[aron]

Back to the initial post on this thread:

Originally Posted by aron

I'd like to make my case using a few verses from the first Psalm.

1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.

WL wrote that this is the concept of David, and since David sinned (he numbered Israel in his pride and 70,000 died; he had sex with a married woman [Bathsheba] etc) then he was not this hypothetical "righteous man" from Psalm 1. True, but my point is that this was fulfilled by Jesus the Nazarene. Remember Peter's testimony in Acts, where he said that David's declaration that God would not allow him to see corruption was fulfilled by Jesus?

Acts 2:29-32 “Brothers, 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 ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."

David's declaration in the Psalms was not fulfilled by him, but by his descendant Jesus the Nazarene. Similarly, Psalms chapter 1 is not fulfilled by David but by Jesus the Nazarene, and only by Jesus the Nazarene. It is, in one sense, a shallow statement of a well meaning, God-fearing but ultimately fallable human being. But Psalm 1 also paints a picture of the coming Christ.

In all the declarations of the "God-fearing, law-abiding righteous man" throughout the chapters of the Psalms, we see picture after picture of Jesus. Jesus didn't overturn the law; he fulfilled it, and raised it to its true spiritual source (e.g. love, holiness, righteousness).

There's a medieval fable called "Belling the cat". There was a cat, wreaking havoc on the mouse population, and one day the mice convened a meeting to figure out what to do. They were stymied until one bright fellow proposed that they hang a bell on the neck of the cat, so that when he approached they'd hear the bell tinkling and escape.

What a good idea! Everybody liked it. Then somebody asked, "Who's gonna put the bell on the cat?" Suddenly the meeting changed its tone, and everybody got nervous and looked around. Nobody wanted to step forward. They realized that nobody could do it.

The OT is full of pious declarations of fealty, obedience, faith, trust, and hope. "I come do do Thy will, behold in the scroll of the Book it is written concerning me". And, arguably, all those declarations of cooperation with the Divine will were merely vain sentiments. "Behold there is not one good; no, not one. They all are corrupted. All are like sheep who have gone astray." With such thoughts, WL dismissed the words of Psalm 1, and much of the book, except where NT usage required him to "see Christ". My argument is that the central point of the Bible, if there's any central point, is that there is One who is good, One who fulfilled the promises of the prophet, even though the prophet himself (Acts 2:30) may have been destined for corruption, and it's by faith in this One that all may be saved. And how can we believe, lest we hear the good news? If we dismiss the word of God as merely a contrivance of the fallen human imagination, what a loss!

Now back to my last post:

Originally Posted by aron

Look at [Acts 13] verses 36 and 37. "David died and was buried, and his grave remains with us today. But God fulfilled this word by raising up His Son." To me, this is exactly the argument Peter used in Acts 2; Paul also used it here. The "vanity" of David was not the focus of Peter or Paul, but rather the fulfillment in David's promised seed. But WL seemed stumbled, instead, by the vanity of David... Both Peter and Paul in their scriptural exegeses had no problems looking beyond the "corruption" of the writer and seeing the incorruptible One who followed him...

Jesus is the One who belled the cat. Every other 'mouse' who stepped forward got eaten by the 'cat', the flesh of sin. But Jesus Himself put on the flesh of sin and came to save us all. In all the declarations of the pious psalmists, as elsewhere in scriptures, we see the framework for the coming One who fulfilled these declarations to the last iota. WL tried to say that the framework itself was vanity, useful only to contrast with the grace to come. He looked at the framework and only saw either the shallow "natural concepts" of the well-meaning but fallen psalmist, or occasionally, he saw the NT believer "enjoying the grace of Christ". But even that, he did without having first seen Christ.

This line of argument has been rough on WL, I know; I should be humble, and grateful to God for showing me something different. Instead I seem to take delight in proving how superior my ideas are to those of someone else, who isn't here to defend them. For that unpleasantness (and I'm sure it's unpleasant to some) I apologize. Exegetical chest-thumping really shouldn't be our sport of choice. But I was bothered by something that seemed so basic, so important, and done so wrongly. How many have been convinced to look away from this part of God's word, thinking there's no profit therein? If there is any profit to it, we've hardly scraped the surface here, and I know that my living (i.e. experiential realization) is worse; but at least now we're free to re-examine the scriptures, and consider.

And if we go too far astray the ekklesia offers a hand: as OBW replied, for example, the Psalms are perhaps better referred to as the "word of God" than the "word of Christ". This has not been the promotion of new doctrine, merely the idea that we're free to examine the text and find revelation, and enjoy the fatness of the Father's house, with its rivers of pleasure (see e.g. Psa 36:8). The so-called "seer of the age" tried to close the book on us. But the book is open.