The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Like Goliath underestimating the young lad David standing before him, so I think that WL did with the prophetic word of God he was considering. He felt "I will obey your will" was low, and natural. But what if Jesus inhabited this word? We know that Jesus' neighbors disrespected Him when He returned home, and we know that His brothers mocked Him.

Likewise WL thought these OT words common and unimpressive. But what is the height, the depth, the breadth and length if Jesus inhabits a word?

I may be overstretching here, and if someone has a RecV handy, or a Life-Study, please feel free to correct me. But I think there's something interesting in the way that Goliath underestimated David, and trusted his own strength, and how WL likewise trusted his "God's economy" template and dismissed scriptures as low, natural, and fallen.

On an outward sense, Goliath was huge and terrifying. Saul told David that he (David) was just a boy, and Goliath was a huge man who had been a warrior for years.

1 Samuel 17:33 Saul replied, "You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a young man, and he has been a warrior from his youth."

But David had a secret weapon: speed. When Saul began to move, David didn't stand his ground, or run away, but began moving toward Goliath at a rapid rate of speed. The speed which had allowed David to survive close-in fighting with a lion and a bear (see David's reply to Saul in 1 Sam 17:34-36) allowed him to come at Goliath so quickly that Goliath had to slow down to make adjustments. David was moving too fast! So Goliath had to slow down, in anticipation to meet the onrushing boy, and "boom!" by the time the stone flew he was too close, and entirely too slow. Game over.

Now, here's a possible parallel: When the psalmist wrote, "You send your command to the earth; Your word runs swiftly" in Psalm 147, did WL see the connection to Jesus, functioning there on earth, under the Father's authority? Did he see that the moment that Jesus said, "Let it be done", the centurion's servant was healed? (Matt 8:13). The centurion had told Jesus, "I also am a man under authority, and have servants under me, and when I tell one Go, he goes, or Come, he comes, or Do this, and he does it"; did WL also sense how "Thy word runs swiftly" at Jesus' command? Incredible!

Please understand that I'm not reveling in some arcane, subjective assessment of Hebrew poetry, compared to word selection in the Greek NT. Nor am I fixated on bashing WL. But it's probably fair to say that WL was mistaken, to dismiss of the word of God as inadequate to stand up to his hermeneutic. Somebody please show me a RecV cross-reference from Psalm 147 to Matthew 8 and I'll stand down.

If this appraisal has been too caustic or derisive I apologize. Unfortunately I tend to glory in my own thinking, just as WL seemingly fell prey to his. But I assert that there are treasures beyond compare here before us, which to WL were just blank spaces. It was like he was flying over the Gobi Desert at 30,000 feet, and looked down and just saw emptiness. If you don't get what I'm saying, look at the RecV Psalms: page after nearly blank page, with few footnotes or references, interspersed with derogatory comments on its lack of "divine revelation". Compare that to his RecV Ephesians, where one verse might get a page of footnotes! Talk about misaiming, or unbalance... and Paul had even encouraged the Ephesians to sing the Psalms... go figure... I certainly can't.

My time in the LC was part of my "goodly heritage", and it colors my thinking. But when one considers its teachings next to the plain words of scripture, they seem quite inadequate to guide.

[aron]

Unfortunately my presentational skills aren't up to the job, but I wanted to put out an idea: Look at the Psalms as a kind of spiritualization of the historical narrative, which spiritualization was picked up and amplified by the NT writers. A classic example is of Melchizedek. A historical character, briefly inserted into the narrative of events. Then the psalmist gives it a kind of mystical spin: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." The NT writer says, "Hey! This is Christ!" and then amplifies it.

We don't know how much of David's original work remains, and how much of it was redacted by later generations. But the psalms as spiritual commentaries were clearly accepted and used by the NT writers, and by Jesus Himself. For example, "You are gods" from Psalm 82, quoted by Jesus to the Jewish antagonists. They were gods, to whom the word of God came (John 10:35), but they died like men, because they disobeyed and corrupted the commands (82:7). They fell like every other corrupt ruler. Jesus' use of scripture turned the charge back against the Jews: they'd claimed Jesus blasphemed, but He said that His works showed that He was one with the Father (John 10:25,37,38). So who were they? Corrupt, and due to fall. "You are gods" was merely a prelude to "you will die like men".

