Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Stopping these metaphors at the thing actually said does not cause us to "miss our way out of the fall." .... Making more out of a metaphor is not necessarily a good thing, even if you think you are encouraged by it. There might be a question as to what it is you are being encouraged toward.
|
Jesus told a parable about two sons, in Matt. 21. One rebelled, initially, and then repented. One said he'd obey the Father and did not. Jesus asked, which one did the will of the Father? The first, was the answer. But I say there actually was another son. One who said, "I will do Your will, O God," and who did it. That one, of course, is Jesus Christ.
Now, does the parable say that explicitly? Obviously, no. But am I wrong in saying that Jesus was the unique obedient Son? No. Should I mix my metaphors, my imagery, here? Possibly not. I see your point. Certainly I shouldn't try to define objective truth with novel configurations.
But you do see the tension here in the Psalms? WL said that the psalmist made a declaration of obedience and cooperation with the divine will, and at least to some extent was not successful. That opens the door to our seeing Jesus, in the days of His flesh. WL said that the psalm was not completely fulfilled by the writer, and thus was relegated to some kind of "second tier" of the sacred word. The text was, in his words, "natural."
Instead, I see Peter's speech in Acts 2 showing us the reconciliation of the tension created by a declaration of victory, with the ultimate failure ("corruption") of the declaring psalmist. Sin and death ultimately won, but only until the day of Jesus Christ. Then the psalm was fulfilled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
As for Psalm 23... We learn about God as the good shepherd through the eyes of the man who is shepherded. That man is not Jesus. He is not the Son. He is a man — David. I think that missing this is to miss the meaning of this Psalm. To make it into something else is to create a novel teaching that is going too far (where no man has gone before). And most of the time, going where no one has gone before is not a positive thing.
|
Point well taken. There is a danger of "looking beyond" the psalmist's experience to our own idea. Peter's revelation, to some extent, did this in Acts 2. But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else has 'carte blanche' to do likewise. Thank you for supplying a cautionary word. It is entirely too easy to become delighted with one's own ideas. We know of certain self-styled "seers of the divine revelation" who might have profited by being reined in somewhat by their peers.