MY SHORT REPORT PSALMS 26-65
The link that brought you to this page and the page title are a bit of a misnomer, because this short report is not long enough to cover so many chapters of the Bible. What the link and the title do, however, is track where we are in our plan to read through the entire Bible in 1 year. May each report pique your interest and help you to draw near to God. The Bible, James 4:8, tells us if we do so God will draw near to us. Works cited are at the end of the report. Internal links provide additional information.
BIBLE READING—WEEK 25—PSALMS 26-65: Last week’s report gave a brief summary of the book of Psalms including why it is especially important to the Christian, and compared and contrasted how Luther and Burg viewed the 23rd Psalm. This week’s Short Report looks at Luther’s perspective of the 26th Psalm and the considers the view of 8 different commentaries to set the record straight on the 45th Psalm—it really is a Messianic Psalm.
At 12 verses and 25 lines of text the 26th Psalm is a short prayer that decries evil in its many forms. David does not claim to be without sin, only in a right relationship with God. He seeks God and asks Him to judge the situation as he laments the lies, hypocrisy, wicked deeds, violence, evil thoughts, and bribes he sees in the world. David contrasts himself with such people as one who walks with integrity and trusts in the Lord. He avoids evil and the places it dwells, but stands on level ground in the house of the Lord, the place he loves and from where he offers sacrifice and praise.
Luther tells his readers that Psalm 26 is a psalm of lament against the false doctrine held by those that think the works of the Law can make them holy. He brings Philippians 3:19 into view saying such people are ruled by their bellies. And he concludes by assigning the psalm to the Third Commandment and the First and Second petitions of the Lord’s Prayer (Reading, 65).
Rather than a commentary on Psalm 26, the words we have from Luther came from a sermon based on the psalm, which Luther delivered to his congregation on May 12, 1525 (Works, p. IX)
Just as David dealt with wicked people—the nations surrounding Israel as well as internal strife—in his day Luther stood against evil works in the Roman Church like the sale of indulgences and from such men as Johann Tetzel, infamous for the expression, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings the soul from purgatory springs." Luther rightly attributed such works to the devil, who “does not rest or take a holiday … [and who] uses false teachers and his lying prophets, who destroy the Word of God under the guise of truth” (p. 183).
Luther was not wrong to apply this psalm to his specific situation. How many times have we read and seen ourselves or a friend through a verse or chapter of the Bible? The Roman Church of his day was led by deceitful men that troubled Luther’s soul. He sought to correct the state of affairs by starting a conversation. Consequently, he posted his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. Rather than a conversation, however, he started a firestorm as the Roman Church tried to justify their false doctrine. Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther on January 3, 1521. No doubt Luther’s struggles with correctly understanding and applying the Word—faith alone!—and the trials the Roman Church put him through was still foremost on his mind four years later as he stood before his church to present his sermon—a church that in many ways lived through the ordeal with him.
Why set the record straight? Lots of reasons, but two are plenty for now: 1) our God is not a God of confusion, so errors need to be corrected so no misinformation lingers about. 2) some misinformation is better called false doctrine, like the sale of indulgences, which can ruin the soul.
If you read enough commentaries on some chapters or verses of the Bible you will see some opposing thoughts even in the mainstream of Biblical understanding, that is the case with Psalm 45. The opposing thought, that this is an actual marriage of an earthly king, is not a strong one, it could even be called the minority view, but is there and must be addressed.
Keil and Delitzsch misstep by first contrasting Psalm 45 with Psalm 44, They state, “But whilst in 44:5 the words ‘Thou, Thou art my King, Elohim,’ are addressed in prayer to the God of Israel, in this Psalm [45] the person of the king who is celebrated is a matter of doubt and controversy.” For them, the doubt and controversy arises because “The Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:8) proceeds on the assumption that it is the future Christ, the Son of God.” Based on this “assumption,” on the part of the author of Hebrews, they conclude that the “prophetically Messianic sense is therefore not the original meaning of the Psalm” (Olive Tree).
