Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
As usual, I have gone on far too long and have so thoroughly beaten my "dead horse" that most of my readers are groaning, or have given up.
|
Oh, and one more point (Ha-ha).
Perfunctory: routine, mechanical, superficial, lacking enthusiasm (Mirriam-Webster).
My sense that the LSM/Lee Psalms exposition was perfunctory (not careful, or thoughtful, but hurried through) was based on a number of things. I will list 3 examples. I believe I could list dozens.
1. In Psalm 1, in which we see the distinctions between the righteous and the wicked, Lee says "There is no righteous person", so the whole psalm is "natural" and therefore dismissed. In Psalm 1, verse 5, the "assembly of the righteous" is simply ignored without comment. But in Psalm 22, we see the victorious One praising the Jehovah in the midst of the assembly! What is the difference between the assemblies in Psalm 1 and Psalm 22? Well, the assembly in Psalm 1 is not referenced in the NT and the assembly in Psalm 22 is referenced. So in Psalm one there is nothing, and in Psalm 22 Lee sees "the church". This seems a little schizophrenic (contradictory or antagonistic attitudes -- MirriamWebster). To Lee, the "assembly" seems to either exist or not depending on whether he is forced to acknowledge it.
2. Similarly, here is a quote (in red) from the Life-Study of Psalm 34:
Concerning the righteous man, David said, ‘‘He keeps all his bones; / Not one of them is broken’’ (v. 20). This is a verse concerning Christ because David was a type of the suffering Christ. When Christ was on the cross, the soldiers did not break His legs when they saw that He had already died (John 19:33). John said, ‘‘These things happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘No bone of His shall be broken’ ’’ (v. 36).
Before this Lee says there is no righteous person. Verses 1 through 19 are called "natural". Suddenly in verse 20 Lee is confronted with a referenced verse. He can't ignore it. So he says that we have 19 verses with no righteous person, then suddenly, with no context, one verse with the righteous suffering Christ, then back to "no Christ" again. That is what I mean by szichophrenic. It is a contradictory exposition. You have no reality, then reality, then no reality again.
There were times in describing his sufferings that David typified Christ. When we look at Psalm 34, we can see the mixed expressions of David’s sentiment. Verse 20 refers to Christ, but most of this psalm is not according to the tree of life. Our concept needs to be changed to the divine concept according to the tree of life. As we grow in Christ, our concept will be changed.
I find this to be a wholly unsatisfactory exposition of the Psalms. This is quite perfunctory. If verse 20 had not been cited in John chapter 19, Lee probably would have ignored the whole of Psalm 34 altogether.
3. In Psalm 23, the famous "The LORD is my shepherd" psalm, we find an interesting approach. To me, there we have 3 possible readings.
First, Jehovah shepherds (guides, leads, cares for) the righteous man, personified in this case by David, the now-grown shepherd boy.
Second, Jehovah shepherds the Son of David, the human, righteous Messiah, who we Christians believe was Jesus the Nazarene. In His human life, led always by His Father in heaven, Jesus fulfilled and fully completed David's type in the Psalms.
Third, Jesus is Jehovah (John 8:24) shepherding the christian flock (John 10:11).
Lee presented us with the third interpretation. Surely that is not incorrect. But Lee ignored the second reading (please note that these interpretations are not mutually exclusive -- seeing one doesn't preclude another). Somehow in Psalm 23 Lee simply could not see Jesus the righteous Son of David, the fully obedient Son of God. He could only see Jesus/Jehovah shepherding Lee. My point is that you don't get to experience the third without the second. The incarnation is fully expressed in Psalm 23.
In spite of Lee's talk of "the humanity of Jesus" I cannot find the humanity of Jesus in his review of Psalm 23. Is that because the previous chapter, Psalm 22, vividly depicted the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of the Christ? If this logic holds, then why are there (many) more psalms after Psalm 22 which depict the psalmists' human pain and suffering?
I think that we have been given a very superficial and perfunctory reading of the Psalms. The Christian assembly deserves a deeper and more thorough look. It is as if someone has been giving us milk mixed with water while saying, "Isn't this steak delicious?" Um, sorry; no. What you are giving us here is not steak. It is barely milk.