Another example that comes to mind is "Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me." from Psalm 42:7. Compare this to 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." Somebody appears to be copying, here. How could David the landlubber psalmist seize upon a sea-faring narrative? Because the enemy coming against him like a "flood", like "waters", is a common poetic metaphor. And this is picked up on in the NT: "Just like Jonah was in the heart of the sea, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth". To go down into the depths of the sea is a metaphor, a spiritual picture, of the descent into Hades.

Or the commonly cited "rock of my salvation" in the Psalms, "which rock was Christ" according to Paul. One could pick out many examples; I know Augustine of Hippo did in his commentaries. Let's leave it at this: there's nothing in the NT reception of the Psalms that indicates that some of them were "fallen", or "natural", or "concepts". No, rather the NT usage indicates that they were perceived as revelatory. There was an invitation here, to be filled in Spirit with the words of Christ. And needless to say, WL spurned this invitation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Unfortunately my presentational skills aren't up to the job, . . .

Maybe for this task. But in general you do a right spiffy job of it.

Originally Posted by aron

. . . but I wanted to put out an idea: Look at the Psalms as a kind of spiritualization of the historical narrative, ...

Well that makes sense. Then it makes sense that the Psalms can at one moment be soaring within those realms of spiritualization, and then be crying to God to slay my enemies, and being happy bashing babies against the rocks.

I understand why Lee couldn't accept all of the Psalms. You point out NT support of the Psalms, which is clearly true. But much of it, okay some of it -- too much of it -- in the Psalms, strikes as being anti-Christ; in that it's not like Christ found in the NT.

The way I see OT support in the NT is: what else did they have to go on? They were far worse off than we are today, with our limited materials and documentation, to go on. And we're bad off.

Originally Posted by aron

which spiritualization was picked up and amplified by the NT writers. A classic example is of Melchizedek. A historical character, briefly inserted into the narrative of events. Then the psalmist gives it a kind of mystical spin: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." The NT writer says, "Hey! This is Christ!" and then amplifies it.

Interesting that Melchizedek was the Pagan King Priest of Salem -- "He was priest of God Most High." But he didn't know the right name for God. Did Abram set him straight, chide him, and condemn him to hell so to speak, for calling God El Elyon, and not Yahweh? No! "Abram gave him a tenth of everything."

We should learn by this, to be careful how we judge and treat others, even those that don't believe like us, or at all ... even pagans, or worse, Unitarian Universalists ... Abram, the father of faith, wasn't dogmatic, so maybe we shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by aron

We don't know how much of David's original work remains . . .

As I was saying. We have only what we have. So we're left guessing. And we, and Lee, do and did plenty of that. A'guessing here, a'guessing there, everywhere a'guessing. Even about the Psalms.

Can we really blame Lee for his approach to the Psalms? He was guessing just like the rest of us. The most we can say about Lee, or the worst, is that he was nothing special. In the end he was just like the rest of us ... but with an extraordinary sense of grandiose about himself.

And if we wouldn't have fallen for it Lee would have been just another China man come to America -- which oddly enough he was -- running away from messing in his nest in Taiwan, leaving carnage, if not crimes, in his wake.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

... it makes sense that the Psalms can at one moment be soaring within those realms of spiritualization, and then be crying to God to slay my enemies, and being happy bashing babies against the rocks.

I understand why Lee couldn't accept all of the Psalms. You point out NT support of the Psalms, which is clearly true. But much of it, okay some of it -- too much of it -- in the Psalms, strikes as being anti-Christ; in that it's not like Christ found in the NT.

As far as I know, the only religious group still bashing babies against the rocks is the ISIL, or ISIS, or IS, or whatever they're known as. Most other religions have moved away from that kind of behavior. And yes, arguably a lot of OT stuff is not like the Christ found in the NT. David shouldn't have thrown that rock at Goliath, right? I mean, he should have turned the other cheek. And when the lion and the bear came to take his sheep, he should have offered them two! That was Jesus' teaching, clearly: "When they take you a mile, go with them two, when a man takes your cloak, offer him your shirt." So David could have been more generous in offering up the fruits of his flock.

