The Psalms are the word of Christ

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Another objection might be that there's no way to know the true context of the writing. We only have the "plain words" in front of us. True, but we have interpretive assets not available in centuries past, and we might avail ourselves of them. They are often located in WL's disdained "cemeteries", where people with actual training and skills can do quite a lot with the "plain words" of scripture, if you'd be willing to humble yourself and listen, and if you'd display a shred of curiosity instead of a self-sated "We have already arrived" attitude.

I am definitely a fan of the studied theologian, working in conjunction with an entire school of theology, in concert and discussion with other schools of theology, as they pour over pages of both modern and ancient manuscripts. Despite the flaws in virtually every group, they are lead by men and women who are well-versed in the sound teachings of the "fathers" who are more accurately those who were there with Christ or learned directly from them.

And speaking of the flaws that every one of us has, I am slowly becoming convinced that the flaws that we mostly look at and talk about are the least important things about us. Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, believer's baptism v baptism of the whole household, Arminianism v Calvinism (btw: Calvin didn't believe what is taught as Calvinism), charismatic v cessationist, communion every Sunday/month/quarter, immersion v sprinkling, "just call on the Lord" v a catechism, sign-on-the-dotted-line salvation v a process of hearing, coming to understand, then to belief, all without any "sinner's prayer."

The list goes on and on.

The real problem is not the differences. We can live with virtually all of them. It is the insistence by some that their differences are so special that failure to agree is almost like not believing. It is the open refusal to participate with those whose thoughts are different.

Christianity is no just shaking hands over the fence. They are joining forces. It may be small in some quarters, but it is a growing thing. We realize that we do not have it figured out. While we may chose to do most of our worship with those who think (mostly) like we do, we are not despising the others.

And then there are the LRCs on the fringes. The groups that think the others just aren't there. There is less division between the Baptists and Methodists than there is between the LRC and virtually anyone else.

And they do it in the name of oneness.

That is what is so utterly despicable to me about the whole thing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am definitely a fan of the studied theologian, working in conjunction with an entire school of theology, in concert and discussion with other schools of theology, as they pour over pages of both modern and ancient manuscripts. Despite the flaws in virtually every group, they are lead by men and women who are well-versed in the sound teachings of the "fathers" who are more accurately those who were there with Christ or learned directly from them.

Imagine my shock when I realized this was the case; I'd been thoroughly pickled in WL's brine and hadn't imagined that anyone had anything interesting or informative to say. To find out that there are strings of "healthy teachings" stretching back through time to the beginning of it all was mind-blowing. It was like stepping into the sunlight after an extended cave-dwelling episode, and rubbing one's eyes in the overwhelming light.

[aron]

Psalm 23:1-3. "The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Now, who is speaking here? Who is "he" and who is "me"? Lee said that "he" is Jesus, who is Jehovah incarnated (John 1:1,14), and who is our Shepherd (John 10:11,14). So who is "me" speaking here? Lee says, the christian believer, following Jesus.

Good, huh? No -- I contend that this misses the incarnation. Even Lee taught this: incarnation, inclusion, intensification. So in Psalm 23 (supposedly) Jesus was crucified (Psalm 22) and now is resurrected and ascended, in the heavens, shepherding us, as the indwelling life-giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45b). However, I respond that unless you first see the incarnated Jesus being shepherded by His Father, how can you, an incarnated sinner, be shepherded yourself? But Lee had his hermeneutic working, and ignored this.

Jesus said, "Everything I do is from the Father". Can we not see this, and be shepherded by the Lamb? Sheep shepherd one another by leading. The lead sheep goes to the place of food, water, and rest. The other sheep recognize this and follow. The Roman Centurion recognized that Jesus was a man under authority. Jesus was obedient. The Father's revealed will, clearly stated by the law and prophets and psalmists (see His statement in Luke 24) gave Him the power to function. When you saw Jesus move, speak, act, it was the Father moving, speaking, acting.

It seems to me that this was missed by Lee. And I contend that perhaps in Psalm 23, the Word of Christ, "he" is the Father, and "me" is Jesus Christ. When we see this, we repent of being stubborn, willful goats, we turn and confess Jesus as the Lamb of God, we are forgiven and born anew, we begin to take this word as our life (John 6:63), this word begins to indwell us richly (Col 3:16) in the Psalms (and other texts, of course) and eventually we may sense that "it is not I, but Christ in me" who is now functioning. Now the word indwelling us truly is a lamp unto our feet! The incarnated Word, Jesus Christ, who truly incarnated all the declarations of the God-seeking Psalmists and prophets; now His guiding example shines before us and indwells our consciousness.

