The verse that grabbed my attention in Ps 119:121-128 is verse 126:

¹²⁶ It is time for you to act, LORD;
   your law is being broken.

There are many possible reactions we might have to the ungodliness we see in society, ranging from indifference or isolation, to anger and condemnation, to positive campaigning and working for change. But this verse shows that the Psalmist has recognised the heart of the issue – we need God to break in and move if things are really to change.

If God’s laws are being broken the ultimate solution will not be found in stricter rules and more police, but in transformed hearts. As much as I believe the church has a crucial role to play in hands-on social and political action, our first instinct must be to cry out to God to move in revival power. If we don’t, it is likely we are either guilty of self-reliance (attempting to fix society in our own strength), or self-absorption (not being troubled by the evils in society so long as they don’t affect me).

The Old Testament prophets understood this. They didn’t just speak out against evil and call God’s people to action, they called God himself to action:

Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down,
   that the mountains would tremble before you! (Isa 64:1)

LORD, I have heard of your fame;
   I stand in awe of your deeds, LORD.
Repeat them in our day,
   in our time make them known;
   in wrath remember mercy. (Hab 3:2)

You who call on the LORD,
   give yourselves no rest,
and give him no rest till he establishes Jerusalem
   and makes her the praise of the earth. (Isa 62:7-8)

In several places in the Psalms and Wisdom literature, the godly person is counselled to keep away from the wicked who are corrupting influences. In Psalm 119:113-120 (the ‘Samekh’ strophe), the Psalmist expresses his desire for them to leave him alone.

¹¹⁵ Away from me, you evildoers,
   that I may keep the commands of my God!

There have been many groups throughout church history who have emphasised the wisdom of avoiding close association with the godless. Verses such as 1 Cor 15:33, “Bad company corrupts good character.” or 2 Cor 6:17 “Come out from them and be separate” are often cited as evidence that as Christians, we are to keep our distance from the ungodly.

But there has been a marked shift of emphasis in recent years. Now the desire is to be “missional”, to develop good relationships with those who don’t know God and to be a “friend of sinners” like Jesus was.

Are these two incompatible perspectives? Or can they be integrated in some way?

We need to begin by acknowledging the fact that it is possible for us both to be an influencer of those around us and to be influenced by them. Becoming a Christian does not make us magically invincible to temptation. Jesus touched the unclean leper and it made the leper clean. But if we are honest, we don’t always find the transfer works that way for us.

Going into situations where you regularly succumb to temptation and blend in with those around you is not being missional, it’s being foolish. But completely withdrawing from unbelievers around you is not being spiritual, it’s being disobedient to the great commission.

So how did Jesus do it? I won’t attempt to give a comprehensive answer, but here are a few brief thoughts. He brought the presence of God with him into every situation, shining light into dark places rather than hiding his light away. He loved and accepted others, but he wasn’t a people pleaser; he was willing to confront where necessary. He  chose to mix with sinners in contexts conducive to meaningful conversation, such as shared meals.

We do need to beware being influenced by evil, but the solution is not monasticism. For an example of how to live a holy yet missional life, we need look no further than Jesus.

God’s promises is a recurrent theme in Psalm 119, but in the “Nun” section (Ps 119:105-112), we see the Psalmist making a solemn promise to God:

¹⁰⁶ I have taken an oath and confirmed it,
   that I will follow your righteous laws.

A few verses later he expresses his determination to obey God not just in the present, but for the rest of his life:

¹¹² My heart is set on keeping your decrees
   to the very end.

This theme of making promises and commitments is also prominent in the Heth section (Ps 119:57-64). For example:

⁵⁷You are my portion, LORD;
   I have promised to obey your words.

In our commitment-averse society, making vows or promises is something we are less and less inclined to do. Some even want to insert get-out clauses into their marriage vows.

I know there are some churches that make a big deal of promises. They have baptismal vows where they pledge loyalty to God, and “commitment Sundays” where they pledge loyalty to their local church. Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life begins by asking you to commit to reading it daily, and his church training program involves signing up to a series of “covenants”. The “Promise Keepers” movement has seven promises or commitments they want men to sign up to. Some preachers include making promises as part of their altar call – people need to come down to the front as a sign that they have definitively committed to some kind of response.

On the other hand, some churches have backed off this kind of language. It can be viewed suspiciously as a kind of guilt-inducing entrapment, manipulating people into making promises they can’t or don’t want to keep. To compound it all, didn’t Jesus tell us not to make promises at all in Matt 5:34?

It is easy to find plenty of examples of “pledges”, “vows” and “oaths” made by the people of God in the Old Testament. But in the New Testament they are few and far between. Apart from Paul vowing to cut all his hair off in Acts 18:18, examples of believers making promises or being asked to do so are hard to find. Some cite 1 Peter 3:21 as evidence of the practise of “baptismal pledges”, which do seem to have been a feature of the early church.

