The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

I wanted to mention something which I wrote earlier in the "Recovery Terminology" thread, following OBW's remark about how the book of James was ostensibly only in the NT to show us something "not according to God's economy".

I mentioned that much of the Psalms seemed to be in the same state under the eyes of the Living Stream ministry "trainers". They basically followed a format that whatever lined up and buttressed the "God's economy" template got covered, and the rest got dismissed. Which happened to be the bulk of the material in question.

Here was my comment:

I tried to read the Psalms in detail in the Recovery Version, which I still own, and gave up in the 34th chapter and skimmed the rest....and my sense was that the trend continued through the whole book of Psalms. ... I estimated that they actually addressed 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms.

In chapter 1, verse 1 footnote, LSM introduces the Psalms as either written by "fallen man's concept", i.e. the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or by a "revelation of Christ". LSM with the "God's economy" template, naturally gets to decide which are which.

So Psalm 1 is a "natural concept of David" Psalm.

Then Psalm 2 is a revelation of Christ.

Then Psalms 3 through 7 were written according to "David's concept".

Then Psalm 8 is a "revelation of Christ" psalm.

Then Psalms 9-15 are full of the concepts of good and evil, and void of Christ. See footnotes in 9:3 and 15:1. The intervening psalms (9 through 15)pass without mention (i.e. footnotes).

Then psalm 16 is a "revelation" psalm. Footnotes ensue.

Then psalms 17-21 are "David's concept" psalms. See footnote 17:1.

Out of the first 21 chapters of the Psalms, only 3 have any value according to the 'God's economy' metric. The rest are seen merely as placeholders, or worse.

So we are supposed to believe that David was limited by his "concepts" while Mr. Lee entertained no concepts? All I see in the Psalms footnotes are concepts, and rather shallow and rudimentary ones at that.

I will mention why I think Christ possibly found in Psalms 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 in the next post. Maybe, just maybe, Lee fit the Palms into a "Procrustean bed" and cut off some of the Christ waiting to be seen there.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I will mention why I think Christ possibly found in Psalms 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 in the next post. Maybe, just maybe, Lee fit the Palms into a "Procrustean bed" and cut off some of the Christ waiting to be seen there.

I think there is some Christ to be found in more than 3 of the first 21 Psalms. I am not a scholar like Nigel Tomes, so please bear with my abbreviated account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

A procrustean bed is when you cut the material to fit your template. Not a good thing when you are dealing with A) your concept and B) the Bible. But the LSM "God's economy" template cuts off 18 of the first 21 Psalms.

I would like to make my case merely using a few verses from the first Psalm.

Psalm 1, vv. 1-3

1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.

LSM (Lee) says this is the concept of David, and since David sinned (he numbered Israel in his pride and 70,000 died; he had sex with a married woman [Bathsheba] etc) then he was not this hypothetical "righteous man" from Psalm 1. True, but my point is that this was fulfilled by Jesus the Nazarene. Remember where Peter was standing testifying in the beginning of Acts, and he said that David's declaration that God would not allow him to see corruption was fulfilled by Jesus?

Acts 2:29-32 “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."

David's declaration in the Psalms was not fulfilled by him, but by his descendant Jesus the Nazarene. Similarly, Psalms chapter 1 is not fulfilled by David but by Jesus the Nazarene, and only by Jesus the Nazarene. It is, in one sense, a shallow statement of a well meaning, God-fearing but ultimately fallable human being. But Psalm 1 also paints a picture of the coming Christ.

In all the declarations of the "God-fearing, law-abiding righteous man" throughout the chapters of the Psalms, we see picture after picture of Jesus. Jesus didn't overturn the law; he fulfilled it, and raised it to its true spiritual source (e.g. love, holiness, righteousness).

My second point is that Paul twice (in his epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians) calls the Psalms "the word of Christ". Was Paul just referring to Psalm 2, 8, and 16, and 22, and not to the "natural concept" Psalms 1, 3 through 7, 10 through 15, and 17 through 21?

That is the strong sense I get from the Lee/LSM interpretation, and I disagree. There are a lot of revelations of Christ in those "natural concept" Psalms. The pictures are there, and were ignored because of a natural concept: that of the interpreter.

I have not covered Psalms 2 through 150 (Nigel Tomes?). But I hope my point from Psalm 1 is made adequately, none the less, and is suggestive of further riches thus far ignored.

[aron]

Back to the initial post on this thread:

Originally Posted by aron

I'd like to make my case using a few verses from the first Psalm.

1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.

WL wrote that this is the concept of David, and since David sinned (he numbered Israel in his pride and 70,000 died; he had sex with a married woman [Bathsheba] etc) then he was not this hypothetical "righteous man" from Psalm 1. True, but my point is that this was fulfilled by Jesus the Nazarene. Remember Peter's testimony in Acts, where he said that David's declaration that God would not allow him to see corruption was fulfilled by Jesus?

Acts 2:29-32 “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."

David's declaration in the Psalms was not fulfilled by him, but by his descendant Jesus the Nazarene. Similarly, Psalms chapter 1 is not fulfilled by David but by Jesus the Nazarene, and only by Jesus the Nazarene. It is, in one sense, a shallow statement of a well meaning, God-fearing but ultimately fallable human being. But Psalm 1 also paints a picture of the coming Christ.

In all the declarations of the "God-fearing, law-abiding righteous man" throughout the chapters of the Psalms, we see picture after picture of Jesus. Jesus didn't overturn the law; he fulfilled it, and raised it to its true spiritual source (e.g. love, holiness, righteousness).

There's a medieval fable called "Belling the cat". There was a cat, wreaking havoc on the mouse population, and one day the mice convened a meeting to figure out what to do. They were stymied until one bright fellow proposed that they hang a bell on the neck of the cat, so that when he approached they'd hear the bell tinkling and escape.

What a good idea! Everybody liked it. Then somebody asked, "Who's gonna put the bell on the cat?" Suddenly the meeting changed its tone, and everybody got nervous and looked around. Nobody wanted to step forward. They realized that nobody could do it.

