by Michiana Covenant | Feb 26, 2015 | Marriage, Office, Parenting
It seems as though everywhere you turn, you see another example of the abuse, the manipulation, and the deceitfulness of power. In recent months I’ve encountered so many stories of abusive husbands, fathers, pastors, and politicians that I’ve been left reeling.
One common feature in these stories is how slow people are to do something about it. It’s pretty easy to see the pattern: other people see the problem, but they are slow to do anything because they wonder “Am I just over-reacting?” “No one else seems to think that this is a problem.” “And when I look at myself, I face the same temptations — on a bad day, maybe I would do that too…”
And so we say nothing. We do nothing. We even think that we are being charitable — “showing grace” to someone, like we would want someone to show grace to us, right?
Except for one thing.
What about the people who are suffering under the abuse? Who will speak on behalf of the poor? Who will speak up for the oppressed? They are often so deceived that they don’t even realize that they are oppressed! How often does the abused wife defend her husband? How often do they say, “Oh, but I deserved it — I was in the wrong, after all!”
Part of the manipulation and deceitfulness of the abuse of power is that it is based on a half-truth: since we are sinners, we all “deserve” bad things. So when the abuser says, “It’s because of what you did,” it is really easy for us to believe him.
At this point, every single husband among you should be saying, “I’ve done this to my wife!” Every parent should say, “I’ve done this to my child.” Every pastor and elder should say, “I’ve done this to my flock.”
And this, my friends, is why we are paralyzed when we face abuse in others. We hear the words, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” and so we do not dare to bring an accusation. After all, on a bad day, it could have been me…
So how do you know when to speak up? I will give an answer that I have failed to practice myself — partly in order to encourage myself to heed my own words! You always speak up. Obviously, you cannot speak into every situation of abuse in the world. So when I say “always” I mean, in every case where you have the opportunity to speak.
If you see someone who is abusing authority, then you should speak the truth in love, and show him his fault. If he is a wise man, he will love you for it (Proverbs 9). If he is a fool, he will hate you, and the result will probably be ugly — but at least there will be an opportunity for his folly to be unmasked. It can be as simple as asking a question, “Why did you say X to your wife?” “Can you explain why you did Y with your children?” You don’t have to take a “adversarial” approach. After all, you are doing this because you love him (or her). You want him to grow in wisdom. If you speak with the voice of the Good Shepherd, then ordinarily the sheep will hear His voice.
But what if they don’t? Well, that’s why Jesus gave us a way of handling such matters. If they refuse to listen — if they don’t repent — then you take one or two others and try again. If he won’t listen to them, then you tell it to the church (Matt. 19) — you bring a charge to the elders.
And then there are the hard cases. Several years ago a friend told me of a girl who accused her step-father of sexually abusing her. There was only one witness (the girl), and the man denied it. There was no other evidence. The elders believed the girl (and encouraged her mother to divorce the man), but how could they proceed with an ecclesiastical trial? They took seriously the saying, “Where there is smoke, there is fire,” and conducted a thorough investigation. It was highly unlikely that a man would molest his step-daughter once and never do anything else improper. Sure enough. They found other things that had sufficient witnesses. Maybe they could not convict him of the one thing that he denied — but they could assure the girl that (as far as the church was concerned) he would no longer be able to prey upon the weak. [And the church cooperated with a civil investigation that put the man in prison.]
If we do not speak on behalf of the weak, then the powerful will continue to oppress them. And if we do not gently confront the little “slippages” (as we call them!) among ourselves, then we will become oppressors in our turn.
And this is why we need to continually listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd ourselves. In a world that is overrun by words that bite and devour, we need to listen to the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us.
by Michiana Covenant | May 14, 2014 | Marriage
A Wedding Homily by Peter J. Wallace
[Note: This was my homily for the wedding of Christopher and Shelby Aemmer last Saturday. I don’t think I’ve ever heard so many people laughing at one of my sermons — but then again, you also need to read the homily in the light of the fact that the groom was visibly shaking for the first part of the service. I think the opening line broke the tension and allowed everyone to ease up a bit!]
This isn’t going to end well.
Carl Trueman points out that “All human marriages begin with joy but end in tragedy. Whether it is divorce or death, the human bond of love is eventually torn apart.”
