The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

I have a personal interest in prophecy, specifically end time. Brother Lee did not cover the books of the Prophets to the extent I would have preferred. I really value his perspective so I wanted more from him on that. Yet, it was not his main burden so I dived into them myself and over the last 10 years researched them extensively reading from many sources. What I now understand is not in the footnotes or the Life-studies though much of it is. Do I now find fault with the minister because he did not include everything I now understand about the prophecies in the RcV footnotes in the books of the Prophets?

That would be a ridiculous expectation.

If I feel strongly about it I could create and publish my own footnotes or write a book. So could you.

Brother Lee spoke thousands of messages on nearly every biblical topic and on some he went deep because it was according to his leading and burden before the Lord. He spoke hundreds about the Psalms alone. Other topics he only scratched the surface and so he asked the saints to research them (such as the significance of the minerals in the New Jerusalem).

The principle here is that every revelation given, all knowledge imparted, each experience we go through is for the building of the Body of Christ. So treat it as such and the Lord will multiply it as grace upon grace and there will we find our reward. If we do not invest wisely what He has imparted to us He may take it away when He returns and we would lose our reward.

May the Lord show you more and more and reward you at His coming.

Drake

Drake,

I addressed this issue in a previous post.

Originally Posted by aron

Unfortunately my presentational skills aren't up to the job, but I wanted to put out an idea: Look at the Psalms as a kind of spiritualization of the historical narrative, which spiritualization was picked up and amplified by the NT writers. A classic example is of Melchizedek. A historical character, briefly inserted into the narrative of events. Then the psalmist gives it a kind of mystical spin: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." The NT writer says, "Hey! This is Christ!" and then amplifies it.

We don't know how much of David's original work remains, and how much of it was redacted by later generations. But the psalms as spiritual commentaries were clearly accepted and used by the NT writers, and by Jesus Himself. For example, "You are gods" from Psalm 82, quoted by Jesus to the Jewish antagonists. They were gods, to whom the word of God came (John 10:35), but they died like men, because they disobeyed and corrupted the commands (82:7). They fell like every other corrupt ruler. Jesus' use of scripture turned the charge back against the Jews: they'd claimed Jesus blasphemed, but He said that His works showed that He was one with the Father (John 10:25,37,38). So who were they? Corrupt, and due to fall. "You are gods" was merely a prelude to "you will die like men".

Another example that comes to mind is "Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me." from Psalm 42:7. Compare this to Jonah 2:3 "You hurled me into the depths, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me." Somebody appears to be copying, here. How could David the landlubber psalmist seize upon a sea-faring narrative? Because the enemy coming against him like a "flood", like "waters", is a common poetic metaphor. And this is picked up on in the NT: "Just like Jonah was in the heart of the sea, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth". To go down into the depths of the sea is a metaphor, a spiritual picture, of the descent into Hades.

Or the commonly cited "rock of my salvation" in the Psalms, "which rock was Christ" according to Paul. One could pick out many examples; I know Augustine of Hippo did in his commentaries. Let's leave it at this: there's nothing in the NT reception of the Psalms that indicates that some of them were "fallen", or "natural", or "concepts". No, rather the NT usage indicates that they were perceived as revelatory. There was an invitation here, to be filled in Spirit with the words of Christ. And needless to say, WL spurned this invitation.

I've written several hundred posts on this thread and have only touched maybe 40 of the 150 psalms. And of many other books in the Bible I'm ignorant & thus don't presume to have the complete or last word, and don't expect Lee to have it either. What I do protest, here, is seen in the bolded part at bottom: that Lee's saying the scriptural word is "low, fallen, natural" and thus not revelatory of God's Christ. There's no NT precedent for this reception of scripture. We're not talking about one or two verses here; we're talking about the majority of 150 chapters. Yet these chapters are the most quoted section in the NT. But Lee wasn't interested. He had his "God's economy" and "processed God" to attend.