Now, how is this "not I, but Christ" different from the "feeling" of the inner life folks? Number 1, it is based on Jesus' sinful life, not the our illusion of our own, and number 2 it is based on the word declaring this Jesus to us, and not our subjective sensations.

If you miss this simple thing that the word is speaking to us, which has been referenced repeatedly "in diverse manners and ways" (Heb 1:1) in the NT, then all your subjective feelings are in vain. And if you think your feelings are covered by the subjective explications of your self-styled apostle then you are doubly deceived. Your covering is just cobwebs. It is not real; do not trust in it. Whether you have 2 layers of cobwebs covering you or just one, it doesn't matter. It won't stand. Only the experiences of Jesus Christ the Nazarene will stand. Accept no substitutes.

[OBW]

Interesting thought. And it might make a decent sermon to make a particular point.

But I don't think this is what was written.

While the Lord, or Jehova, was consistently God in the OT, it is important to realize that God was thought of and spoken of in that context as One. Not just as unified. But as singular. While there are hints of the truth of the Trinity, going all the way back to "let us make man in our image," God was not written of as being a shepherd to himself.

And in the NT, as the multifaceted God is better unveiled, the Lord is almost always Jesus, the Christ.

It might be interesting to think on Jesus as even more like us that we have formerly thought — even he needs a shepherd — yet the parables would suggest that this is taking it a little too far.

And I don't see shepherds as being made by being first shepherded themselves. That is a decent way to put it in terms of the gifted ones perfecting the rest of us. But it is not really a good metaphor for it because those who shepherd were not once sheep. They are of different stuff and are trained to shepherd.

I realize that there is an aspect of truth in the idea. But I would not go so far as to insist that Jesus is the one being shepherded by the Father. No. This is written by a man realizing his need for a strong but loving hand guiding him through life. From highs to lows. Providing pasture and sheltering from hard times. (Note, that is not keeping the hard times from happening — just no need to fear the times.)

Even when we realize that so much is a revelation of God, and that Christ can be taught from nearly every passage, we need some sense of restraint in turning everything into an absolute picture of simply Christ. Instead, must is revealed about the nature of Christ and of God. Here he is the good shepherd.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

It might be interesting to think on Jesus as even more like us that we have formerly thought — even he needs a shepherd — yet the parables would suggest that this is taking it a little too far.

And I don't see shepherds as being made by being first shepherded themselves... those who shepherd were not once sheep. They are of different stuff and are trained to shepherd.

The Father is the husbandman, Jesus is the vine. The Father is the Shepherd, Jesus is the submissive Lamb of God. I think that to miss Jesus "in the days of his flesh" is to miss our way out of the fall.

We were constituted flesh, removed from our Holy Father due to disobedience, so He who loved us took upon Himself blood and flesh and came here to save. We see the obedient, cooperative Lamb of God in great detail in the Psalms, and Psalm 23 is not an exception, but is rather an exemplar.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

The Father is the husbandman, Jesus is the vine. The Father is the Shepherd, Jesus is the submissive Lamb of God. I think that to miss Jesus "in the days of his flesh" is to miss our way out of the fall.

We were constituted flesh, removed from our Holy Father due to disobedience, so He who loved us took upon Himself blood and flesh and came here to save. We see the obedient, cooperative Lamb of God in great detail in the Psalms, and Psalm 23 is not an exception, but is rather an exemplar.

Despite the apparent similarities, I thing that this is mixing metaphors — at least a little. The Father is the Shepherd. But the Lamb of God is not a metaphor of one needing a shepherd, but of the one being sacrificed for sin. We too often try to milk every metaphor, type, and picture for all we can say about it, but it is often going way beyond the point that is being made.

God is the husbandman and Jesus is the vine. True. But the actions of the husbandman are not relative to the vine (Jesus) but to the branches (the believers). That is the extent of the writing and use of this metaphor. It does not make the Husbandman (God) into one who prunes the core of the vine (Jesus). That is not there.

Stopping these metaphors at the thing actually said does not cause us to "miss our way out of the fall." Taking them to a place that the words do not take them creates what? A sense of awe for something that isn't there? I think that Paul acually said in one place (1 Cor 4, I think) that some go beyond what is written. This was not a compliment. Making more out of a metaphor is not necessarily a good thing, even if you think you are encouraged by it. There might be a question as to what it is you are being encouraged toward.

