Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
And if my letter obviated God’s word, by superseding some (either implicitly or explicitly) by calling it “vain”, or “natural” or “fallen human concepts” (you see where I am going here), then that epistle of mine should be looked at as radioactive, or nearly so, by any Christian recipients. Suppose in my epistle, I said that some of the OT was essentially invalidated as revelation, because the author expressed love for God’s law, which Paul had said could save no one. Or, in the NT, I criticize Peter’s quotation of Psalms was “low”, versus Paul’s “high revelation” in his epistles.
That, to me, approaches the warning in Rev 22:18,19 (cf Deut 4:2). Do not take away from God’s word.
|
More eminent Christians than WL have lower view of certain parts of Scripture. Martin Luther, for example, wanted to do away with Esther, James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation altogether. The only reason he couldn't do so was these books have enjoyed universal canonical status. Luther's own view of the law is suspect at best.
So we need to find out what is the underlying reason for WL's view of the Psalter. The root cause, I believe, is WL's misunderstanding of the word "law" in Psalm 1. The LXX translated the original Hebrew term "torah" as "nomos" (law) and this term got into Pauline literature as well. Unfortunately, "nomos" flattened the meaning of the word "torah" to just judicial regulations. Hence, WL equated the "law" in Psalm 1 to the Ten Commandments.
The fuller meaning of "torah" is "teaching". The Pentateuch is the Torah - the teachings of God. All the narratives in the Torah: creation, human sin, God's promise of redemption, the Abrahamic covenant, the exodus, the Decalogue, etc., are all "torah". They are God's teaching. The compilers organised the Psalter into 5 books to invite the readers to consider meditating upon these Psalms as equivalent to meditating upon the Torah. Longman & Dillard's "Introduction to the OT" calls the Psalms as the "microcosm of the teaching of the whole OT" (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, p. 256).
The prevailing compilation theory held among scholars today (especially since Gerald H. Wilson's groundbreaking work - e.g., "The Editing of the Book of Psalms") is that Psalm 1 is added to the Psalter in the last redactional cycle by its final editors called the "Wisdom Editors". Psalm 1 was not meant to be a psalm by itself but rather served as an introduction or preface written by the editors to encourage the readers to meditate upon these other 149 Psalms day and night. Thus, to hold a low view of Psalm 1, understood in its original context, is to hold a low view of the entire Psalter. WL's interpretation of Psalm 1 is cringeworthy.
But, I digress... Let me get back to Psalm 2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Suppose I'm using Psalm 2 in my letter to the Singaporeans, and say, "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way", and then make the point that we're entering a divine romance. ("Brothers and sisters, we are going to get married to God!!!")Okay, fine. That's my subjective assessment of scripture, as it pertains to us all here, at this moment; that's my subjective response in the church today. I want to go into the meeting of my church and shout, "O, Lord Jesus, we want to kiss You!! Lord Jesus, we love You!!" Fine. But it's not the definitive assessment, i.e. "this equals that".
|
No, it's not OK and it's not fine for people to use Psalm 2 in that way. While applications can and should be subjective, all applications must stem from an exegesis that "kiss the Son" means submission to the Anointed's rule. In its original sitz im leben, the "son" and the "anointed" refers to a Davidic king (cf. 2 Sam 7). If I have to speculate, I'll date Psalm 2 to Solomon or Rehoboam's enthronement. This is an enthronement Psalm. The writer of Hebrews understands that Jesus Christ is the ultimate Davidic King, the unique Son, and the greatest Messiah, and thus re-interpreted this old enthronement Psalm in view of Jesus the king (cf. Heb. 2:9 and context), and therefore we should all pledge our allegiance to Jesus and not relapse into Judaism (a primary goal of Hebrews).
How do we apply "kiss the Son"? It varies from person to person. It's subjective. But it's not uncontrolled. We subjectively experience Christ's sovereignty over our lives -- our circumstances are all different. But it must always mean Christ's sovereignty. It cannot mean "divine romance" or anything else.