I could not believe my eyes. It is absolutely preposterous to say the author of the book of Hebrews—the Holy Spirit—interconnected verses from Psalm 45 and Hebrews 1 together based on conjecture! This still leaves the question about “the person of the king who is celebrated.” Other theologians have tried to identify which of David’s offspring could have, prior to the Babylonian Captivity, evoked such feelings from the scribe. Which king led Israel in such an upright manner, or was respected as such a warrior? Which foreign queen is spoken of? Solomon, for instance, was selected for the throne because he was not a warrior. Ahab also had a foreign wife, but she controlled her husband and brought with her 450 prophets of Baal, which was a disaster for the Kingdom of Judah.
VanGemeren, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, also steps off on the wrong foot by taking the view that Psalm 45 is “applicable to any descendant of David.” He feels the psalm would have given hope to the Babylonian Captives who looked forward to the “restoration of the Davidic Dynasty.” He also mentions the Christian perspective based on Hebrews 1:8-9 that Jesus is the main subject of the psalm, but counters by saying, “Expositors must first listen to the psalm in the context of Israel and refrain from reading only the relationship of Christ and the church into this text” (p. 396).
Luther disagrees, and wrote about 500 years before VanGemeren, that Psalm 45 is a prophecy psalm “of the Gospel and the kingdom of Christ” (Reading, 112).
Halley followed Luther by about 400 years. By then commentaries were springing up everywhere , and I think he is just being nice when he says that Psalm 45 “may, in part, have reference to David or Solomon.” He makes it clear, however, that “some of its statements are wholly inapplicable to either, or to any other human sovereign. It surely seems to be a Song of the Messiah, anticipating the Marriage of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7)” (p. 258). Thus, Halley refutes Keil’s and Delitzsch’s belief that the king is unknown, and VanGemeren’s acceptance that the king in question could be any of David’s descendants.
Spurgeon followed Luther by about 350 years, and has no problem stepping on a few toes. He declares, “Some see Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter only—they are short-sighted; others see both Solomon and Christ—they are cross-eyed; well-focused spiritual eyes see here Jesus only” (p. 315).
Matthew Henry—about 200 years after Luther—wrote, “This psalm is a prophecy of Messiah the Prince, and points to him as a Bridegroom espousing the church to himself, and as a King ruling in it, and for it” (Olive Tree).
John Vernon McGee went to his reward in 1988, while he was with us he wrote, “This is a messianic psalm and is so quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews. … This very wonderful psalm speaks of the second coming of Christ. This changes the tenor of the Psalms from the cry of a people in the anguish of tribulation to the glorious triumph of their coming King, as it is described in Revelation, chapter 19. Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke of it also (Matt. 24:29–30), and it is the hope of the world” (Olive Tree).
Professor John F. Brug taught Old Testament and Christian Doctrine at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary for more than thirty years., and is still with us. He says the author “is not writing about an ordinary king or composing a wedding march for a royal wedding of Israel. By inspiration he is writing for Christ, the messianic King, and for his wedding to his bride, the Church” (pp. 186-187).
In conclusion, it is pure speculation on VanGemeren’s part to say the exiles found comfort in the 45th Psalm as they anticipated returning to the Promised Land and seeing a member of David’s line on the throne, and nothing in the Biblical record, nor the archaeological record, lends support to his theory. We do know that many of the exiles were so well assimilated into the Babylonian culture they did not leave when Cyrus, the king of Persia, decreed their freedom to return to Israel (2 Chronicles 36). It makes more sense to think the returning exiles found hope in the God of David—the Good Shepherd—rather than a human king, such as Ahab, simply because he was one of David’s offspring, especially when David’s line held the throne when they were so soundly defeated and taken into captivity.
If their hope was in David, couldn’t other Scriptures serve to inspire them? Though not a wedding song, Psalm 110 carries a similar message. 1 Chronicles 2 covers David’s lineage, but 2 Samuel 7:12-16 speaks directly to God’s covenant with David, and 1 Samuel 17 records David’s great victory over Goliath. Couldn’t the exiles find hope in those Scriptures? In a word “yes.” The Bible offers many passages that carried hope for the exiles, especially the ones that say, “return to God” like 2 Chronicles 7:14, or “trust God” as they are told in Proverbs 3:5, or look to God in times of trouble like Psalm 46:1.
It is not about the numbers. 2 commentaries in the minority view does not make them automatically wrong and the 6 commentaries in the majority right. But the majority view agrees with the Bible’s teaching found in the book of Hebrews, which focuses on the supremacy of Jesus and directly quotes from Psalm 45 in so doing. So we stand on the Scriptures, and alongside the commentaries that also agree with God’s Word.
