The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

while attacking Brother Lee for holding similar beliefs ...

I could just as easily say Brother Lee attacks David, or even attacks Christ. Your subjectively freighted terminology will only mollify the true believers, who aren't going to be on this site anyway, having been warned away. (But you got a special dispensation from LSM to write here?)

Brother Lee does have similar beliefs. Here is a quote:

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

“We should always be ready in our spirit to receive the instant inspiration of the Spirit. If we are living a revived and overcoming life and are one with the Lord, we will always be ready to receive instant inspiration. . . we also need to have the spiritual insight into all matters through the enlightening of the divine light, that is, through the enjoyment of the Lord in the Word. If we have the Word, and in our spirit, we are ready to receive inspiration, then we will also have the insight over all things, even in all matters, trough the enlightening of the divine light. Prophecy is always composed of the Word, inspiration, and the divine light. We need to put all the foregoing principles concerning prophesying into practice for the organic building up of the church. (The Practical and Organic Building Up of the Church p.88)

So if I read, or sing, or pray-read Psalm 1:3 and get an "instant inspiration" that the tree growing by the river, bearing fruit in season, whose leaf doesn't wither, seems a lot like the Christ portrayed in Revelation 22, that makes me a lot like Brother Lee, doesn't it? But for some reason Brother Lee in the Psalms didn't seem a lot like Brother Lee. Why is that? Because David was a sinner? Where is the "insight" and the "divine light"? I don't see any.

I mentioned that David and Goliath cursed each other and did greivous physical harm. David killed a few (or more) of the Philistines. Yet he still seems to be one according to God's heart.

Actually, I haven't found any Psalms that don't portray Christ. Even Psalm 51, at the end, David says, "Then I will teach transgressors your ways/and sinners will turn back to you". Jesus told Peter, "When you turn, you will strengthen the brothers" (Luke 22:32). The repentant transgressor (David/Peter) then becomes a beacon to the other wayward sheep! Marvelous. . . "God's mercy saved David/Peter - He will save me, too!" All of us can follow Psalm 51's hope.

Elsewhere, the violent imagery portrays the conquering King. "Your arrows are sharp/in the heart of your enemy" (Psalm 45) Why does Lee's footnote say that such sentiment is "Christ" in one place and yet it is "natural" or "fallen" in another? And you say I'm being selective in my readings?

But perhaps there is a spot that is truly "fallen" and "natural". . . but I have not seen Brother Lee make a compelling case. He says Psalm 1 is "according to the tree of knowledge of good and evil". I disagree. The psalm shows the Righteous Man who does God's will. David was a man after God's heart, and that is a picture of Christ. That man is enthroned in Psalm 2 as Son of God. Or did you miss that part? I didn't see any comments. Or are you deliberately mis-reading my writings? Or reading them selectively - I went over all this already. And I already wrote how this King who loves God's law is the same King in Deuteronomy 17:18. I've covered all this already. Remember? No?

Then Psalm 3: "I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to pick it up again" Did you miss that one also? I don't remember your comments.

So far Witness Lee is 1 for 3; I am 3 for 3.

Psalm 4:8 "I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety." Echoes Psalm 3, above; see also Psalm 17:15 "As for me, I will be vindicated and will see your face; when I awake, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness."

What do you think "sleep" and "wake" signify here?

Psalm 5:11 "But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee. 12 For thou, Lord, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield."

The Lord Jesus loved the Name of the Father and was joyful in Him; likewise, the Father blessed the Lord Jesus (the Righteous One), protected him (see e.g., Psalm 91 for explicit citations/confirmation)

Psalm 6:8 "Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping." See Matthew 7:23"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (In the Psalms RecV there isn't even a cross-reference, much less a footnote - please tell us how much Lee "loved" the Psalms!)

Psalm 7:14 "Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate."

Jesus taught, "What you do to others will be done to you." Bless and you'll be blessed, forgive and you'll be forgiven; on the contrary if you scheme and plot to harm, and curse others, it will return on you. Where do you think Jesus got these teachings? From the OT! He was a Rabbi! ~Mark 14:45; John 1:38; Mark 9:5; John 20:16; John 3:2. Both the Psalms and Jesus taught, if you dig a ditch for someone else, you'll fall into it yourself. Pretty simple.

Of course all these comments above are my personal "readings". No more valid (or less) than Lee looking at Leviticus or Numbers and saying "this means that". I'm also a "seer of the divine revelation" like Nee and Lee were; all of us are (or can be). But my main point on this thread has not been to promote my readings but to ask: why did Lee's reading (reception) of the Psalms depart so drastically from the precedent set by NT reception of the Psalms?Peter also had a reading; Paul had a reading; Hebrews had a reading; John's gospel had a reading; why did Brother Lee ignore this clear pattern and forge his own, in the opposite direction?

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron, list the Psalms you characterize as human concept and why.

