Somebody Else’s Mail (24)

Today, evangelical Christendom divides broadly into people who relate to the formulation “Christ is King” and people who prefer “Jesus is Lord”, a subject discussed at length in this post. The first statement is the hope of the Israelite remnant. Ironically, we hear it most frequently today from Christians who conflate our present era with the millennial reign of Christ, many of whom don’t think much of Jews. The second statement was characteristic of the apostles and writers of the New Testament and best describes the Church’s relationship to Israel’s rejected Messiah.

God has made him both Lord and Christ. We completely concur.

Today’s conclusion of Psalm 10 brings the titles of Lord and King together “forever and ever”, a hope about which every branch of divided Christendom can happily agree. One day soon the millennium will arrive in all its anticipated glory. No Christian of any self-identified stripe will object to that.

Psalm 10:12-15 — An Appeal

“Arise, O Lord; O God, lift up your hand; forget not the afflicted. Why does the wicked renounce God and say in his heart, ‘You will not call to account’? But you do see, for you note mischief and vexation, that you may take it into your hands; to you the helpless commits himself; you have been the helper of the fatherless. Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer; call his wickedness to account till you find none.”

Forget Not

As in many places where the writers of scripture use such language, “forget not” does not imply that God has a bad memory and needs a reminder that the afflicted are in serious distress; rather, “forget not” is a call to action. “Forget not” means “Let’s see the hand of God in judgment.” The word “arise” and the phrases “lift up your hand”, “take it into your hand”, “break the arm of the wicked” and “call his wickedness to account” all reinforce this. The psalm is not a divine memory aid but a prayer for relief to the only one who can deliver it.

Renouncing God

In English, the word “renounce” implies casting aside a previous relationship, a public disclaiming of association. A wicked man in OT times who renounced God in that sense would almost have to be either an Israelite or a proselyte of Judaism, one who had an established relationship with YHWH to abandon. However, the Hebrew word used in verse 13 does not have the same connotation as in English. In the old KJV, it was “contemn”, a word incomprehensible to most modern readers. In other OT contexts, it is variously translated “abhor”, “provoke”, “despise” and even “blaspheme”. Any heathen could abhor, despise or blaspheme Israel’s God, and a few later did. Thus, the word tells us nothing with respect to the nationality of the wicked person or persons who oppress the afflicted in Israel.

You Will Not Call to Account

Three times in this psalm, the wicked views God as distant and uninterested, thus he has no fear of judgment and does as he pleases. In verse 4, the wicked man’s version of God is so uninterested he is not even there. In verse 6, he says, “I shall not be moved; throughout all generations I shall not meet adversity.” Here he says, “You will not call to account.” Nevertheless, the psalmist responds with confidence in God’s character, “But you do see.” Amen. God is paying close attention after all.

Mischief and Vexation

In modern usage, the word “mischief” often has a frivolous connotation, like the pranks of a teenager. The ESV has inexplicably retained that sense here, though translators elsewhere go with “labor”, “misery”, “sorrow” or “pain”. Likewise, the Hebrew word translated “vexation” is strong language. Bible historians use it about God’s reaction to the golden calves of Jeroboam, a sin for which Israel went into Assyrian exile. The Lord notes these things precisely because they are not trivial. He cares deeply about human suffering and identifies with those going through it. The Lord Jesus suffered mischief and vexation of the sort described here.

A Helper to the Fatherless

The Lord also cares deeply about orphans. The Law of Moses mentions them at least thirteen times, either commanding his people to treat them well, or reminding the reader that God will surely enforce their rights and meet their needs. Here, the psalmist writes, “You have been the helper of the fatherless.”

The widow of Zarephath’s son, fed in days of famine by a miraculously replenished supply of oil and flour, and whom the Lord raised from the dead through Elijah, serves as a great example of the Lord’s tender care for the fatherless, including Gentiles. Of course, it’s highly unlikely the writer had that particular illustration in mind when composing Psalm 10. Assuming the psalmist was David, Elijah’s ministry began over a century after he died.

Psalm 10:16-18 — Forever King

“The Lord is king forever and ever; the nations perish from his land. O Lord, you hear the desire of the afflicted; you will strengthen their heart; you will incline your ear to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.”

King Forever and Ever

In a general sense, it is always true that “the Lord is king”, especially in relation to Israel. However, the ultimate realization of these verses is not in the here and now, but in future days when Christ is enthroned in Jerusalem, putting an end to terror for all time. The last phrase seems purposeful and conclusive, and I believe it is.

These final three verses sound more like Psalm 9 than Psalm 10. If the two psalms were indeed originally one, these verses provide a logical resolution to the praises of Psalm 9. They bring us back to the nations under judgment and Christ’s millennial reign. Yet posing a connection between the two psalms leaves us with questions unanswered. Who is the evil person or persons described in 10:1-15? Why the interval? Are he/they Jewish or foreign? Does the psalmist describe a type of individual present across time, or is he thinking of a specific person or persons? I don’t have definite answers to those questions.

His Land

I’ve been reading discussions online recently in which some of the more extreme young Replacement Theologians take the Palestinian side in the ongoing Gaza Strip crisis. A few even anticipate yet another Israeli diaspora with something approaching enthusiasm. It’s good to be reminded that the land in which Israel currently resides belongs to God, and the sovereign Lord will give it to whomever he pleases. YHWH asserts this for the first time in Leviticus 25, explaining why Israelites could never sell land in in perpetuity. It’s God’s land, not Israel’s. The nations will perish from “his land”.

The Nations Perish

The word translated “perish” is yet another strong term. In the aftermath of seven plagues, Pharaoh’s servants said Egypt had perished. It’s also used of the those who participated in Korah’s rebellion and were swallowed up by the earth. They certainly perished.

As it stands, this statement about the nations has never been true at any point in Israel’s checkered history. God’s people never fully displaced the indigenous Canaanites. In later years, the kings of Assyria imported the nations into the region that became Samaria, where they still resided during the time of Christ. Then came Roman occupation, and eventually the diaspora of AD70. Even today, 2.1 million Arabs live in Israel, of which 83% are Muslims.

This being the case, “the nations perish from his land” is either hyperbole or prophecy. I favor the latter. The psalmist anticipates a future day in which the land will be Israel’s, no argument from anyone left alive. All potential opponents and gainsayers will disappear forever. Wherever today’s Palestinians may eventually settle, it will not be “from the river to the sea”. Those who hope so are fighting God.

Man who is of the Earth

Modern translations pluralize this phrase. It is either “mankind”, “men” or “humans”. The KJV and NKJV make it singular: “the man”. The prophets of scripture indeed speak of a coming man who will terrorize Israel, subject the temple to the abomination of desolation, and even make himself to be God, and it’s an interesting thought that perhaps the psalmist speaks of him here. However, there’s no compelling linguistic reason to entertain the idea that a particular individual is in view in Psalm 10. We get that truth from other passages.