The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee said most of the text [of the Psalms] was simply the word of David, where I suspect that much more of the text is actually the word of Christ. I think we differ greatly in how much Christ was revealed in the text.

I have already written, here and elsewhere, about how Lee dismisses David's rescue from Gath in Psalm 34 as engineered by human craftiness rather than divine intervention. The Psalm title's claim that "God rescued him" was disparaged by Lee.

I would like to continue, here, with Psalm 35. I am unwilling/unable to do a thorough systematic review of the Psalms footnotes, but hope that these few samples will make a point.

The 28 verses of Psalm 35 get one comment, in the first verse. David asks God, "Fight, O LORD, with those who fight against me." Here is the footnote:

"In the New Testament economy, a spiritual person would never ask God to fight against his enemies as David asks in this psalm."

So why did Jesus tell the parable of the unrighteous judge in Luke 18? "Avenge me of my enemies", the widow repeatedly asks the judge. Who are her adversaries? "We fight not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces of darkness", writes Paul.

John wrote, "There was war in heaven, Michael and his angels against the devil and his angels". Don't you think there is some spiritual warfare going on? Why does Lee pretend it doesn't exist in the Psalms? When Jesus showed up, the demons cried out in fear. "What do you have to do with us, Jesus, Nazarene! Have you come to destroy us before our time?!?"

Jesus said, "When you go out to battle with ten thousand troops, be careful if you run into someone coming against you with twenty thousand. Better not fight with them at that point." (cf. Luke 14). Was Jesus failing Lee's New Testament economy in Luke 14? Or was Jesus referring to a spiritual struggle, using images (i.e. parables)? When faced with the type or shadow of this warfare, par excellence, of David's fight(s) in the book of Psalms, Lee pointedly ignores this option.

So my question is, how can a book so deficient in explanation be held up by anyone as the, or even a, definitive exposition of the Bible? I can only surmise, as one of the posters has previously done earlier, that Lee was so tapped out by his exhaustive work in the NT that he simply had no gas left in the tank to give the Psalms (among other works) the careful study it deserved. So he just blew off chapter after chapter with a perfunctory wave of the hand: "Not according to the NT economy". And his captive (pun quite intended) audience was forced to take the "definitive Biblical exposition" from this "rich ministry". Child, please.

[aron]

Continuing on to Psalm 36. The footnote to verses 8 and 9 says, "Verses 8 and 9 reveal the Divine Trinity in His divine dispensing as the enjoyment of God's people in His house."

Verses 8 and 9 talk about the fatness of God's house, drinking the river of God's pleasures, and the fountain of life, in whose light we see light.

But in the preceding footnote, on verse 5, it says, "Verses 5-10 are David's praising God for His lovingkindness, faithfulness, and righteousness mixed with the enjoyment of God in His house. However, such praising followed David's accusing the wicked (vv 1-4), showing again the mixture of human concept and the divine concept in the Psalms."

So Lee says David, in accusing the wicked, is being natural and fallen. David is neither enlightened nor revealing to us the Divine. Just God's judgment upon the wicked. I suppose David was wrong for throwing a stone at Goliath as well. David was supposed to turn the other cheek, right?

This is reminiscent of pseudo-intellectuals who judge others as unenlightened based on arbitrary and impossible criteria. Like, the founders of the U.S. Constitution were sexist pigs because they didn't give women the right to vote. Look at John Adams' letters to his wife Abigail and you'd hardly call him that.

But we can, if we want, drag in irrelevant criteria and make all sorts of unpleasant assessments of our subjects.

David and Israel were in a great struggle. It was violent, and a lot of people died. "A thousand fall at your right hand, and ten thousand at your left" wasn't too far-fetched as hyperbole. So I don't think it's relevant to judge David by "God's NT economy" standards. God's economy, at that time, was to establish Jerusalem. If David hadn't bonked Goliath, among others, there wouldn't be any Solomon building a temple and so forth. Just like propertied white males in 1781 getting to choose government representatives being the precursor of later rights given to women, ethnic minorities, etc.

