Psalm 1 Commentary: (See the type of psalm Psalm 1 is at our Psalm 1 Genre article.)
Matthew collected taxes, but he became one of Jesus’ 12 special friends (Matthew 9:9). Matthew did not write the first book about Jesus’ life. Mark wrote about Jesus first. And Matthew uses much of what Mark wrote. The Christian.church put Matthew’s book first because Matthew often refers to the.Old Testament. About Matthew’s Book. Nov 15, 2012 Cobook (version 1.1.6). The vCard file exported by Cobook is only partially based on the vCard format 3.0. With the exception of the name, all the contact information is represented by either grouped properties or non-standard properties. Google Contacts (15 November 2012).
Psalm 1 Commentary: Topic & Theme
So, what is Psalm 1 talking about?
Psalm 1 is about the blessings of the righteous. And that blessing is contrasted with the unenviable end of the wicked – judgment. So a fuller statement of what Psalm 1 is about could be this: “The Righteous are Blessed and the Wicked are Judged.”
Psalm 1 Commentary: Relevant Today
Is this message needed today? How often do the righteous face discouragement – because it seems like this isn’t the case? The righteous are often put at a disadvantage. We’re slandered. We find ourselves in this nation in the midst of an apparent cultural shift where biblical values and norms are no longer valued or considered normal. We’re now the outcasts. And it’s actually the wicked – those who don’t think like God – they’re the ones who seem to be prospering.
So, a message like we have in Psalm 1 is needed for us today. We need to allow the Scripture to renew our mind about the true state of the righteous and the wicked.
And what is that true state? Blessing for the righteous. Judgment for the wicked.
Psalm 1 Commentary: Why it was Written
We could talk about the underlying or implied situation that called for the writing of this psalm. But I think it probably isn’t much more than the psalmist considering how truly blessed he was, by God’s grace, and contrasting that with those who didn’t love the Lord.
Psalm 1 Commentary: Structure
As for the structure of this psalm, it doesn’t follow a lament or praise pattern. Its pattern is pretty unique, actually. Its structure is based on several contrasts between the godly and the wicked.
Psalm 1 Commentary: Verse 1 Contrasted with Verse 2
The first two verses serve as a contrast. Psalm 1:1 – the man is blessed who doesn’t do those things listed there. Psalm 1:2 – in contrast to those who would participate in those evil things – this man’s delight is somewhere else.
Psalm 1 Commentary: Verse 3 Contrasted with Verse 4
Next two verses are also a contrast. Psalm 1:3. The blessed righteous man is like a healthy tree. In contrast – Psalm 1:4 – the wicked are like vegetation alright – but vegetation that’s dead, dried up, and blowing away.
Psalm 1 Commentary: Verse 5 Contrasted with Verse 6
And so the last two verses contrast the final end of these two types of people. The wicked – Psalm 1:5 will be judged and found to be guilty. In contrast – Psalm 1:6 – God is personally acquainted and familiar with the way of the righteous. And so, the implied idea is that the righteous won’t meet the fate of the wicked.
So, that’s the structure. It’s three sets of two verses each contrasting the righteous and the wicked.
Psalm 1 Commentary: Verse-by-Verse Exposition
And with those considerations in our minds we can proceed to investigate the poetic texture of Psalm 1 – which mainly consists of interpreting the images painted for us.
Psalm 1 1 Meaning
Psalm 1 2 Commentary
Psalm 1 3 Meaning
Psalm 1 Commentary: Verse 4
But what about the kind of man whose activities we saw in Psalm 1:1? You know – following ungodly counsel, enamored with godless lifestyles, associating himself with godless individuals. What’s his life really like?
Psalm 1:3-4 contrasts two images – both from nature and agriculture. On the one hand – Psalm 1:3 – a firm healthy, growing tree. Bearing fruit. Not withering. Succeeding!
On the other hand – Psalm 1:4… chaff. When you think of chaff, do you think of permanence? No, chaff is just the stuff on the outside of the kernel of wheat, right? It flakes off of the wheat kernel and – as we’re told in Psalm 1:4 – the wind blows it away. So, it’s not permanent. It’s not grounded. It’s not planted like the tree was. Does chaff bear any fruit? Do you get apples from chaff? Or grapes from chaff?
Is chaff good for anything? Is it productive? No. All you can do with chaff is get rid of it from the threshing floor. And that’s the picture we have of the ungodly. Their lives bear no fruit for the Lord. They’re useless for his purposes and plans in this world.
Psalm 1 5 Commentary
Psalm 1 6 Commentary
Psalm 1 Commentary: The Choice is Yours
And until that day, we’re all confronted with choices. I think the very structure of this psalm even leads us to think this way. You have Psalm 1:1 – you could choose the way of the godless, but Psalm 1:2 – a godly man doesn’t. Psalm 1:3 – you could have a life characterized by the kind of success that really matters or Psalm 1:4 – you could be inconsequential in God’s eyes by leading a godless rebellious life. Psalm 1:5 – you know how the godless will turn out – you don’t want that, do you? On the other hand, Psalm 1:6 – the righteous are intimately known by the Lord. But the wicked will be destroyed.