This week’s review of the chapters of the Bible in our reading plan first looked at Luther’s perspective of the 26th Psalm, which we received by way of a sermon he delivered to his church, and compared and contrasted several different commentaries to set the record straight on the 45th Psalm—it really is a Messianic Psalm.
At 12 verses and 25 lines of text the 26th Psalm is a short prayer that decries evil in its many forms. David does not claim to be without sin, only in a right relationship with God. He seeks God and asks Him to judge the situation as he laments the lies, hypocrisy, wicked deeds, violence, evil thoughts, and bribes he sees in the world. David contrasts himself with such people as one who walks with integrity and trusts in the Lord. He avoids evil and the places it dwells, but stands on level ground in the house of the Lord, the place he loves and from where he offers sacrifice and praise.
Luther tells his readers that Psalm 26 is a psalm of lament against the false doctrine held by those that think the works of the Law can make them holy. He brings Philippians 3:19 into view saying such people are ruled by their bellies. And he concludes by assigning the psalm to the Third Commandment and the First and Second petitions of the Lord’s Prayer (Reading, 65).
Rather than a commentary on Psalm 26, the words we have from Luther came from a sermon based on the psalm, which Luther delivered to his congregation on May 12, 1525 (Works, p. IX)
Just as David dealt with wicked people—the nations surrounding Israel as well as internal strife—in his day Luther stood against evil works in the Roman Church like the sale of indulgences and from such men as Johann Tetzel, infamous for the expression, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings the soul from purgatory springs." Luther rightly attributed such works to the devil, who “does not rest or take a holiday … [and who] uses false teachers and his lying prophets, who destroy the Word of God under the guise of truth” (p. 183).
Luther was not wrong to apply this psalm to his specific situation. How many times have we read and seen ourselves or a friend through a verse or chapter of the Bible? The Roman Church of his day was led by deceitful men that troubled Luther’s soul. He sought to correct the state of affairs by starting a conversation. Consequently, he posted his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. Rather than a conversation, however, he started a firestorm as the Roman Church tried to justify their false doctrine. Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther on January 3, 1521. No doubt Luther’s struggles with correctly understanding and applying the Word—faith alone!—and the trials the Roman Church put him through was still foremost on his mind four years later as he stood before his church to present his sermon—a church that in many ways lived through the ordeal with him.
Why set the record straight? Lots of reasons, but two are plenty for now: 1) our God is not a God of confusion, so errors need to be corrected so no misinformation lingers about. 2) some misinformation is better called false doctrine, like the sale of indulgences, which can ruin the soul.
If you read enough commentaries on some chapters or verses of the Bible you will see some opposing thoughts even in the mainstream of Biblical understanding, that is the case with Psalm 45. The opposing thought, that this is an actual marriage of an earthly king, is not a strong one, it could even be called the minority view, but is there and must be addressed.
Keil and Delitzsch misstep by first contrasting Psalm 45 with Psalm 44, They state, “But whilst in 44:5 the words ‘Thou, Thou art my King, Elohim,’ are addressed in prayer to the God of Israel, in this Psalm [45] the person of the king who is celebrated is a matter of doubt and controversy.” For them, the doubt and controversy arises because “The Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:8) proceeds on the assumption that it is the future Christ, the Son of God.” Based on this “assumption,” on the part of the author of Hebrews, they conclude that the “prophetically Messianic sense is therefore not the original meaning of the Psalm” (Olive Tree).
I could not believe my eyes. It is absolutely preposterous to say the author of the book of Hebrews—the Holy Spirit—interconnected verses from Psalm 45 and Hebrews 1 together based on conjecture! This still leaves the question about “the person of the king who is celebrated.” Other theologians have tried to identify which of David’s offspring could have, prior to the Babylonian Captivity, evoked such feelings from the scribe. Which king led Israel in such an upright manner, or was respected as such a warrior? Which foreign queen is spoken of? Solomon, for instance, was selected for the throne because he was not a warrior. Ahab also had a foreign wife, but she controlled her husband and brought with her 450 prophets of Baal, which was a disaster for the Kingdom of Judah.
