The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Evidently the "God's economy"... metric allows one to... hold up scripture to the theory, and whatever scripture doesn't support it gets set aside as unprofitable.

And look what gets set aside. In Psalm 34, all the discourse on the ways of the righteous man is discarded as irrelevant. Who is righteous? asks Lee. Nobody. Then, suddenly, in verse 20, there is a righteous man! One whose bones are not broken. Can't be discarded because it's quoted in the N.T. So that is a revelation of Jesus.

Lee was in a conundrum, it seems. He thinks "the things which were written" are beneath his "high peak" standard. Yet they were held by the writers of the NT as indicative of the coming Christ. So he allows the bare minimum, that which is cited by NT authors (and even some of that is discarded, as in Peter & James' citation of "all flesh is like grass that withers and passes away").

So you get the obligatory citations, with all due reverence. And anything else is waved off. Do you suppose that ONLY those Psalms cited in the gospels and epistles, with the accompanying "as the scripture had said", were fulfilled by Jesus? Do you see any composer of the NT, or their near contemporaries, limiting scripture thus? No. Then along comes Lee with his supposedly divine measuring stick and slams the door shut. If his metric says something is "low" or "fallen", so it is, says Lee. But I am increasingly convinced that his metric is what is low, natural, and fallen.

When John wrote "To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” (John 2:16,17), do you think that only that verse reveals Jesus? Had John been doing an exhaustive, systematic survey of the OT and had told us expressly "do not go beyond this" I would have to at least consider it from the Lord. But John did not, nor did any other (that I am aware of), and I would even argue that John's brief citation here, early in the account of Jesus' life and work, would suggest a rather open-ended approach to dealing with the OT and Jesus.

And Lee did, actually: finding "types and figures" right and left. But when it came to the Psalms, the skies turned to brass. The heavens closed. No revelations beyond what was necessitated by the NT. And even some of that didn't make it past Lee's measure.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

And Lee did, actually: finding "types and figures" right and left. But when it came to the Psalms, the skies turned to brass. The heavens closed. No revelations beyond what was necessitated by the NT. And even some of that didn't make it past Lee's measure.

Of course, in retrospect I over-spoke, and over-generalized... I have that habit because it makes (to me) good copy.

In truth, I met some old LSM freinds about 8 months ago who were reviewing the Psalms, and they spoke glowingly about Psalm 45 where the Sons of Korah wrote a "wedding song" which they (the LSM "trainees") claimed was rich in typology. I had never noticed Psalm 45 before, nor was I aware of any NT citation of this, so this was new to me, and it was delivered to me via the LSM folk. So I cannot say that they only acknowledge what they are forced to by the NT corpus. But still, for the most part that is my impression.

Secondly, the "tone of my posts" is probably too sarcastic, and I apologize. Sarcasm is such an easy road, and I doubt Christ takes it as often as I do (I always think as I write, But Paul did it!! Paul effectively employed sarcasm!! It's in the Bible!!).

Third, the danger of an "open-ended" typological situation vis-a-vis the poetic books is that anyone is free to say "this means that". So if I see Jesus speaking in Psalm 3: "I lay me down and slept/I awaked for the LORD sustains me" equalling "I have the power to lay My life down, and the power to raise it up again", or if I see Christ revealed in Psalm 27, or in Psalm 34 beyond merely the NT citation (verse 20 is referenced), or in Psalm 69 beyond the referenced verse 9, then that is, of course, merely my personal interpretation.

I cannot claim that my interpretations ("this equals that") have any more weight than Lee's "God's New Testament Economy" template. I am no more "right" or "wrong" than Lee when it comes to examining such OT passages. But my sense is that the gospel writers continually based the validity/importance of their accounts on the fulfillment of what we now call the OT, and what they called the scriptures. Look at how many times they say "...as the scripture said" or "that the scripture might be fulfilled". And this is important: nowhere do I see them saying "Don't allegorize further than we have here." The writer of Hebrews actually says there are types that he/she doesn't have the where-withal to get into.

So why should Lee's audience let him so pre-emptively and presumptuously dismiss the vast body of the Psalms? To me, it really is a case of the emperor wearing no clothes. Can't any of them see this? Or are they just too embarrassed to have an opinion?

As usual, I have gone on far too long and have so thoroughly beaten my "dead horse" that most of my readers are groaning, or have given up. To those of you who've stuck with me: thanks, and peace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

So why should Lee's audience let him so pre-emptively and presumptuously dismiss the vast body of the Psalms?

