Loneliness as a failure of human interaction

28 Tuesday Feb 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Psychology

Tags

If I understand this paper and the research correctly, we can think of loneliness not merely as a lack of social interaction but a failure within that social interaction:

“Lonely and non-lonely individuals were just as likely to interact with other people, but for lonely individuals the interactions were of poorer quality and provided less support and comfort (Hawkley et al., in press).”

Calling this “poorer quality” which is true but not sufficiently descriptive, I think that we could conceptualize of stress as something creates a certain burden upon me. There is the difficulty of the event causing the stress itself (I have to complete a project but lack time to complete it), but there is also a secondary element: when I bring my stress to you, I can offload the effects of that stress: we can more easily bear a difficulty when we understand that someone else cares about our stress. This is so even if other person in the interaction is unable to effect any change in the external circumstance which causes the stress. Just the fact that someone else knows and sympathizes with my stress creates a reduction of stress.

Should I bear some particular burden but have no one to whom I can unburden my heart, each interaction comes itself another form of stress: I am being hurt. No one cares that I am being hurt, which is a second stress. So we can conceptualize loneliness as a combination of two stresses: a first event which causes stress, and a second event when I cannot sufficiently interact with others concerning my stress.

“Stress has tended to be treated as if it represented a single mechanism, although, in fact, it represents a family of mechanisms that serve to mobilize and defend the body ( e.g., fight or flight). Each mechanism comprises a different set of operations that could contribute to higher levels of stress in the lives of lonely than nonlonely individuals. According to the

added-stress hypothesis, loneliness is associated with perceptions of social rejection and exclusion, which are themselves stressors that produce negative affect and lowered feelings of self-worth and, in turn, promote chronic elevations in activity in the sympathetic nervous, sympathetic adrenomedullary (SAM), and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) systems.”

There are a couple ways in which this could be understood the reason that “poorer quality” interpersonal interactions constitute an additional stress: (1) I expect that someone will care about me enough to share in my stress. (2) Stress is a kind of burden which we can off-load to others. I am stressed about completing some task. You cannot relieve the stress of my task, but your sympathy creates a state in my mind which makes easier to bear the stress. How exactly is that stress easier to bear if it is distributed?

Distributing the stress to you reduces the stress to me. Being unable to distribute the stress creates a new stress. As said above, it seems from this paper, but also from human experience, that an effective distribution of the stress through social interaction is effective even if there is no ability in the friend to alter the external circumstance.

What precisely makes social interaction effective to alleviate stress? While an expectation that someone else would care about my circumstance and then finding that there is no one to whom I can unburden myself would explain an increase in stress, it does not explain the reduction in stress should I be able to find a a friend. What if I come into contact with no one, would that make my loneliness no longer an additional stress?

It is unquestionable that isolation constitutes a vicious problem.

Let us imagine that I possess stress as an object, a weight. I expect that someone will care about the weight of the object. I tell someone about my stressful circumstance and the stress become less. But if no one cares, the burden of the object becomes greater. The defeat of an expectation would be sufficient constitute a new stress. But this explanation is insufficient to explain how speaking to someone lessens the weight of my stress.

If I do find someone who cares, the weight of the original stressor lessens even if no weight from the burden is actually distributed to any other person. If I have to complete a project at work and tell you and you sympathize, you still have no burden transferred to you. The distribution is largely free to you, and results in reduction to me.

So this raises the question, why does a “positive” interaction with you effectuate a reduction of my stress? Romans 12:15 tells us to weep or rejoice with the one who weeps or rejoices. Perhaps this makes the issue clearer: If someone good happens to me, I do not experience the full weight of that good unless it can be shared with another person. Also, if someone weeps with me, even this other does not need to directly bear the burden of my loss, the loss is made less difficult.

So rather than think of loneliness as merely the ability to offload the psychological weight of a circumstance, loneliness is also the inability to share in a benefit.

Loneliness is then the lack of anyone with whom I can share my experience. Loneliness is thus not the pure weight of human interaction. Loneliness is the inability to have find anyone with whom I can weep or rejoice.

We can thus raise the question: Why is it critical that I have the ability to share my pain and joy?

This also tells us something about the church and the new life, the transformation of one’s mind as a result of the work of God (Rom. 12:1-2)

This then raises another question for the Christian: why does loneliness exist in the church? Isn’t the presence of loneliness a defect in the functioning of the church?

Measure for Measure Act 1, Scene 3.2

26 Sunday Feb 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Shakespeare

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

King James, Measure for Measure, Puritans, Shakespeare

Friar Thomas

[19] Gladly, my lord.

Duke

[20] We have strict statutes and most biting laws,

[21] The needful bits and curbs to headstrong weeds,

[22] Which for this fourteen years we have let slip,

[23] Even like an o’ergrown lion in a cave

[24] That goes not out to prey. Now, as fond fathers,

[25] Having bound up the threat’ning twigs of birch

[26] Only to stick it in their children’s sight

[27] For terror, not to use—in time the rod

[28] More mocked than feared—so our decrees,

[29] Dead to infliction, to themselves are dead,

[30] And liberty plucks justice by the nose,

[31] The baby beats the nurse, and quite athwart

[32] Goes all decorum.

