• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

A Few Thoughts on Psalm 1

Jesus' teaching is much more comprehensive than the Law of Moses. Could I ask if we need to obey the Law of Moses and be circumcised?
There has never been a person other than Jesus whose teachings were more thoroughly rooted in the OT.

Either Paul only spoke against incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised or according to Galatians 5:2, he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 16:3 and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect purpose. The Jerusalem Council did not have the authority to countermand God, so they should not be interpreted as trying to do that and there remains correct reasons for why a Gentile should want to become circumcised in accordance with what God has commanded, such as if a Gentile wanted to eat of the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12:48).

What about the sacrifices? I would also be interested in your view of the following Law, and how it needs to be obeyed today.
The Israelites were given a number of commands that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that can't currently be followed. Laws in regard to temple practice should only be followed when there is a temple in which to practice them. If all Israel had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, then the 2nd temple would not have been destroyed and there would still be offerings being made.

Deuteronomy 14:21 (KJV): Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
I understand that, in say Tel Aviv, that you cannot be served a glass of milk if you ordered a dinner with meat. How do you apply this, and is there some spiritual meaning in this command? I hold one opinion.

Kind regards
Trevor
I do not eat meat and dairy together.

The mishpatim are laws in regard to righteousness and justice that straightforwardly make sense why God commanded them, such as the command against committing murder. However, the chukim are laws that do not straightforwardly make sense why God commanded them, which invite us to ponder what God was teaching us about His eternal nature by commanding them, and I think that people have come up with some good explanations, but ultimately the Bible does not state why God commanded them. In Proverbs 3:5-7, we have a choice between leaning on our own understanding of right and wrong by doing what is right in our own eyes or trusting in God with all of our heart to correctly divide between right and wrong through obeying what He has instructed, and He will make our way straight, so we have a greater opportunity to trust God with all of our heart when we choose to continue to obey Him even when we don't understand why He commanded something. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey both the mishpatim and the chukim.
 
Last edited:
That is contradictory because Jesus lived in sinless obedience to the law.
LOL. That is overlap, not contradiction.
We can't meditate on God's word made flesh without also meditating on God's word.
I never aid otherwise.


Let me encourage you to read through the entire thread so what I have posted is better understood and we don't have another exchange like this one.
 
Greetings again Soyeong and Josheb,

I consider the blessing is from God.

I suggest that the ultimate destiny of the righteous is pictured in the tree, and the rejection of the wicked is likened to chaff that is blown away by the wind. I question what you are saying with "a works doctrine". I do not accept Luther's "faith alone" or similar. I believe in "faith that works by love" Galatians 5:6.

Yes, it was very selective and not haphazard to counteract your extremely wrong view about David and the role of kings.

The repeated use of the word "Blessed" in Matthew 5 reminded me of Psalm 1 and the fact that it prefaces this important portion of Jesus' teaching is similar to the importance of Psalm 1 prefacing The Book of Psalms.

I added this in response to @Soyeong and his emphasis on the Law of Moses. Jesus takes the Law of Moses and expands this commandment in a remarkable way.

I appreciate the partial endorsement, but I am not very fluent in explaining my perspective. I am a technical person and not a speaker in our lay fellowship. We had a study/fellowship meeting last weekend for our 8 meetings in my region and the speaker gave 5 studies and was very clear and comprehensive.

Jesus' teaching is much more comprehensive than the Law of Moses. Could I ask if we need to obey the Law of Moses and be circumcised? What about the sacrifices? I would also be interested in your view of the following Law, and how it needs to be obeyed today.
Deuteronomy 14:21 (KJV): Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
I understand that, in say Tel Aviv, that you cannot be served a glass of milk if you ordered a dinner with meat. How do you apply this, and is there some spiritual meaning in this command? I hold one opinion.

Kind regards
Trevor
Remember the subject of your own op. A lot can be said about Psalm 1 and whatever other texts are broached should be posted in direct relevance to Psalm 1 and the topic of discussion (which is not well clarified in the op, imo).

