The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Let's talk about how best to present Psalm 2 that will cause an average LC member to pause and think.

I think that people like a story; they like narrative structure. So how to present Psalm 2 within a larger narrative structure? I felt that WL had Psalm 2 within a rather disjointed and unsatisfactory structure. According to his narrative, Psalm 1 had been merely an expose of the vanity of the "natural" psalm-writer, and Psalm 2 by contrast showed us the Son. And so on, back and forth-- typically either WL would see the vain psalmist or the NT believer "enjoying Christ", and occasionally there would be a revelation of Christ Himself. Usually this revelation of Christ that WL acknowledged in the Psalms was, not coincidentally, because there was already an existing NT citation. How could he call the NT vain (though he did, with Peter's reference)?

I believe the Psalms do have at least somewhat of a narrative structure, at least at the ends. The first psalm seems deliberately chosen, showing two paths, the path of the righteous and the path of the wicked. Then at the end, there are 5 "celebratory psalms" which clearly (to me) are meant to be a capstone on the whole affair. So what lies in between the introductory word of Psalm 1 and the praises of Psalm 146-150? Did the compilers of this book intend anything by their arrangement?

I think maybe so. Psalm 2 has the "heathens raging" against God and His king. So "kiss the Son" in this context is for them to come under the subjection of God's anointed. Although David had conquered, the real story of peaceful subjection seems to be with Solomon. David was a man of bloodshed, while Solomon was a man of peaceful rule: momentarily, the heathens stopped raging. Solomon pictured the true Son of the King who ruled wisely, and to kiss the son in this context is to bow the knee and render obedience. I notice that many translations have "submit" or "do homage". Certainly that is in line with the narrative.

Then Psalm 3 has the rebellious son, Absalom, and the nobles who deserted David and joined the new faction. David, according to the superscription, wrote this while hiding in a cave. Interestingly, here he wrote that he had the power to lay his life down (and sleep), and the power to raise it up again (to wake up).

Now, I haven't really gone beyond that, but it seems to me that the mass of NT citations of the Psalms are of the incarnated, suffering Jesus. There are some referencing resurrection, ascension, and enthronement, but a good deal of it is the Jesus that the disciples saw daily for 3+ years. "Then his disciples remembered where it was written, 'Zeal of Your house has eaten Me up'", etc.

And this is what really interested me: that there may be a 'recursive' element to the Psalms. There are multiple layers of meaning within certain passages, which may touch on multiple points in the NT narrative of Jesus. Psalm 8 says "You have made him lower than the angels, You have crowned him with glory and honor." We would probably say that the first section is the incarnation of the man Jesus, and the second section is the post-crucifixion Jesus who has been raised and has ascended to the Father.

But in actuality, from a 'recursive' perspective, He was the reigning king all along! God furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead and giving Him glory, but all along He was the King. Yes, He was temporarily "lower than the angels" in his human flesh, but what did the Roman Centurion say to Jesus? "I also am a man under authority, and I have servants under me, and I say to this one, 'go'..." How do you think Jesus healed the Centurion's servant by just speaking a word? Now, Jesus was "under" God in Psalm 1; He was obedient. In Psalm 2 this is contrasted to the raging Gentiles who don't know God or His Anointed. The King is their hope, to be connected back to the Father. Come and recognize the Son, and be subject to Him, and live. The curse of Adam and Cain will be lifted. This is your path home to the Father. The Roman Centurion recognized the real, heavenly "Caesar", or king. It was Jesus the Nazarene.

The whole "romance" thing, in this place, seems quite misplaced. It's rather about being saved. Yes we love Him and want to be with Him forever. But Psalm 2, as part of the narrative, is not about romance.

Then, as I said, Psalm 3 has a rebellion. The True King, now rejected and in exile, lies Himself down in a cave, to sleep, and to rise again. Very interesting. I mean, don't you think this is an interesting narrative? I find it fascinating.

[aron]

(Continuing my thoughts from post #431 - the previous post):

Originally Posted by aron

But in actuality, from a 'recursive' perspective, He was the reigning king all along! God furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead and giving Him glory, but all along He was the King.

The reason that He was able to escape the clutches of death while in Hades was because when He was on earth, death could not touch Him. "Behold, the ruler of this world is coming, and in Me he has nothing." And the reason that He was able to be untouched by sin, in this world, was because He was the incarnated Holy One of God. So He reigned on earth because He reigned in Heaven. And He went into captivity itself (death and Hades), and took it captive, because He had done the same thing on earth. One was physical, one was spiritual, but it was the same thing: it was recursive; it was reality folded back upon itself. You can see different 'levels' or aspects of the same reality.

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man..

