Desiring God only

Status
Not open for further replies.

Afterthought

Puritan Board Senior
Psalm 73 states:

"Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee."

Is this to be taken absolutely? If not, why? If so, how is it possible to care for others on earth?
 
The New Living Translation reads, "Whom have I in heaven but you? I desire you more than anything on earth."

We probably need someone to weigh in on the original Hebrew, but I would assume the translation lends to this thought - that the Psalmist desires God above all other things on earth.
 
My mom paraphrased 1 Peter 1:22 (Love one another with a pure heart, fervently) to me as 'Love one another with a heart that loves only God.' A dear friend (Laura of this board) quoted the translation of a beautiful Bach cantata:
(BWV 169, 5. Aria):
Die within me,
O world and all your affections,
That my heart
On earth for all time
May practice the love of God . . .

But we are also commanded
To be true to our neighbor.
For so it is written in the Scriptures:
Thou shalt love God and thy neighbor.

I was listening to the reiterations this morning in 1 John of loving one another, for God loves us. And those who love God must love their neighbor.

I think the question would be that if we desire God wholly and entirely, with all the longing of our heart -- how could we not love those He loves, and commands us to love? But our love then to them, is out of this 'pure' undivided heart of love to Him. I hope that isn't too foolish from a housewife -- just thoughts from my own small experience of trying to learn such a love.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you both!

a mere housewife said:
I think the question would be that if we desire God wholly and entirely, with all the longing of our heart -- how could we not love those He loves, and commands us to love? But our love then to them, is out of this 'pure' undivided heart of love to Him.
Hmm, that may indeed be the answer. Matthew Henry seems to agree, and that may be how he reasons to his conclusion.

Matthew Henry paraphrasing this verse and then explaining said:
"Earth carries away the desires of most men, and yet I have none on earth, no persons, no things, no possessions, no delights, that I desire besides thee or with thee, in comparison or competition with thee." We must desire nothing besides God but what we desire for him (nil præter te nisi propter te—nothing besides thee except for thy sake), nothing but what we desire from him, and can be content without so that it be made up in him. We must desire nothing besides God as needful to be a partner with him in making us happy.
 
Tend to agree with a mere housewife and Afterthought. Because to take the idea in the Psalm too literally would mean that it would make any other desire of any kind a sin, and that's contrary to other passages in Scripture, like in Ecclesiastes, where Solomon says it is good to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.

We must be careful that, in the pursuit of the spiritual, we do not make sins out of genuine pleasures given by God for our enjoyment (I Tim 4:3-5).
 
That is a beautiful quote by Matthew Henry. Thank you for posting it.

Perhaps I should have included the lines of that cantata which are represented by the ellipsis:
Die within me,
Pride, riches, the lust of the eyes,
You depraved fleshly urges!

-- and to which the command to 'also be true to our neighbor' in the next stanza is set in opposition. Besides there being a quite legitimate enjoyment of this material world in the desire for God (for *He* gives us all things richly to enjoy; and He made us to be the sort of creatures who are naturally dependent on, and find comfort and delight in, the gifts of His creation), there is certainly an element of 'caring about the things of the world' in our commanded love and truth to one another (1 Cor 7:33,34).
It is good to guard against 'pietism', yet I wonder if it not also easy to overguard against the strength of the expression, when it really does seem one of the toweringly strong and beautiful statements of the soul's intense and entire longing for God. I'm sure this can only be stated within my limitations (and I'm not very precise), but I don't think it is a matter of loving God more than we love other things, and I don't think the Psalmist is overly concerned in that moment to hedge all his creature comforts. He is ready to toss them all aside, as placed next to God. It seems, and I think this is in keeping with what Matthew Henry said, that simply nothing in earth or heaven appears at all desirable to him of itself, but God?
 
Matthew Henry teaches an useful broader application, but might not be representing the original intention. Within the context of the Psalm the desire presents an antithesis to the wicked. Where that context is observed, it is clear that ultimate happiness is the referent. This is well related by Matthew Poole.