This section works on a couple of levels. First, it explains the Duke’s motivation leaving. Thus, it continues the exposition.

Second, the language is quite pictureseque. This makes the exposition entertaining:

[20] We have strict statutes and most biting laws,

[21] The needful bits and curbs to headstrong weeds,

[22] Which for this fourteen years we have let slip,

[23] Even like an o’ergrown lion in a cave

[24] That goes not out to prey.

This first passage has an interesting mix of imagery:

The laws are strict and also “bite”. This is matched by the image of the lion who has grown so fat it can longer leave its cave.

The strict statutes and biting laws act curb weeds which are difficult to restraining. This leads to an interesting reversal of the imagery. Weeds are the danger. The laws are the restraint. Weeds become overgrown. The lion is the image of restraint: the lion should come out and hunt its prey. Thus, the lion is parallel to the strict laws. But lazy lion is overgrown. So a fat lion has led to overgrown weeds.

Now, as fond fathers,

[25] Having bound up the threat’ning twigs of birch

[26] Only to stick it in their children’s sight

[27] For terror, not to use—in time the rod

[28] More mocked than feared—so our decrees,

[29] Dead to infliction, to themselves are dead,

[30] And liberty plucks justice by the nose,

[31] The baby beats the nurse, and quite athwart

[32] Goes all decorum.

The second passage is based upon a more coherent image: A parent uses corporal punishment to restrain and train a child. But the “fond father” (fond here means foolish delight, indulgence) holds the stick up only as a threat. After awhile, the threat becomes meaningless because everyone knows it is an idle threat. There should be a balance between liberty and restraint (or justice), which has been lost. Liberty now openly mocks just. “more mocked than feared …. Plucks justice by the nose”.

The baby beats the nurse (the nanny) is a marvelous image.

Third, the passage presents a theory of social order in brief: Laws are enacted to restrain dangers which threaten social order. If the laws are not enforced, they will soon become a joke. The forces of disruption, weeds, untamed liberty, a child, will take advantage of the weakness afforded by a failure to restrain disorder. The result will be chaos: “and quite athwart/Goes all decorum.”

The basic proposition of this exposition: Why are you pretending to be on a trip? Well, I really can’t enforce basic laws because I have been distracted with other things. If I try it now, it will make things worse. I’ve installed a man who is known to be strict. I’ll let him reintroduce order.

Again, the irony of Angelo’s work. Angelo fails to judge the actual work of prostitution. Escalus, in Act II Scene 1 will warn the men to not be involved in this work. It is the man who is otherwise upright, whose sister is a soon to be a nun and how gets his soon to be formally acknowledge wife pregnant

Friar Thomas

[33] It rested in your Grace

[34] To unloose this tied-up justice when you pleased,

[35] And it in you more dreadful would have seemed

[36] Than in Lord Angelo.

Friar Thomas here raises the obvious question: Why didn’t you just enforce the law yourself? It would have been taken more seriously if you had done it yourself.

Duke

[37] I do fear, too dreadful.

[38] Sith ’twas my fault to give the people scope,

[39] ’Twould be my tyranny to strike and gall them

[40] For what I bid them do; for we bid this be done

[41] When evil deeds have their permissive pass

[42] And not the punishment. Therefore, indeed, my

[43] father,

[44] I have on Angelo imposed the office,

[45] Who may in th’ ambush of my name strike home,

[46] And yet my nature never in the fight

[47] To do in slander. And to behold his sway

[48] I will, as ’twere a brother of your order,

[49] Visit both prince and people. Therefore, I prithee

[50] Supply me with the habit, and instruct me

[51] How I may formally in person bear

[52] Like a true friar. More reasons for this action

[53] At our more leisure shall I render you.

[54] Only this one: Lord Angelo is precise,

[55] Stands at a guard with envy, scarce confesses

[56] That his blood flows or that his appetite

[57] Is more to bread than stone. Hence shall we see,

[58] If power change purpose, what our seemers be.

⌜They⌝ exit

We have now come to full explanation of the Duke’s understanding.

[37] I do fear, too dreadful.

[38] Sith ’twas my fault to give the people scope,

[39] ’Twould be my tyranny to strike and gall them

[40] For what I bid them do; for we bid this be done

[41] When evil deeds have their permissive pass

[42] And not the punishment.

The moral logic is that if I (the Duke) tempted the people in thinking it was permissible to engage in this behavior, it would be peculiarly wrong of me to then turn upon them and punish the conduct which I permitted.

Notice the political logic here: He would move from being a rightful ruler to a “tyrant” by such a move. In this sense, the argument has a similar political rational as does the Lex Rex, the Law is King: even the king must be subject to the law.

This also underscores the psychological aspect of political legitimacy. It is a perception in the people ruled that a ruler is legitimate. An illegitimate ruler is one who must keep his position by means of fear and violence. A legitimate ruler has the willing assent of the population, which he would lose.

