and run off only to come back with its’ tail between its legs later. That’s the picture of these nations, peoples, kings, and rulers. Compared to Yahweh they are harmless rat-dogs. And here is Yahweh’s response, “Dudes, you are irrelevant, I chose my own king (not any of you) and I have placed him in authority in the place I have chosen in all the earth (not your countries) to be my set apart place.” Yahweh is setting the record straight and getting in their faces with the facts. They aren’t the kings of the mountain, or the castle, or whatever. They aren’t even in the running.

I will declare* the Lord’s decree. He said* to me, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask* of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance and the ends of the earth your possession. You will break them with an iron scepter; you will shatter them like pottery.”*

The chosen king, the maschiach, speaks and recounts Yahweh’s decree—His binding statement/promise/oath to the chosen one. “You are my son; today I become your Father.” This is ancient Near Eastern kingship/enthronement language. Most famously, Yahweh says this about Solomon in 2 Sam 7:11-16 “‘The Lord declares to you: The Lord himself will make a house for you. When your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up after you your descendant, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will discipline him with a rod of men and blows from mortals. But my faithful love will never leave him as it did when I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and kingdom will endure before me forever, and your throne will be established forever.’”

Figuratively, this is the language of gods to kings and queens, and it means “you are my chosen representative to bear my image before all of the people. When they see you it will be as though they are seeing me. It will be as if you are my own literal son. How they treat you is how they treat me but because of that, you will be held doubly responsible for how you treat my people because everything you do will be in My Name.” Sons in the ancient world were heirs and ambassadors—if you were a vassal serving the king, you owed the same loyalty, obedience and fealty to the son. They were in some ways one and the same and so transgression that makes the deity look bad had to be handled severely.

Now, all this sounds like it could have been written by David about himself or about Solomon, right? But now Yahweh is making promises that the nations will be the inheritance, even to the ends of the earth, of the mashiach, the anointed one, and that he will crush them with an iron scepter and shatter them as though they are clay pots. This certainly isn’t referring to David, or Solomon, or any of his descendants. This is eschatological language—meaning dealing with the end times. In fact, when the Davidic monarchy failed and all hopes for becoming a world power were dashed, the sages began seeing this as an end-times promise not for a mashiach like David but The Mashiach. The Messiah.

This verse is the only time that the word Son appears as a title in the Psalms. And the wording for “today I become your father” isn’t adoptive language but birthing language. Or rather, reproductive language. This is closer to the language used to speak of Adam and Eve than the language one would normally see describing ANE kings as the adopted offspring of the gods. This is a more primal sort of kingship than David enjoyed–the sort of pure image-bearing kingship enjoyed by man and woman in the Garden. And who is the “them” to be shattered and broken? Although there is the temptation to assume that this represents violent warfare, that isn’t necessary. As we see in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, the Messiah is the one who violently shatters all the world powers/kingdoms of the Beast system—we see this in Daniel 7 and Rev 11, 12, and 19. Messiah frees people and destroys beast kingdoms—He doesn’t allow them to just be collateral damage.

Now, the speaker changes again to more of a narration. The rulers and kings have spoken, Yahweh has spoken, the Anointed one has spoken, and now the narrator returns to Psalm 1 style wisdom literature—he is going to tell the kings of the earth how to live wisely so that they and their people will flourish and prosper and not be destroyed:

So now, kings, be wise; receive instruction*, you judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with reverential awe and rejoice* with trembling. Pay homage to the Son or he will be angry and you will perish in your rebellion, for his anger may ignite at any moment. All who take refuge in him are happy.

Last line first—all who take refuge in Him are happy. Let’s review the first line of Psalm 1, “How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers!” You see why scholars believe these two were originally one unit and meant to be read together? We have the “beatitude bookends” using the Hebrew word ashrei. Between these are the instructions for a life that will prosper—not financially but in terms of cooperating with God, blessing His Kingdom, and creating an environment of shalom or wholeness for all. When we behave with wisdom, we eliminate some of the chaos in the world and promote peace. We remove violence and create good fruit. We pursue justice and right wrongs. That is our goal as image-bearers, to be wise and build His Kingdom instead of our own. How are the kings advised on how to do this, as they are really being portrayed not only as fools but as the wicked, the sinners, and mockers of Psalm 1.