The OT is full of pious declarations of fealty, obedience, faith, trust, and hope. "I come do do Thy will, behold in the scroll of the Book it is written concerning me". And, arguably, all those declarations of cooperation with the Divine will were merely vain sentiments. "Behold there is not one good; no, not one. They all are corrupted. All are like sheep who have gone astray." With such thoughts, WL dismissed the words of Psalm 1, and much of the book, except where NT usage required him to "see Christ". My argument is that the central point of the Bible, if there's any central point, is that there is One who is good, One who fulfilled the promises of the prophet, even though the prophet himself (Acts 2:30) may have been destined for corruption, and it's by faith in this One that all may be saved. And how can we believe, lest we hear the good news? If we dismiss the word of God as merely a contrivance of the fallen human imagination, what a loss!

Now back to my last post:

Originally Posted by aron

Look at [Acts 13] verses 36 and 37. "David died and was buried, and his grave remains with us today. But God fulfilled this word by raising up His Son." To me, this is exactly the argument Peter used in Acts 2; Paul also used it here. The "vanity" of David was not the focus of Peter or Paul, but rather the fulfillment in David's promised seed. But WL seemed stumbled, instead, by the vanity of David... Both Peter and Paul in their scriptural exegeses had no problems looking beyond the "corruption" of the writer and seeing the incorruptible One who followed him...

Jesus is the One who belled the cat. Every other 'mouse' who stepped forward got eaten by the 'cat', the flesh of sin. But Jesus Himself put on the flesh of sin and came to save us all. In all the declarations of the pious psalmists, as elsewhere in scriptures, we see the framework for the coming One who fulfilled these declarations to the last iota. WL tried to say that the framework itself was vanity, useful only to contrast with the grace to come. He looked at the framework and only saw either the shallow "natural concepts" of the well-meaning but fallen psalmist, or occasionally, he saw the NT believer "enjoying the grace of Christ". But even that, he did without having first seen Christ.

This line of argument has been rough on WL, I know; I should be humble, and grateful to God for showing me something different. Instead I seem to take delight in proving how superior my ideas are to those of someone else, who isn't here to defend them. For that unpleasantness (and I'm sure it's unpleasant to some) I apologize. Exegetical chest-thumping really shouldn't be our sport of choice. But I was bothered by something that seemed so basic, so important, and done so wrongly. How many have been convinced to look away from this part of God's word, thinking there's no profit therein? If there is any profit to it, we've hardly scraped the surface here, and I know that my living (i.e. experiential realization) is worse; but at least now we're free to re-examine the scriptures, and consider.

And if we go too far astray the ekklesia offers a hand: as OBW replied, for example, the Psalms are perhaps better referred to as the "word of God" than the "word of Christ". This has not been the promotion of new doctrine, merely the idea that we're free to examine the text and find revelation, and enjoy the fatness of the Father's house, with its rivers of pleasure (see e.g. Psa 36:8). The so-called "seer of the age" tried to close the book on us. But the book is open.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

With such thoughts, WL dismissed the words of Psalm 1, and much of the book, except where NT usage required him to "see Christ". My argument is that the central point of the Bible, if there's any central point, is that there is One who is good, One who fulfilled the promises of the prophet, even though the prophet himself (Acts 2:30) may have been destined for corruption, and it's by faith in this One that all may be saved. And how can we believe, lest we hear the good news? If we dismiss the word of God as merely a contrivance of the fallen human imagination, what a loss!

Even in my earliest LC days, there was a dismissal of Psalms and Proverbs. Lee would tell us how Psalms suits us shallow Americans, who would add the Psalms to their pocket translations of the N.T. Proverbs, however, was more fitting to the Chinese, having grown up on Confucius. Thus Lee mistreated both books, gems of wonderful worship and wisdom, substituting his own hymns and so-called words of wisdom.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Even in my earliest LC days, there was a dismissal of Psalms and Proverbs. Lee would tell us how Psalms suits us shallow Americans, who would add the Psalms to their pocket translations of the N.T. Proverbs, however, was more fitting to the Chinese, having grown up on Confucius. Thus Lee mistreated both books, gems of wonderful worship and wisdom, substituting his own hymns and so-called words of wisdom.

People may indeed be shallow; but are the scriptures shallow?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

People may indeed be shallow; but are the scriptures shallow?

Interesting how in that one short sentence, "Psalms suits us shallow Americans," Lee insults both the scriptures and our nation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I think there is some Christ to be found in more than 3 of the first 21 Psalms.

According to Lee, Psalm 2, Psalm 8, and Psalm 16 had revelation of Jesus Christ. They were words in, of, for, and to the "gospel of God... concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" which Paul referred to in his letter to the Romans. (1:1 & 1:3). This gospel was promised beforehand through the prophets in the Holy Sciptures (v2), and these promises are seen in Psalms 2, 8, and 16. The New Testament usage of these texts makes this clear.

But if the NT didn't make such use of the Psalms, Lee wasn't interested, and this constituted the bulk of the material in question. Today, if you walk up to a LSM'er and quote Psalm 14 or 114, they will stare at you blankly. It has no meaning.

My argument here, has been that this corpus had meaning, as evidenced by its widespread citation in the NT. There was a narrative unfolding on the ground, which narrative was widely if not universally recognized and understood, and thus the frequent citation by NT speakers and writers. They used shared meaning to construct new meaning: "Jesus is both Lord and Christ".

But today the narrative is gone. Awareness is minimal, at best. In extremist groups like the LC, scripture's even dismissed as passe. The "NT revelation" has supposedly superseded the Old. Yet this supposed new revelation is based on teachings like those put forth by Lee, who had little respect for the body of text, and minimal knowledge, and with no external restraint his imagination was free to fabricate interpretive matrices that could even be used to dismiss the text itself.

And if you refer people back to the actual text, and to supporting documents, they stare at you as if you suddenly spoke Martian. The supporting commentary by the Fathers is gone, the pseudepigrapha and apocrypha are gone, cultural awareness is gone, and the actual text is even dismissed by and large. In their minds it truly doesn't exist.