So we look at "heaven", and "earth" and "under the earth/Hades/Hell" as distinct and separated realms, but when the King came, everything was subject to Him. I think some of the classic "ruling Psalms" (#2,#8, #110 etc) open windows into this narrative element. It doesn't matter if you are the lowest or the highest, when the King comes you must acknowledge God's sovereignty in His Christ. "It is finished. God has spoken".

[aron]

Suppose I wanted to write a letter to the church in Singapore. To all the saints there, not just one group (whether or not it claims to stand for all is irrelevant – lots of groups claim lots of things, including being the sole receptacle of God’s present truth, and being the exclusive corporate expression of God on earth today). Or suppose I wanted to write to all the Chinese Christians in Singapore. Like, for example, “To the Hebrews”; I would write “To the Chinese” (or to the Australians, or whatever – I'm just using Singaporeans, here).

So I might write, “To the angel of the church in Singapore”, or “To the Chinese believers in Singapore”, or whatever. Then, suppose I started off my letter with, say, 8 verses of the OT, 6 of which were from the Psalms. Look at the beginning of “To the Hebrews”, for example (NIV):

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”

But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”

To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”?

Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation? We must pay the most careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.

But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,a son of man that you care for him?
You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honor and put everything under their feet.”

In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family.

So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, He says,
“I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters;
in the assembly I will sing your praises.”

And again,
“I will put my trust in him.”

And again he says,
“Here am I, and the children God has given me.”

In the first 17 verses of the Epistle to the Hebrews (remember that this was probably written without chapters and verses) the author quoted 12 verses from Psalms, one verse from 2 Samuel, one verse from Deuteronomy, and 2 verses from Isaiah, by my count.

Likewise, suppose I began my epistle to the Chinese saints in Singapore with such a barrage of OT quotes, went on to make my argument. Now, because we have the NT, to simply go to the OT as the sole scriptural basis of my presentation to the saints of God would be superfluous at best, and harmful at worst. Where is the NT revelation of Jesus Christ, in all this? The writer of Hebrews, however, didn’t have that option. Really, all there was for “scripture” at that time was what we call the OT. So the appeal to scripture in that way was arguably fitting. In fact, if there's a universal theme in the NT it is arguably this: an appeal to the OT.

But if I simply made my argument, today, as an understanding based on OT alone, as long as it jibed with NT canon, (whether or not I explicitly cited the NT), it would not be categorically wrong as a Christian letter. What would be wrong is if my letter to the Singaporeans was held to be “God’s speaking” as if it were on par with scripture itself. “Do not add to God’s word, lest He reprove thee, and you be found a liar.” Right? We all know this.

And if my letter obviated God’s word, by superseding some (either implicitly or explicitly) by calling it “vain”, or “natural” or “fallen human concepts” (you see where I am going here), then that epistle of mine should be looked at as radioactive, or nearly so, by any Christian recipients. Suppose in my epistle, I said that some of the OT was essentially invalidated as revelation, because the author expressed love for God’s law, which Paul had said could save no one. Or, in the NT, I criticize Peter’s quotation of Psalms was “low”, versus Paul’s “high revelation” in his epistles.

That, to me, approaches the warning in Rev 22:18,19 (cf Deut 4:2). Do not take away from God’s word.

[aron]

This is a kind of long post so it's in 3 parts. Back to the narrative:

Suppose for the sake of brevity I simply use 3 OT verses to being my letter to the Singaporeans. I'll start with Psalm 119:9 "I am a stranger here on earth". Then maybe a verse from Daniel, talking about captivity, then a verse from, say, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy. Something about obedience to God's commands. Then I present the situation as I perceive it among the Singaporeans who name Jesus. And it parallels much of the NT text. "Do not be unequally yoked with the world, and love not the world, etc."

Nothing wrong with that, right? Maybe it's what they need to hear today, who knows. As long as I don't make 2 critical errors. (1) is to claim my letter stands as definitive oracular revelation on par with scripture. The epistle to the Hebrews quotes scripture, and is also scripture, today, on par with what it quotes. Likewise Paul's writings, etc. So all Christians agree that the revelation contained in Hebrews is equal with the revelation of Psalms or Deuteronomy. Now, the Book of Mormon is an glaring example of this critical error. "Do not add to God's word", right? WL didn't say any of his writings supplanted scripture, although his "interpreted word" comes perilously close. But I'll cut him slack here - it's probably a by-product of being the sole minister of an exclusive group. Only 'one trumpet' is allowed, so Witness Lee's writings are de facto scripture, but not de jure scripture. Okay. Let's leave that one alone.

Error (2) is to use my writings to cut off scripture. This is where my complaint lies, with WL's Psalms exegesis. If someone wants to use OT revelation to discuss the Christian life today, they're already somewhat biased because unlike the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they have an expanded canon, which includes explicitly Christian texts: the NT. So reliance on the OT isn't necessary; in fact the OT can essentially be ignored in common discussions, and often is (though I've argued here that it weakens the NT understanding, which was obviously based on common grasp of the OT, and even an appeal to it).

