Today’s Chocolate: Endangered Species Dark Chocolate with 88% Cocoa Today’s Passage: Psalm 144 One hundred thirty-six psalms later, and David still hasn’t figured out what a man is or why he would matter to God. That’s right: Psalm 144 echoes a verse and themes from Psalm 8. When David asks, “O Lord, what is man, that You take […]
King David, the shepherd-poet-king, is practically synonymous with the Psalms, but apparently his son Solomon penned a few lyrics himself. Two of the psalms are attributed to him, Psalms 72 and 127. Psalm 72 discusses the responsibilities of kings to judge fairly and care for the needs of the poor, but Psalm 127 concerns subject matter that we non-kings may find a bit more relatable. Specifically, it’s about relying on God and having children.
Are you familiar with the expression “lower than a duck’s instep?” Given how many of you are my relatives, you probably are. But in case you need an explanation, it means “super-low”–because a duck, with its flat feet, has the lowest instep you can imagine. It’s basically the opposite of being “fine as frog’s hair.” And today’s psalm is for people in a situation that is lower than a duck’s instep.
Here’s another psalm about God’s work in Israel’s history throughout their journey to the Promised Land. And also about God’s work in the lives of repentant fools and merchant sailors, and how he controls the water cycle.
I’ve been having the hardest time writing Thursday’s post, as is evidenced by the fact that it’s technically Friday. Fortunately, though, this psalm is about forgiveness.
Last chapter of Isaiah, fam. Time to tie a bow on this book.
I obviously had a little trouble digging something to share out of Isaiah 49. It’s easy enough to summarize: God will use Israel to bring light and salvation to the whole world, and he hasn’t forgotten his people in their time of suffering and struggle. But you could get that from reading the chapter itself, and if that’s all I’ve got, you might as well read the chapter and skip my blog post. So I considered making a case that it’s a messianic passage. I could argue that the “servant” throughout the passage is an individual fulfilling God’s purposes for Israel, a representative of God’s chosen nation, not the nation itself. But I go looking for commentaries to jump-start my own commentary here, and, prefacing an exegetical outline from David Guzik, I find this quotation from Alan Redpath: “This chapter is full of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the words quoted could not possibly have their complete fulfillment in any other save in our Savior.” Consider your audience, Jackson: how many of ’em do you think are gonna contend that this passage doesn’t refer to Jesus Christ? Besides, we’ve been there already.