The Psalms are the word of Christ

[james73]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is another example of the water burial theme:

Psalm 42:7 Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me.

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.

It seems either Jonah saw himself living out the psalmist's vision, or vice versa. And the image of being buried in deep waters appears fairly often in the Psalms for some reason.

Hi Aron, it's all good stuff, here's a comment not on Psalm 18, but on the water theme....

I was just reading John Shelby Spong on the origin of the miracles on the NT... well it's a long story, but he points to Psalm 77 as being a likely source of the story of Jesus walking on water. Spong's theory, take it or leave it, is that the NT writers had absolutely no way to discuss the experience of Jesus in normal human language so they borrowed heavily from the only "God language" they knew, the scriptures, in particular the psalms. I guess in some ways that's different topic from what Aron is talking about, that the psalms point to Jesus in a prophetic way- I feel either way it's still pretty powerful to see Jesus in Psalm 77:19 like this: especially after all the "burial at sea" here is one who walks through the sea unscathed...

Psalm 77:19 Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not seen.

[aron]

Originally Posted by james73

...either way it's still pretty powerful to see Jesus in Psalm 77:19 like this: especially after all the "burial at sea" here is one who walks through the sea unscathed...

I don't remember looking at Psalm 77, but I will now. That is a pretty evocative verse. "Your path led through the sea" makes me think of Moses and the Israelites in the Red Sea. I had not thought about that as an inspirational source for the poet to draw on. But in hindsight it seems obvious.

Because the poetic language is often not specific as to time, place, and person, we can interpret with it as we wish. Contemporary Christian consensus as to its meaning might not easily emerge. That's why I like to look at the NT examples of scriptural interpretation: why I keep coming back to Peter using Psalm 16 in his Pentecost speech, for example. It gives us an interpretational template. And the writer of Hebrews likewise. How did these people approach the text? What did they draw out of it, and why?

When I look at Psalm 77:19, I feel that God is speaking to us. It is wonderful! Somehow, Christ is being revealed, and is revealing His Father and our Father. My mind cannot comprehend but my heart is burning. The scriptures are opening.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't remember looking at Psalm 77, but I will now. That is a pretty evocative verse. "Your path led through the sea" makes me think of Moses and the Israelites in the Red Sea. I had not thought about that as an inspirational source for the poet to draw on. But in hindsight it seems obvious.

Psalm 77:10 Then I thought, “To this I will appeal:
the years when the Most High stretched out his right hand.
11 I will remember the deeds of the Lord;
yes, I will remember your miracles of long ago.
12 I will consider all your works
and meditate on all your mighty deeds.”

13 Your ways, God, are holy.
What god is as great as our God?
14 You are the God who performs miracles;
you display your power among the peoples.
15 With your mighty arm you redeemed your people,
the descendants of Jacob and Joseph.

16 The waters saw you, God,
the waters saw you and writhed;
the very depths were convulsed.
17 The clouds poured down water,
the heavens resounded with thunder;
your arrows flashed back and forth.
18 Your thunder was heard in the whirlwind,
your lightning lit up the world;
the earth trembled and quaked.
19 Your path led through the sea,
your way through the mighty waters,
though your footprints were not seen.

20 You led your people like a flock
by the hand of Moses and Aaron.

It stands to reason that the afflicted poet would look back, as he did in verses 10-12, and remember the helps from God long ago. And this would prominently include the Exodus miracles, explicitly referenced in verses 15 and 20.

Just like Abraham was the proverbial father of promise, so Moses could be seen as the figure pointing to miraculous deliverance. Surely God's earlier work would be remembered and held up as a present appeal in distress.

