The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do you mean you can live by Satan's words?

I think a better question on this forum would be, did Witness Lee mean that 90% of the Psalms were Satan's words? Look at how he categorizes them: natural, fallen, well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts.

When Peter told Jesus "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You!!" he was speaking in his natural, ignorant human concept. This ignominy would never happen to Jesus! Right? Simon, aka "The Rock" Peter, would never allow it! "Not so, Lord!"

Peter's speaking was, correctly we believe, characterized by Jesus as "Satan's speaking". So my question becomes, are there degrees of well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts on display in the Bible, some of which are Satan insinuating himself into the conversation, and some not? If Psalms are merely ignorant good intentions but not "revelatory of Christ", then what are they?

When Job's wife advised him to "curse God and die" (2:9) after he was brutally afflicted, this was arguably a natural concept, via God's enemy Satan. Satan advises, at some point in the process you can give up with the praise and worship thingy, and get down to brass tacks, and tell God off. But no, "I will praise God with my dying breath" (Psa 146:2 NLT). And also like Peter: "Lord, I forgave my brother six times. Now can I bash him on the noggin as he so rightly deserves?" Again, lack of awareness of God's mercy leads to behaviors controlled by the fallen flesh. Satan has now usurped. Again and again in the NT the well-intentioned disciples crowded round, and displayed God's enemy.

But if Paul called Psalms the Words of Christ, where's the corollary calling them Words of Satan (Col 3:16)? How can Lee define scriptural text thus and say that he's closely following the apostles? Where's the precedent for this?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps Lee was making a point in case people mistakenly thought that God rewarded them according to their own righteousness. But he could have said this refers to Christ and not us.

But he didn't refer to Christ at all. How can we say this RecV translation with footnotes is in any way definitive if it's so glaringly deficient?

Paul made the point that the law of itself gave nobody righteousness (Rom 3:20). But why not consider whether "I will obey Your word" in the Psalm (e.g. 119:17) might possibly reference the coming Righteous One? How many times in the gospel text does Jesus reference obedience to the Father's will? No, says Lee, that psalm is just Satan distracting and deceiving the fallen mankind. At best, at very best, I think that's a shallow and perfunctory reading of the text; to me, Lee evinced no interest whatever in finding nor unpacking "life". Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find"; I see no evidence of seeking with Lee. How did he then claim to be a teacher, much less holding God's supposedly singular oracle?

[Drake]

Aron) "... why not consider whether "I will obey Your word" in the Psalm (e.g. 119:17) might possibly reference the coming Righteous One?"

"But he didn't refer to Christ at all. How can we say this RecV translation with footnotes is in any way definitive if it's so glaringly deficient?"



aron,

You agree with Brother Lee but you are apparently unaware of what he actually taught. Case in point:

"Psalm 119 is a Psalm of 176 verses describing Christ, who is the reality of the law, the commandments, the ordinances, the statutes, the precepts, and the judgments. "

RCV Psalm 119 footnote 1 (1).

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron,

You agree with Brother Lee but you are apparently unaware of what he actually taught. Case in point:

"Psalm 119 is a Psalm of 176 verses describing Christ, who is the reality of the law, the commandments, the ordinances, the statutes, the precepts, and the judgments. "

RCV Psalm 119 footnote 1 (1).

Drake

Don't have a RecV in front of me but I'd say that Brother Lee gave us his generic "Christ is everything" answer. What does it say about obedience in verse 17; and if it actually does affirm Christs' earthly obedience to the heavenly Father's will, then why did Lee also pan obedience and righteousness elsewhere in the Psalms?

Lee: "Psalm 119 is a psalm of one hundred seventy-six verses describing Christ, who is the reality of the law, the commandments, the ordinances, the statutes, the precepts, and the judgments. In total, He is the Word of God. The words of Psalm 119 are the written words of God, but Christ is the living Word of God. The written words are the letters, but the living Word is the Spirit, who is the reality of the letters.

Now we can see not only what the law is but also who the law is. Who is the law? The law is the person of Christ, and the person of Christ is the Spirit. The Spirit is the reality of whatever God is. Hence, as the Spirit Christ is the reality of the law. Eventually, this law, this person, consummates in the way (John 14:6). When we have Him, we have not only love and light but also the way. This is Christ being the reality of the law as the testimony and the word of God."

So then why is Psalm 1 held to be vain, if there the psalmist delights in the law of the LORD? I mean, please be consistent if you are going to interpret the word like this. Lee is nearly schizophrenic. Some places is "NT enjoyment", some places "Christ", some places "vanity".

If in Psalm 119 the law is "Christ", why isn't Psalm 1 the NT believer "enjoying Christ" or some such? Why is Psalm 1 vain and natural? If Christ is the law, and Christ the law's embodiment is now the Spirit/reality, then why isn't Psalm 1, and others like it, an analog to the NT "keep the One Spirit" or something along those lines?