You've moved from an unfolding revelation to sola scriptora to sola theologica. And if this theology is the homespun creation of an accountant from Yantai, Shandong, China, how far have you traveled away from the "gospel of God... concerning His Son, Jesus Christ who is our Lord"? If that which was written by the prophets is dismissed as "fallen concepts of men", what's your theology based on? What kind of gospel have you constructed with it? One that's qualitatively different from the one presented in the New Testament.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Today, if you walk up to a LSM'er and quote Psalm 14 or 114, they'll stare at you blankly. It has no meaning... if you refer people back to the actual text, and to supporting documents, they stare at you as if you suddenly spoke Martian..

If you share from the "fallen texts" this puts LSM'ers in a dilemma. Lee had panned these writings, so if you dredge out life and light and hold it forth, then this threatens the validity of Lee's dismissal. You're forcing them to choose between the ministry of the age, and the Word of God, and this choice makes them uncomfortable.

Originally Posted by aron

But today the narrative is gone. Awareness is minimal, at best...

Instead of supporting a narrative, the text becomes a set of disjointed aphorisms, to be mined for today's theology. Otherwise it has no value and can be profitably ignored; it's not the 'up-to-date speaking for today'.

My counter-argument is that nowhere was this attitude displayed in the New Testament. Paul never treated the source texts thus, nor did Jesus. Quite the contrary. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that is breathed out of the mouth of God." What ministry can obviate that?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Instead of supporting a narrative, the text becomes a set of disjointed aphorisms, to be mined for today's theology.

What are today's texts were once oral narratives(1). They were stories, songs, poems. So each narrative had a theme. It wasn't a set of disjointed aphorisms. (Perhaps Proverbs or Ecclesiasticus were, but typically texts were initially narratives.) "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water": it's how we remember things. The characters, the going, the landscape (a hill), the fetching, the pail and the water are all remembered for their place in the narrative.

So I suggest that "not one of His bones were broken" and "Zeal of Thy house has eaten Me up" were originally formed as part of a narrative; actually a set of narratives which made up a larger narrative (Psalms), a meta-narrative if you will. And this was set with and looked to "the Law" and "the Prophets" as a still larger story - that of, "the scripture says".

"His disciples remembered that it was written...", and "These things were written concerning Me..." in the NT narratives were in a context which (I suspect) gradually lost meaning, and narrative thrust. A new context arose, meet for today's need of Reformation or Recovery or True Remnant Church or whatever, and a new meta-narrative came forth, and then the text was only useful to support "God's New Testament Economy" or whatever they're pitching today.

So if you review their product, and the salesman (sorry, Bible expositor) says, "natural, natural, natural - eureka! A revelation of Christ! - natural, natural, natural", as they cover the text, and you wonder how far we've gone off-course, perhaps this is an initial clue, or signpost.

But the good news is that the text is still there, preserved largely in toto, waiting to speak. The story is still there. But ignoring the text as "natural" won't bring you the story.

1. Remember that Peter and the rest were called "unlettered" in Acts 4:13. Even then, the texts were known primarily orally, by the uneducated masses. Thus the narrative structure was crucial.

I propose that the Psalms are given less attention because there are powerful chapters in that book that can be used against demons and witchcraft.

[aron]

One further point can be made initially, and I will continue with Psalm 1 to make it.

Psalm 1:4-6

4 Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff
that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.

The Psalms take quite a bit of time going over the righteous vs. the wicked. Their source, their ways, and their end.

Who is the righteous one? Jesus Christ the righteous. Who are the wicked?

"Behold, we are all like sheep, gone astray, we have all gone our own way, and the LORD has laid on him [Christ] the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6

"For all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Romans 3:23

All men have gone astray, have fallen short of God's glory, save the One. Jesus the Nazarene; in no other name can we be saved.

So we Christians don't trust our own righteousness, but are saved by believing into the Righteous One. In Psalm One, verses 1 through 3 we see Jesus of Nazareth, and verses 4 through 6 we recognize ourselves, outside God's mercy in Christ Jesus. And so on, continued in Psalms 2 through 150.

Again, this is a vast generalization, with much more explication needed (obviously Jesus the Nazarene is not the repentant protagonist portrayed in Psalm 51, for example). But if you use this "interpretive grid" you might not so quickly pass over 18 of the first 21 chapters of the Psalms as irrelevant.

And what about the compilers of the Psalms? Why did they put Psalm 1 first? To show us what not to be? Or were they as confused as David, with their natural concepts? If so, then why did God allow all these confused people to write and then compile the Psalms? I suspect that there are depths there, beyond the initial "natural concept" level, and those depths contain Christ. Just because Mr. Lee didn't see Jesus the Nazarene in all those Psalms, it doesn't mean Jesus isn't there, vividly portrayed. It just means that Mr. Lee didn't see Him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And what about the compilers of the Psalms? Why did they put Psalm 1 first? To show us what not to be? Or were they as confused as David, with their natural concepts? If so, then why did God allow all these confused people to write and then compile the Psalms? I suspect that there are depths there, beyond the initial "natural concept" level, and those depths contain Christ. Just because Mr. Lee didn't see Jesus the Nazarene in all those Psalms, it doesn't mean Jesus isn't there, vividly portrayed. It just means that Mr. Lee didn't see Him.

Great points!

Today I still marvel at the arrogance I once participated in. We were instructed to pick apart books like the Psalms, Job, or James without a second thought, yet never would we dare to examine the books and messages of Lee under the same scrutiny.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I ... marvel at the arrogance I once participated in. We were instructed to pick apart books like the Psalms, Job, or James without a second thought, yet never would we dare to examine the books and messages of Lee under the same scrutiny.

We did so because that's what we saw. Monkey see, monkey do. Remember that once we were infants, babes in Christ, and we would imitate whomever seemed to be before us in the race.

Just like children, who will unquestioningly mimic their parents speech, behaviors, and biases. But eventually we must grow into adults and take responsibility for our own thoughts, feelings, and actions. And for our own biblical interpretation.

What I marvel at is that it took me so long to be able to look at the Bible without "Witness Lee glasses" on. I have not been meeting with his "churches" for 15 years. Only in the last couple of years could I read the Bible without the "God's economy" template dominating my dialog with God in His word. Today I, and we, can scrutinize Lee's "natural concepts" just as Lee examined those of James, David the psalmist, and Job.