But wait a minute - Jesus said that the shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, while the hireling runs away. So maybe David should have lain down in front of the bear or the lion and offered himself as a tasty snack, instead of fighting with them. That would have been the Christian thing to do, clearly.

Of course, the above is humor, or my version of it. In reality, there's this word called "discernment"... we're supposed to have some when we read the Bible. Otherwise we invent funny religions, or join people who have. And spiritualizing, or allegorizing, the OT text certainly takes discernment. If you lack a necessary measure, I suggest two options: first is to find someone who has it, and second is to read the ancients. Probably your first option, the person with discernment, is reading the ancients anyway.

Lee never bothered to read the ancients because he felt that Nee had read everything there was to read, so why bother? But if he'd read the ancients, he would have found that they followed the NT lead by using Psalms as a source of inspiration into divine and mystical realms. Instead, Lee created his "God's NT economy" template, a bowdlerized monstrosity that when superimposed upon the scriptures allowed him to determine which were "natural" and which were "revelatory". And the vast majority of the Psalms were dismissed as the former. Usually it was only where NT usage forced him that Lee admitted some revelation of Jesus Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... the Psalms as spiritual commentaries were clearly accepted and used by the NT writers, and by Jesus Himself. For example, "You are gods" from Psalm 82, quoted by Jesus to the Jewish antagonists. They were gods, to whom the word of God came (John 10:35), but they died like men, because they disobeyed and corrupted the commands (Psa 82:7). They fell like every other corrupt ruler. Jesus' use of scripture turned the charge back against the Jews: they'd claimed Jesus blasphemed, but He said that His works showed that He was one with the Father (John 10:25,37,38)... "You are gods" was merely a prelude to "you will die like men".

This scene in John chapter 10 is a good example: the writer of the fourth gospel was intimately acquainted with the OT scriptures, as were Jesus and His opposers. So when Jesus quoted Psalm 82, "I said, 'You are gods'", everyone was probably expected to remember the rest of the sentence, which hadn't been quoted: "...but you will die like men." But what happened over millennia, and which amplified with the Great Schism and then the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent Protestant splinterings like British Brethren and Watchman Nee's Little Flock and Witness Lee's Lord's Recovery, is a tendency for the present Christian apologist to fixate upon the so-called New Testament revelation and dismiss, downplay, or ignore the extant scriptures of Jesus' time. The unbalanced RecV Bible, for instance, will have a page of footnotes devoted to a verse in Ephesians or Colossians, and almost nothing, maybe a cross-reference or two, in a page of Psalms.

And when we read a NT passage like the one in John 10 where Jesus was confronted by the religionists, we'll then gloss over His reply because it was from a psalm, which according to today's Paul (WL) was full of fallen men's concepts, and therefore we miss the whole point of the conversation! Why did Jesus' quoted reply point to multiple gods - "I said, 'You are gods'"? Well, it didn't at all: both He and His antagonists knew that there was only one God of Israel. In fact, Jesus taught that it was central to the "greatest commandment" (Matt. 22:36-40). So, then why the quote of "gods"? Perhaps because those "gods (who died like men)" were not "gods", or "God" at all, but had been servants who were disobedient to God's commandments to which they'd been entrusted, as were the Jewish judges facing Him at that very moment. And Jesus furthermore said in the same section that His works clearly showed His obedience to His Father in heaven, just as their refusal of Him showed their disobedience.

But we often missed all this because we were unfamiliar with source text, i.e. the OT. We were Christians, or in Lee's parlance, "New Testament believers", so we focused on the NT, the Christian commentary of the apostle Paul, or today's Paul (WL), the so-called minister of the age, and supposedly God's present oracle. Witness Lee effectively told us not to waste our time with the Psalms; stick with the "high peak truths", he said, and with the "heart of the divine revelation": Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians. The result is that we became shallow, ignorant, vain, and puffed up; empty sounding brass, full of teachings but with no love or good works. Just like those who were arguing with Jesus in John chapter 10. They knew neither God nor scripture.