How about a couple of rules, here:

1. When we interpret scripture, let's do it consistently with NT reception patterns, and not go free-lancing, hm?

2. Once you pick a method of understanding scripture, keep it. Not either seeing "Christ" or "vanity" according to today's whims?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

How about a couple of rules, here:

1. When we interpret scripture, let's do it consistently with NT reception patterns, and not go free-lancing, hm?

2. Once you pick a method of understanding scripture, keep it. Not either seeing "Christ" or "vanity" according to today's whims?

Witness Lee: Psalm 119, Verses 17 and 18 say, "Deal bountifully with Your servant that I may live/And keep Your word./Open my eyes that I may behold/Wondrous things out of Your law." This indicates that the psalmist considered God's law to be His word. This is indicated also by what the psalmist says in verses 28 and 29: "My soul melts because of grief;/Strengthen me according to Your word./Remove from me the way of falsehood,/And graciously grant me Your law." These verses prove that the psalmist thought of God's law as His living and loving word breathed out of God's mouth.

I guess this is good, right? The psalmist has a good relationship, not vain, with the law? Now look at the discussion of Psalm 1.

Witness Lee: The first psalm is concerning the law. David did not know the real function of the law. He likened himself, as one who delighted in the law, to a tree growing beside streams of water and flourishing all the time (v. 3). But after Psalm 1, there is Psalm 2 concerning Christ. Then there is Psalm 3. The heading of Psalm 3 says, "A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son." The one who enjoyed the law as the streams of water by which he grew became a kind of exile due to the rebellion of his son. This happened to David because of his murder of Uriah and his taking of Uriah's wife (2 Sam. 12:10-12). The one who enjoyed the law so much in Psalm 1 became an intentional murderer. Does this show that the law works? The law does work, but not in David's way. The law works to expose us. The law exposed David to the uttermost as one who conspired to kill Uriah and rob Uriah of his wife. Does the law work or not? We have to say that the law works, not according to David's concept in Psalm 1, but according to the apostle Paul's teaching in the New Testament. Paul pointed out that the law was something added to the central line of the divine revelation to expose man's sinful nature and wicked deeds (Rom. 3:20b; 5:20a). We need this view of the law in order to understand the Psalms according to the divine concept in the New Testament. We are not in the Old Testament as David was, but we are in the New Testament.

So Psalm 119 delights in God's law because it is God's out-breathed word, but Psalm 1 delights in the law as vanity? How about a simple and consistent method, given clearly in the NT? How about, David declared reality per God's word (in the Psalms), which reality was not actualized fully in experience by David himself (a sinner) but by David's promised seed? You know, the guy named Jesus, "whom God has now made Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36) How is that so hard?

"But what does it say? 'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart'-- that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:8-10).

We believe into and confess Jesus as both Lord and Christ. This is our righteousness, our faith, our confession. When we consider Psalm 1's righteous man, whose leaf never withers, I can see Jesus. Why was this an unthinkable concept for Lee? Psalm 1, Psalm 19, Psalm 119, all point to Jesus Christ as the One on earth who knew God the Father in heaven fully by embracing God's word(or, law/testimony/statutes). John even calls Jesus the incarnate Word. Jesus' delight in the law of the LORD in Psalm 1 is therefore not vain. So why are Psalm 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc etc "vain concepts"? I mean, if the psalmist had said, "I delight in evil", okay. But where's the opening for Lee's gambit, here?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

So Psalm 119 delights in God's law because it is God's out-breathed word, but Psalm 1 delights in the law as vanity? How about a simple and consistent method, given clearly in the NT?

Aron,

You are perplexed because you have some elevated or misplaced regard for the law as compared to God's plan as revealed in the New Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament reveals how others also were perplexed by the same and it's tragic consequences.

The New Testament clarifies the purpose of the law was to come in along side fallen man to cause sin to abound (Romans 5:20). It also served as a child conductor to lead Israel to Christ. Once Christ came there is no need for a child conductor for believers now possess the way, truth, and the life with His actual presence.

Therefore, the law alongside Christ leads the children of Israel to Christ. The law in a standalone position causes sin to abound. The Old Testament writers did not have the benefit of looking back as we do so they, according to their limited view, sometimes spoke highly of the merits of the law on its own and in so doing did not realize that it condemed them. When a psalmist had God's view in mind, that is Christ, then the law functions in its right position.

When the Lord Jesus began His earthly ministry a conflict began with those who had a misplaced appreciation of the law. Ultimately those who appreciated the law broke the law when they murdered Him and His followers.

Therefore what you view as inconsistencies are merely Brother Lee drawing contrasts between those verses that misapply the law that leads to sin and death and those verses that bring the law alongside to lead people to Christ and to life.

Drake

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Drake

You are perplexed because you have some elevated or misplaced regard for the law as compared to God's plan as revealed in the New Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament reveals how others also were perplexed by the same and it's tragic consequences.