In the beginning I was simply trying to highlight the irony of the psalm given David's mixed life and then the relevance of that mixed life throughout the scriptures where known by the Jeremiah audience (because the op specified Jeremiah), and then outwardly again to the fact we know more relevant to Psalm 1 than David's audience and Jeremiah's. The thread has, for me, become one of exegetical validity because I read various statements that have a variety of veracity and efficacy but are not directly related to the op, except for the common mention of a word (like "blessed"). Just because two or more texts contain the word "blessed" does not mean they are directly related.
Jesus' teaching is much more comprehensive than the Law of Moses.
Yes, it is, but what does that have to do with this op?
 
Greetings again Josheb,
Remember the subject of your own op. A lot can be said about Psalm 1 and whatever other texts are broached should be posted in direct relevance to Psalm 1 and the topic of discussion (which is not well clarified in the op, imo).
It was never my intention to give a full exposition of Psalm 1, but mainly draw attention to its main framework and the fact that it introduces the whole Book of Psalms. I imagine that I have about 40 resources on Psalm 1 and I could therefore add many additional aspects. But I suggest that my op is an encouragement for others to commence their own personal study of Psalm 1 AND other Psalms. I am the librarian for our meeting, and I also have a much greater personal library. Resources on Psalm 1 is one of the subjects that I collect and I listened again two days ago to a Bible Class on Psalm 1 which I really enjoy. I decided to make some additional notes on what he stated, but I decided not to expand my comments on Psalm 1 here.
In the beginning I was simply trying to highlight the irony of the psalm given David's mixed life and then the relevance of that mixed life throughout the scriptures where known by the Jeremiah audience (because the op specified Jeremiah), and then outwardly again to the fact we know more relevant to Psalm 1 than David's audience and Jeremiah's.
I disagreed with your Posts and considered that your negative comments were actually discouraging others to consider the Psalms and therefore against the purpose for my op and against my estimation of David and the monarchy.
The thread has, for me, become one of exegetical validity because I read various statements that have a variety of veracity and efficacy but are not directly related to the op, except for the common mention of a word (like "blessed"). Just because two or more texts contain the word "blessed" does not mean they are directly related.
I consider that the reocurrence of the word "Blessed" in Psalm 32:1 is very strongly connected with "Blessed" in Psalm 1:1 and the connection is an important part of my aim in starting the Psalm 1 thread and its op. I also consider the occurrences of "Blessed" in Matthew 5 is also very relevant.
Yes, it is, but what does that have to do with this op?
You seem to want to be the policeman for this thread, promoting your own posts and you want to exclude other contributions and exclude my comments which were obviously a response to another member.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings again Josheb,

It was never my intention to give a full exposition of Psalm 1...
I never thought that was the intent.
I disagreed with your Posts and considered that your negative comments were actually discouraging others......

You seem to want to be the policeman for this thread......
Can you see how those errors sabotage you, not me? How do you think your response would be different if something like Philippians 2:3 or Romans 12:18 were what directed the exchange? Many posts ago I noted that nothing I posted was proven incorrect. If the statements I have made about scripture are correct then from whence does the judgment (negative comments, discouraging others, policemen) come? Why would someone be judged for posting what is correct?

Lastly, can you see the irony of post #44?
I disagreed with your Posts and considered that your negative comments were actually discouraging others to consider the Psalms... You seem to want to be the policeman for this thread, promoting your own posts...

Kind regards,
Trevor
Those are not kind regards.

Psalm 1:1-6
How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night. He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in its season and its leaf does not wither; and in whatever he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but they are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore, the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

How well does Post #44 apply Psalm 1, and why was Post #44 believed appropriate given the subject of the opening post?


OR.....


Wouldn't it be better to stick to the op and keep the posts about the posts and not the posters?


Psalm 1 was written by David, a king chosen by the Creator who never wanted an earthly king for His people and took the request as their rejection of Him. David knew this, Jeremiah knew this, and so did at least some of David's and Jeremiah's original audience. David, the author of the psalm was a man after God's own heart, but he also walked in the counsel of sinners (pagan and Jewish), and both obeyed and scoffed at God's laws. The only reason he will stand firmly is because of Hebrews 11:39-40.