(the above, especially the last paragraph, only pertains to my growing up Protestant and being in the LC for 6 years, and doesn't apply to many balanced and careful Christian teachers out there, and those who follow them. And Lee may have covered "...you will die like men" in his expositions of John 10 and Psalm 82. But my point still remains.)

[aron]

"We know that God doesn't hear the prayers of a sinner". This comment was presented uncritically by the gospel narrator in John 9:31. So, how then does the sinner get saved? I say, because of the High Priest, who is sinless, and whose righteousness intervenes by God's mercy. Jesus is of course the true and great High Priest who's entered into heaven and who there intercedes for us. Hebrews goes into this in some detail, and even says that "He always lives to intercede for us." (7:25)

All the prayers and declarations of the pious sinners in the Psalms, which RecV footnotes typically dismiss as "natural" and "fallen", are actually opportunities for Jesus to intercede. He didn't sin, but when we the sinners confess and repent, Jesus Himself brings these declarations, prayers and words on our behalf before the Father's throne, and because of His purity, the Father hears and responds. Thus the Father can save us, even to the uttermost. And it was in this vein, I believe, that Paul repeatedly encouraged the NT saints to exercise themselves in the Psalms, even calling them "the word of Christ" (Col 3:16). Of themselves the words of the psalmist, who was admittedly a sinner, are indeed low, and natural, and vain. But because of God's mercy in Christ Jesus they become the vehicles whereby we sinners may come to God through faith and receive mercy and timely help. I therefore strongly disagree with WL's pejorative characterization of the book's contents. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceeds out of the mouth of God." Amen.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

This scene in John chapter 10 is a good example: the writer of the fourth gospel was intimately acquainted with the OT scriptures, as were Jesus and His opposers.

Well the writer for sure ... Jesus and the opposers aren't as certain. As I've stated: Of course the writers of the NT knew the OT. It's all they had. They couldn't be literate without it ... and therefore wouldn't know how to write, or read, for that matter -- like 90% back then -- like what is said of John & Peter, in Acts 4:13 (see Strong's).

Originally Posted by aron

So when Jesus quoted Psalm 82, "I said, 'You are gods'", everyone was probably expected to remember the rest of the sentence, which hadn't been quoted: "...but you will die like men."

Good point. And isn't "I have said" a throw back to: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..." in our Gen. 3:22? And speaking to the Pharisees maybe that's what Jesus meant. We don't know do we, why Jesus quoted Psalms, or if he really did? The author of John may have been quoting it ... maybe even from Isaiah 41:23. And is the Psalms even considered in the Hebrew Bible The Law? Wouldn't that be the Torah? Aren't we just surmising? For fun perhaps? Or for digging at the truth? If we're still doing that.

The real question is: Are we really "gods?" Is that what Jesus meant? Considering the subjective awareness reading (and writing) these words is, the center of our universe, we can certainly see ourselves as a god. Jesus, or the author of John, and Psalms, and Genesis, could have been unto something. Maybe. That even they didn't realize; with their limited view of the universe back then, in the iron age.

Originally Posted by aron

But what happened over millennia, and which amplified with the Great Schism and then the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent Protestant splinterings like British Brethren and Watchman Nee's Little Flock and Witness Lee's Lord's Recovery, is a tendency for the present Christian apologist to fixate upon the so-called New Testament revelation and dismiss, downplay, or ignore the extant scriptures of Jesus' time.

Well it is the OLD Testament. I mean it's old, old, old. And given God's disposition in the OLD Testament the NEW Testament, except for Revelations, is so much better.

Originally Posted by aron

The unbalanced RecV Bible, for instance, will have a page of footnotes devoted to a verse in Ephesians or Colossians, and almost nothing, maybe a cross-reference or two, in a page of Psalms.

Lee took "Ye are gods" very seriously ... like he could write scripture in his footnotes. But if it's true, that, we are gods, any of us could write footnotes as scripture ... even, maybe, UntoHim ... who is little 'g' god out here.