The kings are commanded to be wise, as opposed to the fools who oppose Yahweh and His Anointed One. The judges (and kings were the chief judges in the land in the ANE) are commanded to receive instruction—and although we might be tempted to believe that the word translated as instruction is Torah, this instruction is actually a word meaning correction and/or discipline. Yahweh isn’t condemning them, but the narrator is calling them into covenant obedience—really, into the Covenant. They are being summoned to serve Yahweh and to fear Him, as one does their King. These kings are being told that their deserved place is under Yahweh’s feet as conquered enemies but that they have the opportunity to be servants instead. Isn’t this the offer we were all made when we were kings and queens of our mini-universes? The mercies of the Lord are certainly new every morning, and as the sun is always rising somewhere, that means 24/7/365!

The kings are also commanded to rejoice with trembling, and this might seem odd, but isn’t it exactly what happened at Mt Sinai? The people rejoiced to know what Yahweh wanted from them and agreed to it before they even knew the details, but at the same time, they were terrified of the sound of His voice. So again, this is invitational Covenant language and not entirely adversarial. Yahweh is used to dealing with fools, especially since I was born!

Now, here’s the weird part where Alter and the CSB are at odds. Alter says, “With purity be armed, lest He rage and you be lost on the way.” The CSB gives us the more familiar, “Pay homage to the Son or he will be angry and you will perish in your rebellion, for his anger may ignite at any moment.” Although these seem wildly different, there are good arguments in support of both interpretations—because that’s what these are. There really isn’t an adequate word-for-word way to translate this and so scholars have to sort of guess at the meaning of the original author. Remember that one of Alter’s goals is to use as few words as possible in order to better reflect how the Psalm sounds in Hebrew, which is a very compact language, while English takes three times as long to say the same thing. What can I say, we’re a mouthy bunch! The important question isn’t, “Which one is right” but instead, “do either of these break with the overall meaning of Scripture?” And neither do. We can still find Messiah prophesied in Psalm 2 without the command to kiss or pay respect to the Son. It’s a nice cherry on top but not needed. If it is translated “with purity be armed,” is it really wrong? This Psalm isn’t entirely historical because it applies to no purely human descendant of David and to no era of Israel’s history either.

So, what if Alter is correct and this is telling them to arm themselves with purity (the ways of Yahweh/His correction/instruction) instead of arming themselves with words and weapons against Him? To me, this is a clever solution to a phrase that really doesn’t make all that much sense in the original Hebrew. It comes across as one last plea to these toothless, violent chihuahuas to go lay down and be good puppies.

Next week, Psalm 3, our first lament Psalm. I love the laments, as you will come to learn, and I hope you will as well.

 



Episode 175: Psalm 1

This is the beginning of a new series exploring the Psalms. I am going to alternate between the Psalms and the Gospel of Matthew because knowing the Psalms will help with understanding this Gospel and Yeshua’s/Jesus’s role as the Greater Moses as well as the Greater David. It won’t be obvious at first, but after a while it really will begin to make sense.

(My affiliate links for Amazon products are included in the post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)

If you prefer to use YouTube, here is the link for that. If you cannot see the podcast player, click here.

This post contains affiliate links.

Hey, there, I am starting two brand new series, and I will go back and forth every four episodes doing four Psalms and then four teachings on the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew presents Yeshua/Jesus differently from Mark, who shows us the Yahweh-Warrior battling demonic forces. Matthew tells a different story of Yeshua as the Greater Moses, Israel’s definitive teacher, and authority on the will of God and the radical life we are called to live. As such, the Psalms and Matthew work together because they are some of the theologically densest texts in the canon. And one will definitely help us understand the other—going in both directions, actually. I really want you to get a handle on how to read them not simply as prose (narratives like the Gospels) and poetry (the Psalms) but as interlocking pieces of wisdom literature designed to teach us how to live in relationship to God and as image-bearing citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. I will post a master book list sometime soon if you want to know what resources I am using for this series.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist, and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have years’ worth of blogs at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on Amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids (affiliate link). I also have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for adults and kids. You can find the links for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com, and transcripts for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah.

We’re going to switch things up on the Scripture quotations—the Psalm itself will be read initially from Robert Alter’s excellent The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (affiliate link). After that, I will pull all Scripture from the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). Alter is famous for his translations, which capture more of the flow and the brevity of the Hebrew—as opposed to most English translations, that make a seven-word verse into a seventeen-word verse simply to make it more appealing and beautiful to us. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but hearing them this way is meaningful too.