Because it occurred gradually over a long period of time.

Also, there is an interesting phenomenon I would like to mention. As a Catholic I tried to read the scriptures, yet never could "connect." It was like reading ancient history in a foreign language. Then a friend, newly saved, talked about the Lord and gave me a paraphrased version of the N.T.. I was gloriously saved in my bedroom. Immediately I was joined to my friend in Spirit.

Likewise, many of us entered the Recovery with little personal contact with the Lord. We may have been already believers, as I was, but for the first time we were really filled with the Lord in the Spirit. What a connection we immediately had with the saints and the ministers there. It was a bond not easily severed.

This is why I have spoken up in protest about how LC leaders have violated the normal trust which naturally takes place between young believers and LC leaders. I personally believe that this bond is God-given and part of our spiritual birth and heritage. It is akin to the bond that exists between a mother and her new-born. Initially all the responsibility lies with the parent, or the Christian leader.

It is not the newborn's responsibility to discern the quality of the mother's milk, nor is it the newborn believer's responsibility to discern the quality of the leader's care. This is why the Lord places a higher responsibility on leaders, accompanied by serious rewards and disciplines for stumbling the little ones. Eventually the children do have to grow up and make their own decisions, but until then they are generally relieved of responsibility for serious decisions in their lives.

Lee's interpretation of Psalms was like this. Slowly over time he twisted their importance to the congregation to the point that many of the Psalms were discarded as unnecessary for the divine record. The same was true of James. Think about how the importance of Lee's writings rises if the value of certain scripture actually diminishes. Who is this minister who can even tell us which part of scripture is God-breathed and which is not!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

... there is an interesting phenomenon I would like to mention. As a Catholic I tried to read the scriptures, yet never could "connect." It was like reading ancient history in a foreign language. Then a friend, newly saved, talked about the Lord and gave me a paraphrased version of the N.T.. I was gloriously saved in my bedroom. Immediately I was joined to my friend in Spirit.

Likewise, many of us entered the Recovery with little personal contact with the Lord. We may have been already believers, as I was, but for the first time we were really filled with the Lord in the Spirit. What a connection we immediately had with the saints and the ministers there. It was a bond not easily severed.

I relate to this. For years I couldn't read the Psalms because they were dry as dust. Absolutely nothing there for me. So if I was in an environment which didn't open them up, why should I pay any attention to them? If the LC saints were going on about "masticating God" or "Thy words were found and I did eat them", then I guess that's what I would focus on. Not on something like, "...these things were written concerning Me."

One day, something like scales fell off from my eyes, and quite literally I felt that I could "hear" the voice of God's Son in the Psalms. God was talking to me! The voice of His Son was there! It's like what Hebrews said: "God ... has now spoken to us in His Son". I could hear the Son, in the midst of the assembly, singing hymns of praise to the Father. It wasn't "us" singing, it was "God's Son in us" singing. And He was singing the Psalms! Aside from being "born again", it was the most amazing thing that happened to me in my spiritual journey. Instead of hearing an interpreter or some expositor telling me what to think, I could "feel the heart of God" touching the writer, and coming to me through the text as we sang it. Now if that ain't "God's economy", what is?

Anyway, the local churches were part of my journey, so I shouldn't be too hard on them. I guess I should just say that I strongly disagree with their perfunctory handling of the Psalms and leave it at that. God is good.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

As usual, I have gone on far too long and have so thoroughly beaten my "dead horse" that most of my readers are groaning, or have given up.

Oh, and one more point (Ha-ha).

Perfunctory: routine, mechanical, superficial, lacking enthusiasm (Mirriam-Webster).

My sense that the LSM/Lee Psalms exposition was perfunctory (not careful, or thoughtful, but hurried through) was based on a number of things. I will list 3 examples. I believe I could list dozens.

1. In Psalm 1, in which we see the distinctions between the righteous and the wicked, Lee says "There is no righteous person", so the whole psalm is "natural" and therefore dismissed. In Psalm 1, verse 5, the "assembly of the righteous" is simply ignored without comment. But in Psalm 22, we see the victorious One praising the Jehovah in the midst of the assembly! What is the difference between the assemblies in Psalm 1 and Psalm 22? Well, the assembly in Psalm 1 is not referenced in the NT and the assembly in Psalm 22 is referenced. So in Psalm one there is nothing, and in Psalm 22 Lee sees "the church". This seems a little schizophrenic (contradictory or antagonistic attitudes -- MirriamWebster). To Lee, the "assembly" seems to either exist or not depending on whether he is forced to acknowledge it.