[aron]

Today there is widespread agreement that the Psalms prefigured the coming Christ. Psalm 2, Psalm 8, Psalm 16, Psalm 22, Psalm 91, Psalm 110 are heavily quoted in the New Testament, for example.

But when Paul twice (Col 3:16, Eph 5:19) urged the saints to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly as they sang psalms, singing praise to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, do you think he was thinking of limiting them to those few? I don't get any indication of that. What about all the other chapters, which Lee passed over without mention, other than that they are "natural"? Do you think Paul had the same judgment, the same caveat? I don't get that impression.

Do you think, when the Psalmist wrote "In the midst of the assembly I will sing hymns of praise to you", that this applies only when we sing Lee's "revelation of Christ" psalms? That Christ will not/cannot join us if we sing the "natural concept" psalms? Child, please.

I personally think the psalms are much deeper and more revelatory of Christ than Lee realized. It is not that the Psalms are lacking the revelation of Christ, but that Lee was lacking the revelation of Christ. Which brings the next question: why? How could a man who teased images of Christ from the badger skins and silver sockets on the ark of the covenant, and from the windows on Noah's ark, not see Christ there in so many of the Psalms?

I think it is two-fold. First, he had a bias against the "law" by Paul's expositions (see Galatians 2, Romans 7, etc). So when the psalmist expressed a love for the law, Lee recoiled instinctively. The voices of Paul the apostle and Martin Luther the expositor shouted "No!!!" within him. This prevented him from seeking, or seeing, any Christ there.

Secondly, the man clearly had control issues. When the saints actually began to take the apostle Paul at his word and sing the Psalms, "As the hart panteth after the water brooks/so panteth my soul after Thee, O God", then Lee got worried because they were enjoying the Word outside his ministry and this to him was most dangerous. Lee wanted to be the sole mediator of man's revelatory experience in the Word of God. So Lee told the fellowships in the Lord's Recovery to stop singing the Psalms, because they were too low. I have heard this verbally from several people who were there.

He didn't, of course, say "Stop singing the Psalms"; he said, "It would be better if you sang verses from Ephesians than from Psalms". Then he imitated in a mocking way the saints as they praised God using the words of the psalmist. His "shaming" actions were enough to discourage the saints.

So Witness Lee was willing to directly contravene Paul's encouragement, if Paul's encouragement led to a loss of his (Lee's) control. The Spirit was starting to move among the assemblies, and it was moving away from Lee's dominion, and this probably threatened him. Loss of control could not be tolerated. So he stopped it.

And the "spirit of wisdom and revelation" which Paul asked for in Ephesians 1:17 got frustrated. The psalms then were declared to be the "natural concepts of men", versus revelatory pictures of the persecuted, praying, believing, hoping, trusting, declaring, thirsty, hungry, stricken, suffering, fighting, struggling Jesus the Nazarene. "Oh, that's just David (or Asaph, or Lemuel, etc) trying to be good." No, that is Jesus fulfilling the destiny of humankind. That is none other than the "Savior of the world" (1 John 4:14) revealed in detail far beyond Lee's capacity to see.

[aron]

Unfortunately I have little expertise on the theology of 'the law versus grace'. Paul's epistle to the Romans presents challenging arguments to me, as are his expositions elsewhere, such as in the book of Galatians. I give this disclaimer lest anyone think I am holding forth some "truth" which I think should apply universally. Rather, what follow are just some comments on Jesus the Nazarene as seen in Psalm 1.

1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.

Now, as imitators of Paul, and as followers of Martin Luther, we reject the notion of being saved by the law. Salvation is by grace, by the gift of faith.

But perhaps there was One who delighted in the law of the LORD, whose heart was pure, who received God's word as it was intended: as His Spirit, truth, wisdom, light, counsel, food, encouragement, power, and life. So this One stepped fully into the reality of what the prophets and psalmists had hoped for. We the failed, the hopeless, the fallen, see this overcoming One and we live.

Now, let's look at Psalm 1, and see the One who "meditates on God's law day and night". In Matthew 22, Jesus was asked, "Which is the greatest of the commandments?". Jesus responded with Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Those passages could be seen as just obscure "riders" in a legal document. Leviticus 19:18, I believe, is dealing with the context of a neighbor's wandering cow. But Jesus saw the reality behind the law. Jesus didn't overturn the law, He fulfilled it (Matt 5:17). Paul also says this. "The law is spiritual" (Rom 7:14) ... the problem is not the law, but our inability to keep it.

"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin." But jesus was not unspiritual. So the law was to Him a completely different animal than to we the fallen. We should not see the Psalms as "natural concepts" of David (or Witness Lee) but as Jesus saw them. They were the framework for His dialog with the Father.

So when you see the psalmist expressing love for the law of God, think about Jesus and His Father. As I said, these are merely the ruminations of a sinner trying to follow Jesus back home to the Father. "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet", and this seems to include the Psalms, much more than we were hitherto led to believe.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

...when Paul twice (Col 3:16, Eph 5:19) urged the saints to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly as they sang psalms, singing praise to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, do you think he was thinking of limiting them to those few? I don't get any indication of that.

Mr. Lee did not say "Stop singing the Psalms"; he said, "It would be better if you sang verses from Ephesians than from Psalms". Then he imitated in a mocking way the saints as they praised God using the words of the psalmist. His "shaming" actions were enough to discourage the saints.

If Mr. Lee wanted us to sing verses from Ephesians, which we dutifully began to do, telling us that they were so much fuller and higher and more revelatory than the Psalms, then what are we to make of the fact that the book of Ephesians itself encourages us to sing the Psalms, equating this to being filled with the Spirit (5:18,19)?

Was Paul merely using his fallen "natural concept" when telling us that we could be filled with the Spirit by singing the Psalms?

And if this was some kind of "slip" in Paul's revelatory ministry, some kind of momentary regression, why did Paul repeat this encouragement in Colossians chapter 3? Two is the number of witness. Writing it twice, in separate epistles, rather reduces the probability that this had been a momentary lapse on Paul's part.