This isn’t going to end well. At its best, this marriage will last for 50-60 years, and then it will end in tragedy. At least one of you will be heartbroken. Or, maybe you both die together in a car wreck — so at least you go together! If that’s the best you can hope for…
So why on earth are you standing here? Why on earth do you want to go through with this?
Why on earth? Well, there are earthly reasons for getting married. Marriage was ordained for procreation. God said, “be fruitful and multiply,” which means, “Go have babies”! After the fall, marriage provides a remedy against fornication, and provides mutual help and comfort. These are good things.
It’s why everyone gets all dressed up for the wedding! The beauty of the surrounding assembly all points to the glorious radiance of the bride, and the splendor of the groom! The public splendor of this moment is designed to prefigure the private splendor that comes later. And yes, the physical intimacy of love-making is delightful! And those little critters that pop out 9 months later are delightful in an entirely different sense!
These are still good earthly reasons for getting married. But even so, this marriage is heading for a tragic end – where one or both of you ends up heartbroken! So let us consider the heavenly reason why you would get married.
After all, while “all human marriages begin with joy but end in tragedy…The marriage of Christ and his church…began with tragedy and ends with a joyful and loving union which will never be rent asunder. There is joy to which we point in our worship, the joy of the Lamb’s wedding feast.” (Carl Trueman) This is why we say that marriage “signifies to us the mystical union between Christ and his Church.”
If you think of marriage as primarily about your own happiness – primarily about your own comfort – then all you will find is disappointment and death. But if you think of marriage as primarily about the other – so that you seek the good of one another – then you will still find disappointment and death!
Because, Shelby, this guy will disappoint you more than anyone ever has! And, Christopher, she’s going to fail you like you wouldn’t believe! You two are going to sin against each over and over again! You are going to be miserable! And then you’re gonna die. So why are you here? Oh, that’s right! Because marriage isn’t primarily about your own happiness – or about the other’s happiness.
Marriage is about Jesus.
Marriage signifies to us the mystical union between Christ and his Church – a marriage that began with tragedy, and ends with glory.
This is why marriage must always involve bearing the cross. Chris, why do you love Shelby? Don’t say, “Because she’s so lovable!” because there are days when she’s not lovable. You love Shelby because Christ loved you and he died so that you might live. Marriage is all about the gospel. If your love depends on her performance, that’s a marriage based on works, not grace. And likewise, Shelby, if you only give yourself to Christopher because he’s such a charming fellow, well, he’s not always quite so charming! A marriage based on the gospel keeps your eyes fixed on Jesus.
And when you forget the gospel, when you sin against each other, repent! Forgive! As God, in Christ, has forgiven you.
But I don’t want to forgive! What she did was wrong! What he did hurts!
A marriage fixated on law – a marriage fixated on rights – will become a wasteland, where the two of you are clinging desperately to a me-centered universe of one!
So what do you do? Love God. Love one another. Repent, and believe the gospel. That sounds simple. It is simple. It’s not easy – love is the hardest thing in the world! – but a gospel-centered marriage, a gospel-centered life, is simple.
It just means have the same mind that was in Christ Jesus – that mind that is yours in Christ Jesus – “who though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:6-11)
by Michiana Covenant | Apr 12, 2014 | movies
By Peter J. Wallace
[There are spoilers all through this review — so be forewarned!]
“Noah” is one of the finest movies ever made.
First, let me say that Mattson gets it wrong. Aronofsky does not present a Gnostic Noah. I’ve worked through a lot of Gnostic texts, I’ve read Irenaeus several times (I have even taught Irenaeus to seminarians), and “Noah” is not Gnostic. For instance, the snakeskin is what the serpent *left behind* (the good part of creation) — and is no more a symbol of following the serpent than Moses’ Bronze Serpent indicates that Moses was a devotee of Satan! It would be more appropriate to see the snakeskin as a foreshadowing of how the Seed of the Woman will crush the head of the Seed of the Serpent (and further, Mattson errs in saying that *Noah* reclaimed the snakeskin [which he claims resulted in his enlightenment] — it was *Ham* who reclaimed the snakeskin, and Ham remains beclouded by his association with Tubal-Cain and repudiates the snakeskin). Sure, there are lots of Kabbalist imagery and associations — but his Gnostic comments miss the mark. Aronofsky is interacting with the whole history of interpretation when dealing with Noah — which is greatly to his credit!
