The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I like this recent line of reasoning. There is so much that is just details. But not the core. And it is fairly clear that many of the details are not entirely important for our daily living if we have managed to get the core down correctly.

In other words, if you truly love God and your neighbor, you are not likely to need a correcting word from someone like Paul. You don't need to have someone provide a dissertation on the flesh v the spirit (parts of Romans).

There are possibly two related aspects here. One might be what OBW called "this recent line of reasoning", in which we see that becoming overly focused on details can distract us from the simple (but spiritually deep) core message of God's love for us all, reaching us in His Son Christ Jesus. For example, if the "high peak teachings" have caused us to care more for "the feeling in the Body" than for loving our neighbor, then I argue that we have been misled.

Secondly, and related, is my original point regarding our attention to God's Holy Word. Perhaps our teachings have led us to conclude that some scriptures are actually untrustworthy as a divinely inspired record, but rather are the opinions of fallen men. And what if a section of scripture that our teachings have little regard for, like the Psalms, is heavily cited in the NT as revealing Christ, with no countervailing NT 'warning' telling us to avoid its supposedly 'natural' parts? Again I would argue that our teachings have led us astray.

Psalm 119 says "The unfolding of your words emits light"; if, for example, Psalm 3 unfolds before me, with "I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the LORD sustained me" shining light onto gospel verses like "I have the power to lay My life down, and the power to raise it up again", then what teaching should cause me to ignore that light? What teaching could cause me to disregard the scriptures thus?

And I don't think it's coincidental that the same teaching, encouraging our disrespect for the Word, also trained us to disregard our fellows. Because the motive power that caused Jesus to lay His life down was divinely revealed as God's love toward us: "There is no greater love than this, than should a man lay down his life for his friends." Our unalloyed attention to and appreciation for God's Word should result in an increasing love towards our neighbors, and any teaching that distracts us from such a path should be called out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

There are possibly two related aspects here. One might be what OBW called "this recent line of reasoning", in which we see that becoming overly focused on details can distract us from the simple (but spiritually deep) core message of God's love for us all, reaching us in His Son Christ Jesus. For example, the "high peak teachings" may have caused us to care more for "the feeling in the Body" than for loving our neighbor. If so, I argue that we have been misled.

Secondly, and related, is our attention to God's Holy Word. Perhaps our teachings have led us to conclude that some scriptures are actually untrustworthy as a divinely inspired record, but rather are the opinions of fallen men. And suppose one of these sections of OT scripture of which we have such little regard, Psalms, happens to be most prominently cited in the NT as revealing Christ, with no countervailing NT "warning" telling us to stay away from its 'natural' parts? Then again I would argue that our teachings have led us astray.

Psalm 119 says "The unfolding of your words emits light"; if Psalm 3 unfolds before me, with "I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the LORD sustained me" emitting light onto NT verses like "I have the power to lay My life down, and the power to raise it up again", then what teaching should cause me to ignore that light? What teaching could cause me to disregard scripture thus?

And I don't think it's coincidental that the same teaching, causing our disregard for the Word also taught us to disregard our fellows. Because the motive power that caused Jesus to lay His life down was indeed allied with God's love toward us. "There is no greater love than this, than should a man lay down his life for his friends." Our appreciation for, and attention to God's Word should only be matched by our love toward our neighbor. Any teaching which distracts us from such a path should be called out for what it is.

aron, this has to be one of your best posts ever.

What was called "high peak teaching" did more to destroy the essential life and love in the body of Christ than perhaps any other. It was not just the puffing up that occurred in the Recovery with saints claiming to be "baby Gods," but it was the disguised deception which surgically separated us from the Father's love while under a fog of Lee's anesthesia, and the reconnection with himself and his ministry. How could we know the Father's far-reaching love in our lives, when the only "safe" love we were entitled to was "love" for Lee and his ministry?

The "feeling of the body" thus had nothing to do with considering how my wife feels about my decisions, or what burdens are weighing on the brothers around me. Forget about that! Only Anaheim, with its deputy authorities, can possibly know what "the body is feeling." It's no wonder that I have heard over the years several frustrated sisters, including my own wife, venting out, "then why don't you marry the brothers!" The unwritten mandate in the recovery was always -- never to love the ones around you more than the brothers in Cleveland and Anaheim. Or was that Anaheim and then Cleveland?

