The Psalms are the word of Christ

[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.