Aronofsky explores the themes of total depravity, justice, and divine grace — together with the problem of Genesis 8:21 — namely, that human depravity is *not* going to go away after the flood. Even more important, Noah is portrayed as a righteous man from first to last. He *always* does what is right — even when he thinks he is wrong, he does right! The thoughts of his heart are wicked from his youth — but he is a righteous man, blameless in his generation.
Some have objected to the silence of God in the movie (although I can’t say that I’ve ever seen God portrayed well in a movie!). Let me put it this way: Aronofsky tells the story of Noah with more of God’s revelation than is found in the book of Esther. But after all, what exactly does it mean “Then the LORD said to Noah…”? We usually assume that God spoke in an audible voice. But what if he didn’t? What if he used dreams and visions?
In Genesis 6:13, God says, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh.” Think about that! That would sound to me like the utter annihilation of humanity. Sure, in our Bibles we get Genesis 6:18 five verses later. But we get the Flood story as told millennia later from the standpoint of the Exodus.
To put it another way, *almost* everything found in the Bible is there in the story (except Noah’s burnt offerings after the Flood — a serious omission in my view). The wives of the three sons are all on the ark. The ark is the proper size and shape. I, for one, particularly appreciated the clear distinction between the two distinct visions of “dominion” (and it is certainly a respectable position to claim that Noah was a vegetarian).
Maybe “Noah” doesn’t fit the Sunday school stories — but the Sunday school stories don’t particularly fit the Bible either! Let me put it this way: if you can stomach the moralistic drivel of Veggie Tales, you should love “Noah.” (This is not to say that you should let your three-year old watch “Noah”!) This is one of the few movies that upholds both the justice and mercy of God — and makes you wonder “do I really like the justice of God?” — but also makes it painfully clear that whether you like it or not, you are under it!
I think that Thornbury‘s review is definitely the best one that I’ve seen. He gets it exactly right when he says: “Only with the juxtaposition against radical depravity can mercy actually make sense. Failing this understanding, you cannot sustain Christian theism. Otherwise, mercy becomes weak, expected, and even demanded. Seeing Russell Crowe-as-Noah grit his teeth and war against real flesh-and-blood evil makes sin, a notion seemingly incredible to Hollywood, to be real. As a viewer, locked into the gaze of the film, you’re thinking, I’m with God, and this Noah guy.”
But I don’t think that Thornbury’s theological objections hold water. First, Aronofsky’s “Creator” *does* speak very clearly — perhaps not audibly — but when Tubal-Cain demands an answer from God, the rain continues to pour down; when Noah demands an answer, the rain stops. (And God sends miraculous signs and wonders over and over again). If Noah will listen, he will hear. Further, the visions and signs are clear communication from God.
And second, it is clear from Aronofsky’s telling that God does *not* intend Noah any harm. Noah and his family will only come to harm if they follow in the ways of Cain. (Which means, of course, that in the end humanity is doomed — because the corruption of Adam remains). Methuselah says that his father, Enoch, had spoken of a judgment by fire — but Noah says no, it will be water — and the point of water is to purify and cleanse — in order to save the innocent.
In his follow-up comment, Mattson says “A number of people challenged my idea that God wanted to kill Noah and his family too, because Emma Watson’s character explains, “Maybe The Creator wanted you to decide” whether the human race lives or dies. Well, fine. The Creator doesn’t reveal anything about himself or his purposes in this film, so you’re certainly allowed to take her word for it. But it gets you no closer to anything resembling a biblical doctrine of God.”
But Mattson fails to remember why God chose Noah. Noah is the last of the line of Seth. He is the heir of Enoch and Methuselah. He is the one righteous man. Noah has been chosen as the second Adam. God knows that Noah will do what is right. That’s what righteous men do. The difference between the biblical account and Aronofsky’s account is that Aronofsky is trying to figure out, “what would it have felt like to be Noah?” (And admittedly he throws in a bit of an Abrahamic twist into the mix along the way!)