Anyway, this is basically my way of re-iterating that I find the analysis of Psalms to be rather unsatisfying (if you hadn't picked that up by now).

[countmeworthy]

I am so glad I never read the Psalms or much of the RcV with it's footnotes. It is bad enough I recall, observe and read the damage done to people by this man's ministry.

May our Loving, Gracious and Patient God set all the captives of the LRC FREE forevermore in the Mighty Name of JESUS!!!!

Peace and Blessings,

Carol G

[OBW]

While it is a nit-picky point, I would have titled the thread "The Psalms are the Word of God" rather thant "of Christ." Just a preference for avoiding the kind of mixing up of the Three of the Trinity. I note that in Hebrews it says that God spoke in various ways, but more recently through Christ (my paraphrase).

We can take the "Christ is the Word of God" to the extreme. But the OT itself reveals God as speaking and the NT reveals that Christ spoke in later times. I also note that Christ is the Word of God, not the Word of Christ. When we speak of Psalms, we are talking about the Word of God, not the Word of Christ.

But that was not the reason for posting. I think that the point concerning Lee's virtual dismissal of the Psalms is well made. I had a lot more to say about it, but it was not much more than observations of the amount of ink given to Psalms, much of which was all but suggesting that it should not have been included in the Bible.

The real problem is not even in the amount of time and ink given, but in the attitude toward so much of it. We have now seen through footnotes that Lee really didn't think much of the Psalms.

That means he didn't think very much about God's Word.

And that kind of a person really has no business claiming to be a teacher of God's Word.

Period.

End of story.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

, I would have titled the thread "The Psalms are the Word of God" rather than "of Christ." ... in Hebrews it says that God spoke in various ways, but more recently through Christ (my paraphrase)... When we speak of Psalms, we are talking about the Word of God, not the Word of Christ..

Your points are true, but I was riffing off Paul's comments in Colossians 3, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly..." then he encourages them to sing the Psalms. I was merging the two, which might be implied but wasn't stated directly. As usual, I was taking liberties with the text because it gave me good copy. I often write like that, and accept your correction: the title of this thread shouldn't be taken as a blanket statement. Rather, it just seemed like a catchy title at the time.

We have now seen through footnotes that Lee really didn't think much of the Psalms.

That means he didn't think very much about God's Word.

And that kind of a person really has no business claiming to be a teacher of God's Word.

Well, I might try to say, that to some degree he was a teacher of the Word of God, as are and have been many. But he fell flat on his face when he got into the Psalms. And the system which he set up, which placed him as God's voice of this age, falls flat on its face also.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

We have now seen through footnotes that Lee really didn't think much of the Psalms.

That means he didn't think very much about God's Word.

I have been thinking about this comment. It is a logical statement, extrapolating from the part to the whole. And, as such, it is arguably correct.

But on the other hand you could argue that Lee cared a lot about God's Word. He spent his life studying it, and teaching it. I would rather say that Lee loved God's Word, but he got turned away from his first love by the meta-narrative which he constructed out of God's Word. The meta-narrative was his "merchandise" with which he caught and made merchandise of the saints.

So when the Word of God conflicted with his narrative, or interpretation if you will, then he was forced to dismiss the Word as of no value, except "to show us what NOT to be", even though the Word itself never indicated this nor have any subsequent christian writers that I am aware of, from the Church Fathers on. Lee's proprietary "economy" superseded all, even the Christ revealed there in the Word.

In that sense ZNP was right in his comments on Psalm 35. Lee really was caught by his own snare.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

WL cared a lot about God's Word. He spent his life studying it, and teaching it. I would say that Lee loved God's Word, but he got turned away from his first love by the meta-narrative which he constructed out of God's Word. The meta-narrative was his "merchandise" with which he caught and made merchandise of the saints.

