The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some of Psalms were quoted in the Gospels as indisputable and undeniable proof of divine authorship. For example, John 20.36 declares "not one of His bone shall be broken," to fulfill the prophecy in Psalms 34.20. Considering the ordeal Jesus passed through before and during His crucifixion, this was an impossible feat.

I found Psalm 34, and WL's take on it, to be indicative of his approach. He acknowledged the useage of Psalm 34:20 in John chapter 20, and thus its "divine revelation" of the coming Christ. But he panned the rest of chapter 34 as natural. Why? Because, he says, David used guile to save himself from Abimilech, so God clearly didn't save him, as the Psalm proclaims.

Now, WL can argue this, and get a bunch of people to agree with him, but that doesn't mean this is so. In fact, I find it borderline schizophrenic (the argument, if not the arguee) to pluck one verse out of context and say, "divinely revelatory", while simultaneously discarding the all rest as "natural."

Look at 1 Samuel 17:37, where David tells Saul, regarding Goliath: "The LORD who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine." Now, how does the "armchair warrior" WL tell David whether or not God can and does save him, and from whom? By using his own fallen human logic?

I veer toward the opposite tack (probably nearly as indefensible as WL, I know). If the disciples looked in the text of Psalm 34 and saw "revelation", and nowhere do they say "Only this one verse, and none other", then we should eagerly examine the ENTIRE text for revelation. If John could find revelation, why not I? Don't I have the same Spirit? If the author of Hebrews could hold up the OT and say, "We see Jesus" (2:9), what is stopping me from also receiving revelation of Christ as I consider the rest of the text? If Peter could use his logic and say in Acts chapter 2 that Psalm 16:9-11 could not apply to David (whose flesh did see corruption, after all), but rather Jesus the Nazarene, then why can't the rest of us use our logic and see Jesus Christ in other parts of Psalm 16, and elsewhere?

Now, does my interpretation, whether it be divinely inspired or logically derived, mean the text is "red letter"? Of course not. But it it fun? You betcha. You get to "Enjoy Christ" in spades. And "out of the local church life", even.