And there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with saying so. It's not negative, it's not discouraging, it's not controlling.





Wouldn't it be better to stick to the op and keep the posts about the posts and not the posters?
 
Greetings again Josheb,
Wouldn't it be better to stick to the op and keep the posts about the posts and not the posters?
I need to apologise for being too harsh and personal rather than simply discussing the matter. I was unsettled on Monday, as I was facing a serious problem and I was frustrated in not being able to solve or help the situation. Joyce has to some extent helped in the meantime, taking a little bit at a time, rather than trying to move a mountain.
Many posts ago I noted that nothing I posted was proven incorrect.
We had a study weekend consisting of 5 studies and fellowship. I met again after one year a brother who has had a stroke, and I was uncertain if he could communicate, but did notice that he seemed to be able to talk. I had a brief conversation with him with some difficulty on his part. I stated that I have been looking at Psalm 1 and that I had remembered his talks some years ago. He mentioned a few things about Psalm 1 including the fact that it is a very fitting introduction to the Book of Psalms. I am the librarian and have recorded and collected all our talks since 2006. I loaded his mp3 talks on my Walkman this morning and listened to his exhort on Psalm 1 in 2007, his exhort on Psalm 119 in 2006 and his exhort at another meeting on Psalm 1 in 2011, I found the first of these three to be exceptional, almost worth a full transcript.

In the first talk he not only suggested that Psalm 1 is a good introduction to all the Psalms, he also linked Psalm 1 with Matthew 7. He also suggested that the following is similar:
Revelation 22:1–2 (KJV): 1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Revelation 22:14 (KJV): Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


In the third talk, also on Psalm 1 he mentioned that the word "Blessed" occurs 26 times in the Psalms. He also stated that the following are connected to Psalm 1:
Psalm 32:1–2 (KJV): 1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
Psalm 37:11 (KJV): 11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

Psalm 1 was written by David
There is no direct evidence that David wrote Psalm 1. I think 73 Psalms are attributed to David. I am interested in the titles of the Psalms and subscribe to some of the details that have been expounded about the titles by James W Thirtle.
David, a king chosen by the Creator who never wanted an earthly king for His people and took the request as their rejection of Him.
I consider this to be only partly true, putting too much weight on the occasion when they were given Saul. God foresaw that Jesus would become the "Christ", to be anointed as Prophet, Priest and King.
David knew this, Jeremiah knew this, and so did at least some of David's and Jeremiah's original audience.
I do not accept your view here. I do not know what you are suggesting with respect to Jeremiah, and you have not really considered Jeremiah's reference to Psalm 1.
David, the author of the psalm was a man after God's own heart,
Yes and he was almost unique in this quality.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings again Josheb,

I need to apologise for being too harsh and personal rather than simply discussing the matter. I was unsettled on Monday, as I was facing a serious problem and I was frustrated in not being able to solve or help the situation. Joyce has to some extent helped in the meantime, taking a little bit at a time, rather than trying to move a mountain.

We had a study weekend consisting of 5 studies and fellowship. I met again after one year a brother who has had a stroke, and I was uncertain if he could communicate, but did notice that he seemed to be able to talk. I had a brief conversation with him with some difficulty on his part. I stated that I have been looking at Psalm 1 and that I had remembered his talks some years ago. He mentioned a few things about Psalm 1 including the fact that it is a very fitting introduction to the Book of Psalms. I am the librarian and have recorded and collected all our talks since 2006. I loaded his mp3 talks on my Walkman this morning and listened to his exhort on Psalm 1 in 2007, his exhort on Psalm 119 in 2006 and his exhort at another meeting on Psalm 1 in 2011, I found the first of these three to be exceptional, almost worth a full transcript.