He has passed his authority to someone who is “precise” (as he will describe Angelo, below). By passing his authority there is a psychological change in the population, they will be willing accept things. Even if the effect is unexpectedly harsh (but they should expect a lot from Angelo), it will not hurt the Duke’s legitimacy.

Therefore, indeed, my

[43] father,

[44] I have on Angelo imposed the office,

[45] Who may in th’ ambush of my name strike home,

[46] And yet my nature never in the fight

[47] To do in slander.

The Duke however is not going to leave his people without his oversight. This shows he is not quite certain either of how Angelo will act or how the people will respond. Why or the extent to which he is concerned with Angelo is unknown. We gain some insight here:

More reasons for this action

[53] At our more leisure shall I render you.

[54] Only this one: Lord Angelo is precise,

[55] Stands at a guard with envy, scarce confesses

[56] That his blood flows or that his appetite

[57] Is more to bread than stone. Hence shall we see,

[58] If power change purpose, what our seemers be.

He is “precise”. This had distinct religious overtones at this time. The Puritans were sometimes referred to by their detractors as “precisionists” or “precisians”.

Because of their concern for preciseness in following out God’s revealed will in matters moral and ecclesiastical, the first Puritans were dubbed ‘precisians’. Though ill-meant and derisive, this was in fact a good name for them. Then as now, people explained their attitude as due to peevish cantankerousness and angularity or morbidity of temperament, but that was not how they themselves saw it. Richard Rogers, the Puritan pastor of Wethersfield, Essex, at the turn of the sixteenth century, was riding one day with the local lord of the manor, who, after twitting him for some time about his ‘precisian’ ways, asked him what it was that made him so precise. ‘O sir,’ replied Rogers, ‘I serve a precise God.’ If there were such a thing as a Puritan crest, this would be its proper motto. A precise God—a God, that is, who has made a precise disclosure of his mind and will in Scripture, and who expects from his servants a corresponding preciseness of belief and behaviour—it was this view of God that created and controlled the historic Puritan outlook.

Packer, J. I. A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. Crossway Books, 1990, p. 114.

This raises a peculiar question about the play. The play itself was first performed in 1604 before King James. The relationship between King James and the Puritans was not easy. This wink at the Puritans would not have caused the playwright trouble with the king.

Measure for Measures Act I, Scene 3.1

22 Wednesday Feb 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Shakespeare

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Measure for Measure, Shakespeare

The previous post on this play may be found here:

Scene 3

Enter Duke and Friar Thomas.

Another expositional scene. The Duke explains why he has made this vacancy of his position. He makes this confession to a friar. Later, the Duke will appear to take confession from the main players in the drama set into motion by his departure

Duke

[1] No, holy father, throw away that thought.

[2] Believe not that the dribbling dart of love

[3] Can pierce a complete bosom. Why I desire thee

[4] To give me secret harbor hath a purpose

[5] More grave and wrinkled than the aims and ends

[6] Of burning youth.

We come upon the pair in mid-conversation. The friar apparently believes that the Duke has left his position to escape the entanglements of love.

The conversation which ensues now works on multiple levels. At one level, the Duke will reveal that has left his position to ensure the reestablishment of a moral order in the dealings of those who are in love (or perhaps the immorality of those who have no love in the case of prostitution. Curiously, it is two engaged men who will be caught up in this moral problem. Perhaps the extended discussion of venereal disease among those who frequent prostitutes is judgment enough for them.

Love is taken as something which has its effects upon “burning youth,” but not upon him. This is an allusion to:

1 Corinthians 7:9 (GB)

9 But if they can not absteine, let thẽ marie: for it is better to marie thẽ to burne.

Or in a slightly more modernized version (not available for Shakespeare):

1 Corinthians 7:9 (KJV)

⁹But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

The matter of youth is played against his more deliberative and secret purpose which he refers to as grave and wrinkled. That is, of great importance and complex.

At another level, this statement is ironic, because the Duke himself will marry at the end. He does not realize it, but he does not possess “a complete bosom.” The dart of love is not so dribbling as he presumes.

There is another irony here, where he portrays love as both ineffective and burning.

Friar Thomas

[7] May your Grace speak of it?

The friar is a cut-out for the question of the audience. He is asking the question which we would have. That does not mean that one must play him as a complete neutral.

Duke

[8] My holy sir, none better knows than you

[9] How I have ever loved the life removed,

[10] And held in idle price to haunt assemblies

[11] Where youth and cost witless bravery keeps.

[12] I have delivered to Lord Angelo,

[13] A man of stricture and firm abstinence,

[14] My absolute power and place here in Vienna,

[15] And he supposes me traveled to Poland,

[16] For so I have strewed it in the common ear,

[17] And so it is received. Now, pious sir,

[18] You will demand of me why I do this.

We now come upon some depth to the character of the Duke. He has been one who tends to a more solitary life, rather than to the demands of rule. In this respect, he reminds me of Prospero who will be usurped for a while in his rule. Here, the Duke voluntarily sets it aside. And in another irony, it is to a much younger man whom he believes, or at least says, does not burn with passion. Angelo will burn, and will be burned in ways he does not anticipate.

The Duke also is unconcerned with the vanities which he again associates with youth.