2. Similarly, here is a quote (in red) from the Life-Study of Psalm 34:

Concerning the righteous man, David said, ‘‘He keeps all his bones; / Not one of them is broken’’ (v. 20). This is a verse concerning Christ because David was a type of the suffering Christ. When Christ was on the cross, the soldiers did not break His legs when they saw that He had already died (John 19:33). John said, ‘‘These things happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘No bone of His shall be broken’ ’’ (v. 36).

Before this Lee says there is no righteous person. Verses 1 through 19 are called "natural". Suddenly in verse 20 Lee is confronted with a referenced verse. He can't ignore it. So he says that we have 19 verses with no righteous person, then suddenly, with no context, one verse with the righteous suffering Christ, then back to "no Christ" again. That is what I mean by szichophrenic. It is a contradictory exposition. You have no reality, then reality, then no reality again.

There were times in describing his sufferings that David typified Christ. When we look at Psalm 34, we can see the mixed expressions of David’s sentiment. Verse 20 refers to Christ, but most of this psalm is not according to the tree of life. Our concept needs to be changed to the divine concept according to the tree of life. As we grow in Christ, our concept will be changed.

I find this to be a wholly unsatisfactory exposition of the Psalms. This is quite perfunctory. If verse 20 had not been cited in John chapter 19, Lee probably would have ignored the whole of Psalm 34 altogether.

3. In Psalm 23, the famous "The LORD is my shepherd" psalm, we find an interesting approach. To me, there we have 3 possible readings.

First, Jehovah shepherds (guides, leads, cares for) the righteous man, personified in this case by David, the now-grown shepherd boy.
Second, Jehovah shepherds the Son of David, the human, righteous Messiah, who we Christians believe was Jesus the Nazarene. In His human life, led always by His Father in heaven, Jesus fulfilled and fully completed David's type in the Psalms.
Third, Jesus is Jehovah (John 8:24) shepherding the christian flock (John 10:11).

Lee presented us with the third interpretation. Surely that is not incorrect. But Lee ignored the second reading (please note that these interpretations are not mutually exclusive -- seeing one doesn't preclude another). Somehow in Psalm 23 Lee simply could not see Jesus the righteous Son of David, the fully obedient Son of God. He could only see Jesus/Jehovah shepherding Lee. My point is that you don't get to experience the third without the second. The incarnation is fully expressed in Psalm 23.

In spite of Lee's talk of "the humanity of Jesus" I cannot find the humanity of Jesus in his review of Psalm 23. Is that because the previous chapter, Psalm 22, vividly depicted the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of the Christ? If this logic holds, then why are there (many) more psalms after Psalm 22 which depict the psalmists' human pain and suffering?

I think that we have been given a very superficial and perfunctory reading of the Psalms. The Christian assembly deserves a deeper and more thorough look. It is as if someone has been giving us milk mixed with water while saying, "Isn't this steak delicious?" Um, sorry; no. What you are giving us here is not steak. It is barely milk.

[Ohio]

Witness Lee took the extremely narrow view of "finding Christ" in the O.T. based on the old Brethren way of types and figures. If he could not "find Christ," then he often considered these verses of lesser value. It seemed to most of us, that "finding Christ" was to study the Bible on a higher plane, and it's hard to rebut this manner of study, that is, until the results are examined in the light of day. Your study of Psalms, aron, exposes some of these shortcomings. If WL had only said that his intention was to take a new look at scripture, then I would say that is fine. But he did not do just that. He reproached all the other studies, and elevated his own above that of scripture, at least in the ears of his adherents.

Paul said these things are written for our admonition. (I Cor 10.11) Thus there are many stories in the Bible in which we do not particularly "find Christ," but are excellent examples of just the kinds of things that we confront in our christian walk. Recently I mentioned the story of old Eli the high priest in I Samuel. Apparently there was no "Christ" to be found there, but if WL would have heeded the lessons in the story about his own children, then perhaps our LC history would have been different, just as Israel's might have been.