Happy the man who has not walked in the wicked’s counsel, nor in the way of offenders has stood, nor in the session of scoffers has sat. But the LORD’s teaching is his desire, and His teaching he murmurs day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that bears its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither— and in all that he does he prospers. Not so the wicked, but like chaff that the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand up in judgment, nor offenders in the band of the righteous. For the LORD embraces the way of the righteous, and the way of the wicked is lost. (Alter, pg. 43)

Isn’t it interesting that the Psalms not only start with a Beatitude (like the Sermon on the Mount, hint-hint—a huge tie-in with Matthew), but it’s also a Proverb—and beyond that, some scholars believe that Psalms 1 and 2 are meant to be read together as a picture of the sort of king that Yahweh desires—one who refuses to listen to or consort with evil counselors and the futility of the nations in presuming to reject and battle that king. There are only eight straight-up wisdom Psalms, so let’s quickly discuss what that means. Wisdom Psalms, just like the Proverbs, compare the lives, actions, mindsets, and fate of the righteous and the wicked. The wicked person does X, but the righteous person does Z. The fate of the wicked person is really, really bad even though their lives might look good now, but the fate of the righteous is just awesome. That the first Psalm begins with an encouragement/warning is a signpost—this collection of songs, poetry, and liturgy is only for those who desire to be wise and long to relate properly to God and others. This Psalm, in particular, contrasts the life of the person who desires the teachings of Yahweh and shuns the teachings and influence of the wicked, the offenders, and those who scoff and mock the righteous for their righteousness. It certainly wouldn’t apply to the “righteous” who are being mocked for hypocrisy. We gotta own all that because we deserve it when we aren’t representing God in any sort of reasonable way. And for that matter, when we get mocked for how other believers have hurt people, it’s important to handle it with grace—because we are a body that has harmed them. Most of us have a tendency to lash out like wounded animals, especially when we have been harmed in religious settings.

Let’s go line by line through this Psalm so that we can better understand what it was meant to communicate beyond the surface reading—and don’t get me wrong, the surface reading on this one is rich. It isn’t like you need an in-depth analysis to appreciate or benefit from it, but there is stuff below the surface that is incredibly captivating.

We have a “man” (although it would be foolishness to try to argue that this also isn’t good wisdom for women, right? Which is why some translations go with “person” and, in fact, when you read a lot of medieval sermons, when they would expound upon language like this, they were gender inclusive. They weren’t preaching just to men or to men as the spiritual heads of their houses until much later when more patriarchal and complementarian doctrines were developed (Beth Allison Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood –affiliate link). The Psalms and the wisdom literature aren’t exclusively applicable or gendered—anyone can read them and glean wisdom—which is the point. One of the strengths of the Psalms is their general lack of specificity. For example, “I have an enemy. Lord, why are you ignoring what they are doing to me? And yet, I have confidence in you to give me justice in the long run.” We can all relate to that, but what if it was specific, “Oh Lord, if I am king over the entire land of Israel, then why is the family of such and such attacking me over what happened last summer when their son fell in battle under my command?” I mean, I don’t know about you, but NONE of that applied to me. I can’t relate to any of that, and actually, I find myself wondering if maybe the king pulled another “Uriah the Hittite” incident and murdered someone through warfare. So, with specifics, I am definitely conflicted and wouldn’t ever sing or pray that! Neither would you, right? It would just sound like a narrative instead of poetry. We’d read and experience it entirely differently than the author. That’s why understanding genre matters—so we know how to tell the difference between the Chronicles of Narnia and a newspaper article about the local garden show.

Anyway, this human being (because we women can’t get legalistic and say this only applies to men, right?) has been careful and deliberate about how he has lived his life. First, we see that he has not “walked” according to the advice of wicked people—and the wicked people are those who wield destructive authority in some way. Here they would be attempting to use their influence to send this person in the wrong direction—think of Haman advising King Ahasuerus. People who are wicked in Scripture aren’t just doing evil; they are influencing others. The person who is blessed/happy isn’t listening–and by the way, theologically, “blessing” carries the meaning of having a relationship with Yahweh and not with having a ton of cash and stuff. The ultimate blessing is never material prosperity but a connection with Yahweh where He knows our names—which is way more important than any of us knowing how to pronounce His. Yeah, I said it.