Angelo is one he portrays of such rectitude as to be unmoved. This is curious, because the Duke also knows a secret of Angelo which portrays another facet of his character: perhaps not bound by passion but by some other desire. And Angelo will find himself caught by passion.

The Duke intends to obtain a new level of honesty in his realm by means of a deception, which is itself ironic.

He then asks the question at the ends, which permits the exposition to continue.

Some trust in chariots

21 Tuesday Feb 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Psalms

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Chariots, Psalm 20:7, Psalms, trust

Psalm 20:7 (ESV)

7 Some trust in chariots and some in horses,

but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.

What is the trust which is commended here? To say that I trust in the name of the Lord when I am not facing any trouble allows me the appearance of faithfulness without the cost. There is no actual trust in such a situation.

At the other end, one who is in an solvable problem for which there is viable response, to say I trust the Lord means more I hope the Lord will act. There is some actual trust here, but it is a trust without other option. I trust in the Lord, because there is nothing else I can do.

There is a third situation where I could act, and in fact will act, but my trust is not in my own conduct but in God.

Then looking to the commentators:

4. Weak man cannot choose but have some confidence, without himself, in case of apparent difficulties; and natural men do look first to some earthly thing wherein they confide: some trust in chariots, and some in horses, some in one creature, some in another. 5. The believer must quit his confidence in these things, whether he have them, or want them, and must rely on what God hath promised in his word to do unto us: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God.

Dickson, David. A Brief Explication of the Psalms. John Dow; Waugh and Innes; R. Ogle; James Darling; Richard Baynes, 1834, p. 100.

Cassiodorus takes the passage in a very different way. He speaks of the sorts of triumphs one could enjoy with chariot and horse, then concludes:

But the psalmist leaves such things to worldly men, and maintains that he has been exalted in the Lord’s name. It is not chariots or the horse that exalt, though they are seen to glorify with distinctions in this world, but the Lord’s name which in the end leads to eternal rewards.

Cassiodorus. Cassiodorus: Explanation of the Psalms. Edited by Walter J. Burghardt and Thomas Comerford Lawler, Translated by P. G. Walsh, 51st ed., vol. I, Paulist Press, 1990, p. 207.

Some trust in chariots. I do not restrict this to the enemies of Israel, as is done by other interpreters. I am rather inclined to think that there is here a comparison between the people of God and all the rest of the world. We see how natural it is to almost all men to be the more courageous and confident the more they possess of riches, power, and military forces. The people of God, therefore, here protest that they do not place their hope, as is the usual way with men, in their military forces and warlike apparatus, but only in the aid of God. As the Holy Spirit here sets the assistance of God in opposition to human strength, it ought to be particularly noticed, that whenever our minds come to be occupied by carnal confidence, they fall at the same time into a forgetfulness of God. It is impossible for him, who promises himself victory by confiding in his own strength, to have his eyes turned towards God. The inspired writer, therefore, uses the word remember, to show, that when the saints betake themselves to God, they must cast off every thing which would hinder them from placing an exclusive trust in him

Calvin, John, and James Anderson. Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Logos Bible Software, 2010, p. 340.

LUTHER: God must help and advise; our plans and actions are otherwise of no value.—OSIANDER: Great, exalted titles do not make a king invincible, but God’s help, which is gained by the prayer of faith. The victory is a gift of God, and is not accomplished by great preparation or a great host

Lange, John Peter, et al. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Psalms. Logos Bible Software, 2008, p. 160.

A collect based on the Psalm:

Hear us, O LORD, we beseech Thee, in the day of trouble, and defend us from all evils, that risen, and standing upright, when our enemies are fallen, we may ever rejoice in Thee, our LORD and GOD.

Neale, J. M. A Commentary on the Psalms from Primitive and Mediæval Writers: Psalm 1 to Psalm 38. Second Edition, vol. 1, Joseph Masters; Pott and Amery, 1869, p. 269.

That Man is a Heretic Titus 3.10

19 Sunday Feb 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Titus

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Titus, Titus 3:10

This is a subject I have considered previously.

3:10 Concerning those persons who promote false teaching, Paul commanded that Titus “warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.” Paul described a false teacher as a “divisive person” (hairetikon). The terms heresy and heretic are derived from this Greek word. Although this adjective appears only here in the New Testament, the noun form hairesis refers to sects within Judaism (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 28:22) and factions or parties within the church (1 Cor 11:19). Paul even included “factions” as one of “the deeds of the flesh” (Gal 5:20). While Paul stood squarely against false teaching (1:13; 2:15), his use of the term “divisive” indicates the destructive nature of those promoting error among believers (cf. 1:11).

Lea, Thomas D., and Hayne P. Griffin. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992, pp. 327–28.

An illustration of drawing psychological conclusions

19 Sunday Feb 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Psychology

≈ Leave a comment

The work of drawing conclusions about human behavior from experimental data less scientific than it might seem. Here is an example form Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. Ariely spends a couple of chapters demonstrating how we will organize our interpersonal behavior according to two sets of norms: market norms or social norms. He illustrates the divide by asking us to imagine a family Thanksgiving Dinner were you offer to pay your mother in law $200 or $300 for such a lovely meal. The act would be a horrible breach of decorum, because it would be using a market ethic in a social situation.

