The Psalms are the word of Christ

[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 ABrotherinFaith

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 admit to being somewhat provocative on this thread, but merely to stimulate consideration, and perhaps discussion. WL allowed no consideration but his own, and if I have been too free, once rid of his blinders, in my own considerations, then I must realize and accept that.

Hebrews talks of obedience, and so does Psalms ("I come to do Thy will, O God") but strictly reading one picture in its fullest sense onto nearly every subsequent section of the scripture is hardly warranted. We could form a few new churches doing that, couldn't we?

Secondly, I admit to using WL's interpretation of the Psalms as a foil of my own readings. Even if Lee incorrectly relegated some of the scriptures to a "fallen" or "natural" status, that doesn't mean that my alternative reading is correct. So I'll own up to my own ideas, and take responsibility for them.

But I notice that Jesus was somewhat provocative, as well. Look at the rejoinder to the challenging teachers of the law. He quoted the Psalm, "I said, You are gods"... did Jesus mean that we should abandon the monotheistic model ("Hear, O Israel, the LORD your God is one God", etc)? I don't see polytheism following Jesus' quote, nor has the collective faith, in its formulations through history. In other words, reason can still our guide, not to apply a word beyond what it should mean.

Now, if Jesus said, "David, in spirit, prophesied concerning the Christ" (Luke 22:43), where did it say that David was not in spirit, but in his natural concepts? No where, that I can see. Yet that doesn't give a subsequent reader the freedom to impart their own "spiritual" analog onto every word of David's. In other words, one should be careful not to think, "David was in spirit while writing and I likewise am in spirit while interpreting." I suppose that's where the flock comes in. The ekklesia can rein in the prophet when he/she gets carried away by their own metaphors.

[awareness]

In Luke somewhere, I think, it mentions an evil eye. I do think that's a real thing, for some people ... an eye that sees nothing but evil.

It's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible but, I think we can have a Christ-eye. That is, we can see Christ everywhere we look.

And I think our bro aron has a Christ eye.

And that's pretty kool ... even if it's contrived sometimes ... no harm, no foul.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible but, I think we can have a Christ-eye. That is, we can see Christ everywhere we look.

And I think our bro aron has a Christ eye.

And that's pretty kool ... even if it's contrived sometimes ... no harm, no foul.

Caveat: WL seemed to have a Christ eye. I remember him saying, "Christ, Christ, Christ"... Christ was the boards of the ark: acacia wood overlaid with gold. Christ was the badger skin, Christ the silver sockets. Etc.

All of it a ruse, a fig leaf to cover a fallen man, a seller of cheap men's suits and tennis rackets and motor homes. And like Lee, I also am a sinner. Redeemed, reborn, and getting reconfigured, yes. But still a fallen soul at work. So I keep that in mind, and do appreciate OBW coming along and pouring cold water on my sand castles.

And hopefully we can avoid the trap WL fell into by doing the smack-down on someone else to elevate their own output. Disrespect to any human, alive or dead, is not the path of life. But my ideas did somewhat emerge from, and contrast to those of Lee and the LSM, and I wanted to keep that up front, hopefully respectfully. We do have a history. Our ideas and responses don't emerge in a vacuum.

And we are somewhat reasonable animals, no? For example, Jesus spoke a parable about the persistent widow and the unrighteous judge (Luke 18), and we the readers never thought that it shows God as being an unrighteous judge. Why? Because we know better. And when Jesus quoted, "I said, You are gods", we never accused Jesus (or the writer of Psalm 40) of promoting polytheism, because we are reasonable people and we know better. We understand, and we know that God expects us to understand.

Lee held up Psalm 1, and said, effectively, that this word was merely that of fallen humanity, because its declarations of piously avoiding the ways of sinners were humanly impossible. He pointed out, "All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Right? Well, I saw Peter's speech in Acts 2, using Psalm 16 as a way to point to the coming victory of Christ over death. So I did the same in Psalm 1. I deliberately set up Peter's "reasoning" as a counterpart to that used by Lee. I mentioned that there was one human who actually did not go in the ways of the sinner, and thus might be seen in Psalm 1. Jesus the Nazarene.

And so forth. Lee had pretty much panned everything in Psalms that he wasn't forced to by NT usage. So I came along, going, "Christ, Christ, Christ." Did I go overboard? Possibly. I was reading my own meaning, or "vision" into fairly obscure musically-associated texts. That is somewhat like looking at one of those Rorschach ink blots and saying, "I see a tree. No wait, an eagle." Therefore I try not to be too rough on Lee's textual readings, other than to say I see different things, and I refuse to follow Lee here. Which is a partly emotional response, I know. I will hereby retreat to (an approximation of) reason:

1. WL, not without some merit, pointed out that the psalmists' repeated declarations of obedience to God could not be kept by fallen human beings.
2. I came along and said, "Look at Acts 2. Peter didn't stop there, but used that to point to David's seed, the coming Messiah, who fulfilled the psalmist's declaration."
3. Jesus mentioned that David was in spirit, writing of the Christ who was to come. (Luke 22:34)
4. Jesus also said that everything must be fulfilled that was written about Him in the Prophets, the Law, and the Psalms. OBW says, "Don't go beyond what has been written"; I see it as an invitation to explore.
5. Paul equated the Psalms to "the word of Christ", in Colossians 3:16.
6. And lastly, the author of Hebrews said "we see Jesus... in the days of His flesh... made a little lower than the angels..." the author was not an eyewitness, but had heard of Christ from others.(2:1,3) So in the suffering, persecuted, hopeful protagonist in the Psalms the author of Hebrews looks back and says "we see" ... one "who shared in their humanity" (2:14, NIV) and thereby saved the lost human race.

I am trying to connect the dots here. But in my presenting my case I became emotionally invested in my argument and went overboard. "To miss this is to miss the way out of the fall", etc.... probably going overboard. So I tried to insert the little disclaimer. "Hey folks, don't take Aaron too seriously. Especially when he begins to take himself too seriously."

Anyway, to go back to Psalm 23. It is not entirely without reason to suggest the possibility that "the one who shared their humanity" is seen, in His humanity, in that text. But it is merely a proposition, merely part of a discussion. Paul had written, "let each one be convinced in his own mind." That goes to observing days of the week, holidays, certain foods, wearing skinny neckties and blue socks, and probably "seeing Jesus" in the obscure poetry of the OT.

Other than that, though, thank you awareness for your kind words of support. Hopefully it's been half as fun to read these ideas as it was to work them up and type them. Peace.

[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.