So what do I think happened with Psalm 22:3? The same that has happened with hundreds of other things. A preacher (in this case Reg Layzell) believed that God was speaking to him that his congregation was to praise God, and God's presence would fill the room in a more tangible way than normal. And maybe it did. This emboldened him to share the amazing news, which got turned into a little rule: praise God and his presence will show up. The word that was for their congregation only, at that time, got turned into a best selling idea.

By the time it showed up everywhere, it was being proposed as a formal order of service that starts with thanksgiving, then praise, and then worship.Does God Inhabit the Praises of His People? An Examination of Psalm 22:3, Matthew Sikes, 10/4/2020, https://artistictheologian.com/2020/04/10/does-god-inhabit-the-praises-of-his-people-an-examination-of-psalm-223/, quoting Lim and Ruth speaking of the 1980s. They turned love and adoration of God into a way to bring ourselves a grand experience. An idol. Today, Pentecostals add a time of waiting on God and expectation of God's charismatic gifts. And look: each of these things are not bad. But Pharisees did good too—and were rotten inside. You can worship God from the wrong motivation (for power or for an experience) very easily.

Ground the experience in the Word of God. We're after an objective goal: a principle true for all time, for all people, so we're going to need objective tools. This is the proper time for study, good exegesis, understanding the history, context, and everything else that we can to aid our understanding. This is not an article about how to do that, so I'll summarise Baptist Pastor Matthew Sikes' work. But I want to emphasise that there's a time and a place for waiting on God, listening to him, and open to the Spirit for a relative word (when looking for relative truths such as what God wants you to do today). And, there's a time and a place for studying God's word with objective methods (when looking for objective truths). It's a both/and, not an either/or.

Having done our study on Psalm 22:3 we will most likely conclude with Sikes that the passage falls within a lament-trust cycle where the author paradoxically holds out trust in God despite their suffering (1-2, complaint; 3-5, confidence; 6-8, complaint; 9-11, confidence; 12-18, complaint; 19-31, confidence). Their personal circumstance sucks, but nevertheless they are confident that God is in control. Verse 3, then, is not something that we do (praise God to bring God's presence), but a statement of trust (intellectual as well as heartfelt) that God is holy and enthroned.

It can be translated two main ways:

1. Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the one Israel praises (NIV)

2. Yet you are holy, enthroned on (inhabiting) the praises of Israel (ESV)

The first is straightforward and seen right across the Old Testament and is the most likely translation. The second translation is unusual, but if that were the translation, it would be best understood not as something literal, but as a metonymy (like a metaphor). Psalms is quite poetic that way, and frequently does this. That is, it's a wordplay to say "...enthroned in the sanctuary of Israel (where the Lord was praised)", like we might say "the crown's land" which we literally mean as "the ruler's land". The crown is associated so tightly with the ruler, in the same way that the sanctuary was the place where God's praises were sang, that these metonymys were born.

Now that we understand it in its original form, we can move it to the New Testament. In fact, when Jesus cries out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me" on the cross, he is not just quoting verse 1 of this chapter, but recalling for all listeners the whole chapter. So Jesus is at once feeling like God has abandoned him (e.g. 22:1-2), yet nevertheless puts his steadfast trust and hope in him (e.g. 22:3-5). So the meaning doesn't change from Old to New, and we can apply it to our lives similarly.

In conclusion, good exegesis helps us to not take an experience to false conclusions. Here, we can say that despite hard times, God is holy, and in control (enthroned). The verse says the complete opposite of what it's made out to say! It is not a magical formula for inciting God to indulge our desires to perform for us! While God does love praise of Him, motivation ought to come from a deep trust in His will, not a manipulative desire to move God according to our own will.

Let's say it a different way, to illustrate the point further. David, the author, is wanting God to come through for him. His circumstances are clearly dire, and it doesn't look like God is protecting him. But he nevertheless trusts that God has everything in his control, just like he's come through for Israel many times before. There is no direction from David or command. It's a visceral plea to God to "be not far from me" (22:11). It's humble, putting David's will under God's will. It's raw and honest. This is exactly how Jesus uses it on the cross: he goes through a terrible situation but chooses to submit his will under God's and trust in God nevertheless (Matthew 26:39). The thrust of the passage is clear: while we are in a period of suffering, persecution, or lack of control, God can be trusted because he is on the throne, and he has delivered us from our enemies before.