So when the Word of God conflicted with his interpretation then he was forced to dismiss the Word as of no value, except "to show us what not to be", even though the Word itself never indicated this nor have any subsequent christian writers that I am aware of, from the apostles to the Church Fathers and on. Lee's proprietary "economy" superseded all, even the Christ revealed in the Word.

Our Christian faith centers on one thing and that is the person of Jesus Christ. By faith we received a vision of Jesus Christ, and through this faith we repented and attempted to re-align ourselves with God's will. In this context, the Bible is crucial because it reveals to us Jesus Christ, who is God's will personified. The Bible doesn't reveal any useful history or philosophy or "ground of the church" or move or activity or organization apart from "this Jesus" (Acts 2:32).

With that view I propose a working definition of apostles and prophets: a prophet is one who by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit spoke about Jesus Christ. I'm thinking specifically of Acts 2:30.

"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."

Jesus confirmed this in His speaking in Matthew 22:43

He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,..."

Subsequently, an apostle is one who reveals that the prophet was writing about Jesus Christ. Peter's speech in Acts 2 is my exemplar. For a second witness, or example, see Paul in the synagogue in Antioch, speaking in Acts 13:16-41, especially vv. 32-35. There are ignorant people looking for salvation, and there are the scriptures, and the apostle comes to bridge the gap. The apostles stood in between the prophecy and the lost, and declared "this Jesus." Everyone else, teachers, evangelists and shepherds work upon the basis of the apostle's revelation of Jesus Christ. Everything and everyone should arguably support the testimony of the apostles, pointing to the Christ revealed in Scripture.

But what did WL, the supposed apostle of the age, do? When confronted with the scripture saying, "He (the Father) rescued Me (Jesus) because He (the Father) delighted in Me (Jesus)" WL said, "No he didn't. God didn't delight in David because David was a sinner. David rescued himself."

What kind of an apostle is this? What kind of vision is this? Would Peter "get in line" behind this? I highly doubt it. WL threw down the gauntlet, saying that Peter had a shallow view, in quoting the Psalms, but how do you know that the "many long days" of OT prophecy wasn't the kingdom that endures forever? Nope, said WL, that's just vain men with their selfish, low concepts, and Peter lacked vision to understand this.

It's possible that Peter would "get in line" behind this kind of talk, but I really doubt it. I don't think any serious Bible student should take this kind of teaching at face value. It is simply too presumptuous; it makes judgments entirely at variance with the NT pattern of scriptural reception.

[aron]

Did Paul ever indicate that his vision was high, while Peter's or James' was low? Did he suggest that Peter should "get in line" behind him or anyone else? Did Peter ever indicate that people should get in line behind Paul, and that Paul now had primacy? The case Paul recounted in Galatians 2, where "some came from James", indicates James' influence, not Paul's. Paul resisted James' influence, but didn't assert his own.

Did Paul ever indicate that only some of the OT scriptures were profitable to mine for revelation of Christ, while others were revealing only the fallen natures of the writers? Where, in all his recommendations of scripture, are his accompanying dis-recommendations? If not, why or how should we infer this? If we do so, then are our own judgments become superior to the scriptures, to Paul, and to Peter, and to the writer of Hebrews?

Why didn't John, in his Revelation, indicate the primacy of an apostle? Who was the apostle of the age, after Paul had gone? Was this office somehow irrelevant to John, who with his brother James had requested the right and left hands of Jesus in the kingdom? I would say, hardly. So where is the apostle of the age indicated, in John's apocalypse? No where, that is where. The apostle isn't even indicated; it is the prophet pointing to Christ. So what happened to the apostle of the age? The closest I can see in the apocalypse is the "two witnesses" account. But that is hardly "God's man of the hour". There are two of them.