And this brings me to back to Ohio's earlier question: how could we have unprotestingly swallowed these teachings? How could thousands of otherwise mostly bright and capable people have sat there in a conference and listened to a lengthy and sometimes tortuous exposition on how much the Psalms lacked revelation of Christ, without someone, anyone, going, "Um.... Mr. Lee... it says here..."?

My feeling of Lee and the Psalms is that he neither entered in, nor did he allow his disciples to enter in, as it says in Matthew 23:13: "...You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

It took 15 years out of my immersive mental bath of Living Stream Ministry teachings, before the scales came off and I began to see Jesus Christ, as He is so vividly depicted in the Psalms. And I began to "see" Jesus in the Psalms, believe it or not, by singing them. The apostle Paul was right. Funny how that goes.

"You foolish people! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed..." See Galatians 3:1

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

I mentioned that much of the Psalms seemed to be in the same state under the eyes of the Living Stream ministry "trainers". They basically followed a format that whatever lined up and buttressed the "God's economy" template got covered, and the rest got dismissed. Which happened to be the bulk of the material in question.

Here was my comment:

I tried to read the Psalms in detail in the Recovery Version, which I still own, and gave up in the 34th chapter and skimmed the rest....and my sense was that the trend continued through the whole book of Psalms. ... I estimated that they actually addressed 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms.

In chapter 1, verse 1 footnote, LSM introduces the Psalms as either written by "fallen man's concept", i.e. the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or by a "revelation of Christ". LSM with the "God's economy" template, naturally gets to decide which are which.

So Psalm 1 is a "natural concept of David" Psalm.

Then Psalm 2 is a revelation of Christ.

Then Psalms 3 through 7 were written according to "David's concept".

Then Psalm 8 is a "revelation of Christ" psalm.

Then Psalms 9-15 are full of the concepts of good and evil, and void of Christ. See footnotes in 9:3 and 15:1. The intervening psalms (9 through 15)pass without mention (i.e. footnotes).

Then psalm 16 is a "revelation" psalm. Footnotes ensue.

Then psalms 17-21 are "David's concept" psalms. See footnote 17:1.

Out of the first 21 chapters of the Psalms, only 3 have any value according to the 'God's economy' metric. The rest are seen merely as placeholders, or worse.

So we are supposed to believe that David was limited by his "concepts" while Mr. Lee entertained no concepts? All I see in the Psalms footnotes are concepts, and rather shallow and rudimentary ones at that.

Something I read this morning in the Gospel of Luke,

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24:44

And LSM wants to cherry-pick that which is profitable for "the ministry"? I say this, because too many times there is (LSM) ministry commentary that devalues scripture. Remember the song "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching..."?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

Something I read this morning in the Gospel of Luke,

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24:44

Here is another one from Luke chapter 4:

16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,

19to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him,

21 and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

The proclaiming, the release, the preaching, the recovery, which was accomplished by the anointed Isaiah as a figure, was ultimately fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Isaiah was a type, a figure. Jesus was the fulfillment.

In the Psalms you see David struggling against a host of foes on all sides, calling on the LORD (Jehovah, God, Jah, Yahweh), and being saved. David had a unique attribute that when the going got tough and his soul quaked, he called on the God he loved. Again, and again, God delivered him from the jaws of death.

I believe that Jesus fulfilled this type in much more detail than Mr. Lee and the Maximum Brothers of LSM ever realized. They had their "God's economy" metric and held it firm, even when it necessitated cutting off vast chunks of scripture as void of revelation. As I have said, I think the void in revelation was not in the scripture, but in the expositors.

Originally Posted by Terry

And LSM wants to cherry-pick that which is profitable for "the ministry"? I say this, because too many times there is (LSM) ministry commentary that devalues scripture. Remember the song "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching..."?

This is my thought, as well. There is way too much scripture being devalued here.

Think back to that point where Mr. Lee mocked the saints for singing psalms of praise and blessing to the Father. I imagine that the heavens shut themselves and turned to brass, if they had not already done so.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee's system was derived from that [Asian] culture, and to some degree reflected that culture. But since he assured us it was "heavenly", we took it.

The quote above approaches what I'm discussing, and I want to continue this by considering a small portion of scripture. I've been writing about Lee's treatment of the Psalms; probably 3/4 of them are either ignored by him without comment, or rejected as "natural" and "fallen".

I'll cite one passage and make my argument.

Psalm 1 1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.

Look at verse 3 "...a tree planted by streams of water... yields its fruit in season... its leaf does not wither". Does that perhaps suggest the vision seen in Revelation 22:2?

"...On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations."

We probably can't definitively say whether this passage referenced Psalm 1 in any way, but in my memory Lee categorically rejected Psalm 1 simply because it had the word "law", and we post-Reformation Christians all know that salvation is of grace, not law! So the whole chapter, like much of the book, was simply dismissed out of hand. No attempt was made to discern any deeper, spiritual meaning. No consideration of whether Christ to some degree fulfilled the psalmist's vision. Nope; the text was "fallen", and nothing but "natural concepts".

Now, my point is this: whether Psalm 1 is related to Revelation 22 I probably can't 'prove' in some objective sense; but we saw Lee build a system where, if he didn't consider something, then we didn't consider it. We didn't have the freedom to think, to speak, to consider, and to reason in scripture with one another. It was, "Big Brother says 'X', therefore reality is 'X'".

If Lee shut the door on a portion of the Bible, then we weren't allowed to open it, and look, and consider. I say that this is wrong. I say that if the Spirit leads me to consider something in the Bible, I am going to consider it. And if the Spirit leads me to talk about something I see in the Bible, I am going to discuss it. And if that system rejects my desire to talk about Christ in such passages of the Bible, then I will reject that system.

I really don't know why Lee dismissed the Psalms. Perhaps because through them "degraded Christianity" was supplying the Local Church saints with fresh musical enjoyment, and this threatened his "local ground" hegemony. Lee therefore told us the Psalms were "low", in contrast to the "high revelation" of Paul in the NT.* And Lee said that David's visions were mostly vain, despite contrary evidence supplied by the NT writers. Nonetheless, in the Local Church system we knew that if Lee rejected something, then we must reject it. So we therefore rejected the bulk of Psalms because God's present oracle had told us to. We had to follow God's present oracle, in an absolute and unquestioning way, because we were convinced that this was necessary for us to be God's "heavenly army" that would take over the earth.