So, I’m left with one substantial objection: there were no burnt offerings after the flood. But even that is assuaged by Aronofsky’s introduction of the theme of Abraham and Isaac into the narrative. Kierkegaard said in Fear and Trembling that you cannot understand the psychology of Abraham — and most attempts wind up turning Abraham into a monster. By putting it into pictures rather than words, Aronofsky comes closer than Kierkegaard could. Noah believes that God has called him to kill his granddaughters. And from the logic of Genesis 6:13 [“I have determined to make an end of all flesh”], this would be the just thing to do. But he cannot. Why? Because he loves them. And yet Noah *knows* that if his offspring does not die, then humanity is doomed to repeat the corruption of the first creation. But of course, that is precisely how the image of God should think. It would be just for humanity to be extinguished. But God loved the world thus, that he sent his only-begotten Son…
At the end of the movie, humanity remains under condemnation. Water could not wash away the corruption of Adam. Only fiery destruction is left. Can anything prevent this? I realize that Aronofsky probably believes that humanity’s only hope is ourselves, but if Aronofsky was *trying* to set us up for the gospel of Christ, he could not have said it better.
by Michiana Covenant | Mar 12, 2014 | Psalms, Psalter Hymnal, Uncategorized
Psalm 16
I concur with the proposed Sing Psalms text with “Leominster” (as edited by MCPC). I am not familiar with “Stirling” (a recent tune found in the BPW).
Text: Sing Psalms, 2003, alt. MCPC, 2013 (SMD)
1 Preserve me, O my God; you are my refuge true.
2 I say, “O LORD, you are my Lord: I have no good but you.
3 The godly in the land, for holiness renowned,
they are the finest ones, in whom all my delight is found.
4 The ones who chase false gods will multiply their pain,
I will not sacrifice to them; I will not speak their names.
5 O LORD, you are to me my cup and portion sure;
the share that is assigned to me you guard and keep secure.
6The land allotted me is in a pleasant site;
my beautiful inheritance is surely my delight.
7 I bless the LORD my God, whose counsel guides my choice;
and even in the night my heart recalls instruction’s voice.
8 Before me constantly I set the LORD alone.
Since he remains at my right hand, I won’t be overthrown.
9 And so my heart is glad; my tongue with joy will sing.
My body too will rest secure in hope unwavering.
10 For you will not forsake my soul unto the grave,
nor will you leave your Holy One to see the tomb’s decay.
11 The path of life you show; your presence is full joy;
at your right hand, O LORD my God, are pleasures evermore.
Tune: Leominster (George William Martin, 1826; arr. Arthur S. Sullivan, 1874)
Commentary
Psalm 16 is titled, “A Miktam of David.” We do not know what “miktam” means.
Psalms 14-16 belong together. Psalm 14 declares that “there is none who does good.” Psalm 15 declares in reply that some may still dwell in God’s presence. And Psalm 16 shows how.
“Preserve me, O God, for in you I take refuge. I say to Yahweh, ‘You are my Lord; I have no good apart from you.”
The first point is that the only way to avoid Psalm 14–the fool who says there is no God, is through trusting in Yahweh. The only way to become the blameless man of Psalm 15, is through trusting in the Lord. All that is good, I owe to you.
And because I take refuge in you, I also delight in your people: “As for the saints in the land, they are the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight.” In other words, I do not delight in the counsel of the ungodly. I do not sit in the seat of the scornful. I delight to share in the communion of saints–the fellowship of God’s people. Psalm 15 had said that the man who may dwell in God’s tent is the man who despises a vile person, but who honors those who fear Yahweh. Now Psalm 16 fleshes this out: I delight in the saints, but I will not join with those who run after other gods. Therefore, taking refuge in the Lord also means delighting in the fellowship of his church. Worship and fellowship are intimately bound up together. They cannot exist in isolation.
With God as his portion, David delights in the beautiful inheritance that is his. Yes, trials and temptations may surround us, but we must never forget the glory that is set before us. Because the Lord is his portion, the Psalmist declares, “I bless Yahweh who gives me counsel; in the night my heart also instructs me.” The nearness of the Lord brings counsel and instruction. And because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken.
Why is the Psalmist glad? Why does his “whole being” (or glory, in the Hebrew) rejoice? Why does his flesh dwell secure? Because “you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.” God had not yet revealed the details of the resurrection, but he gave to David a glimpse of the joy of eternal life. And Psalm 16 shows us that the road to eternal life leads through death. Israel had to understand that the route to glory led through suffering. David sees that Sheol (the grave) is in his future. He knows that one day he will die. But he prophesies that God will not abandon his soul to Sheol, nor will He allow his holy one to see corruption.