WL would stress that "the whole view of scripture" indicates this narrative, or that. But I don't see his narrative emerging from the whole view of scripture at all. I think he's superimposing it upon scripture, and subsequently for his narrative to stand, and retain coherence, you have to ignore a lot of scripture.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

Did Paul ever indicate that his vision was high, while Peter's or James' was low? Did he suggest that Peter should "get in line" behind him or anyone else? Did Peter ever indicate that people should get in line behind Paul, and that Paul now had primacy? The case Paul recounted in Galatians 2, where "some came from James", indicates James' influence, not Paul's. Paul resisted James' influence, but didn't assert his own.

Did Paul ever indicate that only some of the OT scriptures were profitable to mine for revelation of Christ, while others were revealing only the fallen natures of the writers? Where, in all his recommendations of scripture, are his accompanying dis-recommendations? If not, why or how should we infer this? If we do so, then are our own judgments become superior to the scriptures, to Paul, and to Peter, and to the writer of Hebrews?

Why didn't John, in his Revelation, indicate the primacy of an apostle? Who was the apostle of the age, after Paul had gone? Was this office somehow irrelevant to John, who with his brother James had requested the right and left hands of Jesus in the kingdom? I would say, hardly. So where is the apostle of the age indicated, in John's apocalypse? No where, that is where. The apostle isn't even indicated; it is the prophet pointing to Christ. So what happened to the apostle of the age? The closest I can see in the apocalypse is the "two witnesses" account. But that is hardly "God's man of the hour". There are two of them.

WL would stress that "the whole view of scripture" indicates this narrative, or that. But I don't see his narrative emerging from the whole view of scripture at all. I think he's superimposing it upon scripture, and subsequently for his narrative to stand, and retain coherence, you have to ignore a lot of scripture.

Right-on bro Aron. Your post brought to mind that Paul referred to so-called "super apostles" who must have thought pretty highly of themselves and their teaching to try to bring the gentile believers under the law.

2 Corinthians 11:5 I don’t think that those “super apostles” are any better than I am.

2 Corinthians 12:11 I have been talking like a fool, but you made me do it. You people are the ones who should say good things about me. I am worth nothing, but those “super apostles” are not worth any more than I am!
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
Copyright © 2006 by World Bible Translation Center

Nothing can exceed the cummulative revalation given to Paul. If Jesus didn't say it, and if Paul didn't say it, and if Peter, John and James didn't say it, then who in heaven's name is WL to say it? Maybe a super-apostle wanting to build a following?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Did Paul ever indicate that his vision was high, while Peter's or James' was low?

Not exactly, but Paul did demean James and Peter and John in Galations 2.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Continuing on to Psalm 36. The footnote to verses 8 and 9 says, "Verses 8 and 9 reveal the Divine Trinity in His divine dispensing as the enjoyment of God's people in His house."

Verses 8 and 9 talk about the fatness of God's house, drinking the river of God's pleasures, and the fountain of life, in whose light we see light.

But in the preceding footnote, on verse 5, it says, "Verses 5-10 are David's praising God for His lovingkindness, faithfulness, and righteousness mixed with the enjoyment of God in His house. However, such praising followed David's accusing the wicked (vv 1-4), showing again the mixture of human concept and the divine concept in the Psalms."

Wow, from the words of your mouth the secrets of your heart are revealed.

Accusing the wicked is "the human concept" whereas praising God for the fatness of His house is spiritual. So if you make a wonderful testimony about how rich the LRC is, that is spiritual, but if you accuse WL and Sons for their wickedness then you are a mixture of fallen human thinking.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

So my question is, how can a book so deficient in explanation be held up by anyone as the, or even a, definitive exposition of the Bible? I can only surmise, as one of the posters has previously done earlier, that Lee was so tapped out by his exhaustive work in the NT that he simply had no gas left in the tank to give the Psalms (among other works) the careful study it deserved. So he just blew off chapter after chapter with a perfunctory wave of the hand: "Not according to the NT economy". And his captive (pun quite intended) audience was forced to take the "definitive Biblical exposition" from this "rich ministry". Child, please.

