Jump to:
Exegetical Theology: Reading the Psalms Together—Psalms 1–2 and 35–41
While Psalms 1–2 have long been viewed as an introduction to the Psalter as a whole, it can be argued even further that they serve as a preface to Book I of the Psalter in particular (Pss 1–41). This is the argument made by Gianni Barbiero in an essay on the psalm cluster (Pss 35–41) that concludes Book I.[1] Barbiero sees the center of Book I (Pss 18-22) taking up these themes of Torah (Ps 1) and the kingdom of the Messiah (Ps 2). When one then looks to the overall structure of Pss 1–41 from beginning to middle to end, it is only fitting that just as a double macarism (“blessing”) begins Book I (Ps 1:1 and Ps 2:12), so also a double macarism concludes it (Ps 40:4 and Ps 41:1).[2]
From this perspective, both Psalms 40 and 41 take up the messianic theme from Psalms 1–2 and 18–22. In Ps 40:8 the Torah of the Lord is in David’s heart, just as it is the focus for his meditation in Ps 1:2. Barbiero refers back to the preceding clusters of Book I to support his argument that Psalms 35–41 serves as a concluding development of the themes of Book I: “In response to the corruption of humanity (Pss 3–14), the following psalms introduce the institutions of salvation for the people of God. First, Pss 15–24 sketch out the kingdom of the messiah (Pss 18; 20–22); then Pss 25–34 culminate in the proclamation of the kingdom of YHWH seated on his throne in Zion (Pss 29; 30). These two themes are then repeated in the collection of Pss 35–41.”[3]
Psalm 37, perhaps more than any other psalm in Book I, demonstrates the particular influence of Psalms 1–2, as explored in an essay by Phil J. Botha.[4] Psalm 37 can be viewed as an admonition to the righteous not to be troubled by or envious of the prosperity of those who do evil (Ps 37:1, 7–8, 20, 35). Here one finds clear thematic connections with Psalms 1 and 2, not just in the reoccurrence of similar words but in the immediate contexts and constructions in which they occur:
- “perish,” אָבַד (Ps 1:6; Ps 2:12; and Ps 37:20)
- “speak,” הָגָה (Ps 1:2; Ps 2:1; and Ps 37:30)
- “wither,” נָבֵל (Ps 1:3 and Ps 37:2)
- “prosper,” צָלַח (Ps 1:3 and Ps 37:7)
- “Torah,” תּוֹרָה (Ps 1:2 and Ps 37:31)
- “Lord,” אָדוֹן (Ps 2:4 and Ps 37:13)
- “earth, land,” אֶ֫רֶץ (Ps 2:8, 10 and Ps 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34)
- “know,” יָדַע (Ps 1:6 and Ps 37:18)
- “road,” דֶּ֫רֶך (Ps 1:1, 6; Ps 2:12; Ps 37:34)
- “seek refuge,” חָסָה (Ps 2:12 and Ps 37:40)
- “the wicked,” רְשָׁעִים (Ps 1:1, 6 and Ps 37:10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 32, 33, 35, 38, 40)[5]
If Psalm 37 was written as a commentary on Psalm 1, as Botha believes, the reason may perhaps have been to encourage the righteous to wait for the Lord’s intervention and not seek retribution on their own, but to instead trust in the Lord, being content with what he has given them as they wait for him to restore his kingdom: “The way to establish YHWH’s kingship over the world (Ps 2) is through obedience to the Torah (Ps 1).”[6]
Prof. Andrew Hussman serves as professor at Luther Preparatory School.
[1] Gianni Barbiero, “Psalms 35–41 as the Conclusion of Book I of the Psalms,” in The Formation of the Hebrew Psalter, eds., Barbiero et al. (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2021), 289–305.
[2] Barbiero, “Conclusion,” 292. Barbiero adds the further comment here (fn 15): “The macarism has a structural function in the Psalter: it appears at the beginning and the end of the five books (Ps 1:1; 2:12; 40:5; 41:2; 89:16; 106:13; 144:15; 146:5).”
[3] Barbiero, “Conclusion,” 293-294, emphasis in the original.