Peter understood what this meant. Once Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, and has poured out the Holy Spirit, Peter realized that this was what David was talking about. On the Day of Pentecost (the feast of firstfruits–as all Israel is bringing the portion for the priests and Levites) the Holy Spirit is poured out upon the church. The firstfruits of the Kingdom of God comes upon the people of God. And Peter realized that this meant that Psalm 16 was about Jesus!
The Son of David literally did not see corruption!
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.” (Acts 2:29-33)
And as Jesus has walked the path of life, as he has been made full of gladness in the presence of his Father, so now you and I may share in his life and in his joy. Jesus has entered his inheritance. And in Jesus, the whole of the new humanity comes into the inheritance of the new creation.
Israel was called to sing this eschatologically. They were called to sing of this future glory in the present. And so are we. We, who live in the last days, who have beheld the beginning of the age to come in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we must keep our hearts and minds fixed on the glory that will be revealed in the revelation of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
As you meditate upon the death of Christ–in his suffering for us, and as you meditate upon his resurrection and glory at the right hand of the Father, you must see that his death and resurrection were the accomplishment of the last-days redemption promised through the prophets. And therefore, as you meditate upon the glory that will be ours in Christ Jesus, do not forget that the Holy Spirit is the downpayment of that inheritance. You already have a foretaste of heaven in the presence of Christ.
Structure:
The BPW opens its third stanza in the middle of verse 5, which does not lend itself to singing with understanding. The Sing Psalms text allows for greater clarity and understanding of the flow of the text.
Translation Notes:
My chief objection to the text that we have adopted is the replacement of “drink offerings of blood” (or “libations of blood”) with “sacrifices,” since it ruins the parallel in verse 5 with the LORD as my chosen portion and *cup.* But given the structural concerns outlined above, I would not wish to use the BPW text.
Many believe that Psalm 16 is not speaking of the afterlife, but simply that God will rescue him and save him from death. The key verses are v9-11.
9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being [lit., glory] rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure.
10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption [lit., the pit].
11 You make known to me the path of life; in your presence is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.
Plainly the Psalmist has a confidence that pertains both to body and his soul. God’s holy one will not see the pit. Does this just mean: “I won’t die yet”? If so, then the whole Psalm becomes rather pathetic: “I’ve got a good piece of real estate, and God will let me live a little longer. Sure, then I’ll die and return to nothingness — but hey, I get to have some fun for a while!!”
The word translated “forevermore” (or evermore in our version) is *netsach* — which means “eminence, enduring, everlasting, or perpetual.” It is used 18 times in the Psalms, ordinarily to refer to things that either are (or seem to be) going on forever. If Psalm 16 is simply saying that “perpetual pleasures” are at the right hand of God — but that human can only enjoy them temporarily and then descend into the grave forever, then Psalm 16 makes no sense.
Put simply, Peter got it right in Acts 2 — and Paul in Acts 13 — when they affirm that David was speaking of the resurrection of the Christ. How well David understood this is an open question (2 Peter 1:21 says that prophets did not always understand what they were saying), but we must affirm that Psalm 16 speaks of the resurrection of Christ.
Tune Notes:
“Leominster” is used in the Trinity Hymnal with Psalms 16 (692) and 45 (169), “Not What My Hands Have Done” (461), “A Few More Years Shall Roll” (540). It is also used for Psalm 16 in the Trinity Psalter, and for Psalms 25 and 108 in the Book of Psalms for Singing/Worship.
I am delighted that Tim Shafer (professor of musicology at Penn State) has permitted me to share his musical comments from our committee’s work. This is what he said regarding Leominster:
“Leominster is an extended six phrase tune comprising two bar forms (mm. 1-8 a a1 b; mm. 9-16 c c1 d). Throughout the unfolding of these six phrases, the tune presents a slow progression from sedate assuredness to stately confidence subtly tinged with victory.
The opening pair of phrases are marked by the repeated note and slowly rising melody, yet the sequence is down a second. The abgesang phrase (the b phrase) responds with a confident triadic rise, while yet containing the repeated note motive.