He also hasn’t walked the “way” of wickedness, and yes, if you remember studying the Gospel of Mark and the Isaiah series with me, that’s the same word used in Isaiah. In fact, derek shows up nineteen times in Isaiah 40-55, talking about the way of the Lord that is made clear by the prophet, the way of return from exile, the way of righteousness that Israel refused to walk, and the way of the of the Servant/Messiah. This is also what we see in the “way” narratives of Mark, which point us back to Isaiah and the Servant of the Lord poems. This means the man also refuses to associate with criminals. Standing in the way of these sinners, criminals, or offenders is more than just listening to and going along with some really bad advice. This is stopping to associate with people who are determined to flout the laws of God. This is a person who needs to be somewhat comfortable hanging around trouble and isn’t simply being deceived due to ignorance or misplaced trust. Finally, he refuses to get himself comfortable to sit down with those who scoff at Yahweh and those faithful to Him. Think of the mocking at the Cross, “You wanted to save others, but you can’t even save yourself!” These are people who tempt us to deny the Lord because they throw his seeming “failures” in our faces and shame us for following the way of Yahweh.

And dang, I see this sort of thing a lot on social media when believers talk this way about one another just because of doctrinal differences or other differences of opinion or for daring to understand things differently. The sad thing is that mockers have huge YouTube followings, and they are incredibly destructive to the Kingdom. You can have someone who loves excellently and gives their life faithfully in service to the least of these, but if they celebrate Christmas or eat pork, then there are those who sit and scoff at them on YouTube—and it doesn’t bother their listeners at all. We must stop being comfortable listening to this scoffing, guys. Honestly, right here, it talks about how we are cutting ourselves off from blessings because God can’t be a part of that sort of foolishness. We are being called to wisdom and not to cheap shots. Scoffing is lazy and isn’t rooted in love. And even more disturbingly, that word translated as sit?—it’s yashav, a word that denotes a fair level of intimacy, a dwelling together or even being married. And I have seen how protective people are about their favorite mockers. It’s the carnal side of us yearning to have the dehumanizing mockery be somehow sanctified and not just ugly.

What does it require to stay away from this sort of influence? We have to be intentional about how we live instead of careless. Ahasuerus took Haman’s advice because he was careless. Judas betrayed Yeshua because he was a criminal. And let’s not forget my favorite episode in Scripture when all those teenagers got eaten by bears because they were mocking Elisha for being old and bald. Not cool, boys. You have got to have a seriously false sense of security within an honor/shame society before you would dare do that to a prophet. And how are we intentional? In what way—and where are we to learn the way so that we can be consistent and not haphazard in doing what is wise? Verse two tells us that the teachings of Scripture must be a desire and a delight—and although some versions say “law,” that is incorrect, and it would be a mistake to leave the narratives out. We learn a lot from what the patriarchs get wrong and how God responds, do we not? This person does not quietly meditate (as we would define the word modernly), but they are audibly muttering the words of Scripture day and night—which means he isn’t reading it out of a scroll at midnight or in the middle of the day. Because that was an oral society, the man has huge portions of it memorized and mutters it to himself throughout the day and night, so it becomes a part of him. By doing this, he avoids becoming entangled in the schemes, crimes, and scoffing of fools.

And that reminds me—when we read Proverbs, we see three categories of fools—the wicked, the sinners/offenders, and the scoffers/mockers. So, this man is not a fool, and in verse 3, he is compared to a tree planted by flowing water, which bears fruit at the appropriate time, and whose leaves never wither. Proverbs 3:18 describes Wisdom as “a tree of life who all who embrace her” and that the people who do so are “happy” and that word is closely related to the opening word of this Psalm, ashrei, which can be translated as either happy or blessed. Whenever we are looking at wisdom literature, we will see these themes of blessing and curse, righteousness vs. wickedness, the wise and the fool, etc. Trees are significant in Scripture and are often used to describe Israel, but when we have a tree beside flowing water—when something like that is expressed to an audience living in ancient Israel, which was dependant upon the rain and the rivers not drying up. This is a true picture of blessing—a tree with access to abundant water and always able to produce the expected and needed fruit. But leaves never withering? That just goes against nature, and so we are forced to think outside of the box a bit to the two times in history when this could be expected to occur—when mankind lived in the Garden in Eden and during the final eschatological Kingdom. In Genesis and in Revelation, we are confronted with the Tree of Life and a great river that splits into four mighty rivers. In Revelation 22:2 and Ezekiel 47:12, we see the Tree of Life and trees in general planted alongside rivers bearing fruit every month, and the leaves never withering. Eden and the Messianic Kingdom are both associated with immortality. This man is living in such a way that the curse of death is not something he needs to worry about. Everything he does is said to produce enduring and bountiful fruit.