In the first talk he not only suggested that Psalm 1 is a good introduction to all the Psalms, he also linked Psalm 1 with Matthew 7. He also suggested that the following is similar:
Revelation 22:1–2 (KJV): 1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Revelation 22:14 (KJV): Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


In the third talk, also on Psalm 1 he mentioned that the word "Blessed" occurs 26 times in the Psalms. He also stated that the following are connected to Psalm 1:
Psalm 32:1–2 (KJV): 1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
Psalm 37:11 (KJV): 11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
I'll address the rest of Post 46 separately. As far as the above content goes, 1) let me encourage you NEVER to use your own personal experience as an appeal to authority or expertise and/or 2) think that second or third-hand anecdotal report is any better than a fallacious appeal to authority because as far as the readers in an internet forum goes, it's just hearsay. I recently confronted another poster who used his education to suggest his comments were valid and veracious because he has an education in a given subject. Were I to tell you I have multiple doctorates would that impress you? If I said I own a library, would you suddenly humble yourself to my words and treat everything I post as the measure of your every thought?


I

HOPE

NOT




That being said, your friend has my sympathy and I empathize with your relationship. I also note there has been very little disagreement between us. I posted differently. I did not post oppositionally.

So please use your experience wisely. There is nothing inherently wrong with personal experience. It's a gift from God that creates diversity in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom when used correctly (I recommend reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Life Together" to better understand this condition).
I need to apologise for being too harsh and personal rather than simply discussing the matter. I was unsettled....
I accept the apology because apologies are the social convention. However, they are not biblical. The only time you will find anyone in the New Testament expressing an apology or anything similar is pagans apologizing to Christians after they abuse the Christians. Therefore, let me suggest a more scriptural approach.

Briefly, In God's kingdom we acknowledge our wrongdoing. In Christianese this is called "confession." Along with confessing the wrongdoing we then express a willingness and purpose to change, to turn away from the wrong thinking or wrong behavior and do a healthier, more scriptural alternative. We then endeavor to make amends, provide restitution or repair the damage that occurred by the wrongdoing. There is usually a price to be paid one way or another, so we pay the price and we do so gladly, generously, kind-heartedly with proper motive of heart. After these things we seek and give forgiveness, first with God, then ourselves, and then with those wronged. Notice I said "wronged," NOT "offended." Just because a person does wrong to us does not mean we need to "feel" offended. I am not offended by Post #40. It's just bad form, and the injury is chiefly to yourself. I simply want a more functional and efficacious conversation and Post #40 does not make that happen. Neither does the first half of Post 44. So understand you were forgiven before you ask and I don't care whether you like what I post or whether my forgiveness is wanted. It exists. God may wait on the confession and repentance, but I need not. Lastly, and this is where most people stop short, in my experience ;), the final step is reconciliation - at least as far as such things depend on you. So, the goal is to clear out the obstacles between us and not simply return to the way things were, but to improve upon them so that the discussion and whatever relationship exist between two strangers in cyberspace ;) is stronger, less vulnerable to the conditions causing the problem in the first place.

God's standards are not apologies, but...

  • forgiveness
  • repentance
  • restitution
  • penalty (where applicable)
  • forgiveness
  • restitution

and the one condition that transcends those standards is grace and/or mercy. Living life practicing grace is liberating so I encourage you to take my word when I tell you no ill will is taken from the last two or three posts and none is intended.

Now, let me illustrate what I have said with the problem to be solved. I teach these things. I'm a retired professional counselor who has worked in the mental health field and the Church for forty+ years. I'm retired now and continue to help others as a ministry, not "professionally." I have been used by God to help HUNDREDS of individuals live their lives better and helped repair just short of ONE THOUSAND marriages. I do also own a library (it's a small one, but for this lifetime I am its steward ;)).

Does that mean what I wrote above is correct, valid, or veracious?

NO!!!!!

My profession, education, and/or experience does not make me an expert and it does NOT give me authority over anyone in the forum. What makes what I posted correct is scripture and the authority of God. So, if you're interested, I can provide you with the scripture supporting the "confession, repentance.....," model. It makes for a good Bible Study. I have found it life-changing.

Otherwise.....


Let's get back on topic and discuss "A Few Thoughts on Psalm 1". Yes?
 