Originally Posted by aron

And when we read a NT passage like the one in John 10 where Jesus was confronted by the religionists, we'll then gloss over His reply because it was from a psalm, which according to today's Paul (WL) was full of fallen men's concepts,

All of the Bible, old and new, are written by fallen men. And Lee too was a fallen man. We've more than learned that on these local church forums.

Originally Posted by aron

and therefore we miss the whole point of the conversation! Why did Jesus' quoted reply point to multiple gods - "I said, 'You are gods'"? Well, it didn't at all: both He and His antagonists knew that there was only one God of Israel. In fact, Jesus taught that it was central to the "greatest commandment" (Matt. 22:36-40). So, then why the quote of "gods"? Perhaps because those "gods (who died like men)" were not "gods", or "God" at all, but had been servants who were disobedient to God's commandments to which they'd been entrusted, as were the Jewish judges facing Him at that very moment. And Jesus furthermore said in the same section that His works clearly showed His obedience to His Father in heaven, just as their refusal of Him showed their disobedience.

So "gods" in the Genesis since?

Originally Posted by aron

But we often missed all this because we were unfamiliar with source text, i.e. the OT. We were Christians, or in Lee's parlance, "New Testament believers", so we focused on the NT, the Christian commentary of the apostle Paul, or today's Paul (WL), the so-called minister of the age, and supposedly God's present oracle. Witness Lee effectively told us not to waste our time with the Psalms; stick with the "high peak truths", he said, and with the "heart of the divine revelation": Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians. The result is that we became shallow, ignorant, vain, and puffed up; empty sounding brass, full of teachings but with no love or good works. Just like those who were arguing with Jesus in John chapter 10. They knew neither God nor scripture.

You're not suggesting that the OT can keep us from becoming "shallow, ignorant, vain, and puffed up; empty sounding brass, full of teachings but with no love or good works" are you?

Originally Posted by aron

(the above, especially the last paragraph, only pertains to my growing up Protestant and being in the LC for 6 years, and doesn't apply to many balanced and careful Christian teachers out there, and those who follow them. And Lee may have covered "...you will die like men" in his expositions of John 10 and Psalm 82. But my point still remains.)

Yeah your point is for us to go back to The Law, and a grumpy old God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're not suggesting that the OT can keep us from becoming "shallow, ignorant, vain, and puffed up; empty sounding brass, full of teachings but with no love or good works" are you?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that without understanding the source (OT) of the conversation we're reading (NT), we don't understand it. If we ignorantly presume understanding, then we become shallow and puffed up.

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah your point is for us to go back to The Law, and a grumpy old God.

Negative. The grumpy people in John 10 were those who opposed Jesus. They thought they knew the answers. As do we, far too often. My point is that the God Jesus presented wasn't a different God, a "new and improved" God of grace. Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets, and opened the way for the rest of us by believing into Him. Unlike Jesus, WL held the Psalms texts to be vain, natural concepts of fallen men, which can be profitably ignored.

But if we ignore it, we don't even understand what Jesus was talking about, do we? His quotes don't make any sense to us. And how can we then follow? Even, I would ask, how can we imitate Paul, who imitated Jesus? I repeat what was written initially on this thread: the concepts I see here aren't in scripture; rather they're those of the Bible expositor. Natural and fallen.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

This scene in John chapter 10 is a good example: the writer of the fourth gospel was intimately acquainted with the OT scriptures, as were Jesus and His opposers.

Originally Posted by awareness

Well the writer for sure ... Jesus and the opposers aren't as certain. As I've stated: Of course the writers of the NT knew the OT. It's all they had. They couldn't be literate without it ... and therefore wouldn't know how to write, or read, for that matter -- like 90% back then -- like what is said of John & Peter, in Acts 4:13 (see Strong's).

Actually Jesus and the opposers were more intimately acquainted with the OT scriptures than even the gospel writers. Jesus was...well for reasons even too obvious for even Harold to deny. And let's not forget the “opposers” were the Pharisees and scribes...these were people who were the most intimately acquainted with the OT scriptures....it was practically their full-time job to memorize “the Law and the Prophets” (along with the rest of the OT of course) Just because they did a pretty lousy job of living those scriptures out does not negate the fact that they were the most intimately acquainted with said OT scriptures.