The progress of assertion continues with the short c phrases of the second bar structure. Here, dotted rhythms are introduced, subtly cueing strength. The sequence of these two phrases, unlike the first pair, now ascends, and by a third. The d phrase climaxes the tune by continuing the sequence, rising a fourth higher to the tonic in the dotted rhythm and a slow scalar descent to conclude.
Leominster contains significant musical referents that support the affect of Psalm 16 and would make a very good choice of a familiar tune for this text.”
Conclusion
I think that Psalm 16 *needs* to have a really good tune. Leominster definitely has the chops to last.
My sermon on Psalm 16 can be found here.
For a recording of Leominster with Psalm 16, listen here (using the Trinity Psalter’s Yoda-ish text).
– Peter J. Wallace
by Michiana Covenant | Feb 26, 2014 | Psalms, Psalter Hymnal
Psalm 15
I concur with the proposed MCPC text with “Herr Jesu Christ.” I am not familiar with the paraphrase with “Helen” as proposed by the URC.
Text: MCPC, 2011 (LM)
1 LORD, who shall sojourn in your tent? And dwell upon your holy hill?
2 The one who walks in righteousness and speaks the truth within his soul.
3 He does not slander with his tongue, nor does his neighbor any wrong;
he will not hear a gossip’s lies or take a slander on his tongue.
4 He will despise the vile and rude, but honors those who fear the LORD.
When he has sworn to his own hurt, he changes not, but keeps his word.
5 He lends his money without charge; he takes no bribe against the good.
That man who does these things shall stand forever; he will not be moved.
Tune: Herr Jesu Christ Dich zu uns Wend (Pensum Sacrum, 1648; harm., Johann Sebastian Bach, 1685-1750)
Commentary
Psalm 15 is titled, “A Psalm of David.”
Psalm 15 describes the one who may dwell on Yahweh’s holy hill and sojourn in his tent (his sanctuary). “Herr Jesu Christ” is an excellent match for Psalm 15, with its robust, confident tone, so it is fitting to choose a tune named after a hymn that asks our Lord Jesus Christ to be present with us — since we are now the dwelling place of the Lord!
I should mention that we did not think that Lowry was a good option (in spite of its long use in the RPCNA) due to the extremely paraphrastic character of the RP text.
Structure:
Since we were unable to find a text that provided a simple, clear presentation of this text, we started from scratch. The four stanza structure that we chose allows each stanza to describe the one who may dwell on God’s holy hill — stanza 1 focusing on his upright “walk” (v2), stanza 2 on his talk (v3), stanza 3 on his sense of honor (v4), and stanza 4 on his use of money (v5).
Translation Notes:
Psalm 15 was one of my first efforts at metrical psalmody. I have no intention, however, of allowing my first draft of Psalm 15 ever to see the glare of the internet!
There are several phrases from the ESV that I wanted to get as closely as possible. As I examined various meters it became clear that the 88 88 structure of long meter would be the best.
Incidentally, this was my standard practice when developing a metrical translation from scratch. I would start by looking over the Psalm for general structure. How many stanzas (of roughly equal length) does the Psalm most naturally fit into? Then I would look at questions of meter. What sort of meter and beat does the Psalm gravitate towards. For Psalm 15, it became clear that eight beats per line worked very well, since all the poetic lines are very similar in length. Only after developing a workable first draft would I then look for a tune to match.
Verse 1 — ESV — “O LORD, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill?
— metrical — “LORD, who shall sojourn in your tent? And dwell upon your holy hill?”
Verse 4 — ESV — “in whose eyes a vile person is despised, but who honors those who fear the LORD;
who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
— metrical — “He will despise the vile and rude, but honors those who fear the LORD.
When he has sworn to his own hurt, he changes not, but keeps his word.”
Tune Notes:
“Herr Jesu Christ dich zu uns Wend” is used in the Trinity Hymnal with Psalm 132 (374), “Lord Jesus Christ, Be Present Now” (379), and “All Things Are Thine” (729).
At first we proposed “Truro” for Psalm 15, given its associations with the processional Psalm 24. But I was convinced by our Subcommittee work that Psalm 15 does not have the same processional theme — which renders Truro less useful here.
Conclusion
I have not yet preached on Psalm 15.
I have not been able to find any recordings of this arrangement of Herr Jesu Christ.
— Peter J. Wallace
