The Psalms are the word of Christ

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Maybe Lee had too many years of consideration. His mind was made up, and wouldn't see Jesus if He reached up out of the page and waved His hand in his face.

aron, that is what meant before when I said that you do not address what Brother Lee actually taught. You are making stuff up and you do everyone a disservice no matter which side you are on. Learn the facts then have at it.

Here is one example from one book alone that refutes your assertions that he did not see Jesus in the Psalms. The reader can decide for themselves from this concluding summary from the book Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms.

CONCERNING CHRIST

Let us consider now all the main aspects of Christ in the Psalms:

1. His divinity—Psa. 45:6; Heb. 1:8
2. His incarnation—Psa. 8:4; Heb. 2:6
3. His humanity—Psa. 8:4; Heb. 2:6
4. His human living—Psa. 16:1-8
5. His death—Psa. 22:1-21
6. His resurrection—Psa. 2:7; 16:10; 22:22; Heb. 2:12; Acts 2:25-32; 13:35-37
7. His ascension—Psa. 68:18; Eph. 4:8
8. His exaltation—Psa. 80:17; 110:1
9. His crowning—Psa. 8:5; Heb. 2:9
10. His enthronement—Psa. 2:6
11. His dominion, kingship, and authority—Psa. 2:8; 8:6; 47; 72; 89; 110
12. His priesthood—Psa. 110:4
13. His fighting—Psa. 110:5-6; 45:3-5
14. His victory—Psa. 110:5-6
15. His indwelling—Psa. 22:22
16. His shepherding—Psa. 23
17. The stone for the building—Psa. 118:22
18. His coming—Psa. 72; 96; 110
19. His reigning—Psa. 93—101

The main psalms concerning Christ: Psa. 2, 8, 16, 22, 23, 24, 45, 68, 80, 91, 110, 118
These are just the main aspects; there are many details which could be filled in. It is clear that through the Psalms we can know Christ much better than through the New Testament."


Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron, that is what meant before when I said that you do not address what Brother Lee actually taught. You are making stuff up and you do everyone a disservice no matter which side you are on. Learn the facts then have at it.
Here is one example from one book alone that refutes your assertions that he did not see Jesus in the Psalms. The reader can decide for themselves from this concluding summary from the book

Drake, I have been reading aron's post for years, including the ones on this thread, and he has NEVER said that Witness Lee "did not see Jesus in the Psalms." You have misread his posts completely. Also, numerous authors and commentaries can provide the same list which you posted above. Lee often used others' works and did not properly reference them in his books, giving you the i pression that his writing was original.

What aron has said, and has said it repeatedly, was that Lee dismissed many Psalms as "natural or fallen concepts." I too heard this many times from Lee. He also similarly dismissed the book of James.

Perhaps this forum can help you learn "the facts."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, I have been reading aron's post for years, including the ones on this thread, and he has NEVER said that Witness Lee "did not see Jesus in the Psalms." You have misread his posts completely.

Originally Posted by aron

His mind was made up, and wouldn't see Jesus if He reached up out of the page and waved His hand in his face.

- - - - - - - -

[Ohio]

You took his words out of context.

Read the whole post. Read his other posts.

I'll let him respond further.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

(in contrast with God's holy nature, i.e. Holy Bible).

I don't understand why you added "i.e. Holy Bible"

Please clarify.

[ZNPaaneah]

Your post comes across as a way to equate believing that the Bible is the word of God being equal to anything.

My understanding when you say that the Bible is the word of God, is that the Bible is Holy, it expresses God's holy nature.

A writer of the Bible is not expressing his natural fallen mind. The words are the expression of the revelation of God to man.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Your post comes across as a way to equate believing that the Bible is the word of God being equal to anything.

My understanding when you say that the Bible is the word of God, is that the Bible is Holy, it expresses God's holy nature.

A writer of the Bible is not expressing his natural fallen mind. The words are the expression of the revelation of God to man.

Okay, I think I get what you are saying. However, in the Bible we see God's nature revealed and yet many other things are revealed also.

The natural concepts may be expressed by persons written about or by the writers themselves. In any scenario, the Bible is God's speaking to man, men writing under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, proitable for instruction, teaching, and edification.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You took his words out of context.

Read the whole post. Read his other posts.

I'll let him respond further.

If you look at Lee's list of revelatory psalms, provided by Drake in post #595, they're all the ones cited in the NT, except for item 16 (Psalm 23, commonly held), and item 19. So of course he'll see Jesus there: he's required to by NT reception.