As for Psalm 23, I think that you are trying too hard to make all the things in the revelation be about Christ and about God. But it is also about the relationship and interaction of God with his people. This is a prime example. We learn about God as the good shepherd through the eyes of the man who is shepherded. That man is not Jesus. He is not the Son. He is a man — David. I think that missing this is to miss the meaning of this Psalm. To make it into something else is to create a novel teaching that is going too far (where no man has gone before). And most of the time, going where no one has gone before is not a positive thing.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by OBW

Despite the apparent similarities, I thing that this is mixing metaphors — at least a little. The Father is the Shepherd. But the Lamb of God is not a metaphor of one needing a shepherd, but of the one being sacrificed for sin. We too often try to milk every metaphor, type, and picture for all we can say about it, but it is often going way beyond the point that is being made.

I agree with your last sentence. It´s one of the things that I quickly tired of and caused me to stop reading the hwfmr.

In Hebrews 5:8 we see that, Even though Jesus was God's Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.

In some sense, perhaps not the strictest one, but in some way Jesus as a man, as the Lamb of God needed to learn something. I don´t think it´s too far of a stretch to see in this a kind of shepherding. How is it that He learned if not by some kind of shepherding?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Stopping these metaphors at the thing actually said does not cause us to "miss our way out of the fall." .... Making more out of a metaphor is not necessarily a good thing, even if you think you are encouraged by it. There might be a question as to what it is you are being encouraged toward.

Jesus told a parable about two sons, in Matt. 21. One rebelled, initially, and then repented. One said he'd obey the Father and did not. Jesus asked, which one did the will of the Father? The first, was the answer. But I say there actually was another son. One who said, "I will do Your will, O God," and who did it. That one, of course, is Jesus Christ.

Now, does the parable say that explicitly? Obviously, no. But am I wrong in saying that Jesus was the unique obedient Son? No. Should I mix my metaphors, my imagery, here? Possibly not. I see your point. Certainly I shouldn't try to define objective truth with novel configurations.

But you do see the tension here in the Psalms? WL said that the psalmist made a declaration of obedience and cooperation with the divine will, and at least to some extent was not successful. That opens the door to our seeing Jesus, in the days of His flesh. WL said that the psalm was not completely fulfilled by the writer, and thus was relegated to some kind of "second tier" of the sacred word. The text was, in his words, "natural."

Instead, I see Peter's speech in Acts 2 showing us the reconciliation of the tension created by a declaration of victory, with the ultimate failure ("corruption") of the declaring psalmist. Sin and death ultimately won, but only until the day of Jesus Christ. Then the psalm was fulfilled.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for Psalm 23... We learn about God as the good shepherd through the eyes of the man who is shepherded. That man is not Jesus. He is not the Son. He is a man — David. I think that missing this is to miss the meaning of this Psalm. To make it into something else is to create a novel teaching that is going too far (where no man has gone before). And most of the time, going where no one has gone before is not a positive thing.

Point well taken. There is a danger of "looking beyond" the psalmist's experience to our own idea. Peter's revelation, to some extent, did this in Acts 2. But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else has 'carte blanche' to do likewise. Thank you for supplying a cautionary word. It is entirely too easy to become delighted with one's own ideas. We know of certain self-styled "seers of the divine revelation" who might have profited by being reined in somewhat by their peers.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

While the Lord, or Jehova, was consistently God in the OT, it is important to realize that God was thought of and spoken of in that context as One... While there are hints of the truth of the Trinity, going all the way back to "let us make man in our image," God was not written of as being a shepherd to himself.

If Jehova cannot be a shepherd to himself, then how can Jehova say to himself, "Jehova said to my Lord, sit here at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool"? How can Jehova tell himself to sit at his own right hand?

And going back to the "Lamb of God" motif, what constitutes being spotless and without blemish? I would say, sinlessness. And what is sin? Disobeying God's will. Jesus left heaven but never left God's will. So his spotlessness as an atoning sacrifice was built on his completely obedient actions while in the flesh. Jesus was in the likeness of the flesh of sin, but never in the consequence of the flesh, never in the act of sin (i.e. rebellion) itself. Everyone else dies spotted by sin. Jesus died spotless. He obeyed to the end, the death of the cross.