How could we in the Recovery have let Psalms and the book of James fall into such notoriety? Perhaps because James did more to expose the workings at LSM than other books? Witness Lee heralded himself as the consummate MOTA effectively persuading us: "it has by now (and by me) all been recovered!" If every scripture has been properly "interpreted" by Lee, then how dare we come to the word directly to find something new from God? If only Lee's interpretation can be validated, then how can you trust yourself to read Psalms 3 or 119 without "proper oversight?"

Yes, I am being facetious here, with a dose of sarcasm, but the more I consider what really transpired in the Recovery, the more it reminds me of my childhood education under the tutelage of nuns and priests.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If every scripture has been properly "interpreted" by Lee, then how dare we come to the word directly to find something new from God? If only Lee's interpretation can be validated, then how can you trust yourself to read Psalms 3 or 119 without "proper oversight?"

I was reading part of John Myer's "A future and a hope" recently and he made the point that he wasn't trying to argue with Lee's 'true believers', but rather was writing to those who suddenly (or slowly) found themselves outside the LSM fold. What next? Religious Babylon? Or worldly Egypt? Was there anything else? We had been taught that divine blessing didn't exist apart from "the recovery", but suddenly the question wasn't hypothetical anymore: it was real, and urgent. So John Myer was writing toward people with such a dilemma, and telling them of what he had found.

Likewise, I am not trying to convince a Living Streamer that WL erred in his judgment of the Psalms. But what I am arguing is that a born again, Spirit-led Christian believer can "see Jesus" in scripture, a la Heb 2:9, even if WL tells them there's nothing there. God's saving love and resurrection power in His Son Jesus Christ may shine forth from Psalm 3, for example, even if WL taught that nothing worthwhile existed there.

WL saying "there's no light" in the Psalms might have been like Peter and John at Joseph of Arimathea's tomb: well-meaning disciples in a hurry to get on to the next thing, and blinded by their concepts. So if you feel somewhat lost, and empty, and you hear within a teaching telling you not to linger, there's nothing here for you, don't obey; rather tell it, "I shall not be moved". Abide there in the Word where you find yourself, and watch and pray (and sing!) and wait for the guiding voice of the Great Shepherd. The scriptures have been breathed out by our Father in heaven, and are indeed words of Spirit and life. And this breathed-out Word, as the promised Spirit, will indeed be 'a lamp unto thy feet', and this 'Word of Christ' will 'inhabit you richly', and will indeed guide you home into all the reality destined for you.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's no wonder that I have heard over the years several frustrated sisters, including my own wife, venting out, "then why don't you marry the brothers!"

There you go Ohio. So much emphasis of "being one with the brothers". In my mind teaching to be partial. All the while brothers know the brothers better than they know their own wives. I do believe many sisters have felt their marriage with their husband is secondary to the ministry.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Truth

I don't think Watchman Nee's early publications on Christ and life are invalid just because he fell into sin (his later publications are questionable). We are all sinners. ... Nee was far from perfect as portrayed by Lee...

We made the mistake of thinking we were covered by some supernaturally gifted and anointed Christians, and that if we would only be "one" with them then God would have the "ground" in us to bring us fully into His glory.

Then, when the inevitable sin and failure rear their ugly heads, we were told that we should "cover the brothers" and not expose the darkness. This protects the church, the Body and Bride of Christ, whom Christ loved and gave Himself up for. Right? Even though WN and WL were sinners like us, we needed to revere them as leaders because God has invested them with "authority" and we had to treat them as "acting Gods". So even when such leaders sin we have to act as if they don't sin. Then, we will all be "covered".

This is the argument as I understand it. It fails, for me, for two reasons. First is that nobody in the assembly should be lifted up, with 'special' rules that apply only to them. That is courting abuse, and disaster. We are all fallen creatures living here in the flesh, on the earth which 'lies under the evil one'. If Jesus didn't lift Himself up, while in the flesh, then what supposed servant of Jesus should do so? None, that I can see. So if WN's "ground of the church" leads to an "acting Gods" theology, it is thereby shown to be in error.