I don't know if this is making any sense, but looking back, that's what I see. It was a miracle that one day I walked away! I was immersed in a culture in which "the church life" was held as "a better way" (I remember a line from the song, 'We love the church life' - "it may be with us you've found a better way"), yet after years of such strong conditioning I still walked out... I do thank God for His mercy.

Lee built a system in which, if he rejected a possible OT connection to a NT revelation of Christ, then we also had to. If we openly considered any scriptural meaning apart from Lee's directives, and persisted in so doing, then we would be considered a threat to the orderly functioning of his "church life" and we would be removed (as Terry put it euphemistically, "steps were taken"). To me that is the orderliness of a museum, or a graveyard. It may indeed be orderly, and well-regulated, but it is also quite dead.

*And yet in Colossians and Ephesians Paul urged his readers to sing the Psalms!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I really don't know why Lee dismissed the Psalms.

aron, another determining factor in Lee's theology was his roots with the Plymouth Brethren in England. The exclusive Brethren were obsessed with "finding Christ" in the Old Testament, to the point they would totally miss the obvious lessons in the narrative. This was, of course, not a Chinese cultural matter.

If Lee and his helpers could not "find Christ" in the old exclusive Brethren writings, whether in types, shadows, figures, prophecies, or quotes, then, especially in the books of Psalms, Lee would dismiss them as "natural sentiment" or some such thing.

Searching for Christ in the OT is obviously a rewarding and enriching study, but obsessing over this method to the extent that vast portions of scripture are summarily dismissed is beyond the pale of the normal Christian faith. In this regard, Lee attempted to lead the whole of the Recovery "where no man has gone before."

[awareness]

Boy Aron in post #362 you said it all. I'm speechless. I think we can rest your case.

And like UntoHim queried, is it "Nuff said?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Boy Aron in post #362 you said it all... I think we can rest your case.

Thank you for politely encouraging me to stop writing!

But I do appreciate your kind reception to my ideas, and have been grateful that there's a place where we can think out loud.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Thank you for politely encouraging me to stop writing!

Yeah, what am I thinking? I love your writings. That would be cheating myself. Please don't.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

in my memory Lee categorically rejected Psalm 1 simply because it had the word "law", and we post-Reformation Christians all know that salvation is of grace, not law! So the whole chapter, like much of the book, was simply dismissed out of hand. No attempt was made to discern any deeper, spiritual meaning. No consideration of whether Christ to some degree fulfilled the psalmist's vision. Nope; the text was "fallen", and nothing but "natural concepts".

We can say that Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 are a related pair, introducing the whole book that follows. Psalm 1 shows the two paths: the path of the wicked leads to destruction, and the path of the righteous leads to life everlasting. Then Psalm 2 shows us "My king, whom I have installed on My holy mountain." In unveiling God's obedient, reigning Son, Psalm 2 is the full expression of Psalm 1. God's ordained path of righteousness in Psalm 1 is not vain to us, but rather we see it fulfilled in the reigning Son of God in Psalm 2. We fail, but we are told to "kiss the Son", who does not fail. Marvelous! What a blessing!

But Witness Lee shaved Psalm 1 off from Psalm 2, and in so doing he exposed himself. We Christians believe that we know the reigning Son in Psalm 2; likewise we can surmise something of the "blessed man" in Psalm 1. And this man, who meditates on the word both day and night, and is utterly obedient, even to the death of the cross, is perhaps none other than the Word of God Himself. And we are told in scripture that when we believe into him, and obey his commands, we ourselves become heirs of the promised blessing.

It is probably not coincidental that John 14-17 repeatedly has Jesus speaking about the word, his commands, our obedience, and the coming Spirit. To me these are all of apace. The story in John 21 on shepherding is the coda; the speaking on the final night is the complete ministry.

"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe."

The angel Gabriel told Mary, "No word from God will ever fail." Psalm 1 is a word spoken from God through a prophet, who is borne by the Holy Spirit. Yes we failed; I have read Romans 2 and 3. I understand. But Jesus did not fail, but overcame. On this victory arguably rests our hope, and our faith. No human, earthly ministry should cause us to turn our attention away from Jesus Christ.

[aron]

Here is a quote from a website of a brother who used to meet in the LCM:

Brother Witness Lee said that one of the requirements for the Lord to come back is a great revival in which many saints live the life of the God-man Jesus. (Rev. 19:7)

Where do we see the God-man living in the Bible? In the gospels there is the perfect model, the life of Jesus, impossible to imitate. In the epistles we see a little of the life of Paul, the apostle, but we all are not apostles. I especially love Acts 27, where we see Paul as a prisoner on a shipwreck-bound ship. Here Paul is not a great apostle, but a normal Christian, bringing everyone on the ship before the Lord and practically caring for them. We can be the same at our jobs and in our neighborhoods.

The most details of the God-man living through imperfect men is in the Psalms. The more I enjoy the Psalms, the more I see the Lord's life on earth was one with the Psalms.

http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalms.htm

The Lord Jesus lived out the Father's word: "As in heaven, so on earth". The details are often seen right there in the Psalms. But Lee missed this. The saints were singing, and the Spirit was moving, and Lee got scared and ran away. He tried to chase us away, by publicly shaming the psalm-singers, but really he revealed that he was running away. The light was getting too intense and he wasn't comfortable; this wasn't part of the Watchman Nee model! So his denigrating the Psalms was his fleeing from the face of God.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Thanks very much for reading my website, Aron.
I still meet with the local church in Detroit. We have not been affiliated with LSM since around 2007. We have fellowship with the other non-LSM LC's in the Great Lakes area, especially in Michigan.

In my Bible reading for today (I am following Robert Murray M'Cheyne's Bible reading schedule, which has me read in 1 year: OT, 2xNT, 2xPsalms.), I read Mary's praise to the Lord in Luke 1:46-55. How could she have been so eloquent? She must have been constituted with the Psalms, probably by singing and enjoying them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Mary's praise to the Lord in Luke 1:46-55. How could she have been so eloquent? She must have been constituted with the Psalms, probably by singing and enjoying them.