Verse four takes us back to the first of the three types of fools—the wicked. Everything desired and pursued and delighted in by the wise person is shunned by the fool. NT Wright, and I love this, talks about how the life of wisdom develops in his book After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters (affiliate link) “Virtue, in this strict sense, is what happens when someone has made a thousand small choices, requiring effort and concentration, to do something which is good and right but which doesn’t “come naturally”—and then, on the thousand and first time, when it really matters, they find that they do what’s required “automatically,” as we say.” And he is absolutely right—when we do not practice wisdom very deliberately, making it part of ourselves, then we will be fools doing whatever we think is best in the moment according to our own desires. The wicked have refused to live deliberately in the counsel of Yahweh through His word, and so, throughout Scripture but especially in the wisdom literature, they serve as cautionary tales, oppressors, and the prime internal and external threats to Israel. To be wicked is to be anti-Kingdom. We are called to live deliberately–to love God and our neighbor.

As the wise are these nice, beefy, fruitful, enduring trees, the wicked are the most pathetic agricultural opposite. They are chaff, that external husk that is absolutely useless, unnutritious, and must be ground off before grain can be used. It literally exists to be destroyed and blown away. As far as describing the fate of a human being, it’s really very dark and disturbing. Chaff doesn’t matter—it just needs to be eliminated. So harsh. The implication here is that while the righteous need not fear the curse of death, the fate of the wicked is to be carried off to Sheol—the land of the dead. Not hell, but Sheol. And because Yahweh loves His people and His Kingdom and commands that His kings be wise and write out their own Torah scrolls, this is actually a very vibrant picture of the punishment due to anyone who counsels either His people, prophets, priests or kings toward the ways of the Beast Kingdom. Again, we are dealing with dueling destinies here depending on the path deliberately walked.

The wicked councilors, foolish in opposing Yahweh, won’t even be permitted to stand in judgment. Whether this is saying they will be judged in absentia—not even given the dignity of standing before the Lord—or that they will not be able to remain on their feet in the presence of the Lord, I do not know. But this isn’t positive and doesn’t bode well for the outcome. Perhaps as the wicked counsel against the ways of Yahweh, He doesn’t give them the time of day. They wanted nothing to do with Him, being actively opposed to righteousness and not simply ignorant of it, and so they get nothing of Him except His judgment. And we see that the sinners/offenders/criminals are also unable to stand where the righteous gather. Again, this sounds eschatological, meaning dealing with the end times judgment. I think about how certain people will be banned from the Holy City during the Messianic Kingdom. Everything about this just reeks not of torture but exclusion, which in the ancient world was a form of death and worse than physical pain. Meanwhile, the righteous are vindicated for living deliberately according to the way of Yahweh, after having been scoffed at, tempted, and even mislead at times.

And for the final contrast, as opposed to the wicked seemingly banned and excluded from their own judgment, the righteous have their way carefully and intimately guarded and watched by Yahweh. He has His eyes, so to speak, not simply on them but on their path. He is far more concerned with the path we are on than with our momentary safety and comfort. As the blessed man refused to become intimately entangled with the scoffers, we see this same language employed to describe how entangled Yahweh is in the way of the righteous. The way of the wicked, however, ceases to be, perishes, is ruined, or simply lost. Many translators choose different words because it is not always easy to render specific Hebrew terms using just one English word.

I want to talk about Joshua really quick here before we end this. At his commissioning in Josh 1:6-9, we see the following commandment: Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their ancestors to give them. “Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”

And this sounds very similar, right? Joshua is being commanded just as the blessed man. Follow the path that Moses laid out, constantly muttering the oracles of God, and you will be prosperous with the Lord intimately connected wherever your path leads. Joshua was a very unique leader—he and Caleb were the only two of the twelve spies to survive the wilderness because of their faithfulness and trust in the deliverance of God and His ability to deliver them into their inheritance. Joshua was, in some ways, a second but lesser Moses. As we will read in Matthew, Yeshua is portrayed as a second but greater Moses. And Yeshua is the Aramaic short form of Yehoshua, transliterated into English as Joshua.

Next time, when we talk about Psalm two, we’re going to take notice of how the two Psalms seem to work as a team describing the perfect King of Israel and how they set the stage for the rest of the book of Psalms.