When I said that Lee wouldn't "see Jesus" in the text, this referenced psalms having similar and even identical principles; let's say, the righteous man suffering unjustly, and hoping for deliverance, or the man who obeys God's will, and hopes for reward, and so forth. Lee would usually say, "No, no one's righteous; or, No, nobody is obedient to God; or, No, salvation is not a reward but is by grace. . .we all know that David was a sinner", etc. So e.g. "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Son) because He delighted in Me" in Psalm 18 was held by Lee as natural, even though the Father's delight has clear NT parallel and reinforcement. So I wrote that he wouldn't see Jesus if He waved His hand in his face.

I believe that Lee only saw Jesus in Psalm 16 because Acts 2 and 13 said it was Jesus. Then, Lee rejected Jesus in Psalm 18 because David was a sinner. Huh? Is that a satisfactory answer? Does that sound like the fruit of 50 years of consideration? No, it sounds like rejection out of hand, to me. No careful consideration, no prayerful musings. Just rejection. Lee saw the word "law" in Psalm 1, and said, "Aha - natural! Nobody's saved by keeping the law!" Then he had carte blanche to reject the Psalms as vain words coming from fallen men's human concepts.

But I say, "Christ is the end of the law" (Rom 10:4) wasn't a contravention of law but its fulfillment - the law was not annulled but kept, and thus completed - I say, Psalm 1 was not vain, because arguably Christ fulfilled it. Yet to Lee it was vanity, merely because the psalmist was a sinner! I find this line of thinking to be completely unsatisfactory because: A) it's illogical, and it produces a strange, dichotomous "natural" versus "revelatory" Bible, and B) it apparently never considers Christ at all, but dismisses the possibility out of hand.

Notice that Lee never said Psalm 1, 3, 18, 34, 35 etc etc couldn't be prophetic utterance of Jesus Christ because of something intrinsic to the text itself; no, he says it isn't revelatory of Christ because the psalmist was a sinner! Well if that was our evaluatory criterion, then Psalm 16, "You will not let my flesh see corruption" would be disqualified also, but look how Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 13 dealt with that! But I never saw Lee try to deal with it, to puzzle it through, to think, to pray, to muse, to wrestle. All I see is cavalier dismissal. Thus my rather harsh statement that he wouldn't see Jesus if He waved His hand in his face.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

The main psalms concerning Christ: Psa. 2, 8, 16, 22, 23, 24, 45, 68, 80, 91, 110, 118

These are just the main aspects; there are many details which could be filled in. It is clear that through the Psalms we can know Christ much better than through the New Testament."


Drake

You've got to be kidding me. "There are many details which could be filled in..." by whom? If Lee didn't fill them in, who gets permission, under "One Trumpet" and "One Publication"? You? Me? I doubt it. This type of word was merely a sop for the conscience's of the faithful, or a fig leaf to cover for the newbies. Lee was a master at talking out of both sides of his mouth, and we learned to ignore one and pay attention to the other.

Suppose Ed Marks or Kerry Robichaux, two of the current leaders, suddenly get a revelation from heaven: the Blessed Man of Psalm 1 is none other than the Man Jesus Christ! They're sitting in the study room one day, reading Deuteronomy 17:14-20 together, which talks about the king whom Jehovah chooses, who shall read and keep the law all the days of his life, and whom (btw) Lee said doesn't exist, because the king was desired by the people and was thus offensive to God, and suddenly the room is filled with great light and an angel of God is standing there and says, "Oh ye of little faith! Can't you see the Messiah, plainly depicted here!? This King is none other than the King of Israel, who is the Son of God!"

And then the light fades and they're alone again, and they look at each other in astonishment. What can they do? They can't go against Lee! So they have a dilemma; they either go with God's word and the revelation of the Holy Spirit showing them the person and righteous human living (i.e. 'works') of the Lord Jesus Christ, or they go with the teachings and doctrines of LSM and RecV footnotes. What to do?

How come the Blessed Man from Psalm 1 isn't the Enthroned King from Psalm 2? If you or I, or anyone, tries to "fill in this detail", or any other that goes against Lee's "natural concept" teaching, what would happen? You and I both know what would happen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I believe that Lee only saw Jesus in Psalm 16 because Acts 2 and 13 said it was Jesus. Then, Lee rejected Jesus in Psalm 18 because David was a sinner. Huh? Is that a satisfactory answer? Does that sound like the fruit of 50 years of consideration? No, it sounds like rejection out of hand, to me. No careful consideration, no prayerful musings. Just rejection. Lee saw the word "law" in Psalm 1, and said, "Aha - natural! Nobody's saved by keeping the law!" Then he had carte blanche to reject the Psalms as vain words coming from fallen men's human concepts.

I would like to know, verse by verse, how much Lee received as revelation based on his own labor in the word, and how much he merely stole from others, primarily Nee and the Exclusive Brethren, you know, "standing on their shoulders."