When it came to the OT, Lee followed the old Brethren pattern of "looking for Christ." For the most part, it had little to do with "life" study. OT scripture was evaluated based on whether Christ could be seen in type, prophecy, figure, etc. Unfortunately, after the 80's came around, Lee had little desire to learn spiritual lessons from the OT characters. Perhaps his course of action dramatically changed after he begun I Samuel. He totally missed the message concerning "old Eli and his sons," which should have struck real close to home, and instead latched on to his ridiculous notions about Samuel being the "acting God."

His commentary on Psalms was part of this fallout. If a Psalm could directly point to Christ, like Psalm 22, then it was extolled as worthwhile according to God's economy. If he could not "find Christ," then the Psalm was worthless according to God's economy, and considered to be merely human sentiment of little value. WL really believed that his method of interpretation was on the highest plane, and part of his "high peak" ministry of his final years. He truly believed that he had culminated and consummated the NT ministry, and he himself had grown to such a stage that he could now evaluate and rate all the passages of the Bible.

It seems that Lee somehow experienced delusions of grandeur, almost as a megalomaniac, where he was completely above the law, and any critic of his teachings or decisions must be attacking God's throne itself, even though the "critic" was just a little upset that his wife was molested by Philip Lee in the LSM offices.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When it came to the OT, Lee followed the old Brethren pattern of "looking for Christ." ... OT scripture was evaluated based on whether Christ could be seen in type, prophecy, figure, etc. Unfortunately, after the 80's came around, Lee had little desire to learn spiritual lessons from the OT characters.

It seems strange to me: if any character was ripe for allegorization it would be the OT character David. He was the great conquering king who slew the monster Goliath. There is so much detail, both in the historical books, and the "inner life" of the character revealed in the Psalms.

Even the failures have Christ nearby. When David writes in Psalm 51 that if God restores him, he'll teach other sinners, you can sense Christ restoring sinners so that they can likewise shepherd others (see Jesus' dialogs with Peter, for example). There is so much "Christ" here to be seen. No wonder the Psalms were cited so extensively by the authors of the NT!

And yet Lee seemed oblivious to all of this.

His commentary on Psalms was part of this fallout. If a Psalm could directly point to Christ, like Psalm 22, then it was extolled as worthwhile according to God's economy. If he could not "find Christ," then the Psalm was worthless according to God's economy, and considered to be merely human sentiment of little value.

There is no indication to me from the writers of the NT that the quotes they used referencing the Christ are the ONLY places where Christ is is to be found. Look at Psalm 69, cited in John chapter 2: "Zeal of Thy house has eaten Me up". John's gospel doesn't indicate that this is the only section of Psalm 69 which reveals Christ. In fact, I would argue the opposite: the citation points the reader back toward a source text. And John's gospel acknowledges the open-ended nature of his work, and it's subject: see e.g. John 16:12, and 21:25. Lee, however, makes perfunctory acknowledgements of the NT citations, with the surrounding text often dismissed as "natural". He won't find Christ unless the NT authors compel him to.

WL really believed that his method of interpretation was on the highest plane, and part of his "high peak" ministry of his final years. He truly believed that he had culminated and consummated the NT ministry, and he himself had grown to such a stage that he could now evaluate and rate all the passages of the Bible.

Yes; his template allowed him to parse the Bible. It really was superior to the scriptures themselves, which could be dismissed as the uninspired work of fallen man, rather than the inspired word of God. But who before Lee with his "NT Economy" template ever disparaged the scriptures thusly? Paul wrote to Timothy that "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable..."; who besides Lee cut off such extensive sections as unprofitable?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

It seems strange to me: if any character was ripe for allegorization it would be the OT character David. He was the great conquering king who slew the monster Goliath. There is so much detail, both in the historical books, and the "inner life" of the character revealed in the Psalms.