Your phrase "being constituted with the Psalms" is equivalent to Paul's "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" in Col 3:16 (they were urged to allow this rich indwelling by singing Psalms), also paralleling Paul's "Christ dwelling in your hearts" in Eph 3:17, and his "Christ in you the hope of glory" in Col 1:27.

Not to mention the companion verse "being filled in Spirit" by singing Psalms (Eph 5:18) akin to "the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead indwelling your mortal bodies and giving you life" in Rom 8:10,11.

All this "Spirit filling you" and "Christ indwelling you" sounds like WL's "God's economy", or a good part of it. Why couldn't WL grok this? What's so complicated about simply being filled up with the word of Christ? Sing, yo - don't analyze so much!

Reminds me of the LC parable back in the day: "Hunky and Dory in the land of food". WL talked about being filled with the word of Christ, while actually avoiding the very words that Paul referenced. (And I don't claim to be filled myself, or to have a "rich indwelling"... but at least I'm learning, slowly, slowly.)

[InOmnibusCaritas]

What did Witness Lee teach is the meaning of "Kiss the Son" in Psalm 2?

I realise that there is even a member in this forum that goes by the screen KissTheSon.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

What did Witness Lee teach is the meaning of "Kiss the Son" in Psalm 2?

I realise that there is even a member in this forum that goes by the screen KissTheSon.

I. THE REVELATION OF THE PSALMS BEGINNING
WITH THE PSALMIST STRESSING THE LAW AND
WITH THE SPIRIT TURNING THE PSALMIST TO CHRIST

The revelation of the Psalms begins with the psalmist stressing the law and with the Spirit turning the psalmist to Christ (Psa. 1—2). When the psalmist began in Psalm 1 by stressing the law, he was going in the wrong direction. In the first psalm, the psalmist seeking after God was driving on the wrong highway, so the Spirit came in to turn him to the right way.

In Psalm 2 the psalmist began to enjoy Christ—to take refuge in this Christ and to kiss this Christ (v. 12). The highest and best enjoyment of human life is kissing. When a child is born, the parents and grandparents enjoy kissing this child. If a person had no one whom he could kiss, he would surely be one of the most miserable people on earth. Psalm 2:12 commands us to "kiss the son." Kissing Christ is the enjoyment of Christ.

Some may wonder where the word enjoyment is in the Bible concerning our relationship with Christ. Although this word is not in the Bible, the fact of the enjoyment of Christ is there. It is the same with the words trinity and triune. Although these words are not in the Bible, the early church fathers discovered the fact in the Bible that our God is triune, that He is the Divine Trinity. In like manner, the word enjoyment is not found in the Scriptures, but the fact is there. In Psalm 2 we are told to kiss the son. The Son is a pleasant title. Kissing the Son is enjoying the Son.

The enjoyment of Christ in the Psalms begins with kissing the Son in Psalm 2. This enjoyment continues in Psalm 8, in which the psalmist declares, "How excellent is Your name/In all the earth!" (vv. 1, 9). Psalm 16 is also full of enjoyment. Verse 11 of this psalm says, "You will make known to Me the path of life;/In Your presence is fullness of joy;/In Your right hand there are pleasures forever." Psalm 22 gives us a very vivid picture of Christ's death on the cross. It also shows us His church-producing resurrection (v. 22). In Christ's resurrection His God is our God, His Father is our Father (John 20:17), and we are His brothers. The apostle Paul quoted Psalm 22:22 in Hebrews 2:12, pointing out that the Lord's brothers are the church.

Psalm 23 is full of the enjoyment of Christ as our Shepherd. Many Christians love Psalm 23, but not many have the realization that in this psalm they need to kiss Christ as the Shepherd.
http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=13EC03F3C3
__________________

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Yes, thank you bro. Awareness.

I'm trying to find the soft spots where LC members may be amenable to be shown the truth that is contrary to Lee's teachings without feeling entirely threatened (and thus turned off).

We need to find the chinks in the armour. I thought the Marcan priority and the synoptic problem was a good place to start. It's a minor issue that allows LC members to be a bit more relaxed in accepting that the RcV's not update with scholarship. Some might just say, "Well, it's just dates. Doesn't affect the truth." That's the response I want because it doesn't threaten them but allow them to be aware that LSM is not 100% perfect.

Psalm 2's kiss the son is another case in point. Lee ties this phrase kiss the son to "enjoyment" of Christ. Love. The Divine Romance.

The actual context of kissing the son is basically "submit to the king's rule". More like "pledge allegiance" and "kiss the ring". It has no romantic connotation.

This in itself doesn't disprove the teaching of the divine romance so no truth is compromised. Just that this verse doesn't teach the divine romance, that's all. The strength of this one is that it's exegetically clear. It's near impossible, if correctly explained, for LC members to deny its clear meaning.

I'll probably start my serious writings on this Psalm.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Yes, thank you bro. Awareness.

I'm trying to find the soft spots where LC members may be amenable to be shown the truth that is contrary to Lee's teachings without feeling entirely threatened (and thus turned off).

We need to find the chinks in the armour. I thought the Marcan priority and the synoptic problem was a good place to start. It's a minor issue that allows LC members to be a bit more relaxed in accepting that the RcV's not update with scholarship. Some might just say, "Well, it's just dates. Doesn't affect the truth." That's the response I want because it doesn't threaten them but allow them to be aware that LSM is not 100% perfect.

Psalm 2's kiss the son is another case in point. Lee ties this phrase kiss the son to "enjoyment" of Christ. Love. The Divine Romance.

The actual context of kissing the son is basically "submit to the king's rule". More like "pledge allegiance" and "kiss the ring". It has no romantic connotation.

This in itself doesn't disprove the teaching of the divine romance so no truth is compromised. Just that this verse doesn't teach the divine romance, that's all. The strength of this one is that it's exegetically clear. It's near impossible, if correctly explained, for LC members to deny its clear meaning.

I'll probably start my serious writings on this Psalm.

And notice bro IOC, that, Lee floats the word "enjoyment" into the Bible meaning on the back of the word "trinity." It's a brilliant sleight of hand (or mind) move. Lee was no dummy there. It supports all the calling, fist pumping, neck vain popping, and crazy emotional aspect of the local church, and thus supports Lee's efforts to build a movement around himself. The "enjoyment" ultimately meant: Check your mind at the door, and just follow.