Earlier I noted the theme of the righteous man suffering and being delivered by God in the Psalms. Of course this theme is not limited to psalmic literature, but is found often in the OT. But for us it's prominent because David's life was full of violent struggle, often against incredible circumstances, including betrayal by former comrades, and in his struggles "we see Jesus", who was seen as the coming royal seed of David, the promised deliverer. David's victories pointed to Christ's victory over death, which became the salvation for all who were under the curse of death. Therefore, these poetic songs, told in great detail, especially inner detail ("I love You, LORD" -- Psa 18:1), become referent points to our Father.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

the poetic language is often not specific ... Christian consensus as to its meaning might not easily emerge. That's why I like to look at the NT examples of scriptural interpretation: why I keep coming back to Peter using Psalm 16 in his Pentecost speech, for example. It gives us an interpretational template...

Let me put it another way. Peter had spent three incredible years with Jesus the Nazarene; then He was gone. Now they all tried to make sense of it, and to relay the meaning of their experiences to others who were presently incomprehensible.

Thus, the appeal to scripture. How many times in the Gospels do we see "as it was written" or "so that the scripture might be fulfilled"? This is why Peter, attempting to explain the outpoured Spirit to the incredulous throng, referenced Psalms 16 and 110. God had poured out His Holy Spirit, and this Spirit allowed men like Peter to look into scripture and see Jesus. The Spirit allowed men to see Jesus as fulfillment of scriptural type, and the same scripture allowed them to show others “the promised Holy Spirit... which you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33).

It seems to me that WL’s method was different. He was coming from a post-Protestant, post-Bretheren historical viewpoint, and what Peter had thought of his experiences with Christ was not as valuable to WL as God's current speaking "oracle". A hermeneutical template was being created, and the thoughts of Peter and James, who had actually met with Jesus, were not as important to WL's understanding scripture as the new template had become. Where Peter and James (for example) could not be lined up with current exegesis, they were either ignored or pushed aside.

As was much in the OT; for example, since Psalm 34:20, “not one of His bones should be broken” had been cited in the gospel account it was allowed to be valid revelation, while the rest of the psalm, speaking of the same righteous person (!) was dismissed as vain. The current “recovered” interpretation was allowed to over-ride both OT and NT scriptures.

Even Jesus’ gospel “oikonomia” (translated e.g. as “stewardship” in Luke 16) was downplayed, in favor of Paul's epistolary oikonomia, which to WL seemed to entail a lot of shouting of biblically-themed words, which shouting would eventually make us God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. Jesus’ food – “to do the will of My Father” – wasn’t stressed too much. In fact obedience might even be a stumbling if we took it too seriously!

Eventually, years after leaving all of this, I began to ask myself what it might have been like to be David, there in a cave, in a rocky crag, in a battle. The more I felt David’s emotional core, his "spirit", come through his writing, the more I could also feel the heart of Jesus Christ, David's Son of promise. And likewise, the more I pursued John and Peter and James’ subjective experiences (their Christ) as expressed in the text, the more I could make sense of my own experiences. I could see Jesus as they saw him, and as they saw Him in the scriptures which they all knew so well.

And yes, that certainly includes Paul as well. But Paul’s ministry certainly didn’t render anyone else’s null and void, valued only as a touchstone to “the apostle of the age”. If that was the case, why was John ministering from Patmos, years after Paul had exited the scene? No, the scriptures were bigger than Paul, bigger than John or Peter or James. Only Jesus could fill them all.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Even Jesus’ gospel “oikonomia” (“stewardship” in Luke 16) was downplayed, in favor of Paul's epistolary oikonomia, which to WL seemed to entail a lot of shouting of biblically-themed words... Jesus’ declared food (Jo 4:34) – “to do the will of My Father” – wasn’t stressed too much...

Now, my practice of singing the Psalms might not guarantee me a seat at the table anymore than the local church way of chanting - sorry, PSRP'ing - conference banners, outlines and verses from HWFMR messages.

But I will say a couple of things for my approach. First, it was recommended enthusiastically and repeatedly by WL's vaunted "apostle of the age", Paul, who likened it to "being filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5) and "letting the word of Christ dwell in us richly" (Col 3). That looks like a pretty good start on God's New Testament economy right there.