There is no other person nor thing in the world from which I can seek or hope for happiness, or which I am willing to accept as my portion. Let sinners have an earthly prosperity, I am satisfied with thee, and with thy favour. Since thou givest me support and conduct here, and carriest me safe from hence to eternal glory, what do I need more? or what can I desire more?
 
Though I didn't ask the original question, that explanation about context and the quote by Matthew Poole also answer my own question about watering down the strength of the statement -- that interpretation would give it all its strength.
 
Thank you, Rev. Winzer and Heidi!

armourbearer said:
Where that context is observed, it is clear that ultimate happiness is the referent.
I think that would make sense. "Ultimate happiness" would imply that there can be happiness in the creature, but only of a limited sort. But then again, Poole writes: "There is no other person nor thing in the world from which I can seek or hope for happiness, or which I am willing to accept as my portion." So I'm guessing the problem of seeking happiness in the creature is referring to ultimate happiness, not happiness of any kind? But anyway, whatever I may understand/misunderstand about Poole, the context of the Psalm that you mention does seem to me to support that "ultimate happiness" is what is being referred to.

What do you think of John Calvin's view of this? Perhaps he is saying the same thing though: I do notice Calvin says "without God, all other objects...were unattractive to him".

"The Psalmist shows more distinctly how much he had profited in the sanctuary of God; for being satisfied with him alone, he rejects every other object, except God, which presented itself to him. The form of expression which he employs, when he joins together an interrogation and an affirmation, is quite common in the Hebrew tongue, although harsh in other languages. As to the meaning, there is no ambiguity. David declares that he desires nothing, either in heaven or in earth, except God alone, and that without God, all other objects which usually draw the hearts of men towards them were unattractive to him. And, undoubtedly, God then obtains from us the glory to which he is entitled, when, instead of being carried first to one object, and then to another, we hold exclusively by him, being satisfied with him alone. If we give the smallest portion of our affections to the creatures, we in so far defraud God of the honor which belongs to him. And yet nothing has been more common in all ages than this sacrilege, and it prevails too much at the present day. How small is the number of those who keep their affections fixed on God alone! We see how superstition joins to him many others as rivals for our affections. While the Papists admit in word that all things depend upon God, they are, nevertheless, constantly seeking to obtain help from this and the other quarter independent of him. Others, puffed up with pride, have the effrontery to associate either themselves or other men with God. On this account we ought the more carefully to attend to this doctrine, That it is unlawful for us to desire any other object besides God."


Weston Stoler said:
I thought this was gonna be about John Piper lol
Funny, I keep thinking that too when I see this thread's title, even though I'm the one who made it! :)
 
What do you think of John Calvin's view of this? Perhaps he is saying the same thing though: I do notice Calvin says "without God, all other objects...were unattractive to him".

Calvin's comment is sound. The main concern is for the text to be allowed to speak for itself without qualification from other considerations. When all that Scripture teaches is taken together I don't doubt Henry's application will be valid. But in the antithetical relationship between the godly and the wicked, as presented in Ps. 73, it seems to me to be out of place to speak of finding even a subordinate happiness in anything or anyone other than God.
 
Thank you!

armourbearer said:
The main concern is for the text to be allowed to speak for itself without qualification from other considerations. When all that Scripture teaches is taken together I don't doubt Henry's application will be valid.
This is a good reminder. I know I myself am prone to jump the gun to interpretation or application without first letting the text speak for itself (exegesis).
 
In the spirit of what has already been said, take note of Pslam 16 and note how the ideas of loving God and loving people are put next to one another in the very same Psalm. While God is David's portion, the saints are the excellent ones in whom is all David's delight. All David's delight is in the saints. Yet David's delight in the saints is not to be viewed as him hastening after another god.

This teaches us how we are to love others. We are to love others because of what their existence and being say about the God we love. We love Christ in them. If we do not love others in this way, it is idolatry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top