Secondly, and related, is that WL used the argument of sin to dismiss the very writings of scripture, saying that since David sinned (Bathsheba, etc), he was disqualified to write of obedience to God's will, and of righteousness, and so forth. Therefore the vast body of David's work (the Psalms) could be dismissed out of hand and left unexamined. Why? Because David sinned, and therefore his writings were disqualified. But WN (and WL, by extension) were not held to the same standard.

What does this lead us to? The very writings which portray Christ in type and shadow and figure are ignored, or argued away, while we all revere the logical constructions of a preacher as if they are "fresh bread from heaven". And then we all congratulate ourselves as if we have somehow found the inside track, the narrow path, leading us home to our Father. I could hardly disagree more.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Secondly, and related, is that WL used the argument of sin to dismiss the very writings of scripture, saying that since David sinned (Bathsheba, etc), he was disqualified to write of obedience to God's will, and of righteousness, and so forth. Therefore the vast body of David's work (the Psalms) could be dismissed out of hand and left unexamined. Why? Because David sinned, and therefore his writings were disqualified. But WN (and WL, by extension) were not held to the same standard.

Is that true?

Not that I heard every message by Lee, but I never heard that Lee disqualified David due to his sin. If so, lots of believers will be a little upset if we yanked Psalm 51 out of their Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

WL used the argument of sin to dismiss the very writings of scripture, saying that since David sinned (Bathsheba, etc), he was disqualified to write of obedience to God's will, and of righteousness...

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is that true?

Not that I heard every message by Lee, but I never heard that Lee disqualified David due to his sin.

RecV Psalm 1:1 footnote "The Psalms were written according to two kinds of concepts: the human concept of the holy writers and the divine concept of God...

Psalm 1:2 footnote "In the book of Psalms, as in the entire Bible, there are two lines: the line of the tree of life, the line of life, and the line of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the line of death...

Psalm 3:1, 4:1, and 4:4 footnotes decry David's "self-righteousness according to his human concept and for his personal interest", noting his failure in having Uriah murdered and taking his wife Bathsheba.

Psalm 9:3 footnote says "David's concept... is based on the principle of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Nothing in these psalms [9-14] is related to God's economy, to God's interest, to God's kingdom, or to God's plan. Everything is concerning David's personal benefit, personal interest, personal safety, and personal peace. The NT believers... should not take David here as a model."

And so forth. What interests me here is the NT account contrasting with WL's teaching: for example Peter, in referencing the Psalms when he spoke to the crowd in Acts 2, didn't chastise David for his selfishness and self-seeking but rather said that David was a prophet predicting his promised seed who was to follow.

So when David said "You will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay", Peter didn't say that David is being selfish, nor hypocritical in appearing 'faithful'; rather David's psalm is indicating the coming faithful Holy seed who will fulfill his prophecy.

Somehow this option never occured to WL when going through the Psalms, even though the pattern of interpretation was laid out repeatedly in the NT. Instead WL focused on the fact that David was a sinful failure and a hypocrite, and often was writing according to his self-righteous, fleshly concepts.

But the Bible is not about David's concepts: it is about Jesus Christ. Yes, David failed; so did Abraham, and Jacob, Peter and John, Martin Luther, WN and all the rest of us. But in the midst of OUR failure the Bible reveals Jesus Christ our Savior, coming and pleasing the Father, and in His faithful obedience opening the door of salvation to us all, we who believe into Him and follow and obey Him. This is whom we testify; not David.

Yes, salvation comes even to David. Remember that David saw Jesus in spirit, declaring, "The LORD [the Father] said to my lord [Jesus the coming Christ] come and sit at my right hand until I put all your enemies at your feet." Peter, and Jesus, among other NT sources (Paul, the epistle to the Hebrews, etc) said that David knew of the promised seed who was coming after him, and whose kingdom would not fail.

I think that to get stuck on David's failures, and dismiss the bulk of his writings unless forced to acknowledge them by NT citations, is to miss the point of the story. The Psalms are not about David's sin nor his fallen concepts. The Psalms were written concerning Christ. WL disagrees and says they don't offer us a spiritual model. I say these writings point to Christ. Like the writer put it in Hebrews 2:9: we can read the scripture and then "we see Jesus."