To illustrate how these two ethics interact, they performed an experiment where students were offered candy at 10 cents per candy, 5, 1, and then free. As the candy decreased in price, the students would purchase more candy. However, when the candy became free, they took less candy. The researchers concluded that when the candy became free, the students switched over to a social ethic which was less selfish and more concerned with the interests of others. A related example he gives is there is so much trouble taking the last piece of sushi when a group is sharing from one plate.

Arliey writes, “only when price is not part of the an exchange do we start thinking about social consequences of our actions.” He understands the movement from market to social as two alternative forms of relating to objects and one-another. But perhaps these are one coherent form of interaction. The introduction of money into the equation could be seen as one way of regulating the social consequences.

There are a limited number of candies. These candies can only be distributed in so many ways. If I simply take all of the candy, I will suffer social opprobrium for taking more than my share. When there is no money involved, my share is the same as everyone else. But if I buy the candy, taking “my share” is regulated by the money. When it is free, you and I have the same “right” to the candy. When the candy is sold, my right is what I will pay.

Or, we can understand the transaction as doing what the person giving the candy wants us to do. When the candy is “free,” we understand the tacit rule to be take only as much as would result in the most equitable distribution. That is the game set up by the one giving the candy. When the candy is sold, a different game is being played.

These are two alternative ways of understanding the interaction other than two alternative ethics, social or market.

I am not saying that my understanding is more accurate. I am just pointing out that understanding human motivation can be difficult.

Psalm 55.2

19 Sunday Feb 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Psalms

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Psalm 55

(Note, in the Hebrew the superscription is verse 1)

Psalm 55:3 (BHS/WHM 4.2)

3 הַקְשִׁ֣יבָה לִּ֣י וַעֲנֵ֑נִי אָרִ֖יד בְּשִׂיחִ֣י וְאָהִֽימָה׃

הַקְשִׁ֣יבָה

Listen, give attention to. The paragogic H at end of the verb is explained as follows:

5. The imperative, in accordance with its other points of connexion with the imperfect in form and meaning, admits of a similar lengthening (by ־ ָה, Arab. imper. energicus, with the ending -ănnă or -ăn, in pause -ā) and shortening

Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley, 2d English ed., Clarendon Press, 1910, p. 131.

An interesting observation about the verb:

(The original idea I consider to be that of sharpening, so that קָשַׁב is almost the same as קָצַב, German die Ohren fpißen, to prick up the ears, an expression taken from animals; see the remarks under אֹזֶן p. 26, B)

Gesenius, Wilhelm, and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, Logos Bible Software, 2003, p. 746.

לִּ֣י וַעֲנֵ֑נִי

To me (li) and answer me (ni).

אָרִ֖יד

1. LN 34.40–34.41 (qal) disassociate, formally, roam, be in a state of no longer being in an association, as a figurative extension of roaming or wandering about in linear motion (Jer 2:31; Hos 12:1[EB 11:12]+), see also domain LN 15; (hif) start to roam (Ge 27:40+); 2. LN 25.223–25.250 (hif) be troubled, formally, be caused to roam, i.e., have feelings of anxiety or distress as a figurative extension of being driven or caused to flee in linear motion (Ps 55:3[EB 2]+)

Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament), Electronic ed., Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997. This image is striking: The Psalmist has come into such pain as to be unable to stay still.

The NJV has “I am tossed about”.

בְּשִׂיחִ֣י

In my pain

I think it is best to understand the Beth here as because of my pain. The pain keeps me from resting.

(iv) Cause—the so-called beth causa

וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְכָל־הַטּוֹב אֲשֶׁר נָתַן־לְךָ

יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ

‍And you shall rejoice in (or: because of) all the ‍good which the Lord your God has given to you (Deut. 26:11).‍

כִּי כַפֵּיכֶם נְגֹאֲלוּ בַדָּם

‍For your hands are defiled with blood (Isa. 59:3).‍

Van der Merwe, Christo, et al. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Electronic ed., Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, p. 282.

We could take the “pain” as the agent: My pain is throwing me around.

שׂיח

Is an interesting word.

(2) to speak, pr. to utter with the mouth, comp. אָמַר No. 1. Followed by לְ to speak to any one, Job 12:8; with suff. Prov. 6:22, תְּשִׂיחֶךָ “he shall speak with thee.” Followed by בְּ to speak of any one, Ps. 69:13.

(3) to sing, Jud. 5:10; Ps. 145:5. Followed by בְּ to celebrate anything in song, Ps. 105:2, and in a bad sense, to lament, to complain, Psa. 55:18; Job 7:11.

(4) to talk with oneself, i.e. to meditate, especially on divine things, Ps. 77:4, 7; followed by בְּ of the thing, Ps. 119:15, 23, 27, 48, 78, 148; 77:13. Compare syn. הָגָה.

PILEL שׂוֹחֵחַ to meditate, Psalm 143:5; to think upon anything, Isa. 53:8.