[Drake]

Aron) "let's leave it at this: there's nothing in the NT reception of the Psalms that indicates that some of them were "fallen", or "natural", or "concepts". No, rather the NT usage indicates that they were perceived as revelatory. There was an invitation here, to be filled in Spirit with the words of Christ. And needless to say, WL spurned this invitation."

On what scriptural basis do you assert that there is nothing natural in any Psalm? You would need to include, at minimum, the same for the books of the law and the prophets. And we know that there is much low natural fallen concepts expressed there.

Low, natural, and fallen, concepts are revealed too, not just Christ. Revelation is not just about Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron) "let's leave it at this: there's nothing in the NT reception of the Psalms that indicates that some of them were "fallen", or "natural", or "concepts". No, rather the NT usage indicates that they were perceived as revelatory. There was an invitation here, to be filled in Spirit with the words of Christ. And needless to say, WL spurned this invitation."

On what scriptural basis do you assert that there is nothing natural in any Psalm? You would need to include, at minimum, the same for the books of the law and the prophets. And we know that there is much low natural fallen concepts expressed there.

Low, natural, and fallen, concepts are revealed too, not just Christ. Revelation is not just about Christ.

Does that just apply to the psalms or does this apply to every book in the Bible?

If every single book of the Bible reveals low, natural, fallen concepts then why does WL emphasize this with Psalms?

We need to see that, on the one hand, the book of Psalms was written according to the human concept, and on the other hand, it was written according to the divine concept. If we do not see this, our understanding will be natural, and the Psalms will be understood by us according to the human concept. (Witness Lee, Life Study of Psalms)

The issue is not that fallen natural concepts are revealed in the Psalms, but that according to Witness Lee some of the Psalms are about this.

Psalm 1, however, is according to the natural, human concept. David thought that the one who meditated in the law day and night would prosper in everything. (Witness Lee, Life Study of Psalms)

According to Witness Lee the writer of the Psalm (David) was natural and mistaken.

David's logic in Psalm 37 is very natural. (Witness Lee, Life Study of Psalms)

According to Witness Lee the writer of many of the Psalms (King David) was writing based on natural concepts and using natural logic.

[Drake]

Znp, sometimes the same writer expressed human concept and sometimes divine.

Happens all the time even here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Znp, sometimes the same writer expressed human concept and sometimes divine.
Happens all the time even here.

I often overgeneralize but that's how I make sense of things. Cautious readers may prune my enthusiasms.

Here's what I see:

1. When the NT apostle held forth on the word, and had an opportunity to pan the psalmist for being low and natural, he didn't. Instead he said that the psalmist was not speaking for himself, but was speaking for the Christ.

Thus, "You will not let my flesh see corruption" was not a human concept of a sinner but was instead an indication of Jesus Christ's glories to come. I take this as the default interpretive pattern, until the NT scripture or Christian tradition (i.e. the Fathers) offers me a compelling reason to look differently.

2. I don't see the NT apostle saying, "Only these specified portions which we quote here are revelatory. Avoid other sections, which are not." Instead, the brief, scattered, but frequent (40+, I believe) references perhaps suggest that they haven't exhausted the Christ to be seen in God's word, and invite the readers or hearers to "examine the scriptures daily and see if these things are so". Cf Acts 17:11.

3. So if the psalmist says something like, "You rescued me because you delighted in me", that may perhaps speak to the Son being rescued by the Father, i.e. "He (the Son) trusted in Him (the Father); let Him save Him now."

OR, it may in fact be vain concepts of the sinner. But why did Lee pick option #2? Why didn't Lee say, "This could be speaking of the coming Messiah, but I don't think so because of reasons A), B), and C)."?

No, he just dismissed scripture with a wave of the hand: "Natural". So my response was, Who's being natural here, and burdened with fallen human concepts - the Bible expositor, or the Bible writer? Until I see compelling reasons to pick the expositor, I'm pre-disposed with the word of God, as presenting me with something potentially indicative of Christ. But Lee essentially dismissed the word of God, out of hand.