Greetings again Josheb,
Let's get back on topic and discuss "A Few Thoughts on Psalm 1".
I appreciate the information that you have supplied. I consider that I have exhausted all that I want to say on Psalm 1 here, unless something substantial or interesting is posted. I do not want to go over again what you have already posted.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
There is no direct evidence that David wrote Psalm 1. I think 73 Psalms are attributed to David. I am interested in the titles of the Psalms and subscribe to some of the details that have been expounded about the titles by James W Thirtle.
I understand.

Not sure it matters, though. Whoever penned Psalm 1 was a sinner and, as a sinner, that author had a variety of experiences that were "good" and "bad," all of which were entirely fleshly unless inspired solely by God, and therefore most of what I posted is still applicable. The author may not have been a king of Israel, but if he ever gossiped or bore false witness then he was counted as a murderer by God. If he ever lusted after a woman not his wife then he was an adulterer.

That does not undermine the wisdom of the psalm. Properly understood the contemplation of Psalm 1 is enhanced.
I consider this to be only partly true, putting too much weight on the occasion when they were given Saul.
Scripture states what scripture states and what scripture explicitly and undeniably states is,

1 Samuel 8:7
And the LORD said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them."

God was their King. God did not want Israel to have a king like all the other nations. God took their request for a king like all the other nations to be a rejection of Him as their King. I did NOT make that up. I did NOT add any "interpretation" to the text, nor did I embellish it in any way. It states what it states. For any Christian to read that and think, "What God stated is partly true," is a problem to be solved. No, what God says is always and everywhere true. Let God be true and all men liars.

Logically, that means every single king Israel ever had (only a few of whom were directly picked by God) was a reminder of Israel's rejection of God as their king. Israel could have returned to God at any time. That is, in fact, a theme that runs through the Bible from beginning to end. Without belaboring the point further, God prophesied a list of things the "earthly" kings would do and every single one of Israel's kings did them. Saul, David, AND Solomon did them all. So too did all the other kings. David may have been better comparatively, but comparing one sinful mane to another isn't the comparison we should be making.
God foresaw that Jesus would become the "Christ", to be anointed as Prophet, Priest and King.
That is the comparison to be made! While I have openly acknowledge both David and Solomon as typologically relevant to Christ I have ALSO acknowledged their imperfection because they are not Christ. They stand as examples of human imperfection (the problem to be solved) and a foreshadowing of Christ (the solution to the problem).

As far as Psalm 1 goes, there's little specifically in the Psalm directly speaking about Christ. The whole of scripture is necessary to understand any of the messianic content in Psalm 1.
I do not accept your view here. I do not know what you are suggesting with respect to Jeremiah, and you have not really considered Jeremiah's reference to Psalm 1.
Hmmm.... You'll have to clarify your lack of acceptance. Am I to read that to say you do not think David was aware of, knowledgeable of the events that transpired between Samuel, God, and the people of 1 Samuel 8? David was not aware of the history that would eventually be recorded in what we now call First Samuel? I think the onus is on you to prove that, not me. Similarly, is it being suggested Jeremiah did not know the history of Israel leading up to the chronic rebellion existing in his day? Was Jeremiah completely ignorant God as King, of the earthly kings' failures, of the plea of God to return to Him as King, of how the sins of the monarchs contributed to Israel's rejection of God? Again, you are certainly at liberty to disagree, but the onus is on you to prove that David and Jeremiah dd not know.
Yes and he was almost unique in this quality.

Kind regards
Trevor
Are you better than David? If you and I were to use the content of Psalm 1 as the measure, do you and/or I measure better?
 
Greetings again Josheb,

I appreciate the information that you have supplied. I consider that I have exhausted all that I want to say on Psalm 1 here, unless something substantial or interesting is posted. I do not want to go over again what you have already posted.

Kind regards
Trevor
I understand but let me ask you one last question.
Yes and he was almost unique in this quality.

Kind regards
Trevor
Are you better than David? If you and I were to use the content of Psalm 1 as the measure, do you and/or I measure better?
 
Back
Top