Skip to main content

God's Dwelling Place


If you are a careful reader of these inspirational pieces, you might think that you just read one on God’s dwelling place.  And indeed, you did read one with a very similar title.  I did write one that basically said God’s dwelling place was not some building, like a church, but actually was the people themselves.  The bottom line was God dwells in people’s hearts, not in buildings.

I had not planned to return to this theme so soon.  But in my daily lectionary---the readings provided by the Benedictine monastery that I follow---I was pleased to see the reading from the Psalm for the Morning Prayer.  The first Psalm reading came from Psalm 84.  I don’t know the Psalms well enough to be able to say, “Oh, Psalm 84: I know exactly what that one says.”  But when I read the initial line, I realized I had heard this line many times.  And then I realized I want to pursue the theme of God’s dwelling a little further.

The initial verse of Psalm 84 says, “How lovely is your dwelling place, O Lord of Hosts.”  I did not consult a commentary for this Psalm, but I would be confident the Psalm is a royal Psalm written at a time when the Jewish Temple was still standing in Jerusalem.  The erection of this Temple was the achievement of King Solomon.  Although most Jews would not have thought that God actually lived in the Temple, there would have been a sense that the Presence of God would be found therein.  At the heart of the Temple would have been the Holy of Holies.  There would be the Presence of God.  To go into the Temple would be to go into God’s Presence.  Apart from the Temple is the profane world.

At one point this Jewish Temple fell to the Babylonians in 586 BCE.  We know that a Second Temple was built and that one existed during the time of Jesus.  Soon after Jesus’ crucifixion, that Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.  The Jews have lived without a Temple to this day.  So this is the backdrop to Psalm 84.  That is significant because we now read the Psalm at a time when the idea of a Temple in Jerusalem is no longer a factor in our experience. 

This means to me that we automatically read this verse metaphorically.  When we hear the Psalmist say that that God’s dwelling place is lovely, I suspect the Psalmist probably meant it literally, that is, the Temple really was a pretty place.  But when the Temple---the actual building---is gone, God’s dwelling place has to be re-defined.  It could be the place where the destroyed Temple once stood.  That would mean the place---the ground---was holy and represented God’s dwelling place.

As I suggested in my earlier reflection, after the destruction of the Second Temple, the idea of God’s dwelling place moved from some building to the human heart.  In the New Testament we are explicitly said to be the temple of God.  In that sense our bodies have replaced the building.  Our hearts are, as it were, the Holy of Holies.  We potentially are the sacred Presence of God living amidst a profane world.  That certainly is the direction my own theology goes.

When the Psalmist says that God’s dwelling place was lovely, that would have been true for the Psalmist simply because the building was standing there.  But the meaning of the Psalm is now potentially different than it was when it was originally written.  The huge difference is the fact that you and I have replaced the Second Temple.  We have become the temples of God. But it is not so simple now as it was in the time before 586 BCE. 

I put it this way.  We are not automatically temples of God.  We are potentially temples of God.  But that depends upon whether we are living in a sacred manner of living profanely.  To live in a sacred manner does not mean that we are perfect.  It does mean that we are trying to know and to follow the will of God.  To live profanely means we couldn’t care less about God’s will.  It is our will---our own desires and wishes---that drives our lives and actions.  Again, that does not make it bad; it just means it is not God’s will.

If we are followers of God’s desire, then we become temples of God.  And we are, by the Psalmist’s definition, lovely!  I doubt that means we are physically beautiful, although that may well be true.  But the loveliness of the temple of God---you and me---is more like a spiritual loveliness.  It means that we are attractive to people.  Our way of life is lovely to behold.

This kind of spiritual loveliness cannot fathom too much anger, bitterness or fighting.  There cannot be much selfishness.  Rather, service has to be the dominant mode of operation.  Most of life is driven by our sense of love and work for justice.  I have known people like this.  I aspire to be just such a person.  I want to be God’s dwelling place. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I-Thou Relationships

Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber.   I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s.   It was already a famous book by then.   I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it.   It has been a while since I looked at the book.             Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks?   I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece.   I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation.   I wish more people read him and took him seriously.             Brooks’ article focused on the 2016 contentious election.   He provocatively suggests, “Read Buber, Not the Polls!”   I think Brooks puts

Spiritual Commitment

I was reading along in a very nice little book and hit these lines about commitment.   The author, Mitch Albom, uses the voice of one of the main characters of his nonfiction book about faith to reflect on commitment.   The voice belongs to Albom’s old rabbi of the Jewish synagogue where he went until his college days.   The old rabbi, Albert Lewis, says “the word ‘commitment’ has lost its meaning.”    The rabbi continues in a way that surely would have many people saying, “Amen!”   About commitment he says, “I’m old enough when it used to be a positive.   A committed person was someone to be admired.   He was loyal and steady.   Now a commitment is something you avoid.   You don’t want to tie yourself down.”   I also think I am old enough to know that commitment was usually a positive word.   I can think of a range of situations in which commitment would have been seen to be positive.   For example, growing up was full of sports for me.   Commitment would have been presupposed t

Inward Journey and Outward Pilgrimage

There are so many different ways to think about the spiritual life.   And of course, in our country there are so many different variations of religious experiences.   There are liberals and conservatives.   There are fundamentalists and Pentecostals.   Besides the dizzying variety of Christian traditions, there are many different non-Christian traditions.   There are the major traditions, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.   There are the slightly more obscure traditions, such as Sikhism, Jainism, etc.   And then there are more fringe groups and, even, pseudo-religions.   There are defining doctrines and religious practices.   Some of these are specific to a particular tradition or a few traditions, such as the koan , which is used in Zen Buddhism for example.   Other defining doctrines or practices are common across the religious board.   Something like meditation would be a good example.   Christians meditate; Buddhists meditate.   And other groups practice this spiri