Quote:
Originally Posted by UnregisteredSO
Finally, the Word is not read (except, perhaps, very rarely) unless the footnotes are then consulted. (THE HWFMR is actually the Recovery Version verses with footnote materials expanded into full pages.) These "footnotes" are actually a complete Bible commentary... inserted into the pages of this version itself and treated as part and parcel of the Holy Word. How embarrassing it is to open a page of the Recovery Version and see just one or two small verses at the top with footnotes filling the entire rest of the length of the page!
|
Psalm 109 "Mem" says
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Psalm 109 Mem
97 Oh, how I love your law!
I meditate on it all day long.
98 Your commands are always with me
and make me wiser than my enemies.
99 I have more insight than all my teachers,
for I meditate on your statutes.
100 I have more understanding than the elders,
for I obey your precepts.
101 I have kept my feet from every evil path
so that I might obey your word.
102 I have not departed from your laws,
for you yourself have taught me.
103 How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104 I gain understanding from your precepts;
therefore I hate every wrong path.
|
"How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth"
Which words, I ask, the words of "law" or words of "grace"? The words which are revelatory of Jesus Christ, or the words which are natural, soulish, and derived from fallen human concepts? WL's scriptural exegeses clearly divided the word of God into these two classes. See his commentary throughout the Psalms, and in Job, and in James' epistle. Etc. Words which were "sweet" to WL got reams of footnotes. As
UnregisteredSO says above, you can open the RecV and get 2 verses of scripture and the rest of the page is 15 or 20 paragraphs of small-print commentary. But open a page in Psalms and you might get one dismissive comment for 30 verses of scripture, or maybe no footnote, just 2 or 3 cross-references for an entire page! Where does Paul or another NT writer receive scriptures thus? Or suggest that we do so? I'd say, on the contrary.
I propose an alternative to Recovery Version footnotes: Who kept His feet from every evil path in v 101, in order to obey God's word? Who didn't depart from God's laws in v 102? Who hated every wrong path in v 104? I propose that it was Jesus who fulfilled these declarations. Jesus was the Promised Seed who truly tasted the sweetness of God's word, as verse 103 says. Our faith is in this Jesus, who delights to obey the Father's word (expressed will, or law, or precept, etc), and thus tastes sweetly. See e.g. "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me". Our faith is not in Paul, not in David, not in WL, and certainly not in ourselves. No; it's "this Jesus" whom we see and believe into. (See Acts 2:32; cf Heb 2:9) It's "this Jesus", revealed in Scripture, whom we follow. And I ask, How can we follow, or obey this Jesus, if we don't see Him? How can His sheep move to greener pasture, and still waters, without hearing their Shepherd's voice?
WL's footnotes present a nearly violent and schizophrenic treatment, where he'd say, "natural, natural, natural" in covering the text, then suddenly he'd see a verse like 103 where the word was called "sweet" and suddenly declare "Revelation!! A revelation from God!!" And a long footnote would ensue (of course tied to some LC practice like "eating the word" - i.e. pray-reading). Then it was back to "natural, natural, fallen, natural". Strange and disjointed stuff; wrenching a so-called revelation totally out of context from the surrounding narrative. WL's pet verses got reams of ink, and the rest were relegated to silence, or outright dismissal, as vain words of men. Again, where's the precedent for this sort of exegesis?
But look at Peter's treatment of Psalmic text on Pentecost. Peter didn't say that David was ignorant, and natural, and that suddenly David had a "squirrel" moment in the midst of his natural and vain philosophizing. No, Peter said that David was a prophet and knew what, or more specifically, 'Who' was coming after him, fulfilling God's promise of an eternally reigning Seed. Or should we reject Peter's interpretive approach in favor of WL's? (See Acts 2:30; also Jesus' 'David was in spirit' of Matt 22:23). Or is Peter's interpretation limited to a few verses from Psalm 16, after which we're invited to form our own personal, subjective (and with WL, clearly disjointed) hermeneutical treatment elsewhere?