I’ve recently heard Psalm 15 preached, written a Bible study on it, and am contemplating writing a sermon on it. Below are some questions that I think are fundamental to correct interpretation of the Psalm within redemptive history. I’ve also included my initial answers to these questions. Please feel free to comment or add questions that you think are fundamental to understanding the Psalm.
Question: So what is this ‘sanctuary’ and ‘holy hill’ that David is talking about? Look up a number of cross-references: Exodus15:17; Exodus 25:8-9; 2 Samuel 7:1-17.
Answer: I think there’s more than one answer to this question depending upon which group of readers we’re considering. At the time of the writing of the Psalm, the sanctuary was the tabernacle (cf. Ex. 25:8-9) – this is especially in line with the original Hebrew which renders the word as ‘tent’. The ‘holy hill’ was most likely initially a reference to Sinai, but perhaps with expectation of a future ‘holy hill’ (cf. Ex. 15:17). The post-exilic community would have read it slightly differently, perhaps combining the two places into the temple on Mount Zion which was set up after David’s reign (cf. 2Sam. 7:1-17). The common denominator however, is that this sanctuary and ‘holy hill’ were synonymous with the presence of God. It was here, in its different expressions, that God’s deepest presence on earth was manifest.
Question: So what is David really asking then?
Answer: Who can live with God? Who can dwell, in some earthly sense, in the presence of God?
Question: Is that the same as asking who can go to heaven? Why or why not?
Answer: This is possibly the crux question for understanding how to interpret and apply this passage to the New Testament believer today, as well as the original readers. Common teaching on this passage is that ultimately it is asking the question, ‘who can go to heaven’, since God’s presence is ultimately in heaven. One presumes that this line of teaching is adopted in order to iron out any hint of works based entrance into God’s presence. The problem with this view is that it fails to take into account the psalm’s position in a redemptive historical context.
David, as the anointed king, of the redeemed covenant community is able to, along with the rest of the covenant community, offer sacrifices at the tabernacle. Similarly the post-exilic community can offer sacrifices in the temple. Their complete access is still limited and mediated through priests, but limited access has been apportioned the community. This limited access exists because the community has already been redeemed and so Wilcock, ‘the tent is also the Tent-as-Home, into which God invites those he has already made friends.’ (Italics mine). This paints the Psalm in a slightly different light, no longer is Romans 3, and man’s inability to be righteous, this psalm’s New Testament counterpart, but rather something more along the lines of the Sermon on the Mount – what life in the kingdom looks like.
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the post, its great to see guys working hard through the Psalms from a redemptive historical approach, it stretches the brain a bit!
Just a few questions more than anything;
David goes on the qualify the person that can dwell in God’s presence( v2-5) an uprighteous person who loves God (v4b) and loves his neighbour (v3, 4a, 5). How do you see these qualifications functioning in the Covenant that God made with Israel? (ie. did the people need to live up to these to stay in the Presence of God or were they right response to their salvation?)
As you stated correctly we are dealing with a redeemed community living in Covenant relationship with Yahweh.
My question is if they are redeemed and “saved” as it were, why then does God judge them into exile later on in their history for breaking the Covenant stipulations?
Was it because they maintained relationship with their works of obedience to the law and failed? Why would he not do a similar thing with Christians when we fail?
Are we right to assume that the OT Covenant ran exactly like the the New Covenant of Hebrews 8?
If there is diconnect between the Old and New Covenant, how do teach that without blurring the lines too much? (sorry that question is pretty massive…if it makes sense)
Finally, where do we draw the line in terms of understanding the difference between the relationship of Israel to Yahweh and the church to Yahweh?
I also think that you are dead right about noting that the traditional idea of “going to Heaven” may be slightly skewed. But what if i had to say that this Psalm is really asking, “With whom may God dwell?” I’m not so sure the Bible ever presents the purpose of man to “get to God”. I suppose Babel is a good example, but it seems that was a bad model not really all that practical. This Psalm takes for granted the fact that God came to earth (his presence coming to the temple/tent). Therefore it is God who is consistently shown to be taking the initative in coming to man. God wants to dwell with man, live amongst him and reveal his presence within the community of man. Jesus is the prime example. Since it is later seen that the people cannot live up to these qualifications of Psalm 15, God removes his presence (blessings etc) from them in judgement. But not his promises interesting enough.
Let me know if that sparks any ideas.
hey Stephen
nothing to do with your most recent post, just wondering what you and your other readers think of http://www.reallivepreacher.com/ ?
i’m enjoying it.
Hey ant. I think that the Israelites were to live the type of life described in Ps. 15 in response to their redemption and to evidence the work of redemption in their lives. The reason they were judged in the exile is because they rejected the redemption, they rejected their place as God’s people (same as the garden actrually) and this was then evidenced in the way they lived – the breaking of the covenant stipulations. Remember that if they had repented God would have been merciful.
I’m not sure that the 2 covenants run in exactly the same way – I think there are nuanced differences which require much study – but which I also believe will impact upon how we ‘be’ Christian today.
“I’m not so sure the Bible ever presents the purpose of man to “get to God”. I suppose Babel is a good example, but it seems that was a bad model not really all that practical. This Psalm takes for granted the fact that God came to earth (his presence coming to the temple/tent). Therefore it is God who is consistently shown to be taking the initative in coming to man. God wants to dwell with man, live amongst him and reveal his presence within the community of man. Jesus is the prime example.” – I actually ended off my paper with that exact point – good of you to spot it as the key of the issue.
Great, thanks for the response. The questions i had were more speculative in nature. The ideas that Ps 15 present are amazingly diverse! But the 2 covenants are something that puzzles me on various levels. That does need more work in my own thinking. Thanks for the hard work, its been awesome reading your stuff!
And thanks for the heads up on the DG link!! i was looking for some more Piper talks!