[4] Phil J. Botha, “Indications of Intentional Interconnectedness between Pss 1–2 and Ps 37 and the Implications for Understanding the Concerns of the Editors of Book I of the Psalms,” in The Formation of the Hebrew Psalter: The Book of Psalms Between Ancient Versions, Material Transmission and Canonical Exegesis, eds. Gianni Barbiero, Marco Pavan, and Johannes Schnocks (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2021), 167–185.
[5] Botha, “Indications,” 172–183.
[6] Botha, “Indications,” 183.
Systematic Theology: Jesus wants people of all ages baptized
On May 1, 1523, Ulrich Zwingli and Balthasar Hubmaier met by a moat in Zurich to discuss baptism. Hubmaier claims Zwingli agreed infant baptism must end. Zwingli would deny this conversation ever happened. Zwingli then enforces infant baptism through violence.[1] An alleged conversation sparks a movement that continues. Many believe infant baptism is not baptism.
Mary McAleese, former President of Ireland, believes that baptism must be left to adults to prevent children from being indoctrinated: “Parents can guide and direct [their children] but they can’t impose, and what the church has failed to do is to recognize that there has to be a point at which our young people, as adults who have been baptized into the church and raised in the faith, have the chance to say ‘I validate this’ or ‘I repudiate this.’”[2]
Hubmaier and McAleese make an argument many find compelling: Infants are too young to have genuine faith and believe.
Lutherans often approach the issue of infant baptism from the two angles of original sin and the great commission. If that’s your approach, awesome! Baptism forgives and forgiveness is needed on account of original sin. Jesus tells Christians to baptize all nations without exclusion. Christ has not built a fence around baptism to keep children out. No threats are given to those who let the children come toward him through baptismal waters.
Hubmaier and McAleese’s belief that infants cannot believe is another angle to address. Jesus says infants do believe in him: “And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea” (Matt 18:5-6, NIV).
Jesus says people from all nations will become his disciples through the gospel in baptism and the Word. He tells us to welcome children: μικροί, the least in age. Tiny children and infants. He threatens those who get in his way. Jesus says παιδία and μικροί do in fact believe in him. Is this so ridiculous? A father hears his daughter screaming in a newborn intensive care unit. He speaks and she hears a voice she already trusts. Her fears flee and she holds dad’s finger with all the strength she has. She trusts dad.
Jesus says people her age know him. Faith is childlike trust. Teaching baptism gives us an opportunity to highlight what faith is, and why Christians baptize those Jesus says can believe in him: People of all ages.
Rev. Patrick Freese serves as pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Abita Springs, LA.
[1] Jonathan Rainbow, “’Confessor Baptism’: The Baptismal Doctrine of the Early Anabaptists”, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Schreiner, Thomas and Shawn Wright, editors.Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006. Page 189.
[2] Patsy McGarry, “Infant Baptism is enforced membership of the Catholic Church, says Mary McAleese”, The Irish Times, (22 June 2018). https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/infant-baptism-is-enforced-membership-of-the-catholic-church-says-mary-mcaleese-1.3540706
Historical Theology: Teaching Church History, Part 3: Church History Is Practical
Objection to teaching church history #2: “I just want to teach the Bible. Besides, my members have too many practical problems right now for us to spend our precious time talking about stuff that happened hundreds of years ago.”
Teaching church history doesn’t have to (and shouldn’t!) mean setting the Bible aside. Rather, church history can be a springboard to digging into Scripture and helping your people apply its truth. The following scenarios and questions serve to exemplify the many practical connections between what the saints wrestled with hundreds of years ago and what Christians wrestle with today, and how you can easily connect them to God’s Word.
It’s 800 AD in Rome. The papacy has gained significant political power by receiving land from King Pepin and crowning Charlemagne as emperor. Everyone celebrates the strengthened role of the church. But are the pope and the church becoming too worldly? Are these good changes? What does Scripture say about the Church’s role in politics?
It’s 1348 in Avignon. The Black Death has reached your city. Thousands are dying, including your loved ones. Some say it’s God’s punishment. Others blame the Jews. Still others publicly flog themselves to earn God’s mercy. Your neighbor mocks the church and says God must not care. Who is right? Is there any real source of hope or comfort?