Gesenius, Wilhelm, and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, Logos Bible Software, 2003, pp. 788–89.

There is some kind of communication which has the effect or is expressive of pain. That is understood from the broader context of the Psalm.

This last verb makes the scene even more striking:

וְאָהִֽימָה

And I am/I have become, in a confusion, murmuring, distracted.

The combination ideas here are: I roam about, talking to myself, distracted, confused. This is describing someone in an extremely agitated state who cannot even think. I KJV has here, “I … make a noise”.

The Ar. according to Walton probably reads כי before אריד, and some such word seems to be wanting, as Mudge and others think, “when I mourn in my complaint; and am vexed.” Or as Green with Ch. “and cry aloud.” Who thinks also that a word has been dropped after אריד. See Isai. 15:3.

Dimock, H. Notes Critical and Explanatory on the Books of Psalms and Proverbs. J. F. and C. Rivington; J. and J. Fletcher; J. Hough; R. Raikes, 1791, p. 88.

2. Rend. “Attend unto me and answer me, [when] I am troubled in my meditation and moan aloud.” I am troubled, H. אריד ârîd, lit. “I am uneasy:” as in Gen. 27:40 the word is used of physical roaming, so here it is used of mental perturbation. The Arab. רוד radâ in Voice 1. means “to wander,” but in 4 (as in the subst. taraddud “mental disturbance,” “doubt”), the psychological use of the word is evident. In my meditation, the signf. “In my complaint” is quite allowable but not so appropriate: H. בשיחי b’sîchî, cf. 104:34, 105:2. שיח sîach (1) means both “Meditation,” and the putting of meditation into articulate words (cf. the verb in ver. 17), “Prayer,” “Complaint:” cf. the union of these two signff. in the Rt. הגה hâgâh. Fuerst’s attempt to connect the word with Germ. “sagen” is absurd. There is an Arab. word shaych = Pers. pîr, “an old man” or “teacher,” but whether this word is derived from shâcha (fut. i.) “was old,” or whether we are to regard this verb as a denominative, and to suppose the shaych to be so called because he is one who is used to meditation, is open to doubt. שיח sîach (2) means “a shrub” (e.g. Gen. 2:5), cf. the Syr. shucho, Arab. shaych, but these latter are doubtless from a different root. And moan aloud: here the H. אהימה âhîmâh Hiph. of הום hoom is equivalent to אֶהֱמֶה eh’meh ver. 17 [18].

Jennings, A. C., and W. H. Lowe. The Psalms, with Introductions and Critical Notes. Second Edition, vol. 1, Macmillan and Co., 1884, pp. 252–53.

Psalm 54:3 (LXX)

³πρόσχες μοι καὶ εἰσάκουσόν μου. ἐλυπήθην ἐν τῇ ἀδολεσχίᾳ μου καὶ ἐταράχθην

The LXX begins with an extra verb to flesh out the idea of the single verb in the Hebrew.

Πρόσχες pay attention to, give heed to, take hold of me

καὶ εἰσάκουσόν μου

And listen (carefully) to me. The verb can even carry the connotation of “obey”.

ἐλυπήθην

I am made sorrowful. I am grieved, vexed.

ἐν τῇ ἀδολεσχίᾳ μου

En which is roughly the equivalent of the Hebrew Beth. I would take this as a dative of cause. He is not grieving in some location of pain but rather the pain is driving his sorrow.

ἀδολεσχίᾳ is idle talk

The LSJ has:

ἀδο-λεσχία [α_], ἡ,

A.prating, garrulity, Ar.Nu.1480, Isoc.13.8, Pl.Tht.195c, Arist.Rh.1390a9, Thphr.Char.3: pl., Simp. in Ph.1141.8.

II. keenness, subtlety, Pl.Phdr.269e.

III. conversation, talk, LXX 4 Ki.9.11, Ps.54(55).2.

καὶ ἐταράχθην

And I am troubled, in turmoil.

The description of these symptoms matches the description of an anxiety disorder:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/anxiety/symptoms-causes/syc-20350961

Symptoms

Common anxiety signs and symptoms include:

Feeling nervous, restless or tense
Having a sense of impending danger, panic or doom
Having an increased heart rate
Breathing rapidly (hyperventilation)
Sweating
Trembling
Feeling weak or tired
Trouble concentrating or thinking about anything other than the present worry
Having trouble sleeping
Experiencing gastrointestinal (GI) problems
Having difficulty controlling worry
Having the urge to avoid things that trigger anxiety

Identifying Issues in Counseling Difficult Cases.1

17 Friday Feb 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Biblical Counseling

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abuse, Biblical Counseling, Evaluation

Below I have posted some preliminary notes for my graduate students in biblical counseling (the course on Counseling and the Law). Even though we have a book now on the subject, it does not come close to exhausting all ways in which legal issues will interact with counseling in the church. The notes below are for the purpose identifying places in which one can err in responding to allegations of abuse (again, this not an exhaustive list of places where one may misstep):

Evidence: What happened? It is far more difficult to obtain an accurate understanding of the events of someone else’s life and conflict than is commonly believed. Just as a matter of illustration: The bedrock of legal work is the question of evidence. To that end, the law has created a very complex series of rules developed over hundreds of years to evaluate the reliability of types of evidence and the purposes to which potential evidence can be used. The law school course to introduce one to the subject of evidence is one year long. That does not exhaust the question, it merely introduces the topic. However, counselors, pastors, internet pundits, and those who merely wish to voice an opinion are unshakably committed to determinations which may be fundamentally defective.