Even the failures have Christ nearby. When David writes in Psalm 51 that if God restores him, he'll teach other sinners, you can sense Christ restoring sinners so that they can likewise shepherd others (see Jesus' dialogs with Peter, for example). There is so much "Christ" here to be seen. No wonder the Psalms were cited so extensively by the authors of the NT!

And yet Lee seemed oblivious to all of this.

I think you will find he was willfully ignorant. Many of those verses that he tried to skip, ignore and dismiss condemned him.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by aron

Paul wrote to Timothy that "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable..."; who besides Lee cut off such extensive sections as unprofitable?

I've brought this verse up numerous times to people and their response was always, "yes, that's true. Those Psalms that are according to fallen man are profitable for teaching insofar as they show us how NOT to be." Then they show me the verses where Satan temps Jesus and ask, are his words "God-breathed?":c onfused: I think a lot of the problem is that people don't know how to read narratives.....
A brother in faith

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I've brought this verse up numerous times to people and their response was always, "yes, that's true. Those Psalms that are according to fallen man are profitable for teaching insofar as they show us how NOT to be." Then they show me the verses where Satan temps Jesus and ask, are his words "God-breathed?":c onfused: I think a lot of the problem is that people don't know how to read narratives.....
A brother in faith

Once again this is as fishy an explanation as the explanation for why WN was excommunicated. Let's call a spade a spade. WL was condemned by many of those verses. If he admitted they were part of the "divine revelation" then he would literally skin himself alive during the training. That is also true for Proverbs. So instead of confessing his sins he felt it was better to just decide that certain books of the Bible were not "part of the divine revelation". Just like Animal Farm that was a major departure from the original contract in which all scripture was God breathed. Once the writing on the Barn changed his ministry was a waste of time and money.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just like Animal Farm that was a major departure from the original contract in which all scripture was God breathed. Once the writing on the Barn changed his ministry was a waste of time and money.

I admit to being a novice in the Psalms. I only recently have come to see why they were quoted so extensively by the NT writers. So I don't have a lot of basis of comparison. But I can say that I have found his teachings here to be a great disappointment.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I've brought this verse [from 2 Timothy] up numerous times to people and their response was always, "yes, that's true. Those Psalms that are according to fallen man are profitable for teaching insofar as they show us how NOT to be."

That is a rather subjective assessment. I could also say that Lee's footnotes show us how NOT to write footnotes.

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Then they show me the verses where Satan tempts Jesus and ask, are his words "God-breathed?"

But this is clearly shown in context not to be God's speaking, even when Satan is quoting Psalm 91: "He shall give his angels charge over Thee". But where is a similar judgment, besides that of Witness Lee, that David's writing is valueless except as a caution?

I see Witness Lee waaaay out on a limb, with his "God's economy" metric. No one is joining him there. No where in the Bible or later do I see any other writers casting such aspersions on the Word. Not the Church Fathers, not anyone after. Witness Lee is basically coming back in and re-canonizing the scriptures according to his own metric.

Number one, that's kind of megalomaniacal, as Ohio said. Number two, it just doesn't wash. There is a lot of evocative and fruitful symbolism speaking to us of, to, and from the Son of God, which Lee jettisons to preserve his "economy".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I've brought this verse up numerous times to people and their response was always, "yes, that's true. Those Psalms that are according to fallen man are profitable for teaching insofar as they show us how NOT to be." Then they show me the verses where Satan temps Jesus and ask, are his words "God-breathed?":c onfused: I think a lot of the problem is that people don't know how to read narratives.....
A brother in faith

Psalm
35:1 Plead my cause, O LORD, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me.

This is David's prayer. For WL to judge that David was natural, in his mind, or whatever terminology he uses is not warranted by the narrative.

35:2 Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help.
35:3 Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation.

Imagine if JI was praying this, or the saints molested by PL, or JS, or BM etc.