In the LC it's not "kiss the son," but, "kiss Witness Lee."

I got the boot because I wouldn't kiss Witness Lee.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by awareness

And notice bro IOC, that, Lee floats the word "enjoyment" into the Bible meaning on the back of the word "trinity." It's a brilliant sleight of hand (or mind) move. Lee was no dummy there. It supports all the calling, fist pumping, neck vain popping, and crazy emotional aspect of the local church, and thus supports Lee's efforts to build a movement around himself. The "enjoyment" ultimately meant: Check your mind at the door, and just follow.

In the LC it's not "kiss the son," but, "kiss Witness Lee."

I got the boot because I wouldn't kiss Witness Lee.

Lots of evangelicals use the term "enjoyment", especially those influenced by John Piper. The crazy emotional stuffs are quite mild compared to the Pentecostals. So I'm ok with both "enjoyment" as a genuine experience of Christ and the fist pumpings, neck vain poppings as genuine expressions of the faith.

But, yes, the need to justify the term "enjoyment" via the "trinity" is very unnecessary. The theology of enjoyment/satisfaction "Christian hedonism" (See John Piper's "Desiring God") is able to stand on its own two feet without resorting to backdoor tactics and fancy footwork. For someone like Lee, who majors in "enjoyment" from Gen-Rev, this was just plain sloppy.

As for the need to kiss Witness Lee to be in LC, I'm afraid you are spot on. I do not see how anyone can critique Witness Lee and still be welcome in an LSM-aligned LC.

But we digress. Let's talk about how best to present Psalm 2 that will cause an average LC member to pause and think.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

The actual context of kissing the son [in Psalm 2] is basically "submit to the king's rule". More like "pledge allegiance" and "kiss the ring". It has no romantic connotation.

This in itself doesn't disprove the teaching of the divine romance so no truth is compromised. Just that this verse doesn't teach the divine romance, that's all. The strength of this one is that it's exegetically clear. It's near impossible, if correctly explained, for LC members to deny its clear meaning.

In my cursory review of Psalms I noticed an interesting thing in the beginning of the book. Psalm 1 shows, to me, obedience. Blessing follows obeying God. It doesn't matter that we are all sinners, because we the sinners see the Obedient One, and are saved. We the wicked serpents see the Bronze Serpent raised on the cross, and are saved. In Psalm 1 we may see Christ and be similarly saved. We recognize His blessedness and His obedience. "His leaf shall not wither", indeed.

Psalm 2 shows the reigning king. Why is he reigning? Because God put him there. He is the Righteous One of God's good pleasure. And we Christians believe that this typifies Jesus, the sole obedient Son. "Go away! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God!"(Luke 4:34 NIV) Jesus is the singular Holy One of God. And yes, “kiss the son” in this context means recognize the authority of the Anointed Son (i.e. the Christ). Psalm 2 doesn’t introduce the “Divine Romance” as much as the recognition of divinely appointed authority.

Then, Psalm 3 shows rebellion, from within the king’s house. Absalom and some of David's nobles refused to "kiss the son", God's anointed. I was amazed to find rebellion following so hard upon the establishment of the kingship in Psalm 2.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by JJ

Psalm 3
Follower Rock Band
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C279gOt6tHs

Thou O Lord are a shield for me. You’re the glory and the lifter of my head.

https://biblehub.com/bsb/psalms/3.htm

The intro says David wrote this when he was being pursued by Absalom his son. When he wrote of being surrounded by 10,000 men who hated him and by 10,000 demons it was no joke. He had to rely on the Lord to be his shield. The Lord was the glory and the lifter of his head. This same Lord is ours too and offers the same powerful protection, glory, and lifting of our heads today. Praise Him.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

The intro says David wrote this when he was being pursued by Absalom his son. When he wrote of being surrounded by 10,000 men who hated him and by 10,000 demons it was no joke. He had to rely on the Lord to be his shield. The Lord was the glory and the lifter of his head...

Psalm 3 is a favourite, and this is why: Psalm 1 shows the way of the righteous man, Psalm 2 shows that righteous man enthroned as King of the nations (for confirmation, see Deuteronomy 17:18-20), and Psalm 3 shows the King now facing rebellion. Just like with Genesis 1 through 3, God doesn't waste time but gets right to the point: the fall of humanity, their inability to obey God's commands (both directly and through a King) and its consequences.

But look what the deposed and exiled King does in Psalm 3, surrounded by thousands who seek his life, betrayed by his former kinsmen and associates (Absalom et al) - the King lies down and goes to sleep, confident that God can raise him again (v5). Jesus said, "I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to raise it up again." It tracks Psalm 3:5 almost perfectly.

Do you see the faithful King? "He trusted in God, let Him save him now"

In this case, the consequences of rebellion are much different than in Genesis 3. In this case, not only the Faithful King willingly lays down, and is raised, but in his rising he redeems the land and the people. "Just as by one man death appeared, so by one man's death, salvation appeared to all." (cf Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-22)

See also John 4:42 They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Saviour of the world." And 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world.

[JJ]

Thanks for sharing with us aron. These Psalms have some things worthy of discussion in light of the New Testament. The works of law can’t make anyone righteous, but the faith of Christ can, then righteous works naturally come out of the man who lives by faith. Witness Lee had trouble differentiating that and proposed to skip over Psalms or portions of them that spoke of righteousness, robbing others of the chance to learn from profitable teaching in inspired Psalms.

David’s angry approach of wishing harm on his enemies is what we all think when attacked by others but need not emulate. Jesus and Paul taught a different approach “Love your enemies” and so heaping coals of destruction on them in the day of judgement. Often those enemies were won over for God’s kingdom (think Saul of Tarsus). David’s bloodthirsty ways cost him the right to build the temple, in favor of Solomon his more peaceful son. Wielding the sword and wishing evil on others is contrary to the heart of the a Father who desires that all men be saved and come to the full knowledge of the truth. Judgement will come, but we need not take the opportunity to show mercy away in this age.