This highlights the inherent dangers with receiving from only one teacher as the LC's are want to do. You may get some very good teachings, but what you don't get might be far more necessary to meet your current situation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee took the extremely narrow view of "finding Christ" in the O.T. based on the old Brethren way of types and figures. If he could not "find Christ," then he often considered these verses of lesser value. ... If WL had only said that his intention was to take a new look at scripture, then I would say that is fine. But he did not do just that. He reproached all the other studies, and elevated his own above that of scripture, at least in the ears of his adherents.

I agree, especially with the bolded part. Lee's study the Psalms is adequate of itself, as an introductory Christian look at the Psalms, and as a very small part the larger Christian conversation. He did better than some, my treatments here -- his approach was systematic, while mine has been just to touch on a few representative samples. But as a "definitive" account of Christ in the Psalms, I find his "life study" to be very superficial and incomplete. It treats maybe 10 to 20% of the text, and I think that is mostly because the New Testament writers got there before he did. And when he downplays the whole body of the psalm text as irrelevant and suddenly sees a revelation of Christ in the one verse cited in the NT, it really looks schizophrenic, unless you've been steeped in the LSM "Lee speaks alone" culture.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This highlights the inherent dangers with receiving from only one teacher as the LC's are wont to do. You may get some very good teachings, but what you don't get might be far more necessary to meet your current situation.

This goes back to your statements on young christians being dependent on those before them. A new believer might find this Psalms exposition very helpful as an cursory first look. But for a mature believer to be stuck with this, years or even decades into his or her Christian journey.... I remember one "blended" declaring proudly that he would eat "Witness Lee leftovers" the rest of his life. How can any Christian deliberately limit themselves thus? What happened to the "all-inclusive Christ"?

[aron]

What I find interesting is that within 4 generations the Israelite story was transformed. With David's parents' generation, they came under a King (Saul) but the "kingdom" itself was a conception and a hope more than a reality. The Philistines were a real threat. Goliath was a big dude, and he had brothers and cousins. The Israelites and Philistines had been battling for years (see Samson, etc).

With the emergence and ascension of David, victory over all foes was the theme. Then Solomon was the apogee of glory, in appearance. By the time of Solomon's sons, the kingdom was divided.

Why so short? David couldn't handle peace very well. He had "roving eyes", as they say. Solomon couldn't handle prosperity. His many wives turned his heart to foriegn idols. The tree of knowledge, indeed.

What this has to do with the Psalms, for me, is that there really is no truly "righteous man" evidenced there. No one is pure. Solomon said, "teach a youth the way to go and he will follow that path his whole life" (Proverbs 22:6). But Solomon didn't teach his own children, and the kingdom fell apart.

But, if you see these as "the words of Christ", as Paul calls them, and not the words of David or Lemuel or Asaph or Solomon, then suddenly you are not in the earthly plane but the heavenly. You get not the faltering, shadowy aspiration but the full reality. And if you engage the text by singing, shouting, declaring, praying, stamping your feet, lifting your hands, and by "meditating day and night" (Psa 1:2) and making it your own, then it will indeed be "Christ making His home in your heart", and "the word of Christ dwelling in you richly". It will indeed be "Christ in you, the hope of glory."

All of which may sound like Lee's "God's New Testament Economy". But we differ in that Lee said most of the text 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.

Secondly, and of nearly equal importance, is the fact of the stunning fall of the "house of David". It was clearly shown that the Davidic/Solomon line had its glaring flaws, and these contributed to a great schism in the Israelite flock. Similarly, in the NT, with the end of merely the first generation of disciples, you find the aged apostle John writing to the assemblies in Asia and telling them to "repent", just as John the Baptist and Jesus had initiated their ministries a half-century earlier. So to me, trying to replicate the first-century church (i.e. "the normal christian church") is a waste of time. It was as flawed as Solomon's house. Sure, there was glory there, but the flaws were there too, and the cracks were already beginning to appear.

No, the only hope is in Christ. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. Peace to all who put their hope in Him.

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee took the extremely narrow view of "finding Christ" in the O.T. based on the old Brethren way of types and figures. If he could not "find Christ," then he often considered these verses of lesser value. It seemed to most of us, that "finding Christ" was to study the Bible on a higher plane, and it's hard to rebut this manner of study, that is, until the results are examined in the light of day. Your study of Psalms, aron, exposes some of these shortcomings. If WL had only said that his intention was to take a new look at scripture, then I would say that is fine. But he did not do just that. He reproached all the other studies, and elevated his own above that of scripture, at least in the ears of his adherents.