But the "Epistle to the LCs" (i.e. Life-Study of Psalms) said that these scriptures themselves were void of revelation. This is a grievous error, and should be called out. Just because I don't understand something (and believe me, there are vast swaths of OT text that I'm quite unfamiliar with) doesn't mean it's void of revelation. It just means that it is void of revelation for me, at present.

My point (finally!!!!) is that discussing scripture is subjective. I can say that "this means this to me", and this is okay. I can even say, "This means nothing to me" -- but my "this means that" shouldn't stand as definitive, unalterable presentation of God's oracle today; i.e. God's current speaking to the church, on par with the Epistle to the Hebrews or the seven epistles to the Asian churches in Revelation 2 and 3. And it certainly should not argue that ANY of scripture is lacking revelation. Then, if other writers want to discuss God's revelation of Jesus Christ, and what it means in Singapore today, they have essentially been told to ignore sections of scripture. I don't know what WL said about "I am a stranger on earth" from Psalm 119:9, for example, but I don't need to know to discuss it myself, and I certainly protest if he says that it was merely a vain, natural concept of a vain, fallen sinner, and is not indicative in any way of God's Christ. What nonsense! Sorry, but that's what it is. Nonsense. How can I characterize that as anything but? How can I possibly defend such a treatment of scripture?

Okay, now on to Psalm 2.

[aron]

Suppose I'm using Psalm 2 in my letter to the Singaporeans, and say, "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way", and then make the point that we're entering a divine romance. ("Brothers and sisters, we are going to get married to God!!!")Okay, fine. That's my subjective assessment of scripture, as it pertains to us all here, at this moment; that's my subjective response in the church today. I want to go into the meeting of my church and shout, "O, Lord Jesus, we want to kiss You!! Lord Jesus, we love You!!" Fine. But it's not the definitive assessment, i.e. "this equals that".

Many English translations show Psalm 2:12 signifying obedience, not a marriage covenant. In its context it has political overtones. So what WL said isn't 'wrong', per se, but if one wanted to say "this means that", one should present a balanced assessment, which is to acknowledge that (1) one's response is subjective, and not definitive, and (2) many others interpret the 'shadows and types' of OT text differently than I'm doing here.

So it's good to kiss the Son. We love him. But if we are engaged in explication, or teaching, of scripture, we should acknowledge our subjectivity, and strive for objectivity, by allowing for other interpretations to balance our own. The Psalms Life-Study didn't really do much of that at all: typically he'd muster a few 19th century references which could be lined up with his "God's economy" teachings. And thus a thin veneer of 'objectivity' was used to cover a writing which was almost completely subjective.

"So subjective is my Christ to me/Real in me, and rich and sweet". Yes, He is. That is wonderful; "Christ in me, the hope of glory". I have a news flash, however: He's also subjective in many others as well. Your "subjective Christ" should allow you to pay attention to others' teachings, as well as present your own subjective impressions; otherwise I wonder, to what "Christ" are you being subjected?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAqkjCrBLQU

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by aron

And if my letter obviated God’s word, by superseding some (either implicitly or explicitly) by calling it “vain”, or “natural” or “fallen human concepts” (you see where I am going here), then that epistle of mine should be looked at as radioactive, or nearly so, by any Christian recipients. Suppose in my epistle, I said that some of the OT was essentially invalidated as revelation, because the author expressed love for God’s law, which Paul had said could save no one. Or, in the NT, I criticize Peter’s quotation of Psalms was “low”, versus Paul’s “high revelation” in his epistles.

That, to me, approaches the warning in Rev 22:18,19 (cf Deut 4:2). Do not take away from God’s word.

More eminent Christians than WL have lower view of certain parts of Scripture. Martin Luther, for example, wanted to do away with Esther, James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation altogether. The only reason he couldn't do so was these books have enjoyed universal canonical status. Luther's own view of the law is suspect at best.

So we need to find out what is the underlying reason for WL's view of the Psalter. The root cause, I believe, is WL's misunderstanding of the word "law" in Psalm 1. The LXX translated the original Hebrew term "torah" as "nomos" (law) and this term got into Pauline literature as well. Unfortunately, "nomos" flattened the meaning of the word "torah" to just judicial regulations. Hence, WL equated the "law" in Psalm 1 to the Ten Commandments.

The fuller meaning of "torah" is "teaching". The Pentateuch is the Torah - the teachings of God. All the narratives in the Torah: creation, human sin, God's promise of redemption, the Abrahamic covenant, the exodus, the Decalogue, etc., are all "torah". They are God's teaching. The compilers organised the Psalter into 5 books to invite the readers to consider meditating upon these Psalms as equivalent to meditating upon the Torah. Longman & Dillard's "Introduction to the OT" calls the Psalms as the "microcosm of the teaching of the whole OT" (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, p. 256).