Originally Posted by aron

The unbalanced RecV Bible, for instance, will have a page of footnotes devoted to a verse in Ephesians or Colossians, and almost nothing, maybe a cross-reference or two, in a page of Psalms.

Originally Posted by awareness

Lee took "Ye are gods" very seriously ... like he could write scripture in his footnotes. But if it's true, that, we are gods, any of us could write footnotes as scripture ... even, maybe, UntoHim ... who is little 'g' god out here.

Ah, Harold, you flatter me again my man! Look, if I was any kind of a god, even “a little g god”, I would have vaporized you by now, or at least shut you up like Gabriel did to Zechariah.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ah, Harold, you flatter me again my man! Look, if I was any kind of a god, even “a little g god”, I would have vaporized you by now, or at least shut you up like Gabriel did to Zechariah.

I'm maybe late on the uptake here.

Dismissing the part of vaporizing me and at the risk of, perchance, undo flattery again, I'd like to make a contrast. I'd like to point out an admirable attitude of a 'normal Christian,' in UntoHim's rejection of even that he's a little g god, with Lee's shameful attitude of an 'abnormal Christian' of being the oracle of God.

Which brings me to:

Really, I have to ask, I mean really, just how could Lee think that he could speak for God in proclaiming what is, and what is not, Gods' speaking in the Bible.

How could he ever have any credibility after doing and claiming that, as any kind of a man of the Bible? Who did he think he was? How could we buy it at all? How could any one in their right mind follow him after claiming and doing that?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Not at all. I'm suggesting that without understanding the source (OT) of the conversation we're reading (NT), we don't understand it. If we ignorantly presume understanding, then we become shallow and puffed up.

Negative. The grumpy people in John 10 were those who opposed Jesus. They thought they knew the answers. As do we, far too often. My point is that the God Jesus presented wasn't a different God, a "new and improved" God of grace. Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets, and opened the way for the rest of us by believing into Him. Unlike Jesus, WL held the Psalms texts to be vain, natural concepts of fallen men, which can be profitably ignored.

But if we ignore it, we don't even understand what Jesus was talking about, do we? His quotes don't make any sense to us. And how can we then follow? Even, I would ask, how can we imitate Paul, who imitated Jesus? I repeat what was written initially on this thread: the concepts I see here aren't in scripture; rather they're those of the Bible expositor. Natural and fallen.

Good response. Thanks ...

It is sad that we're natural and fallen ... including Nee and Lee.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

It is sad that we're natural and fallen ... including Nee and Lee.

The gospel arguably has two parts. First is that we're fallen and mortal. And yes it is sad. Death impinges upon our every turn. The second part is the good part - God loved us so much that He sent His only begotten Son, in whom we might be restored to life and our Father's presence.

So the first part, while unpleasant, is merely prelude to the second. But we must be clear about the second part. God loved us so much that He sent His Son, and this is not "the normal church" or "the proper ground" or "the ministry of the age". The Son is Jesus Christ, and no other.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

Another example that comes to mind is "Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me." from Psalm 42:7. Compare this to 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." Somebody appears to be copying, here. How could David the landlubber psalmist seize upon a sea-faring narrative? Because the enemy coming against him like a "flood", like "waters", is a common poetic metaphor. And this is picked up on in the NT: "Just like Jonah was in the heart of the sea, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth". To go down into the depths of the sea is a metaphor, a spiritual picture, of the descent into Hades.

Thanks Aron! You gave me a new way to look at Ps 42. This psalm could be the Lord's experience praying under extreme pressure in Gethsemane. It could be the psalm that Jesus sang together with His disciples that night. I had never taken it like that before. I updated my comments on this psalm to include the link to the Lord.
http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalm_42.htm

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Thanks Aron! You gave me a new way to look at Ps 42. This psalm could be the Lord's experience praying under extreme pressure in Gethsemane. It could be the psalm that Jesus sang together with His disciples that night. I had never taken it like that before. I updated my comments on this psalm to include the link to the Lord.
http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalm_42.htm

An interesting explanation of the meaning of Psalm 42 that grabbed my attention is that when a hart, deer is being chased by it's predator, it looks for water, be it a stream, river, lake. Because once it is in the water, the predator loses it's scent for the animal.