VanGemeren, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, also steps off on the wrong foot by taking the view that Psalm 45 is “applicable to any descendant of David.” He feels the psalm would have given hope to the Babylonian Captives who looked forward to the “restoration of the Davidic Dynasty.” He also mentions the Christian perspective based on Hebrews 1:8-9 that Jesus is the main subject of the psalm, but counters by saying, “Expositors must first listen to the psalm in the context of Israel and refrain from reading only the relationship of Christ and the church into this text” (p. 396).
Luther disagrees, and wrote about 500 years before VanGemeren, that Psalm 45 is a prophecy psalm “of the Gospel and the kingdom of Christ” (Reading, 112).
Halley followed Luther by about 400 years. By then commentaries were springing up everywhere , and I think he is just being nice when he says that Psalm 45 “may, in part, have reference to David or Solomon.” He makes it clear, however, that “some of its statements are wholly inapplicable to either, or to any other human sovereign. It surely seems to be a Song of the Messiah, anticipating the Marriage of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7)” (p. 258). Thus, Halley refutes Keil’s and Delitzsch’s belief that the king is unknown, and VanGemeren’s acceptance that the king in question could be any of David’s descendants.
Spurgeon followed Luther by about 350 years, and has no problem stepping on a few toes. He declares, “Some see Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter only—they are short-sighted; others see both Solomon and Christ—they are cross-eyed; well-focused spiritual eyes see here Jesus only” (p. 315).
Matthew Henry—about 200 years after Luther—wrote, “This psalm is a prophecy of Messiah the Prince, and points to him as a Bridegroom espousing the church to himself, and as a King ruling in it, and for it” (Olive Tree).
John Vernon McGee went to his reward in 1988, while he was with us he wrote, “This is a messianic psalm and is so quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews. … This very wonderful psalm speaks of the second coming of Christ. This changes the tenor of the Psalms from the cry of a people in the anguish of tribulation to the glorious triumph of their coming King, as it is described in Revelation, chapter 19. Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke of it also (Matt. 24:29–30), and it is the hope of the world” (Olive Tree).
Professor John F. Brug taught Old Testament and Christian Doctrine at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary for more than thirty years., and is still with us. He says the author “is not writing about an ordinary king or composing a wedding march for a royal wedding of Israel. By inspiration he is writing for Christ, the messianic King, and for his wedding to his bride, the Church” (pp. 186-187).
In conclusion, it is pure speculation on VanGemeren’s part to say the exiles found comfort in the 45th Psalm as they anticipated returning to the Promised Land and seeing a member of David’s line on the throne, and nothing in the Biblical record, nor the archaeological record, lends support to his theory. We do know that many of the exiles were so well assimilated into the Babylonian culture they did not leave when Cyrus, the king of Persia, decreed their freedom to return to Israel (2 Chronicles 36). It makes more sense to think the returning exiles found hope in the God of David—the Good Shepherd—rather than a human king, such as Ahab, simply because he was one of David’s offspring, especially when David’s line held the throne when they were so soundly defeated and taken into captivity.
If their hope was in David, couldn’t other Scriptures serve to inspire them? Though not a wedding song, Psalm 110 carries a similar message. 1 Chronicles 2 covers David’s lineage, but 2 Samuel 7:12-16 speaks directly to God’s covenant with David, and 1 Samuel 17 records David’s great victory over Goliath. Couldn’t the exiles find hope in those Scriptures? In a word “yes.” The Bible offers many passages that carried hope for the exiles, especially the ones that say, “return to God” like 2 Chronicles 7:14, or “trust God” as they are told in Proverbs 3:5, or look to God in times of trouble like Psalm 46:1.
It is not about the numbers. 2 commentaries in the minority view does not make them automatically wrong and the 6 commentaries in the majority right. But the majority view agrees with the Bible’s teaching found in the book of Hebrews, which focuses on the supremacy of Jesus and directly quotes from Psalm 45 in so doing. So we stand on the Scriptures, and alongside the commentaries that also agree with God’s Word.
This week’s review of the chapters of the Bible in our reading plan first looked at Luther’s perspective of the 26th Psalm, which we received by way of a sermon he delivered to his church, and compared and contrasted several different commentaries to set the record straight on the 45th Psalm—it really is a Messianic Psalm.