Paul said these things are written for our admonition. (I Cor 10.11) Thus there are many stories in the Bible in which we do not particularly "find Christ," but are excellent examples of just the kinds of things that we confront in our christian walk. Recently I mentioned the story of old Eli the high priest in I Samuel. Apparently there was no "Christ" to be found there, but if WL would have heeded the lessons in the story about his own children, then perhaps our LC history would have been different, just as Israel's might have been.

This highlights the inherent dangers with receiving from only one teacher as the LC's are want to do. You may get some very good teachings, but what you don't get might be far more necessary to meet your current situation.

............................

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

In Psalm 23, the famous "The LORD is my shepherd" psalm... we have 3 possible [NT, or Christian] readings.

1. Jehovah shepherds (guides, leads, cares for) the righteous man, personified in this case by David, the now-grown shepherd boy.

2. Jehovah shepherds the Son of David, the human, righteous Messiah, who we Christians believe was Jesus the Nazarene. In His human life, led always by His Father in heaven, Jesus fulfilled and fully completed David's type in the Psalms.

3. Jesus is Jehovah (John 8:24) shepherding the christian flock (John 10:11).

Lee presented us with the third interpretation. Surely that is not incorrect. But Lee ignored the second reading (please note that these interpretations are not mutually exclusive -- seeing one doesn't preclude another). Somehow in Psalm 23 Lee simply could not see Jesus the righteous Son of David, the fully obedient Son of God. He could only see Jesus/Jehovah shepherding Lee. My point is that you don't get to experience the third without the second. The incarnation is fully expressed in Psalm 23.

In spite of Lee's talk of "the humanity of Jesus" I cannot find the humanity of Jesus in his review of Psalm 23.

To some extent, reading number 1 is true. If David had not sought out God with all his heart, then he would not have been successful to the extent he did, in subduing his foes and uniting Israel. But David of course was not perfect. So his ability to live in the reality of his declaration was only partial.

For option number 2, we perhaps see Jesus as the Lamb of God. Fully obedient, fully submissive. Heb 10:7,9 quote Psalm 40 and say "I (Jesus) have come to do Your (the Father's) will". The Father's will are the rod and staff of Jesus. They guide and comfort Him; doing the will of the Father is Jesus' food, His "green pasture" (Psa 23:2; cf John 4:34).

John 14:24 "Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me." Jesus says that His words were actually not His but came from His Father in heaven. And as much as Jesus was obedient to and shepherded by the Holy Father in heaven, in both His words and good works, so His example of obedience becomes our guide home. As we see the obedient Son, we repent of being self-willed, obstinate "goats", and we follow the Lamb. We allow His words to abide in us, we keep them and the Paraclete comes to guide and teach. The chief Sheep thus becomes the chief Shepherd. Peter's epistle touched on this in saying that the elders should not shepherd by compulsion but by being examples. Peter knew that this is what Jesus had done, and publicly acknowledged that the flock leaders should discipline themselves to Jesus' path, and also become obedient examples to the newer and weaker ones.

Certainly option 3 is also true from the Christian perspective. I argue that it's best fulfilled by appreciating and applying option 2. But my question is: why would we deliberately miss the incarnation? In Psalm 23, the obedient Jesus "in the days of his flesh" (Heb 5:7) is simply passed by in WL's teaching.

Of course I also have "fallen concepts" which I read onto the Bible's text. I miss stuff, and a lot of what I think I "get" I don't fully live; thus I'm a "hearer" and not a "doer" and my ideas are vain. So if I try to judge the blindness of WL I merely prove my own.

But still, I'll make this point: our speaking to one another should lead us to "see Jesus", ESPECIALLY the one made "a little lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9), in the sacred text. The NT and OT constantly reference each other, and together they constitute a seamless narrative of divine reality manifest in the Word of God, made flesh. This is the way home, the way to "glory and honor" - see the obedient Son and follow Him. Any Bible teacher who glosses over this has little value for us. And WL, inexplicably panning David's declarations of fealty as vanity, and regarding his words as merely those of the soulish, fallen Adamic race, and ignoring in them the clear image of the coming Son of David, totally missed the boat here. Again and again the expositors in the NT held up the OT text and said that it pointed to the incarnate Christ, Jesus the Nazarene. If you look at his expositions of the Psalms, WL agreed with this only to the extent he was forced to by the explicit NT examples; otherwise he rejected it.

What can I say? How could I, or any seeking Christian in good conscience, follow this kind of teaching?