When we are being chased by the enemy, we pant for that Living Water so the enemy will lose us. When we hide in the Presence of the LORD, covered in the Blood of Jesus, covered under the shadow of God's wings, we are protected and no weapon formed against us will succeed in bringing us down.


As the deer pants for the water brooks,
So my soul pants for You, O God.
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God;

[aron]

"I need nothing"

Psalm 23:1 says "The LORD is my Shepherd; I need nothing". Revelation 3:17 says, "You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

The difference between the two verses is that the first statement is a Word of Christ: the "I" of Psalm 23 is Christ. But the "I" of Revelation 3:17 is a "NT believer enjoying grace" per WL's verbiage.

WL made 2 exegetical errors in the Psalms: usually he said it was a NT believer enjoying grace in "God's NT economy", or it was David expressing his natural concepts. No; the NT reception of Psalms shows rather that it was Jesus Christ. Lee's chief error was to cause us to look a away from Christ and at our "experience" and "enjoyment".

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

"I need nothing"

Psalm 23:1 says "The LORD is my Shepherd; I need nothing". Revelation 3:17 says, "You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

The difference between the two verses is that the first statement is a Word of Christ: the "I" of Psalm 23 is Christ. But the "I" of Revelation 3:17 is a "NT believer enjoying grace" per WL's verbiage.

WL made 2 exegetical errors in the Psalms: usually he said it was a NT believer enjoying grace in "God's NT economy", or it was David expressing his natural concepts. No; the NT reception of Psalms shows rather that it was Jesus Christ. Lee's chief error was to cause us to look a away from Christ and at our "experience" and "enjoyment".

Aron,
"I shall not lack" in Ps 23:1 is a statement that all believers should be able to make.
It is trusting the Lord for our material and psychological needs as in 2Cor 8:15.
Laodicea is saying I don't need anything from anyone outside my denomination.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Aron,
"I shall not lack" in Ps 23:1 is a statement that all believers should be able to make.
It is trusting the Lord for our material and psychological needs as in 2Cor 8:15.
Laodicea is saying I don't need anything from anyone outside my denomination.

The rest of the psalm describes how God comes through in every aspect of our lives.
Psalm 23 is a reality in my life and never ceases to be. I have experienced every verse come true at different times in my life. Surely God's Goodness and Mercy continuously follows me and hopefully all of you every day of my/your lives.

The more I learn about Witness Lee, the more I am appalled by him and his self righteous false teachings.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

"I shall not lack" in Ps 23:1 is a statement that all believers should be able to make..

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

The rest of the psalm describes how God comes through in every aspect of our lives.

Psalm 23 is a reality in my life and never ceases to be. I have experienced every verse come true at different times in my life. Surely God's Goodness and Mercy continuously follows me and hopefully all of you every day of my/your lives.

Hi cmw & VIW,

Your posts probably reflect popular Christian reading of the Psalm, the "standard model" as it were. And in matters of interpretation there's not necessarily a wrong or a right. God is true and every man (and woman) a liar - and that includes me, foremost among them. So I'm not contending here, or I'm trying not to

But let's look for a minute at the idea of the "I" in Psalm 23 being the believer, not Jesus Christ. At first it seems obvious - Jesus is the LORD made flesh, per John 1. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, per John 10. Okay, then - Psalm 23:1 shows the Christian believer declaring by faith that Jesus is their Shepherd, and they (the believer) shall not lack anything. Pretty straight-forward.