I keep coming back to NT precedent because I'm not aware of the NT apostles holding forth on the word this way: "Vain, fallen, natural". So what gave Witness Lee such license?

And I also showed why I suspect that this took place: others were getting there, before him, and "enjoying Christ" and threatening his position as sole mediator of God's revelation. So he shut it down.

Originally Posted by Drake

On what scriptural basis do you assert that there is nothing natural in any Psalm?

I never said there's nothing natural. I said, Let's not assume it's natural without consideration. I don't see Lee considering. He just cast a hasty judgment: "David was a sinner, so it was natural concepts expressed." That's about the extent of his analytical depth. Rubbish.

Peter never said anything like that. Paul never said anything like that. Nor John, nor Peter nor Hebrews that I remember. So where did Lee get his license? How does he treat the scriptural text thusly, en masse, and claim to be closely following the apostles?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I never said there's nothing natural. I said, Let's not assume it's natural without consideration. I don't see Lee considering. He just cast a hasty judgment: "David was a sinner, so it was natural concepts expressed." That's about the extent of his analytical depth. Rubbish.

How would you know what consideration Brother Lee had before he spoke those messages on Psalms? He had a very long ministry and would have had decades of oonsideration by the time he spoke the messages on Psalms. You are basing your objection on something you have no way of knowing.

So you agree, like Brother Lee, that the book of Psalms contains both natural and divine concepts. His considerations are not apparent to you so you assume it's hasty judgment on his part. Your argument is flawed because you cannot possibly how much consideration went into his teaching on this. For all you know he thought about this since 1925 until 1993 when he spoke these messages. That would be 60+ years... well just to be safe let's assume a half century of opportunity to consider and develop his point of view.

By that measure, who is being hasty?

[aron]

I'll try to recap my argument first, then address Drake.

Jesus said, "David was speaking by the Spirit" (Matt 22:43). Where does Jesus indicate the opposite, that David was not speaking by the Spirit? Just speaking according to his concepts?

Peter said, "David was a prophet and knew of the promise of God, and predicted the coming Seed who'd fulfill the word" (Acts 2:30,31). Where does Peter indicate David was merely speaking vain human considerations?

I believe our default interpretive mode should follow the pattern set by the NT. Of course this doesn't mean that every word of Psalms, (or Isaiah, or Job) indicates some detail of Jesus Christ, but we should be attuned for the Holy Spirit to reveal Him to us.

"The Holy Spirit will glorify Me by disclosing Me to you" (John 16:13,14)

"I pray that the Lord would give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation". (Eph 1:17).

When we study the word and the Holy Spirit reveals "this Jesus" (Acts 2:32); we "see Jesus" (Heb 2:12), then we can go deeper into the Father's will. The Son goes before, and beckons to follow. These poetic texts reveal Jesus. The Spirit reveals Jesus, and Jesus reveals the Father.

Now, the problem with poetic texts is that one person may see one thing and another sees another. So when the psalm says three times, "Get behind me, you workers of evil" (Psa 6:8; 119:115; 139:19), and we remember that Jesus said the same thing three times in the gospel (Matt 4:10; 7:23; 16:23), are we seeing Jesus? Yes and no. Yes if the psalm helps us see Jesus the gospel portrays; but no in that we can't prove that this verse in Matthew fulfils the prophetic utterance of the psalmist.

Or, reading in Psalm 3: "I laid me down and slept/I awaked, for the LORD sustained me"; is that presaging "I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to take it up again"? Perhaps. It certainly can cause us to see in greater depth the power that raised Jesus from the grave. In Psalm 3 David was on the run, hiding in a cave - his son Absalom had rebelled, and violent men, under Absalom's captains' orders, were seeking his life. Men who had once been David's own guards. But David trusted, and slept, willing to face death, knowing that God could bring him back out of darkness. Is this not indicative of the Son of David? Is this not a faith that inspires, empowers?

