Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Hi aron, The massive quantity of messages given by Brother Lee showing Christ as the fulfillment and reality of all the types, shadows, prophecies, etc. in the Old Testament speak to his great love, honor, labor, and devotion to the Old Testament. Your accusations to the contrary have no merit. If you didn't toss those Life Studies, which Stuttgart considered good inspired stuff up until a certain date, then dust them off, read them for yourself, and refresh your understanding about what he taught.
Then, I will be happy to discuss, engage, or debate any topic concerning what Witness Lee actually taught. It is pointless to discuss teachings he never taught! No one benefits from that no matter what side they are on.
Gott gebe euch Verständnis,
Drake
|
Christ was the fulfillment of the types of the OT. Witness Lee taught this, true. This was in accord with the NT reception of the Psalms.
My question is, where in the NT reception of the Psalms do we see them say, "Christ is the fulfillment of Psalm 2, 8, 16, and 22, but not Psalm 1,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14 etc etc?"
Did Paul give some private fellowship to the saints that only some texts were indicative of the coming Messiah, who was now revealed to the world as Jesus the Nazarene? And this private fellowship was lost for 1,900 years until Lee by his God's Economy metric was alble to pry the truth from the text?
How do we know that the Blessed Man who meditated on the word day and night, whose leaf never withered, wasn't also the enthroned King of Psalm 2? Jesus was the Obedient Lamb of God in Psalm 1 who was thus uniquely qualified to be our Good Shepherd in Psalm 2. Then in Psalm 3 you have rebellion: "I lay me down and slept/I awaked for the LORD sustained me" is akin to "I have the power to lay My life down, and the power to take it up again", etc etc. There is possibly indication of the experience of Christ in the text.
And so forth. "The unfolding of Your Word brings life/It brings understanding to the simple."
But to my recollection Lee never considered Christ. He gave two options: either the psalmist spoke truly and was the blessed man, or the "NT believers" somehow fulfilled this. He could see neither, and dismissed the text as low, fallen, natural concepts of sinful man. Why was this not considered as a revelation of Christ, as was Psalm 8 or Psalm 22 or Psalm 110 or Psalm 69?
When in Acts 2 Peter considered the failure of the psalmist to fulfill his declarations in Psalm 16 "You will not let my flesh see corruption" he didn't say it was merely vain, fallen natural concepts of a sinner, but rather the revelatory indication of the coming Christ. Why then did Lee instead take the former tack in handling the OT text? What NT precedent did he have for this kind of reception of the psalmic text?
When one looks, one can see NT echoes in the OT text, even in the most unlikely places. The psalm of David's confession, Psalm 51, would seem unrelated to Christ. Yet in the restoration line, "Then I will teach transgressors Your ways/And sinners will turn back to You" I can hear faint echoes of Jesus saying to Peter, "I have prayed for you, and when you turn, you will strengthen the brothers."
There is life in the text. Its unfolding brings life. I don't claim revelation, but rather object strenuously to Lee dismissing the text so cavalierly, and creating a system in which if he dismissed it, nobody could find life either. "You neither enter into life, nor allow your disciples to do so."