Interpretation of Evidence: Once we obtain a bag of facts, we must make sense of that information. For instance, some tells you X on day one, Y on day two, and the X variant one on day three. Is this evidence of lying, of confusion, of increasing honesty? Is evidence of anger proof of malice or fear? Is torment and sorrow one experiences the result of a physical malady, unrepentant sin, the pain of being harmed by another, some combination of three or otherwise? When faced with apparent repentance, is it real? Has there been a change, or are the tears merely a manipulative ploy?

Ambiguity of terms: The word “abuse” is notorious vague and rhetorically charged. The word gets used to describe horrific evil conduct and the unfortunate and seemingly unavoidable difficulties which will exist between human beings. A word that can refer to a savage beating, and an occasional improvident word creates a basis for substantial trouble.

If we have obtained a perfect understanding of history and causes for a conflict in another person’s life, we have only come to the door of how to respond thereto. Since I am writing as a biblical counselor, my primary concern will be a biblical response. It seems to me there are a minimum of three principles which must be considered and balanced.

The importance of marriage: The Bible places a far higher premium on the maintenance of marriage than is common within our culture and even than is common within our churches.

The doctrine of suffering: The Bible does not consider suffering, even profound physical suffering to be the worst possible outcome. We are expected to prefer loyalty to Christ over suffering even death. We rightly esteem martyrs who made the choice to suffer torment and death over disloyalty to Christ. Christ suffered unspeakable horror rather than sin. In our personal lives we may find ourselves in positions where we suffer greatly. Since this proposition seems contrary to our presuppositions about life, I will provide one quotation to prove the point:

¹⁸Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. ¹⁹For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. ²⁰For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. ²¹For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. ²²He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. ²³When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. ²⁴He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. ²⁵For you were straying like sheep but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

1 Peter 2:18–25 (ESV)

The duty to alleviate the suffering of others and to protect the weak and vulnerable: The fact that we may be called upon to suffer unjustly does not mean that we have the right to permit others to suffer unjustly when lies within our power to alleviate the suffering of others. Christians have been noted for our care for alleviating suffering where possible, and not just because the person who suffers is friend, family, or fellow Christian. Both the history of the Church and the breadth of Scripture make this proposition unquestionable. Lest this point be overlooked:

⁴¹“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ ⁴⁴Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ ⁴⁵Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’

Matthew 25:41–45 (ESV)

This certainly does not exhaust the issues which may arise when considering how to respond to a situation of potential abuse. And, when we are attempting to understand the conduct and response of others who have responded to allegations (whether true or false) of abuse, the difficulties are compounded. Indeed, when we see another injured by the response of a church, we may have a responsibility to respond thereto. If one pastor learns that another pastor has misused pastoral authority in a manner which fails to uphold the totality of biblical direction, it is morally incumbent to seek to stop the injury.

A plea: These matters are so very difficult, even the best intentioned and most experienced persons will fail. We are by definition limited beings with limited wisdom. When we fail, we must seek to restore, to undo, to correct. The absolutists of all stripes who believe themselves to necessarily be right bring along their own sort of injury:

⁸Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. ⁹Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.

1 Peter 3:8–9 (ESV)

Kuyper, Common Grace, 1.27b

16 Thursday Feb 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Abraham Kuyper, Genesis

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace, Genesis 3

The prior post in this series may be found here.

Having argued that the word know in the phrase “knowing good and evil” could mean choose, Kuyper now returns to the Genesis to consider whether taking “know” (Hebrew ydh) as “choose” would make sense of the passage:

²²Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”

Genesis 3:22 (ESV) Change the word “know” to “choose”, “man has become like one of us in choosing good and evil”. Kuyper contends that the understanding makes good sense of the passage. He asserts that it does and he bases that conclusion upon this contention, “The distinction between God as Creator and man as moral creature consists precisely therein, that God assesses and determines what is good and what is evil and that man must not do this but must accept it from God.”

Kuyper does not prove that point, but I think it can be derived from the remainder of Scripture, particularly Romans 1:18-3: we humans run absolutely independently of the law.

Here is the key issue: God alone has the right to determine what is good or evil. By taking upon himself the power to make that determination –I, Adam, will decide for myself what is good and evil—Adam rebels against the Creator-Creature distinction. Adam seeks to usurp a position which belongs to God alone.

He then develops this thesis throughout the narration between Adam’s creation to the Fall. Prior to the Serpent’s intrusion, Adam what was good. There was a correspondence between what God required of Adam as good and what was objectively good. I think at this point, Kuyper’s argument may have a wrinkle: If Adam was doing what was God commanded (which was good) because it was objectively good, doesn’t that mean that Adam was making a choice prior to the Fall.

