Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Znp, sometimes the same writer expressed human concept and sometimes divine.
Happens all the time even here.
|
I often overgeneralize but that's how I make sense of things. Cautious readers may prune my enthusiasms.
Here's what I see:
1. When the NT apostle held forth on the word, and had an opportunity to pan the psalmist for being low and natural, he didn't. Instead he said that the psalmist was not speaking for himself, but was speaking for the Christ.
Thus, "You will not let my flesh see corruption" was not a human concept of a sinner but was instead an indication of Jesus Christ's glories to come. I take this as the default interpretive pattern, until the NT scripture or Christian tradition (i.e. the Fathers) offers me a compelling reason to look differently.
2. I don't see the NT apostle saying, "Only these specified portions which we quote here are revelatory. Avoid other sections, which are not." Instead, the brief, scattered, but frequent (40+, I believe) references perhaps suggest that they haven't exhausted the Christ to be seen in God's word, and invite the readers or hearers to "examine the scriptures daily and see if these things are so". Cf Acts 17:11.
3. So if the psalmist says something like, "You rescued me because you delighted in me", that may perhaps speak to the Son being rescued by the Father, i.e. "He (the Son) trusted in Him (the Father); let Him save Him now."
OR, it may in fact be vain concepts of the sinner. But why did Lee pick option #2? Why didn't Lee say, "This could be speaking of the coming Messiah, but I don't think so because of reasons A), B), and C)."?
No, he just dismissed scripture with a wave of the hand: "Natural". So my response was, Who's being natural here, and burdened with fallen human concepts - the Bible expositor, or the Bible writer? Until I see compelling reasons to pick the expositor, I'm pre-disposed with the word of God, as presenting me with something potentially indicative of Christ. But Lee essentially dismissed the word of God, out of hand.
I keep coming back to NT precedent because I'm not aware of the NT apostles holding forth on the word this way: "Vain, fallen, natural". So what gave Witness Lee such license?
And I also showed why I suspect that this took place: others were getting there, before him, and "enjoying Christ" and threatening his position as sole mediator of God's revelation. So he shut it down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
On what scriptural basis do you assert that there is nothing natural in any Psalm?
|
I never said there's nothing natural. I said, Let's not assume it's natural without consideration. I don't see Lee considering. He just cast a hasty judgment: "David was a sinner, so it was natural concepts expressed." That's about the extent of his analytical depth. Rubbish.
Peter never said anything like that. Paul never said anything like that. Nor John, nor Peter nor Hebrews that I remember. So where did Lee get his license? How does he treat the scriptural text thusly, en masse, and claim to be closely following the apostles?