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose Ed Marks or Kerry Robichaux, two of the current leaders, suddenly get a revelation from heaven: the Blessed Man of Psalm 1 is none other than the Man Jesus Christ!

And then the light fades and they're alone again, and they look at each other in astonishment. What can they do? They can't go against Lee!

Here it is Nee's infamous saying which must guide them, "Whenever we have two interpretations of the scripture, someone is not holding the Head."

[aron]

I was reading Romans 10 the other day. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (v. 17). The reference in the RecV says Colossians 3:16. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly". Then the next verse quotes Psalm 19. "Their voice has gone out into all of the earth/their testimony to all of the world". But Witness Lee in his footnote in Psalm 19 panned the text. God doesn't care about this, said Lee, but about His eternal economy.

But again I return to the idea of the word of Christ, as presented by Paul. How many of what we call the NT texts did the Romans or Colossians have at that point? They may have had some gospel texts, sayings of Jesus. Doubtful they had an extant copy of what we'd call the Gospel of Mark, or Luke. Certainly John's gospel, no. Maybe an epistle of Paul (see e.g., Col 4:16 "read the letter to the Laodiceans").

No, the word of Christ to which Paul referred was undoubtedly the OT. The very texts cited by Paul, which Witness Lee so quickly dismissed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I was reading Romans 10 the other day. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (v. 17). The reference in the RecV says Colossians 3:16. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly". Then the next verse quotes Psalm 19. "Their voice has gone out into all of the earth/their testimony to all of the world". But Witness Lee in his footnote in Psalm 19 panned the text. God doesn't care about this, said Lee, but about His eternal economy.

But again I return to the idea of the word of Christ, as presented by Paul. How many of what we call the NT texts did the Romans or Colossians have at that point? They may have had some gospel texts, sayings of Jesus. Doubtful they had an extant copy of what we'd call the Gospel of Mark, or Luke. Certainly John's gospel, no. Maybe an epistle of Paul (see e.g., Col 4:16 "read the letter to the Laodiceans").

No, the word of Christ to which Paul referred was undoubtedly the OT. The very texts cited by Paul, which Witness Lee so quickly dismissed.

When Paul traveled to the Gentile lands bring the gospel, he always went to synagogues first. I wonder if perhaps that was partly done because the OT scriptures were there, and Paul could begin to "connect" these new believers with the prophecies of the Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When Paul traveled to the Gentile lands bring the gospel, he always went to synagogues first. . . perhaps that was partly done because the OT scriptures were there, and Paul could begin to "connect" these new believers with the prophecies of the Christ.

Yes I think so. And look how they used it. "The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim His handiwork. Day after day, they testify. Night after night they tell of Him. There is no speech, nor even words; nothing our ears can ever discern. But their voice goes out through all of the world. Their testimony to all of the earth." Now, how would I connect that passage of the heavens, with "the word of Christ"? Do you see that as an invitation, or a connection, to preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ as Lord? Paul did. He used it in Romans 10 in his discussion of faith coming by hearing.

The NT writers took great imaginative liberties (or 'revelatory' if you prefer) with the text. They "saw Jesus", as the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews put it, temporarily made lower than angels, then crowned with glory and honor. Again and again the human Christ was seen in the experiences of the godly poet.

But when Psalm 19, used by Paul, talks of the law, Lee balked; he said it wasn't God's economy. Yet arguably, "Christ is the end of the law" in NT epistle, not because He ignored it, but because He fulfilled it. Now we Christians see, by faith, and we thus actively "hear the word of Christ" per Romans 10. And thus, and only thus, are we saved.

Today of course we do have the NT books, epistles of Paul, written gospels, and so forth. But if we ignore that which they constantly referenced, in appeals to their hearers and readers then we risk a shallow reading. Which is what I think Lee gave us.

Now LC followers might say that in certain parts he did extract revelations from the OT text. But I say that his repeated dismissal of the Psalms as natural, as in his extensive footnote in Psalm 19, not only kept people out, but discouraged them from even trying. In LC-speak, God's present oracle has spoken; therefore the scripture is natural, fallen concepts, and not looking away to Jesus but looking away from Jesus. But I say that repeated NT citation shows that those writers and speakers thought the opposite of the Bible expositor.

So Psalm 19's "Do not let sin rule over me" is not fulfilled by our keeping the law, but by our seeing Jesus. Yet who will pray, if Lee has already waved them off? "How then, can they call, without having heard?" (Rom 10:14).

Paul said salvation is by faith, and faith by hearing. Lee crippled "the word of Christ" by his characterization.