35:4 Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul: let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt.
35:5 Let them be as chaff before the wind: and let the angel of the LORD chase them.
35:6 Let their way be dark and slippery: and let the angel of the LORD persecute them.
35:7 For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, which without cause they have digged for my soul.

Imagine the Sister's rebellion. "Without cause they have digged for my soul". That sums it up. Clearly these verses expose the sins of WL.

35:8 Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.

This is the final conclusion, WL set a trap. He baited it with a bogus story about WN, he made merchandise of saints with fabricated words, etc. these verses expose WL. No wonder he feels they are "natural" and not what a "spiritual" man would pray.

35:9 And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: it shall rejoice in his salvation.
35:10 All my bones shall say, LORD, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and the needy from him that spoileth him?
35:11 False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.
35:12 They rewarded me evil for good to the spoiling of my soul.

WL is the false witness. He created charges for things that those accused knew not. It is just like the testimony that Awareness gave. It is just like the thread of Gold.

35:13 But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.
35:14 I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother.
35:15 But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; they did tear me, and ceased not:
35:16 With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.

Compare this to the BBs and WL. We behaved as though WL had been our friend or brother. We were like mourners while they were like hypocritical mockers in the feast. All those saints screaming in Awareness testimony, just like the description here of "they gnashed upon me with their teeth."

35:17 Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions.
35:18 I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: I will praise thee among much people.
35:19 Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.
35:20 For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.

Once again this is an apt description of WL who devised deceitful matters against various saints.

35:21 Yea, they opened their mouth wide against me, and said, Aha, aha, our eye hath seen it.

Talk about hypocrisy. They publish a book TFOTPR, that is "opening their mouth wide" yet they criticize others for posting on the internet.

35:22 This thou hast seen, O LORD: keep not silence: O Lord, be not far from me.
35:23 Stir up thyself, and awake to my judgment, even unto my cause, my God and my Lord.
35:24 Judge me, O LORD my God, according to thy righteousness; and let them not rejoice over me.
35:25 Let them not say in their hearts, Ah, so would we have it: let them not say, We have swallowed him up.
35:26 Let them be ashamed and brought to confusion together that rejoice at mine hurt: let them be clothed with shame and dishonour that magnify themselves against me.

Perhaps this should go into the mission statement of this forum.

35:27 Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let the LORD be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.
35:28 And my tongue shall speak of thy righteousness and of thy praise all the day long.

Now according to WL only these last two verses are spiritual?

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Psalm 35:1 Plead my cause, O LORD, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me.

This is David's prayer. For WL to judge that David was natural, in his mind, or whatever terminology he uses is not warranted by the narrative.

I think that I understand your point, but I would argue that the "them" which strive against us, and against whom we plead divine intervention, are not human agents but rather spiritual forces. Again, see Paul's comments in this regard. WL had control issues, which led to righteousness issues and truth issues, but the culprit was not WL but the dark spiritual forces disguised as angels of light, which captured him and used him as their pawn.

Remember that Jesus didn't rebuke Peter, but Satan: "Get behind Me". We should do the same to those forces which created the system which once controlled us and has enslaved the hearts, minds and wills of so many.

Remember that John wrote to the angel of the church in Ephesus, not to the Ephesians themselves. He was commanding the spiritual entity which was robbing the saints of their first love: "Repent". These forces cannot stand, and they will not stand. In the name of Jesus your time on earth is over.

We ourselves often are caught by dark forces. Therefore, I would argue that we cannot properly pray Psalm 35, nor could David, any more than Lee could decipher it. Rather, "But we see Jesus" (cf Heb ch. 2) praying this prayer, and we see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (cf John ch 1). And in our prayer we say, "Amen, Lord Jesus. Come quickly"

Like Gamaliel said, "We don't want to fight against 'them', because we might find ourselves fighting against God." Rather, we see God in Christ Jesus subduing all of 'them', which unfortunately occasionally includes 'us', and we rejoice. Christ is the victor. Satan has been cast down. "Amen; even so come Lord Jesus."