So should we be making vows? For the psalmist, it was very clear in his mind that he had devoted his entire life to knowing and obeying God. As we do with marriage vows he wanted to express his irrevocable decision to live for God – “I’m in this for life, no backing out”. Rather than necessarily making fresh “vows” in some kind of special ceremony, I think he made a habit of regularly reaffirming and articulating this commitment to God. Whilst I agree that our primary focus should be on God’s faithfulness, and his promises to us, I do believe it is appropriate for us to respond to his grace with songs and prayers affirming our own commitment to him.

I have decided to follow Jesus;
No turning back, no turning back.

⁹⁷ Oh, how I love your law!
   I meditate on it all day long.

A key theme of the “Mem” section of Psalm 119 (Ps 119:97-104) is the wisdom the Psalmist gets from his continual meditation on the word of God:

⁹⁸ Your commands are always with me
and make me wiser than my enemies.
⁹⁹ I have more insight than all my teachers,
for I meditate on your statutes.
¹⁰⁰ I have more understanding than the elders,
for I obey your precepts.

This might comes across as a bit arrogant. Reading the Bible has turned him him a know-it-all. He thinks himself wiser than his enemies, his teachers and the elders. Shouldn’t reading the word result in humility not pride?

But, we shouldn’t misread the Psalmist’s motives here. He is not claiming to be inherently wiser or better than others. He simply wants to say that the wisdom he gets from the word of God is the best kind of wisdom there is. It’s the wisdom that really matters. The nature of true wisdom is intensely practical. It is not abstract knowledge or philosophical ideas. It is not even about having smart business sense or clever people management skills. True wisdom has a moral dimension. The wise love righteousness and hate evil:

¹⁰⁴ I gain understanding from your precepts;
therefore I hate every wrong path.

The truly wise therefore move beyond simply knowing what is true and what is false to knowing what is right and what is wrong. They go further; they move from knowing what is right to loving what is right. It’s not just our opinions that need changing, it is our desires.

I’ll save the concept of “hating” every wrong path for a future post, as that is another phrase in this section that could easily be taken the wrong way.

The verse I want to pick out from this portion of Ps 119 is one that came to my attention after watching the movie “Luther”. In Ps 119:94, the Psalmist says “I am yours, save me”. There is a powerful moment in the film where Johan von Stauptiz urges Martin Luther, who was despairing of finding a gracious God at the time, to use it as a prayer, lifting his eyes from himself and looking to Christ:

“Martin, what is it you seek?”
“A merciful God! A God that I can love! A God who loves me…”
“Then look to Christ…bind yourself to Christ, and you will know God’s love. Say to him, “I am Yours – save me!”

Saved from what?

But has this half-verse been snatched away from its context and made to mean something alien to the original text? What was the Psalmist praying to be saved from? Verse 95 might suggest that it is not God’s judgement he wants to be saved from, but the harm that wicked people want to do to him:

⁹⁵ The wicked are waiting to destroy me,
   but I will ponder your statutes.

However, verses 92-93 paint a slightly different picture, one in which the Psalmist links his own personal safety with his loyalty to God’s word. In other words, he recognises that there is a graver danger than falling into the hands of the wicked, and that is falling in line with the wicked and sharing their fate:

⁹² If your law had not been my delight,
   I would have perished in my affliction.
⁹³ I will never forget your precepts,
   for by them you have preserved my life.

So we could say the Psalmist has “holistic salvation” in mind – salvation from harm in this life and salvation from damnation in the next; salvation from the schemes of the wicked and salvation from the judgment of God.

Saved on what basis?

But what is the basis of that salvation? The ESV rendering of verse 94 could be interpreted as presenting a legalistic understanding – he expects to be saved because of his obedience to God’s precepts:

⁹⁴ I am yours; save me,
for I have sought your precepts.

The NIV however phrases the verse quite differently, suggesting that the Psalmist’s hope of salvation rests on the simple fact that he belongs to God:

⁹⁴ Save me, for I am yours;
   I have sought out your precepts.

Theologically, I prefer the NIV here. My confidence that I will be saved is not based on my obedience to God’s precepts, but on the knowledge that I belong to him, that I have been bought by the blood of Christ.

In any case, a careful reading of the ESV reveals that it is not “obedience” that is put forward as the basis for salvation. He says he has “sought” God’s precepts, which, for the Psalmist, is pretty much the same thing as saying he has sought God. Probably if the ESV is right, the sense is that seeking after God is the hallmark of belonging to him. Those who belong to God desire to please him with a life of obedience and therefore “seek his precepts.” In that sense it is no different from the Jesus’ teaching that those who abide in him will bear fruit.

Saviour and Lord

But perhaps the most attractive thing about the phrase “I am yours, save me” is the indissoluble link between having Jesus as your Saviour, and belonging to him. We cannot say to Jesus, “I want salvation, but I don’t want you”. You cannot have him as your saviour without also coming into a new relationship with God as your Father, and Jesus as your Lord. When we are saved we don’t just receive benefits from Christ, we find ourselves, to use Paul’s language, “in Christ”. We enter into a new life in which Jesus is right at the centre.

So I think Staupitz was right to point Luther to a God of grace using this verse. He’s not a God who will save us only if we impress him enough with our commandment-keeping. He’s a God who delights to save all who call upon him, all who lift their eyes off themselves and look to Christ alone for salvation.