Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Correct. From Satan. I apologize for overgeneralizing. I like generalities because it makes good copy, but "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" needs qualifier, pertaining to scripture.
But let's go deeper, shall we? Suppose Satan quotes God. Does that then make the word null? No, of course not.
|
It's still God's word, but its' not from God's mouth, so we cannot live by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Suppose a sinner utters a prophetic word, "He rescued me because He delighted in me". Lee said, "No, Jehovah didn't delight in the sinner". But my question all along has been, why didn't Lee consider Christ? Lee says, "David considered God's approval, and this is a wrong concept" (Psa 18:20 footnote), because salvation is of God's mercy and grace etc.
|
Only the 2nd and 49th verses of Psalm 18 are quoted in the New Testament. Maybe that is why he does not consider Christ. But I can see it could refer to Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
But Lee apparently never considered the Obedient Lamb of God. Yet the NT reception of the psalms repeatedly invited this. The psalmist declares, yet the declaration falls not to him, a sinner but on the Chosen Seed of the prophet (David, Acts 2:30), per God's promise. Why is this concept so fantastic, so amazing as to be beyond any consideration? Why do you think the crowds kept singing hosanna to the Son of David as Jesus entered Jerusalem (Matt 21:9; cf 9:27)? They knew Who was coming.
The Obedient Lamb of God is our Good Shepherd. When we see a prophetic picture of the law-keeping One it is not us the redeemed sinners, nor David (also a sinner), but God's Christ, who as a perfect Man lives by His every word (Matt 4:4). Why is this so seeming strange? Even Satan could see Christ in the psalms: "He (the Father) will set His angels around You (the Messiah, the Son) lest You (the Son) should strike Your foot against a stone". So, why couldn't Lee see Christ?
|
Perhaps Lee was making a point in case people mistakenly thought that God rewarded them according to their own righteousness. But he could have said this refers to Christ and not us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Not so fast. Christ tasted death for us. Death could not contain Him. So we are not afraid of death; it is death outside of Christ that is profitless.
So I ask, is this death in, or out of Christ? Why simply assume it is fallen, natural, fleshly? Paul wrote of putting to death (Rom 8:13, Col 3:5), but it was spiritual warfare, not flesh and blood (Eph 6:12). Why not accept Paul's invitation? Why is scripture read figuratively (when convenient), but then literally (when not convenient)?
Tell me this: was David a bad boy when he threw the stone against Goliath, or a type of the coming Christ? I say the latter. There's opportunity to see spiritual types here. Why categorically dismiss it?
Lee with his post-protestant hermeneutic said he extracted life from the Bible, but I've shown that he never considered Christ. So he failed. There is no life without Christ. And there's no life in his footnote in Psalm 18:20. Just fallen men's concepts.
The NT clearly showed the Father's deep delight in the Son. But the psalmist spoke of God's delight (Psa 18:19) and Lee simply said, "Nope." What kind of exposition is this? "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Son) because He delighted in Me". Didn't Peter use this kind of word in Acts 2, to show the relationship of the Father to the Son, and to declare that our faith in this Approved, Resurrected and Glorified Son now opened the door to salvation for all? Why close the door so quickly, so summarily?
|
I would say the old testament footnotes are incomplete, many verses have no commentary for them or the commentary is very bland. It would be interesting to investigate why Lee did not think these verses could be attributed to Christ. I don't know if that is possible by reading his books, without asking him himself.