Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
And Lee did, actually: finding "types and figures" right and left. But when it came to the Psalms, the skies turned to brass. The heavens closed. No revelations beyond what was necessitated by the NT. And even some of that didn't make it past Lee's measure.
|
Of course, in retrospect I over-spoke, and over-generalized... I have that habit because it makes (to me) good copy.
In truth, I met some old LSM freinds about 8 months ago who were reviewing the Psalms, and they spoke glowingly about Psalm 45 where the Sons of Korah wrote a "wedding song" which they (the LSM "trainees") claimed was rich in typology. I had never noticed Psalm 45 before, nor was I aware of any NT citation of this, so this was new to me, and it was delivered to me via the LSM folk. So I cannot say that they
only acknowledge what they are forced to by the NT corpus. But still, for the most part that is my impression.
Secondly, the "tone of my posts" is probably too sarcastic, and I apologize. Sarcasm is such an easy road, and I doubt Christ takes it as often as I do (I always think as I write,
But Paul did it!! Paul effectively employed sarcasm!! It's in the Bible!!).
Third, the danger of an "open-ended" typological situation vis-a-vis the poetic books is that anyone is free to say "this means that". So if I see Jesus speaking in Psalm 3:
"I lay me down and slept/I awaked for the LORD sustains me" equalling
"I have the power to lay My life down, and the power to raise it up again", or if I see Christ revealed in Psalm 27, or in Psalm 34 beyond merely the NT citation (verse 20 is referenced), or in Psalm 69 beyond the referenced verse 9, then that is, of course, merely my personal interpretation.
I cannot claim that my interpretations ("this equals that") have any more weight than Lee's "God's New Testament Economy" template. I am no more "right" or "wrong" than Lee when it comes to examining such OT passages. But my sense is that the gospel writers continually based the validity/importance of their accounts on the fulfillment of what we now call the OT, and what they called the scriptures. Look at how many times they say "...as the scripture said" or "that the scripture might be fulfilled". And this is important: nowhere do I see them saying "Don't allegorize further than we have here." The writer of Hebrews actually says there are types that he/she doesn't have the where-withal to get into.
So why should Lee's audience let him so pre-emptively and presumptuously dismiss the vast body of the Psalms? To me, it really is a case of the emperor wearing no clothes. Can't any of them see this? Or are they just too embarrassed to have an opinion?
As usual, I have gone on far too long and have so thoroughly beaten my "dead horse" that most of my readers are groaning, or have given up. To those of you who've stuck with me: thanks, and peace.