[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

LC is an exclusive Christian sect but not a cult.

I won't argue with your point. Nonetheless the LC obsessively and excessively honors its founders Nee and Lee, such that it shades into the gray area of de facto "cultic" if not de jure "cult". It's an exclusive Christian sect which could be mistaken for a cult, and often is. And look how far the apple had to fall from the tree to produce a full-blown cult with the Shouter sect on mainland China, who allegedly do regard WL as Christ Himself, God become flesh. Not far at all, in fact; it didn't take much to get from "I'm a God-man" and "I'm a Baby God" and "WL was Acting God (or, Deputy Authority, Number Four, God's Oracle, MotA)" to treating him as deity incarnate.

Of course there's variance in the historical characters whom I cited. But there's also a theme, that of elevating individuals as the center and focus of a religious group; likewise the LC seems like a personality cult with a small "c". Arguably this also happens in politics, in sports, in entertainment and the arts, and too often in religious life as well. Perhaps the LC didn't cross the line, but they moved too close.

Back to the topic at hand:

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

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 organized the Psalter into 5 books to invite the readers to consider meditating upon these Psalms as equivalent to meditating upon the Torah...

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 redaction 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.

I also see Psalm 1 being a kind of thematic overview of the texts that follow. And WL had a flattened view of the law, to be sure. I argue that he was entirely swayed by Luther's reaction to the RCC and the subsequent recovery of justification by faith. But in WL's hands that became a bulldozer, pushing the text into a Protestant and post-Protestant thought-world. Now, we all filter the word through our various cultural lenses to some extent, so I don't fault him there. But my lens is different: I see "law" as something not merely opposed to and subsumed by "grace" (as in the Lutheran treatment of Paul's epistles).

Rather I see God's word as eternal, and pure. It is not God's fault that we could not keep it. What were the pious Jews supposed to do but say, "Amen, LORD, we will keep your word?" And my interpretive lens is this: In the NT I see Peter in Acts 2, saying that while David indeed failed in keeping the utterance, he being a prophet foreknew that his coming Seed would not fail. Also in the NT I see the writer to the Hebrews quoting a long string of OT texts, prominently featuring psalms, and then saying "We see Jesus" (2:9). So there's an open invitation for us (the royal "we") to search the OT for Jesus. And what do I see in Psalm 1? A person who loves the word of the LORD, who meditates on it day and night, and who is blessed thereby. This is clearly contrasted with those who do not (the wicked).

Well, to me the Christian testimony is that we the wicked see this Righteous One and live. This is grace, that God sent His Son to save sinners, of whom I am indeed one. We the failed sinners see Jesus and believe, and live.

Now, we come to Psalm 2, with the installation of the victorious king, etc. These first two Psalms are not diametrically opposed, as WL thought. He said the first Psalm was vanity, being unattainable - just "kiss the Son" in Psalm 2, he said, and experience God's grace. No, the reason Jesus is enthroned in Psalm 2 is because He kept the word of Psalm 1. He did not overturn the word of God but fulfilled it. We the disobedient bow before the Obedient One. We acknowledge Him as King of all, as the designated Son of God. Yes God loves us, but He in love sent the Obedient One to die for we who were disobedient. This is love, that while we were yet sinners Christ Jesus died for us. The Blessed One who fulfilled Psalm 1 laid down His life for we who were accursed, who couldn't keep the word; we now see this One and live. We acknowledge Him as God's installed King, come under His righteous rule, and share His blessing. The promises of God to the Faithful and Obedient One ("He believed God, now let Him come and save Him" [Matt 27:43] and "My God in whom I trust; I will not be ashamed" [Psa 25:2]) now are available to all who by this same spirit of faith see Him.