I don’t speak for aron, but as far as I’m concerned, he is spot on:

Matt 5:17-20
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew Henry commentary:
5:17-20 Let none suppose that Christ allows his people to trifle with any commands of God's holy law. No sinner partakes of Christ's justifying righteousness, till he repents of his evil deeds. The mercy revealed in the gospel leads the believer to still deeper self-abhorrence. The law is the Christian's rule of duty, and he delights therein. If a man, pretending to be Christ's disciple, encourages himself in any allowed disobedience to the holy law of God, or teaches others to do the same, whatever his station or reputation among men may be, he can be no true disciple. Christ's righteousness, imputed to us by faith alone, is needed by every one that enters the kingdom of grace or of glory; but the new creation of the heart to holiness, produces a thorough change in a man's temper and conduct.

WL’s basis for criticizing Psalm 1 seems to be based upon the fact that David failed. Yet Jesus taught that taught us that downplaying the law is reason to be called least in the kingdom of the heavens, so WL’s logic doesn’t check out as far as I'm concerned.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL’s basis for criticizing Psalm 1 seems to be based upon the fact that David failed. Yet Jesus taught that taught us that downplaying the law is reason to be called least in the kingdom of the heavens, so WL’s logic doesn’t check out as far as I'm concerned.

Psalm 119 shows us grace, as the NT believer enjoys Christ as God's law. Yet Psalm 1 shows us vanity as the psalmist tries vainly to keep God's law. But why isn't it Psalm 1 showing grace, and Psalm 119 showing vanity? Because Witness Lee said so.

What an arbitrary and disconnected mess. Tripe and rubbish.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I think a better question on this forum would be, did Witness Lee mean that 90% of the Psalms were Satan's words? Look at how he categorizes them: natural, fallen, well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts.

When Peter told Jesus "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You!!" he was speaking in his natural, ignorant human concept. This ignominy would never happen to Jesus! Right? Simon, aka "The Rock" Peter, would never allow it! "Not so, Lord!"

Peter's speaking was, correctly we believe, characterized by Jesus as "Satan's speaking". So my question becomes, are there degrees of well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts on display in the Bible, some of which are Satan insinuating himself into the conversation, and some not? If Psalms are merely ignorant good intentions but not "revelatory of Christ", then what are they?

When Job's wife advised him to "curse God and die" (2:9) after he was brutally afflicted, this was arguably a natural concept, via God's enemy Satan. Satan advises, at some point in the process you can give up with the praise and worship thingy, and get down to brass tacks, and tell God off. But no, "I will praise God with my dying breath" (Psa 146:2 NLT). And also like Peter: "Lord, I forgave my brother six times. Now can I bash him on the noggin as he so rightly deserves?" Again, lack of awareness of God's mercy leads to behaviors controlled by the fallen flesh. Satan has now usurped. Again and again in the NT the well-intentioned disciples crowded round, and displayed God's enemy.

But if Paul called Psalms the Words of Christ, where's the corollary calling them Words of Satan (Col 3:16)? How can Lee define scriptural text thus and say that he's closely following the apostles? Where's the precedent for this?

There is a saying that says God goes to church and so does Satan, or wherever God is Satan is there too watching. The Bible says tares and wheat live and grow together. Finding the words of God and the words of Satan in the same Psalm should not surprise us. In fact when Jesus was tempted Satan was quoting the words of God to Christ. I think fallen man, or natural man, can be considered Satan in a certain sense, but not in the same sense as Satan's literal speaking as with Christ's temptation. But actually it doesn't really matter if it is Satan speaking through natural man or Satan speaking directly, it is still Satan. We have this idea that Satan is about child sacrifice and witchcraft and all these things but actually Satan is the temptation of the natural man - just as Satan used Eve's natural desires to cause her to disobey.

Originally Posted by aron

But he didn't refer to Christ at all. How can we say this RecV translation with footnotes is in any way definitive if it's so glaringly deficient?

Paul made the point that the law of itself gave nobody righteousness (Rom 3:20). But why not consider whether "I will obey Your word" in the Psalm (e.g. 119:17) might possibly reference the coming Righteous One? How many times in the gospel text does Jesus reference obedience to the Father's will? No, says Lee, that psalm is just Satan distracting and deceiving the fallen mankind. At best, at very best, I think that's a shallow and perfunctory reading of the text; to me, Lee evinced no interest whatever in finding nor unpacking "life". Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find"; I see no evidence of seeking with Lee. How did he then claim to be a teacher, much less holding God's supposedly singular oracle?

There are possibly many verses Lee did not address in his footnotes where life can be unpacked. Are you aware of any of Lee's writings or teachings that might explain why he ignored Christ in this Psalm?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are possibly many verses Lee did not address in his footnotes where life can be unpacked. Are you aware of any of Lee's writings or teachings that might explain why he ignored Christ in this Psalm?

There's a reason why Lee didn't address Christ in the vast majority of the psalms.

Originally Posted by 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.

Lee didn't want to lose control. So he panned the scripture, stridently and with alacrity.