But if one tries to carry this interpretive grid further, it falls apart, as Witness Lee showed in his Life-Study of Psalms. What happens when the "I" in the Psalms text declares unwavering obedience to God's law? The NT epistles tell us that we sinners can't do it. So WL taught that this word was therefore "fallen humanity, mistakenly trying to be good." Yet the NT citation instead refers to Jesus Christ: "I come to do Thy will, O God; behold in the scroll of the book is written concerning me" (Heb 10, cf Psa 40). Likewise, in Psalm 18, and Psalm 119, &c, when the text promises compliance to God's expressed will (the law), there's apparently a problem, which WL "solved" by saying the scripture is mistaken, and vain. He repeatedly used words like "mixed sentiments" and "human concepts". I don't want to go down that route. Jesus never intimated this - rather he repeatedly declared his fulfillment of scripture, and divine mandate.

Second, what of the Psalmist declaring "surely I was sinful at birth" (Psa 51) and "my iniquities have overwhelmed me; they are a burden too heavy to bear" (Psa 38) and "evils without number surround me; my sins have overtaken me, so that I cannot see. They are more than the hairs of my head, and my heart has failed within me" (Psa 40)? And there's more - the Psalmist repeatedly confesses his standing before God. How can this possibly be Christ? And how can this be the Christian believer, who "lacks nothing" per Psalm 23:1?

I believe that Christ became sin on our behalf, and could be touched with our weakness, so that he can intercede for us. He was without sin, but on the Cross he bore our sins. So when Jesus prayed, "Forgive us our sins" in Matt 6, the Father was able to take them away - Christ could speak such words on our behalf, even though he didn't have to. Yet because of his great love for us, he spoke them, as one of us! He walked through the valley of the shadow of death for us, so that we, today, might follow, with his Holy Spirit's leading. It's only his pioneering journey through Psalm 23 that makes ours possible. The "I" of Psalm 23 remains Christ. Any reality we find is solely in our identification with him. It's "imputed as our righteousness", as it were. Jesus as High Priest can speak these words to the Father, and the Father hears, and forgives. Only Jesus can speak these words. There's only One Mediator between humanity and God, the [sinless and perfected forever] man Christ Jesus.

Lastly, what of the so-called Psalms of imprecation? Here the Psalmist doesn't bless but curses, and rails against the foes. Again, Witness Lee said this didn't track well within NT context, and was also "fallen human concepts". Yet Christ is the Warrior, the Victorious King. Demons cried out with fear, when he walked in the room: "Oh! What do we have to do with you, Jesus, Nazarene! We know you - the Holy One of God! Have you come to destroy us before our time?!" Paul likewise said, "We don't fight against flesh and blood but against powerful, antagonistic spiritual forces". So the battle rages with light against darkness, and darkness can't withstand the light. Jesus is the Anointed King, the forever-enthroned Son of David per Psalm 18:50. We don't yet see everything under his feet, but the time is coming.

I've said this before: several times in the Psalms, the writer expresses hatred for the sinful ones, and contemptuously dismisses them. ~Psalm 6:8; 119:115; and 139:19. And at least four times Jesus uses nearly identical terminology of dismissal. ~Matt 7:23/Lu 13:27; Matt 25:41; Matt 16:22/Mark 8:33; and Matt 4:10. So one shouldn't say that some OT expression of antagonism, condemnation and rejection, doesn't match Jesus' command to bless in the NT, and to love those who hate us, and to turn the other cheek. Did David turn the other cheek to Goliath? Let's not create a make-believe Bible.

The "I" of scripture is Christ. Paul said, "No longer 'i' but 'Christ'" - he alone is the Self, or Person, of humanity in scripture. Because of sin, all others simply don't pass muster. And then we sinners see the King, and we live. He becomes our life, our living, our person. And then, we lack nothing. But only then. To insinuate our own persons into scripture is to commit grave error.

Here, I'm perhaps challenging a familiar Christian textual reading of Psalm 23, but at one point Luther took issue with the Standard Model, as later did Wesley (and others). So, occasionally it must be done. Look at the LC issue of reading "self" into the text. WL's followers said he had a "rich ministry", and he told us that he'd reached the "high peaks" of 2,000 years of Christian interpretation, that he'd learned nothing from anyone for 40+ years. Now, does that sound right-sized? Or does it rather look like the perilous position of Revelation 3:17, eventually reaching full flower or "consummation" in Rev 18:7?