(And I don't see Paul or anyone else suggesting that only a few "revelatory" psalms were worth our time and that the bulk - or any, for that matter - were mixed, natural, or fallen.)

Second, I notice that singing these scriptures connects me to the NT in ways that I might not otherwise have (If you get a good melody it tends to make you linger, and muse).

For example, Psalm 3 "I lay me down and slept/I awaked, for the LORD sustained me(KJV)" brings me to

Jesus: "I have the power to lay my life down and take it back up again"

etc

etc

And one of the things found frequently in the Psalms is obedience to and reverence for God's word. WL seemed to agree with the latter, but said the former was humanly impossible; thus he downplayed or dismissed sections on righteousness and obedience. I ask, what kind of reverence is that? He was forgetting about Jesus the Nazarene.

Psalm 119:89 "Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens" arrives as

Gabriel, to Mary: "No word from God will ever fail" (Luke 1:33, NIV), and becomes incarnated as

Jesus' "I came to do My Father's will" (John 6:38), and as

Heb 10:9[ref Psa 40:7,8]) "I come to do Thy will"' and as

Heb 5:5-10 ""So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He said to Him, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee'; just as He says in another passage, 'Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.' In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek."

The piety and obedience of Jesus Christ "in the days of his flesh" was prefigured in rich detail in the musical petitions and exultations of the admittedly imperfect psalmists. Their declarations may well have been vain from our NT Christian perspective, except that we believe these words provided a framework for the coming Christ, who later inhabited them. The NT itself, and church fathers also, repeatedly suggested this to us.

WL held that the "loud crying and tears" of the psalmists could not produce salvation, but I say that their cries (Psa 6:6, 42:3, 69:3, etc) presaged those of the coming Christ. And Jesus Christ in the days of his flesh was crying not merely on His behalf, but on our own as well. And now this same Spirit of the Son indwells in us richly, and continues to petition, and to sing praises to the Father in the midst of the assembly. Thus it is truly "no longer I, but Christ living in me", who is being expressed in the local assembly, and now is an earthly analog of the High Priest in heaven, just as once Jesus in the days of his flesh fully inhabited His Father's Word.

As I mentioned, singing the Psalms does not automatically equate to obedience, but "who can obey, except that he has first heard His voice"?

"So faith comes from hearing, that is, hearing the Good News about Christ." Rom 10:17 NLT

[aron]

Prophetic words versus natural words.

In Acts chapter 2, Peter in explaining the resurrection of Jesus to the incredulous Jews said that David, being a prophet, foreknew through the Holy Spirit the one who was following him, and who would fulfill his words. WL allowed this, somewhat, and followed suit. However, WL did a curious thing: he said that much of David's writing was "natural", and "fallen". Now, to me, that is a very serious charge, to say that the words of scripture are the concepts of fallen men versus the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What precedent do we have for marking out God's word thus?

Jesus taught, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." If we determine that some of these words have not, in fact, proceeded out of the mouth of God but rather through the imaginations of sinful and fallen men, that's pretty serious and we should be sure we are on solid ground. Because we are either saying either that man does not live on every word of God, but just on some of them (and which ones, pray tell?), or we are saying that only some of the holy scripture is from God, and that some of the Bible is actually fallen man superimposing his "concepts" into the divine record.

"All scripture is God-breathed", or just some of it?

When Peter said, "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You" and Jesus replied, "Get behind Me, Satan", we can be pretty clear that Peter's "Not so, Lord" didn't come from the Father in heaven. Or when Job's wife told him to "curse God and die" after he'd been repeatedly stricken, that statement also probably wasn't inspired by the Holy Ghost. Probably Job's wife is speaking from her "fallen concepts". The context indicates that she is being "natural" at that point.