I think the way to avoid Adam choosing the good does not result in an autonomous choice is that there was no countervailing pull. It seems to be sort of an attraction, it wasn’t a choice it was so “obvious” to Adam that it was not a choice. If I look at a ball and realize it is a ball, I’m not making a choice to decide that it is a ball: it just is; I can’t conceive of it otherwise. So, Adam is not really deciding to choose the good; he simply can’t conceive of it as anything other than good and attractive. It is no more a choice than my inability to conceive of the sun as anything other than the sun.

How then will God put Adam to the choice: Will you live by the evaluation of God alone as to what is good or evil? Merely telling Adam to do good would prove nothing more than telling Adam he must breath air and drink water. Therefore, God set a task which was not good or evil except for the fact that God commanded it. Eating from the Tree was wrong because God forbade Adam from eating from the Tree. This put Adam to a choice: Will I accept God’s evaluation of this Tree, or will I make my own?

Adam decided that he could determine what was good or evil. That power to make my own decision spread to all moral concerns.

This leaves human beings the conflict of having two laws, two judgments competing for our decision. Conscience is the struggle of the competition of judgment: our own judgment and God’s judgment seeking to establish a final judgment which leads to some action.

I elaborate this proposition a bit more to make plain that our evaluations are not baldly cognitive rational considerations but are messy and involve desire. The conflicting judgments are, in more Augustinian terms, conflicting loves.

He ends the chapter by introducing what is meant by you shall surely die. He distinguishes die from exist. A plant can cease to exist. Satan is not in the least alive, but unquestionably exists. Rational beings having come into existence cannot cease to exist. So death and existence are not the same.

Psalm 55:1

14 Tuesday Feb 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Psalms

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Psalm 55

In Hebrew, the superscription is verse one. Thus:

Psalm 55:2 (BHS/WHM 4.2)

2 הַאֲזִ֣ינָה אֱ֭לֹהִים תְּפִלָּתִ֑י וְאַל־תִּ֝תְעַלַּ֗ם מִתְּחִנָּתִֽי׃

הַאֲזִ֣ינָה

This psalm begins the (hifil) imperative: Give ear, listen, hear me. The intensity of this opening can be seen by considering the passages where the words are not directed to God.

“Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak,

and let the earth hear the words of my mouth.

Deuteronomy 32:1 (ESV)

5 Hear this, O priests!

Pay attention, O house of Israel!

Give ear, O house of the king!

For the judgment is for you;

for you have been a snare at Mizpah

and a net spread upon Tabor.

Hosea 5:1 (ESV)

It is a strong command. But with God as the one being addressed, it cannot be a command, so it must be the intensity of imploring his attention. I need something from God.

Next the one addressed, and what he wishes to be heard:

אֱ֭לֹהִים תְּפִלָּתִ֑י

God: Elohim.

My prayer. In many of the cases, there seems to be a connotation of lament or supplication.

וְאַל־תִּ֝תְעַלַּ֗ם מִתְּחִנָּתִֽי

And do not wa ‘al

Hide yourself Hitpael tit^el‘allam

Parallel:

Psalm 10:1 (ESV)

10 Why, O Lord, do you stand far away?

Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?

The hithpael of עלם, “conceal oneself,” has here the force of “ignore” or “withhold help” as in Deut 22:4, “You shall not see your brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and withhold your help from them [lit. “and hide yourself from them”].” See also Pss 10:1; Isa 58:7; Job 42:3; cf. Job 38:2.

Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. Word, Incorporated, 1998.

מִתְּחִנָּתִֽי

From (min) my pleading.

The word תְּחִנָּה: can mean “mercy” referring to something received from God. But when it is sought, the word is translated as pleading:

Psalm 6:9 (ESV)

⁹ The Lord has heard my plea;

the Lord accepts my prayer.

The entire verse:

Psalm 55:1 (ESV)

¹ Give ear to my prayer, O God,

and hide not yourself from my plea for mercy!

Psalm 54:2 (LXX)

²Ἐνώτισαι, ὁ θεός, τὴν προσευχὴν μου καὶ μὴ ὑπερίδῃς τὴν δέησίν μου,

Aorist imperative: give ear to, listen to. The word “ear” is in the middle of this verb.

ὁ θεός,

The Psalmist is directly addressing God, which would require a vocative, but the text gives us an articular nominative The + God. The vocative would be “Thee”. This matters because Hebrews 1:8, quoting Psalm 45:6-7 has the same constructive for God. Thus the nominative is used for the vocative when referring to God.

τὴν προσευχὴν μου my prayer. Prayer is accusative as the object of the verb.

καὶ μὴ ὑπερίδῃς

The and is coordinating a parallel (not subordinate) clause.

μὴ is used to negate a subjunctive: you do not overlook

τὴν δέησίν μου: my petition

δέησις, εως f: (derivative of δέομαι ‘to plead, to beg,’ 33.170) that which is asked with urgency based on presumed need—‘request, plea, prayer.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, Electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., vol. 1, United Bible Societies, 1996, p. 407.