Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
That to me is solid proof that David was up and down in his experiences and this clearly came through in his writing
|
You are reading Lee's theology back onto the text as he trained you to do so. But where in the NT is the basis? There are dozens of quotes showing revelation, but nothing that I can find where they (Jesus, Paul, Peter) pan the natural concepts of David. There is no precedent for this interpretive position. It was an approach of selfish convenience to prop up a weak theology. The fallen concepts belong to Lee, not David.
“Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it."
We can either say that David was in error in Psalm 16, thinking that God would keep him from Sheol/Hades, or that he foreknew the Seed that would come. Which approach did Peter take?
"The Holy Spirit spoke through David and he himself said: "The Lord said to my Lord, `Sit beside me until I make you master over your enemies.'" Jesus said that the Holy Spirit spoke through David - where does Jesus say that David was in his fallen human self, vainly trying to be good? There's no precedent for this position in the NT usage. It's a position that WL came up with, against NT precedent. Who was entertaining fallen human concepts, here?
"Thy words were found and I did eat them" - does NT precedent suggest A) Jeremiah's vanity, or B) NT believers enjoying the processed God, or C) Jesus obeying the Father? Lee gave us a false choice set: A or B, but he skipped C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
Can you quote Lee where he said this? Can you add a link?
|
It's in the
RecV footnotes. Yet again, the false dichotomy is assumed of either A or B, ignoring option C, which is the option the NT writers took.
"The law here refers to the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the OT, written by Moses. In ruling over the people the king had to be instructed... and controlled by the word of God. The principle should be the same with the elders in the churches. In order to administrate or manage the church, the elders must be reconstituted with the holy word of God. As a result, they will be under God's government, under God's rule and control. Then spontaneously God will be in their decisions, and the elders will represent God and manage the affairs of the church. This kind of management is theocracy."
The NT reception shows us the Messiah fulfilling the OT script. That's the whole reason the books were written: to show that scripture (what we call the OT) was speaking about Jesus the Nazarene. Lee bypassed this clear and established precedent here, said it was about the local church elders, and that Psalm 1 was vanity.