Perhaps; that's of course something of a subjective, personal, 'spiritual' encounter with the text. But did Lee ever consider this? Or was David in Psalm 3 summarily dismissed as a vain sinner? A man of "complex sentiments", occasionally having a "squirrel!" moment but usually only capable of looking at himself. Where was Jesus' man who was in spirit, Peter's future-seeing prophet? Nowhere to be found. Not even considered, from what I could see.

So we're given a crazy, disjointed text. . . look at Psalm 34:20 - "Not one of His bones will be broken", quoted by John 19:36. The rest of the psalm, according to Lee, is just fallen human concepts. Sin has thoroughly addled David from seeing or recognizing God's Christ, yet in the middle of his selfish rant David has a "eureka" vison of a detail of the coming Messiah, then promptly goes back to his vain musings.

What kind of interpretation is that? It's like spiritual whiplash: vain, revelatory, vain. I think a third-grader might be impressed by such scattershot characterizations. I'm not.

Originally Posted by Drake

How would you know what consideration Brother Lee had before he spoke those messages on Psalms? He had a very long ministry and would have had decades of consideration by the time he spoke the messages on Psalms. You are basing your objection on something you have no way of knowing.

Lee had decades of considerations, but all he told us was that David was a sinner and therefore was disqualified in pleasing God or fulfilling His will. No mention of the possibility if David was speaking prophetically, or was in spirit. Just, He was a sinner. Not qualified.

But Peter had already addressed that issue, in Acts 2, and gone deeper, into the spirit. Lee wouldn't. Why? He wouldn't say. "David was a sinner". So what are we to assume? That Lee had years of consideration, somehow got something deep and insightful, causing him to reject this word, and moved on to revelatory texts? He didn't want to waste our time by giving us the benefit of his considerations? What are we to think?

So I tell you what I think: he had meetings to give, books to publish, and a church empire to build and run. Move along folks, move along; nothing to see here. No consideration, no musing upon the word both day and night, no insight, no life. No revelation of Jesus Christ.

Maybe Lee had too many years of consideration. His mind was made up, and wouldn't see Jesus if He reached up out of the page and waved His hand in his face.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Znp, sometimes the same writer expressed human concept and sometimes divine.
Happens all the time even here.

My question is does this happen in every book of the Bible? Are you saying that every writer of every book of the Bible is expressing human concepts sometimes and sometimes divine concepts?

If your answer is yes then how can you claim that the Bible is the word of God?

If your answer is no, then it goes back to your original response concerning David, WL's teaching is not typical of all writers but was specific to Psalms.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Maybe Lee had too many years of consideration. His mind was made up, and wouldn't see Jesus if He reached up out of the page and waved His hand in his face.

aron, that is what meant before when I said that you do not address what Brother Lee actually taught. You are making stuff up and you do everyone a disservice no matter which side you are on. Learn the facts then have at it.

Here is one example from one book alone that refutes your assertions that he did not see Jesus in the Psalms. The reader can decide for themselves from this concluding summary from the book Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms.

CONCERNING CHRIST

Let us consider now all the main aspects of Christ in the Psalms:

1. His divinity—Psa. 45:6; Heb. 1:8
2. His incarnation—Psa. 8:4; Heb. 2:6
3. His humanity—Psa. 8:4; Heb. 2:6
4. His human living—Psa. 16:1-8
5. His death—Psa. 22:1-21
6. His resurrection—Psa. 2:7; 16:10; 22:22; Heb. 2:12; Acts 2:25-32; 13:35-37
7. His ascension—Psa. 68:18; Eph. 4:8
8. His exaltation—Psa. 80:17; 110:1
9. His crowning—Psa. 8:5; Heb. 2:9
10. His enthronement—Psa. 2:6
11. His dominion, kingship, and authority—Psa. 2:8; 8:6; 47; 72; 89; 110
12. His priesthood—Psa. 110:4
13. His fighting—Psa. 110:5-6; 45:3-5
14. His victory—Psa. 110:5-6
15. His indwelling—Psa. 22:22
16. His shepherding—Psa. 23
17. The stone for the building—Psa. 118:22
18. His coming—Psa. 72; 96; 110
19. His reigning—Psa. 93—101

The main psalms concerning Christ: Psa. 2, 8, 16, 22, 23, 24, 45, 68, 80, 91, 110, 118
These are just the main aspects; there are many details which could be filled in. It is clear that through the Psalms we can know Christ much better than through the New Testament."


Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron, that is what meant before when I said that you do not address what Brother Lee actually taught. You are making stuff up and you do everyone a disservice no matter which side you are on. Learn the facts then have at it.
Here is one example from one book alone that refutes your assertions that he did not see Jesus in the Psalms. The reader can decide for themselves from this concluding summary from the book

Drake, I have been reading aron's post for years, including the ones on this thread, and he has NEVER said that Witness Lee "did not see Jesus in the Psalms." You have misread his posts completely. Also, numerous authors and commentaries can provide the same list which you posted above. Lee often used others' works and did not properly reference them in his books, giving you the i pression that his writing was original.

What aron has said, and has said it repeatedly, was that Lee dismissed many Psalms as "natural or fallen concepts." I too heard this many times from Lee. He also similarly dismissed the book of James.

Perhaps this forum can help you learn "the facts."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, I have been reading aron's post for years, including the ones on this thread, and he has NEVER said that Witness Lee "did not see Jesus in the Psalms." You have misread his posts completely.

Originally Posted by aron

His mind was made up, and wouldn't see Jesus if He reached up out of the page and waved His hand in his face.

- - - - - - - -

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

The main psalms concerning Christ: Psa. 2, 8, 16, 22, 23, 24, 45, 68, 80, 91, 110, 118

These are just the main aspects; there are many details which could be filled in. It is clear that through the Psalms we can know Christ much better than through the New Testament."


Drake

You've got to be kidding me. "There are many details which could be filled in..." by whom? If Lee didn't fill them in, who gets permission, under "One Trumpet" and "One Publication"? You? Me? I doubt it. This type of word was merely a sop for the conscience's of the faithful, or a fig leaf to cover for the newbies. Lee was a master at talking out of both sides of his mouth, and we learned to ignore one and pay attention to the other.

Suppose Ed Marks or Kerry Robichaux, two of the current leaders, suddenly get a revelation from heaven: the Blessed Man of Psalm 1 is none other than the Man Jesus Christ! They're sitting in the study room one day, reading Deuteronomy 17:14-20 together, which talks about the king whom Jehovah chooses, who shall read and keep the law all the days of his life, and whom (btw) Lee said doesn't exist, because the king was desired by the people and was thus offensive to God, and suddenly the room is filled with great light and an angel of God is standing there and says, "Oh ye of little faith! Can't you see the Messiah, plainly depicted here!? This King is none other than the King of Israel, who is the Son of God!"

And then the light fades and they're alone again, and they look at each other in astonishment. What can they do? They can't go against Lee! So they have a dilemma; they either go with God's word and the revelation of the Holy Spirit showing them the person and righteous human living (i.e. 'works') of the Lord Jesus Christ, or they go with the teachings and doctrines of LSM and RecV footnotes. What to do?

How come the Blessed Man from Psalm 1 isn't the Enthroned King from Psalm 2? If you or I, or anyone, tries to "fill in this detail", or any other that goes against Lee's "natural concept" teaching, what would happen? You and I both know what would happen.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My question is does this happen in every book of the Bible? Are you saying that every writer of every book of the Bible is expressing human concepts sometimes and sometimes divine concepts?
If your answer is yes then how can you claim that the Bible is the word of God?
If your answer is no, then it goes back to your original response concerning David, WL's teaching is not typical of all writers but was specific to Psalms.

ZNP,

The Bible is the Word of God and the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and all that is documented is for our benefit.