What I am saying is that if a section or passage is in fact not from God, either the surrounding text or some trusted commentator should tell us pretty clearly. But if we are taking the word of a self-proclaimed "apostle" (WL), who uses one narrow interpretation of one apostles (Paul) to set up an ideational construct which he then goes back into the OT (and even the NT!) text two thousand years later to declare that some of it is in fact not revelatory of Christ, but rather fallen men's concepts, we should be wary. Especially when you have a text like Psalms, with over 2,400 verses, the vast bulk of whom are consequently either ignored or rejected as non-revelatory by WL.

I think that what WL did is rather serious and it would be interesting to see if someone could dredge up support for his stance other than the fact that he said it's so. In other words, who is being prophetic here, and who is being natural? David, or WL?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I think that what WL did is rather serious and it would be interesting to [find] support for his stance... who is being prophetic here, and who is being natural: David, or WL?

The Bible reveals Jesus Christ. Peter said in Acts 2 that David's Psalms (16:8-11 and 110:1) were prophetic words echoing God's promise, that David's seed, the coming Messiah, would inherit glory (v.30,31). So when the psalmist, for example, wrote "God will help me", might we not be out of line in seeing reference to God raising Jesus and giving Him glory? Now, if not directly quoted in the NT, we don't want to overstretch, but at least we may still consider "this Jesus" (v. 32).

Instead, WL used another apostle (Paul), writing "Do not teach anything contrary to God's oikonomia, which is in faith" to overturn this Jesus. Now WL says God didn't help David, but David helped himself. And WL says David wasn't qualified to write about the "righteous man" suffering, because David was a sinner. And so forth. The suffering and faithful Jesus, clearly present in the NT account, is simply not considered.

So I would like to know, is WL overturning 2,000 years of Christian teaching to satisfy his "God's economy" metric? Or is there some precedent for his doing this? Because what he is doing to the Bible as God's word is serious.

As I said, the Bible reveals God's plan for us in the person of His Son Jesus Christ. To say that some scripture doesn't reveal this Jesus, but merely the fallen, natural concepts of a writer, should give us pause. Even if David thought that "his promised descendant" on the throne (v.30) was his immediate heir Solomon, that doesn't make the writing less revelatory of Jesus Christ.

So: 1) is WL really "continuing steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles" here, and if so, how; and 2) if not, how could he hypnotize and mesmerize so many of us that none questioned such a teaching, which bulldozed God's word in this manner?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Prophetic words versus natural words.

"All scripture is God-breathed", or just some of it?

Well, when Peter said, "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You" and Jesus said, "Get behind Me, Satan", we can be pretty clear that "Not so, Lord" was not given to Peter from the Father. Or when Job's wife told him to "curse God and die" after he'd been stricken with multitudes of woes, that statement also probably wasn't inspired by the Holy Ghost. Probably Job's wife is speaking from her "fallen concepts." She is being "natural" at that point.

In his 2nd letter to Timothy, his last writing before his martyrdom, Paul said that "All scripture is God-breathed." I personally think that Paul wrote this specifically to address one of the many contentious topics of their day. Paul made it perfectly clear when he said "all." Then he went on to say that "all" scripture was "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The misinformed might look at Peter's outburst, "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You," and say that this could never be "God-breathed." But look at how much we can learn from Peter blunder. For centuries, Bible readers have been instructed by this short exchange. I wonder how many times the children of God have been stopped by the indwelling Spirit while minding "the things of man, and not the things of God?" Who are we to say which words of scripture are inspired by God and which words are merely fallen human sentiment?

After my regeneration, one of the first verses to become alive to me was I Cor 2.14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Witness Lee, in his latter years of "crystalization-study," looked at many Psalms and the book of James as did a "natural man." He claimed these books were "short of the divine revelation," considering them a kind of "foolishness," and beneath his own self-imposed standard of "God's Economy." Actually he just could not "know them" because they were "spiritually discerned." As many have posted in the past, the writings of Psalms and James were more needed in the Recovery than perhaps any other book of the Bible.