- How do you think a Christian at that time would have answered those questions?
- What Bible stories or passages help us to answer those questions correctly?
- What similar situations does this same Word of God speak to in our lives today?
These three simple questions can be used to ensure the class remains practical and keeps its proper focus on spiritual transformation, not just historical information. At any point, you can bring in more Bible passages, biblical narratives, or doctrinal discussions. I’d bet there isn’t a doctrine, portion of Scripture, or current issue that you couldn’t easily find a very natural way to talk about while walking through church history.
One further benefit to teaching church history in this way is the ability to address sensitive issues indirectly, through the side door. Talking about the balance of power between Charlemagne and the pope probably isn’t going to get your people too riled up. But it will get the discussion about politics grounded on God’s Word before you move it to the present day. Similarly, people probably won’t have a strong emotional response to the Black Death. This will help them to consider God’s comfort in the midst of tragedy objectively and then apply it to their own personal experiences.
This progression from considering the scenario to discerning biblical truth to making personal application becomes natural for everyone in class. God willing, it also becomes more natural in their everyday lives as they continue to gain perspective, address complexity with humility, go to the Bible, and live out its truth in their lives. And those are very practical skills to have in the face of any present-day problems.
Rev. Nathanael Jensen serves as pastor at Cross of Christ Lutheran in Las Cruces, NM.
Practical Theology: Old Testament Stories in the Pastor’s Hands, Part 2
From creation to conquest, from exile to return, the Holy Spirit revealed God’s character and promises through story. Long before wide access to written texts, these narratives shaped the faith of God’s people. Today, the blessings of Old Testament stories are also uniquely suited for our text-weary culture.
1. Old Testament stories capture attention.
In 1931, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was assigned to teach confirmation in one of Berlin’s roughest neighborhoods. By his own account, the boys were rowdy and unruly—until he switched his approach. “At the beginning the boys were acting wild, so for the first time I really had discipline problems. But here too one thing helped, namely, just simply telling the boys Bible stories in all their intensity… Now it is absolutely quiet.” (DBWE 11:76)
Our congregations are not all restless boys, but they are distracted, biblically thin, and suckers for stories. When you tell an Old Testament narrative with intensity, God’s Word still quiets the room. (This also highlights the importance of practice!)
2. Old Testament stories level the playing field.
In a room where some members grew up on Sunday School flannelgraphs and others barely know Moses, a story puts everyone on equal footing. Once they’ve heard it, anyone can join the discussion. A new believer can discuss Gideon’s fear or Ruth’s loyalty as readily as a lifelong Lutheran. Stories invite participation without embarrassment or pretense. Often we explain doctrine and then use a story to illustrate. Try reversing the order and see how discussion blooms.
3. Old Testament stories disarm hearers.
Pastoral work often meets guarded hearts—people who are convinced they know what you’re going to say, or prospects whose defenses rise at the mention of doctrine. Direct propositions usually meet direct resistance, but a story can slip past defenses. Nathan’s parable to David is a classic example. Or consider Jesus’s penchant for parables. Stories disarm hearers and let God’s truth land before application begins.
Think of those hardest to reach on Sunday: the husband who came only to watch his child sing, the academic who assumes he’s heard it all before, the teen itching for her phone. When you begin, “There was once a young man named Joseph…” people instinctively focus on the plot. As his dreams, his betrayal, his rise, and his tears before his brothers unfold, they forget themselves. For a few moments, skeptic, scholar, and teen alike are children again, listening to the story. Then you have the privilege of pointing to Christ—the Brother who was betrayed and yet forgives. They might not leave the sanctuary weeping, but I bet they’ll remember God’s story.
Practical steps this month:
- Look ahead and select some Old Testament narratives to preach on.
- Keep honing the five Old Testament stories you chose and practice making clear transitions to Christ.
- Add at least one sensory detail or brief historical note to make the scene vivid without distorting the text.
- Use one of your chosen stories at every gathering this month—shut-in visits, council devotions, counseling sessions.
Rev. Peter Schlicht serves as pastor at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in West Bend, WI.
[1] Lifeway Research OT literacy report (Aug 2024).