Peace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Remember that John wrote to the angel of the church in Ephesus, not to the Ephesians themselves. He was commanding the spiritual entity which was robbing the saints of their first love: "Repent". These forces cannot stand, and they will not stand. In the name of Jesus your time on earth is over.

Never thought about that before. Are you sure about this?

[ZNPaaneah]

There is no doubt that in some places (in the Bible and in Psalms) the "them that strive against me" could be considered, flesh, world, sin, fallen nature, etc. You also might be able to see through WL and PL and see that it is Satan that is "seeking your soul".

But to spiritualize it away and say that "without cause they have for me their net in a pit" does not refer to WL and what he did in the "Sister's rebellion" is to be so heavenly that you are of no earthly good. If you are not familiar with the sister's rebellion WL's sons were caught in sin, WL anticipating that sisters would talk and the molested sister's story would therefore spread he took preemptive action and accused a sister's fellowship of being "rebellious". These sisters were then castigated without cause and drummed out of the church merely as a smoke screen for his own sins.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Remember that John wrote to the angel of the church in Ephesus, not to the Ephesians themselves. He was commanding the spiritual entity which was robbing the saints of their first love: "Repent". These forces cannot stand, and they will not stand. In the name of Jesus your time on earth is over.

Was "angel" meant to indicate spiritual being as we think of an angel, or was it "messenger" as some translations have rendered it? Whoever it was written to would need to be in true communication with at least the living humans in leadership, if not the whole assembly. Otherwise, it is like writing a stack of letters but never actually sending them.

But it is an interesting thought. I tend to think that since the instructions were to the actual practices of the people it has to be to someone with flesh and bones in the assembly. And since it was John who was instructed to write the words and include it as part of a longer letter to instruct living people in things that were/are to take place, then assuming that it is really to no one in particular, but rather to a non-tangible being makes its purpose truly vague. Why are you telling an entirely spiritual being that they need to "overcome"? Those words are for us, whether the direct words were intended to be to leadership or to the whole assembly. Until it reaches the church, it is pointless.

And if we presume that the inclusion within the letter that we call "Revelation" is how the humans were to discover the content of the seven short letters, then I am unable to decipher the purpose of sending the "original" to a spiritual being who was not party to any of the actions in progress or the corrections needed.

Just asking. I'm pretty sure that there are no absolute answers available.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

I would like to continue, here, with Psalm 35. I am unwilling/unable to do a thorough systematic review of the Psalms footnotes, but hope that these few samples will make a point.

The 28 verses of Psalm 35 get one comment, in the first verse. David asks God, "Fight, O LORD, with those who fight against me." Here is the footnote:

"In the New Testament economy, a spiritual person would never ask God to fight against his enemies as David asks in this psalm."

So why did Jesus tell the parable of the unrighteous judge in Luke 18? "Avenge me of my enemies", the widow repeatedly asks the judge. Who are her adversaries? "We fight not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces of darkness", writes Paul.

John wrote, "There was war in heaven, Michael and his angels against the devil and his angels". Don't you think there is some spiritual warfare going on? Why does Lee pretend it doesn't exist in the Psalms? When Jesus showed up, the demons cried out in fear. "What do you have to do with us, Jesus, Nazarene! Have you come to destroy us before our time?!?"

Jesus said, "When you go out to battle with ten thousand troops, be careful if you run into someone coming against you with twenty thousand. Better not fight with them at that point." (cf. Luke 14). Was Jesus failing Lee's New Testament economy in Luke 14? Or was Jesus referring to a spiritual struggle, using images (i.e. parables)? When faced with the type or shadow of this warfare, par excellence, of David's fight(s) in the book of Psalms, Lee pointedly ignores this option.

I think the correct term for this, though I don't want to get too technical with the jargon, is poppycock.

WL's sharing on the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and a number of other books was a complete waste of time and money.