[aron]

This is a kind of long post so it's in 3 parts. Back to the narrative:

Suppose for the sake of brevity I simply use 3 OT verses to being my letter to the Singaporeans. I'll start with Psalm 119:9 "I am a stranger here on earth". Then maybe a verse from Daniel, talking about captivity, then a verse from, say, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy. Something about obedience to God's commands. Then I present the situation as I perceive it among the Singaporeans who name Jesus. And it parallels much of the NT text. "Do not be unequally yoked with the world, and love not the world, etc."

Nothing wrong with that, right? Maybe it's what they need to hear today, who knows. As long as I don't make 2 critical errors. (1) is to claim my letter stands as definitive oracular revelation on par with scripture. The epistle to the Hebrews quotes scripture, and is also scripture, today, on par with what it quotes. Likewise Paul's writings, etc. So all Christians agree that the revelation contained in Hebrews is equal with the revelation of Psalms or Deuteronomy. Now, the Book of Mormon is an glaring example of this critical error. "Do not add to God's word", right? WL didn't say any of his writings supplanted scripture, although his "interpreted word" comes perilously close. But I'll cut him slack here - it's probably a by-product of being the sole minister of an exclusive group. Only 'one trumpet' is allowed, so Witness Lee's writings are de facto scripture, but not de jure scripture. Okay. Let's leave that one alone.

Error (2) is to use my writings to cut off scripture. This is where my complaint lies, with WL's Psalms exegesis. If someone wants to use OT revelation to discuss the Christian life today, they're already somewhat biased because unlike the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they have an expanded canon, which includes explicitly Christian texts: the NT. So reliance on the OT isn't necessary; in fact the OT can essentially be ignored in common discussions, and often is (though I've argued here that it weakens the NT understanding, which was obviously based on common grasp of the OT, and even an appeal to it).

But the "Epistle to the LCs" (i.e. Life-Study of Psalms) said that these scriptures themselves were void of revelation. This is a grievous error, and should be called out. Just because I don't understand something (and believe me, there are vast swaths of OT text that I'm quite unfamiliar with) doesn't mean it's void of revelation. It just means that it is void of revelation for me, at present.

My point (finally!!!!) is that discussing scripture is subjective. I can say that "this means this to me", and this is okay. I can even say, "This means nothing to me" -- but my "this means that" shouldn't stand as definitive, unalterable presentation of God's oracle today; i.e. God's current speaking to the church, on par with the Epistle to the Hebrews or the seven epistles to the Asian churches in Revelation 2 and 3. And it certainly should not argue that ANY of scripture is lacking revelation. Then, if other writers want to discuss God's revelation of Jesus Christ, and what it means in Singapore today, they have essentially been told to ignore sections of scripture. I don't know what WL said about "I am a stranger on earth" from Psalm 119:9, for example, but I don't need to know to discuss it myself, and I certainly protest if he says that it was merely a vain, natural concept of a vain, fallen sinner, and is not indicative in any way of God's Christ. What nonsense! Sorry, but that's what it is. Nonsense. How can I characterize that as anything but? How can I possibly defend such a treatment of scripture?

Okay, now on to Psalm 2.