How to understand Pslams in light of Christ

[Lazerlike42]

I was praying the breviary this morning, and it occurred to me to pose a question I’ve had for some time. There are a lot of psalms that say things that seem contrary to the Christian mindset. Now there are specific ones I have dealt with, answering people’s questions on the boards here for instance, and so I do understand. These are the ones that seem shockingly violent or whatnot However, there is a more general sort of attitude I don’t quite understand. For example, Psalm 101:

Psa 101:1 A Psalm of David. I will sing of steadfast love and justice; to you, O LORD, I will make music.
Psa 101:2 I will ponder the way that is blameless. Oh when will you come to me? I will walk with integrity of heart within my house;
Psa 101:3 I will not set before my eyes anything that is worthless. I hate the work of those who fall away; it shall not cling to me.
Psa 101:4 A perverse heart shall be far from me; I will know nothing of evil.
Psa 101:5 Whoever slanders his neighbor secretly I will destroy. Whoever has a haughty look and an arrogant heart I will not endure.
Psa 101:6 I will look with favor on the faithful in the land, that they may dwell with me; he who walks in the way that is blameless shall minister to me.
Psa 101:7 No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.
Psa 101:8 Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all the evildoers from the city of the LORD.

It seems contrary to the ideas of eating with sinners, of ignoring those who do wrong, and so forth. These sorts of things come up often enough. I can see this psalm in particular working out as if it were God saying it, especially from the standpoint of Heaven or the final judgment. That being said, when we look at it as David saying it, or as ourselves now praying it, how ought it to be understood?

 

[Della]

We have to remember that David was the sovereign ruler of his country, not a private citizen. He is saying he will keep his nation pure for the pure worship of God. It was not zeal alone that motivated him but the knowledge that his people belonged to God and so he, David, was responsible before the Lord for the behavior of his people. That’s a far cry from the “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude of our secular leadership, isn’t it?

We are not to do as David, a king, was allowed to do. He had the authority to enforce God’s laws, we don’t. Jesus fulfilled David’s role as King, but his Kingship is of another kind. It is not of this world nor does it need to enforce God’s Law, which still stands. It is a rule of love, not of force. That is the difference.

However, when Christ returns Scripture tells us he will rule with an iron hand, so there will come a time when human beings will have to answer to God, which is why we had better call on his mercy now.

 

[FCEGM]

I was praying the breviary this morning, and it occurred to me to pose a question I’ve had for some time. There are a lot of psalms that say things that seem contrary to the Christian mindset. Now there are specific ones I have dealt with, answering people’s questions on the boards here for instance, and so I do understand. These are the ones that seem shockingly violent or whatnot However, there is a more general sort of attitude I don’t quite understand. For example, Psalm 101:

It seems contrary to the ideas of eating with sinners, of ignoring those who do wrong, and so forth. These sorts of things come up often enough. I can see this psalm in particular working out as if it were God saying it, especially from the standpoint of Heaven or the final judgment. That being said, when we look at it as David saying it, or as ourselves now praying it, how ought it to be understood?

It’s actually very proper to the Christian mindset to long for God’s righteousness and holiness to be avenged (just a read of Revelation attests to that)- all on His time and terms, of course.

Thomas Merton wrote an excellent book on the Psalms and their place in Christian worship. This small excerpt encapsulates the Christian approach to the them:

“The psalms are not merely ancient poems which the Church fancifully adapts to her own liturgical uses. Everything in them is charged with vital urgency by virtue of the fact that they are full of Christ. Either they speak to us directly of the Redeemer Himself in His sufferings, His kingship, His priesthood: or else they narrate the trials and progress of the Mystical Christ, the Church, His people. When Israel went out of Egypt and wandered in the desert, God became a pilgrim with them in the dark years of their tribulation. He came down to them on the mountain in cloud and fire, speaking to them through Moses who was a type of Christ. He fed them in the desert with manna, foreshadowing the Holy Eucharist. Water sprang from a rock in the desert at the command of Moses, and never ceased to supply them until they settled in the Land of Promises. ‘The Rock,’ says St. Paul, ‘was Christ’ . . . .It is in chanting the Psalms that we too are leaving Egypt. The Liturgy is the Church’s greatest weapon against her enemies because it is filled with the might of the Mystery which is its center. The Mystery of Christ is the heart of all history and extends backwards and forwards and embraces all time. It was in Christ that Israel crossed the desert and it is in Christ that we, the tribes of Israel, are going up to Jerusalem. The Mystery of Christ is timeless: but we enter into it by consecrating to Him the little part that is ours of history and of time,” Thomas Merton, Bread In the Wilderness.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I understand it on the level that Della explained, but that seems to lead to a somewhat deeper question which is at the heart of it. When Christ ate with sinners, He seemed to hold the Pharisees accountable as if they ought to have been doing that anyways. He kept the law perfectly, and yet He associated with sinners, gave mercy to the sinful woman, and so forth. These things seem contrary to the law. Certainly He rejected those false additions to the law, such as prohibitions against healing on the Sabbath, but the law that was truly given to Moses He had to follow perfectly - at least until it was nailed to the cross. I would agree that perhaps David was doing this in saying the things in this Pslam. How was Christ doing so by doing the opposite?

 

[Mintaka]

First of all, I should probably say that the oldest Christian way of looking at the psalms – probably going all the way back to that Emmaus road – was to see David as foreshadowing the Son of David. The Psalms thus were properly read as being the songs of Jesus, both speaking of himself, and praying on our behalf with full knowledge of how we in our weakness felt.

That’s why the early Christians loved the psalms so very much, and knew them by heart, and sung them at every opportunity.

Now, obviously some psalms are something of a challenge in this light.

Re: eating with sinners

I just ran across something about this, actually. Don’t remember where. Anyway, the thing was that “eating with sinners” meant “I know he’s a sinner, but I want to suck up to him, so I’ll socialize with him to make points.” Jesus wasn’t eating with sinners because they were sinners and he was down with their evil selves; and he certainly wasn’t sucking up to them. He ate with sinners because He could see they were poor people who wanted to do better, and He could teach them to be better by eating with them. Or rather, by them eating with Him.

Heck, He can forgive their sins and make them not sinners. Which He usually does. So really, He’s eating with ex-sinners.

Jesus never breaks the Old Testament. He widens its applications and fulfills it. He’s not being less righteous than the King who doesn’t eat with sinners; the King is being even more righteous than He had previously revealed.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Is there actually a Divine commandment not to associate with sinners?

 

[FCEGM]

I understand it on the level that Della explained, but that seems to lead to a somewhat deeper question which is at the heart of it. When Christ ate with sinners, He seemed to hold the Pharisees accountable as if they ought to have been doing that anyways. He kept the law perfectly, and yet He associated with sinners, gave mercy to the sinful woman, and so forth. These things seem contrary to the law. Certainly He rejected those false additions to the law, such as prohibitions against healing on the Sabbath, but the law that was truly given to Moses He had to follow perfectly - at least until it was nailed to the cross. I would agree that perhaps David was doing this in saying the things in this Pslam. How was Christ doing so by doing the opposite?

It’s important to remember that avoiding contact with sinners helped insure the ritual purity necessary to participate in the worship at the Temple. For Christ, Who in Himself holds all forgiveness and mercy, the sinners of His time on earth are being returned to spiritual wholeness that will allow them to worship “in spirit and in truth” the One Who is the reason for the Temple in the first place. They foreshadow all - Jew and Gentile - who will find healing in Him through the Temple of His Body.