The prevailing compilation theory held among scholars today (especially since Gerald H. Wilson's groundbreaking work - e.g., "The Editing of the Book of Psalms") is that Psalm 1 is added to the Psalter in the last redactional cycle by its final editors called the "Wisdom Editors". Psalm 1 was not meant to be a psalm by itself but rather served as an introduction or preface written by the editors to encourage the readers to meditate upon these other 149 Psalms day and night. Thus, to hold a low view of Psalm 1, understood in its original context, is to hold a low view of the entire Psalter. WL's interpretation of Psalm 1 is cringeworthy.

But, I digress... Let me get back to Psalm 2:

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose I'm using Psalm 2 in my letter to the Singaporeans, and say, "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way", and then make the point that we're entering a divine romance. ("Brothers and sisters, we are going to get married to God!!!")Okay, fine. That's my subjective assessment of scripture, as it pertains to us all here, at this moment; that's my subjective response in the church today. I want to go into the meeting of my church and shout, "O, Lord Jesus, we want to kiss You!! Lord Jesus, we love You!!" Fine. But it's not the definitive assessment, i.e. "this equals that".

No, it's not OK and it's not fine for people to use Psalm 2 in that way. While applications can and should be subjective, all applications must stem from an exegesis that "kiss the Son" means submission to the Anointed's rule. In its original sitz im leben, the "son" and the "anointed" refers to a Davidic king (cf. 2 Sam 7). If I have to speculate, I'll date Psalm 2 to Solomon or Rehoboam's enthronement. This is an enthronement Psalm. The writer of Hebrews understands that Jesus Christ is the ultimate Davidic King, the unique Son, and the greatest Messiah, and thus re-interpreted this old enthronement Psalm in view of Jesus the king (cf. Heb. 2:9 and context), and therefore we should all pledge our allegiance to Jesus and not relapse into Judaism (a primary goal of Hebrews).

How do we apply "kiss the Son"? It varies from person to person. It's subjective. But it's not uncontrolled. We subjectively experience Christ's sovereignty over our lives -- our circumstances are all different. But it must always mean Christ's sovereignty. It cannot mean "divine romance" or anything else.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

No, it's not OK and it's not fine for people to use Psalm 2 in that way. While applications can and should be subjective, all applications must stem from an exegesis that "kiss the Son" means submission to the Anointed's rule. In its original sitz im leben, the "son" and the "anointed" refers to a Davidic king (cf. 2 Sam 7). If I have to speculate, I'll date Psalm 2 to Solomon or Rehoboam's enthronement. This is an enthronement Psalm. The writer of Hebrews understands that Jesus Christ is the ultimate Davidic King, the unique Son, and the greatest Messiah, and thus re-interpreted this old enthronement Psalm in view of Jesus the king (cf. Heb. 2:9 and context), and therefore we should all pledge our allegiance to Jesus and not relapse into Judaism (a primary goal of Hebrews).

How do we apply "kiss the Son"? It varies from person to person. It's subjective. But it's not uncontrolled. We subjectively experience Christ's sovereignty over our lives -- our circumstances are all different. But it must always mean Christ's sovereignty. It cannot mean "divine romance" or anything else.

Psalm 2 was written by David according to Acts 4:25,

I agree that you can't take a verse so out of context like that. That was one of the problems with pray-reading, that a verse would be taken out of context and often taken to mean more than it said.

Ps 2:12 Kiss the Son lest He be angry and you perish from the way when His wrath burns but a little.

This is a word for rulers. A Christian kisses the Son because he loves Him because He gave up His life for us, but a ruler kisses the Son lest He be angry.
This is not a romantic kiss.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Psalm 2 was written by David according to Acts 4:25,

I agree that you can't take a verse so out of context like that. That was one of the problems with pray-reading, that a verse would be taken out of context and often taken to mean more than it said.

Ps 2:12 Kiss the Son lest He be angry and you perish from the way when His wrath burns but a little.

This is a word for rulers. A Christian kisses the Son because he loves Him because He gave up His life for us, but a ruler kisses the Son lest He be angry.
This is not a romantic kiss.

I am perfectly fine with ascribing the Psalm to the historical David. It is plausible that David wrote this psalm as the standardised enthronement liturgy for his successors.

I am also perfectly fine with pray-reading provided the verse is studied first. I have major problems with how many LC-ers practice pray-reading. I have an even bigger issue with PSRP. Study the context first so that pray-reading doesn't lead one to impossible interpretations.

Yes, "kiss the Son lest He be angry" was written to the vassal rulers (e.g., Moab). Of course, if Gentile rulers too must be in subjection to the King, Gentile peasants like us too should pledge our allegiance to Him.

Christians today ought to "kiss the Son" out of love for the salvation afforded to us, but that application cannot be derived from Psalm 2.

PSRP means?