The Bible imparts insight to many things: God and all things related to Him including the church, then the law, many characteristics of man, culture, Satan, religions, politics, prophecy, the beginning and end of the earth and the universe, etc. In most of the books of the Bible some combination of these are revealed.

For instance, what is the significance of the Lord rebuking Peter calling him Satan? Peter loved the Lord and wanted to protect Him. He sliced off a servants ear. He said he would follow the Lord all the way and yet he denied him three times before the sun rose. Isn't that instructive to us? Isn't the Bible exposing something about our human nature, even our good human nature, even our natural love for God, matters that are contrary to God's will? Why are those things recorded in the Bible if not to edify, instruct us, and alert us what to avoid. The Bible is inspired even if what is revealed is natural or about human nature, good and bad.

So, I believe that you have to weigh what you are reading, understand what the Spirit is speaking, and seek the instruction and guidance into the reality of God. I also believe the Old Testament is more prone to human concepts because the revelation of the New Testament was unclear at the time of writing. It is no less inspired but we see instances of natural concepts and they are recorded there for a reason.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

It is very different to say that the Bible reveals, exposes or shines a light on the natural concept. That is not what Witness Lee taught. Witness Lee taught that the writer of the Bible (in this case David) wrote according to the natural concept, the natural logic, human concept and was "very natural" (in contrast with God's holy nature, i.e. Holy Bible).

Yes, I agree with pretty much everything you say here, except when applied to Witness Lee's teachings on Psalms, which of course is the context of our discussion.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, I believe that you have to weigh what you are reading, understand what the Spirit is speaking, and seek the instruction and guidance into the reality of God. I also believe the Old Testament is more prone to human concepts because the revelation of the New Testament was unclear at the time of writing. It is no less inspired but we see instances of natural concepts and they are recorded there for a reason.

Drake

I think it's reasonable to wonder when David asked God to crush his (David's) enemies whether David was expressing God's nature at that time and whether we should imitate David's vindictiveness. My own conclusion is to take David's requests as calls for justice and defense, rather than as expectations of payback for his sake.

But Lee took this kind of questioning beyond just whether we should indulge in David-like vindictiveness. Lee ran with this idea of "natural concepts" to the point where a natural concept was anything but his proprietary "God's economy" theology.

Like Lee, you easily throw out this term "natural concept" as if you know exactly what is and is not one. But that's the essence of the whole error that aron is trying to refute in this thread. What Lee and you think are "natural concepts" may or may not be. Further, there is no indication from the Bible that a natural concept, whatever may be one, is always a bad or even inferior one.

Lee was very self-serving in that he would smoothly use terms like "natural concept" to essentially say "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" or, worse, "Stop thinking and just agree with me."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

The Bible is the Word of God and the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and all that is documented is for our benefit.

The Bible imparts insight to many things: God and all things related to Him including the church, then the law, many characteristics of man, culture, Satan, religions, politics, prophecy, the beginning and end of the earth and the universe, etc. In most of the books of the Bible some combination of these are revealed.

For instance, what is the significance of the Lord rebuking Peter calling him Satan? Peter loved the Lord and wanted to protect Him. He sliced off a servants ear. He said he would follow the Lord all the way and yet he denied him three times before the sun rose. Isn't that instructive to us? Isn't the Bible exposing something about our human nature, even our good human nature, even our natural love for God, matters that are contrary to God's will? Why are those things recorded in the Bible if not to edify, instruct us, and alert us what to avoid. The Bible is inspired even if what is revealed is natural or about human nature, good and bad.

So, I believe that you have to weigh what you are reading, understand what the Spirit is speaking, and seek the instruction and guidance into the reality of God. I also believe the Old Testament is more prone to human concepts because the revelation of the New Testament was unclear at the time of writing. It is no less inspired but we see instances of natural concepts and they are recorded there for a reason.

Drake

ZNP,

My view is still the same as it was when I posted this note.

Drake