[Ohio]

Psalm 3:1, 4:1, and 4:4 footnotes decry David's "self-righteousness according to his human concept and for his personal interest", noting his failure in having Uriah murdered and taking his wife Bathsheba.

Psalm 9:3 footnote says "David's concept... is based on the principle of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Nothing in these psalms [9-14] is related to God's economy, to God's interest, to God's kingdom, or to God's plan. Everything is concerning David's personal benefit, personal interest, personal safety, and personal peace. The NT believers... should not take David here as a model."

Only Witness Lee could see these faults in King David, and for that matter, he could see these same faults in every other servant of God. He was just merciless when it came to the failings of the rest of the body of Christ.

I have found it far too hypocritical for my liking, once I discovered how Lee cared only for his own personal benefit, personal interest, personal safety, and personal peace whenever other godly men were forced to point out his own failures at LSM. David, on the contrary, had a genuine repentance, and willingly accepted God's discipline for his failures.

Originally Posted by aron

Somehow this option never occurred to WL when going through the Psalms, even though the pattern of interpretation was laid out repeatedly in the NT. Instead WL focused on the fact that David was a sinful failure and a hypocrite, and often was writing according to his self-righteous, fleshly concepts.

I do remember W. Lee pointing out David's failure in apparently citing his own self-righteousness. Funny thing about self-righteousness -- it is so easily visible in others, but never in ourselves. David, of course, was also vindictive and self-righteous when the prophet of God told him a story of what some man did, but how he changed once the prophet pointed out "you are that man!"

Witness Lee, however, killed all the prophets God sent to him, branding them all rebellious, conspiratorial lepers requiring a life-time quarantine. Even when they pointed out blatant criminal activity in his ministry, he was not going to admit it.

[aron]

RecV Psalm 32:11 footnote "In the beginning of this psalm David confessed his sins (vv. 1-5), but at the end he justified himself as righteous and upright in heart. In reality, apart from Christ no on is righteous and upright in heart (Rom 3:10; Jer. 17:9). David's writing here is of a person who tried to keep the law apart from Christ"

No, David's writing here is not of a person who tried to keep the law apart from Christ. David's writing is of Christ Himself; as Paul says, David's writing is "the word of Christ", indwelling us richly. In the Psalms we see Jesus Christ portrayed before us; Jesus Christ as the one who was upright in heart. Jesus was fully justified by His Father, and the hope of the Christian is to be justified by faith in Him. Why doesn't this thought ever occur to WL?

The scriptures are ultimately not about David, or Moses, or someone else. They are fulfilled by Jesus, in whom the Father delighted. So when David wrote that God "rescued me, for He took delight in me" (Psa 18:19b) WL tried to mock his declarations, saying that David was a sinner. WL asked, how could God delight in a sinner?

RecV Psalm 18:20 footnote "In vv. 20-28 David considered his righteousness, perfection, faithfulness, cleanness, and purity as the cause of God's saving him, and he considered God's salvation a recompense to him. This is a wrong concept"

No, WL is the one with the wrong concept. Instead, consider the righteousness of Christ; consider in these very scriptures (vv. 20-28) the perfection of Christ: His faithfulness, cleanness, and purity as the cause of God's saving Him, and God's salvation as a recompense to Him (Christ).

If you look for King David in scriptures you will end up in frustration, ennui and despair. If you look away to Jesus you will live. I counsel the second choice, not the first. Why this second option never occurred to our supposed Bible expert WL is a mystery to me. The pattern was clearly established in the NT. The precedent was there before him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look for King David in scriptures you will end up in frustration, ennui and despair. If you look away to Jesus you will live. I counsel the second choice, not the first. Why this second option never occurred to our supposed Bible expert WL is a mystery to me. The pattern was clearly established in the NT. The precedent was there before him.

Where you get these words from? The O'Reilly Factor?

[M-W] ennui: a lack of spirit, enthusiasm, or interest

Great choice! Great post!

I appreciate your writing.