It’s your choice. Blessing? Or destruction?
And every single one of us were in the latter group once. We were guilty before God. Rejecting wisdom and happy with our sin. And the Lord drew us to himself. We believed. And God changed things, didn’t he? Would you say that that’s a blessing? You might not characterize your life as blessed. But are you thinking about it the way that God does? Would you ponder the blessings that God gives to those who are righteous by his grace? Would you consider the alternative?
I trust we can give to God a portion of the praise that’s due him as we’ve reflected on the Blessing of the Righteous.
Psalm 1 Commentary
Description
Psalm 1 Commentary: What does David mean as he compares the righteous with the wicked? Who are these people and what does the text mean?
Author
Explaining the Book
Publisher Logo
I have tried to reach the zen of address book synchronisation for many years. However, I have always experienced that some contact information, especially instant messaging and social networking addresses, gets lost or corrupted during the synchronisation.
The most adopted format for representing contact information is the vCard, whose last version is the 4.0 (see IETF’s RFC 6350, 2011), while the most adopted protocol for accessing contact information is the CardDAV (see in the IETF’s RFC 6352, 2011), which is based on the vCard format. Hence, I performed a little empirical study of the actual interoperability of the vCard format.
First, I defined a sample contact:
Second, I added this contact to four different address books:
- Apple Contacts (formerly Address Book)
Third, I exported each of the address books to a vCard file.
![Cookbook 1 1 6 1 Cookbook 1 1 6 1](/uploads/1/2/6/1/126182444/910121264.jpg)
Fourth, I created a sample vCard file based on the vCard format 4.0.
Finally, I compared the exported vCard files and the sample vCard file among each other. The differences between these files blew my mind.
In the following, I show these vCard files and discuss the properties which are not interoperable. Note that I stripped the irrelevant properties and rearranged the remaining properties to make the comparison easier.
Sample vCard file
The specification of the vCard is kind of shocking. Believe or not, it does not support social networking addresses yet. Even worse, it supports constructs which are not interoperable, namely grouped properties and non-standard properties.
Grouped properties are properties prefaced with the same group name. They should be grouped together when displayed by an application. I will show examples of grouped properties later.
Non-standard properties are properties defined unilaterally or bilaterally outside the standard. They may be ignored by an application.
Hence, I was forced to represent the Twitter address by a non-standard
X-SOCIALPROFILE
property:Apple Contacts (version 7.1)
The vCard file exported by Apple Contacts is only partially based on the vCard format 3.0 (see IETF’s RFC 2425 and RFC 2426, 1998) and its extension for instant messaging (see IETF’s RFC 4770, 2007).
The web address is represented by a standard
URL
property grouped together with a non-standard X-ABLabel
property:This issue can be solved by changing the type of the web address from “home page” to “home”. This leads to a vCard file where the web address is represented by a standard
URL
property:The Twitter address is represented by a non-standard
X-SOCIALPROFILE
property:Cobook (version 1.1.6)
The vCard file exported by Cobook is only partially based on the vCard format 3.0. With the exception of the name, all the contact information is represented by either grouped properties or non-standard properties.
Google Contacts (15 November 2012)
Google Contacts does not support social networking addresses natively, so I was forced to add them as URLs.
The vCard file exported by Google Contacts is only partially based on the vCard format 3.0 (see IETF’s RFC 2425 and RFC 2426, 1998).
The colon in all the URLs is unnecessarily escaped.
Similar to Apple Contacts, the web address is represented by a standard
URL
property grouped together with a non-standard X-ABLabel
property:I guess this is because Google Contacts specifically targets Apple Contacts when exporting to a vCard file. This issue can be solved by changing the type of the web address from “Home Page” to “Home”. This leads to a vCard file where the web address is represented by a standard URL property:
The Skype address is represented by a non-standard
X-SKYPE
property:The Twitter address is represented by a standard URL property grouped together with a non-standard
X-ABLabel
property:Memotoo (15 November 2012)
The vCard file exported by Memotoo is only partially based on the vCard format 2.1.
The Skype address is represented by a non-standard
X-SKYPE-USERNAME
property:The Twitter address is represented by a non-standard
X-TWITTER
property:Conclusion
Given the results of this study, it is not surprising that the import/export of vCard files as well as the synchronisation via CardDAV do not behave as expected most of the time.
Common contact information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, postal addresses, web addresses, and instant messaging addresses can be represented in two ways: using standard properties, or using standard properties grouped together with non-standard properties. The second way is currently used by Apple (and other vendors targeting Apple); it is unnecessary, prevents interoperability, and promotes vendor lock-in.
Other common contact information such as social networking addresses are not supported at all.
Cobook 1.1.6 Student
So what should be done? Here is my suggestion:
First, the IETF should remove grouped properties and non-standard properties from the specification, since open standards should promote interoperability and prevent vendor lock-in. Second, the IETF should add social networking properties to the specification. Third, the IETF should provide an official validator for vCard files. Finally, the vendors should implement the last version of the vCard format, and they should do it right.
Cookbook 1 1 6 1
Update 22 November
I have shared my concerns in IETF’s vCardDAV mailing list. You can follow the thread here.