Drake, please list Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the Epistle to the Hebrews in the NT showing us the Psalms being of human concept. I can show you quite a few where they list them as of divine inspiration - where are the opposite cases? What basis in the NT reception did Brother Lee use for his own? If you can show us the NT doing it, then I'll consider following.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Actually, I haven't found any Psalms that don't portray Christ.......

Ok Aron. So you’ve changed your mind since a few posts back when I posed this question to you.

Nevertheless, now that we know where you are coming from with the above statement then your reasons for objecting to anyone characterizing any Psalm as a human concept and not a portrayal of Christ is consistent. You accept every Psalm as a portrayal of Christ without exception.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

You accept every Psalm as a portrayal of Christ without exception.

You present a false choice set: either 18 of the first 21 Psalms are natural, per Witness Lee, or "every word of every Psalm" must unequivocally show Christ. You say, it's either Lee's 15% or it must be 100%. My first posts made clear that I wasn't going for the second option of 100%. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it. I made my case with a few of the first Psalms. Point made. And I've repeated this several times. I never said I was going to do a systematic review of every word of every Psalm. I doubt you think that way, either - rather you're trying to divert attention from Brother Lee's deficient Bible study.

Here was my quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I think there is some Christ to be found in more than 3 of the first 21 Psalms. I am not a scholar like Nigel Tomes, so please bear with my abbreviated account.

If you want to do a systematic review of every word of every Psalm, perhaps you should start your own study. I never aimed for that. I merely said there was more than what Brother Lee said.

1. Witness Lee deviated from his pattern of "seeing Christ" in the text when he came to the Psalms.
2. The NT reception of the Psalms by Jesus, the gospel writers, Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, doesn't suggest that only the Psalms cited in the NT were to be viewed as pertaining to Christ. Yet current LSM mouthpiece Evangelical says that if we see Christ where it isn't explicitly cited, then perhaps we're "adding to God's word". Really? Can someone affiliated with LSM say this with a straight face? Amazing.
3. The reasons given to disqualify Psalms from consideration in the RecV footnotes were typically: A) the psalm-writer was a sinner and not qualified to represent Christ in his statements of divine fealty and reward; and B) the psalm-writer was breathing "unchristian" imprecations toward his enemies, rather than loving and forgiving. I dealt with this already in detail. Neither Drake nor Evangelical has answered. Instead we get the diversions like quoted above.
4. Brother Lee was inconsistent, saying a phrase was "divine" and another was "natural" with no discernible difference between the two. Both would be imperfect sinners writing, both were fighting with others, etc. My comment was, Did nobody notice this inconsistency? Were we all so mesmerised? Or were we cowed into silence?

I was addressing the first 21 Psalms as a representative sample of the book, knowing the trend continued beyond. I felt that my point was made. Recently, in Post #714, I gave some more examples from the first dozen Psalms. No answer from Drake. Instead, diversions.

Here is an answer: Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." I personally don't think the 'I' and 'me' here is of Christ. Okay? Good? We found a "human sentiment" in the Psalms! But we already know all this. Satan has a speaking role from Genesis 3 onwards. I give Manoah as a good example of "fallen human concept". (there are others as well)

Originally Posted by Judges 13:21-23

When the angel of the Lord did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the Lord. “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”
But his wife answered, “If the Lord had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, nor shown us all these things or now told us this.”

Typically, when someone speaks "natural concept", the Bible clearly tells us this is happening. When it's instead up to the interpreter with his hermeneutic (viz,"God's New Testament Economy") we should be more circumspect. Especially when it makes us discard 18 of the first 21 Psalms as of human and not divine origin, a trend which continues for the rest of the book.

So no, I don't think that every word of every Psalms

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

My first couple of points made clear that I wasn't going for the second option. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it. I made my case with a few of the first Psalms. Point made..

If your only point is that you see Christ in Psalms where Brother Lee doesn't but you also recognize that there are psalms with human concepts then to that I say...

So what?

The only point you have made then is that you have a different interpretation of some of the Psalms. You see Christ in every Psalm or you refuse to identify those with human concepts and how you decided which ones have human concepts (you keep oscillating back and forth between those two positions but it matters not which you actually believe)... Brother Lee doesn't see Christ in every Psalm.... Therefore, you want the reader to accept your interpretation.

Again, so what?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

If your only point is that you see Christ in Psalms where Brother Lee doesn't but you also recognize that there are psalms with human concepts then to that I say...

So what?

The only point you have made then is that you have a different interpretation of some of the Psalms. You see Christ in every Psalm or you refuse to identify those with human concepts and how you decided which ones have human concepts (you keep oscillating back and forth between those two positions but it matters not which you actually believe)... Brother Lee doesn't see Christ in every Psalm.... Therefore, you want the reader to accept your interpretation.

Again, so what?

Drake

Thanks for your summary of your defense of Witness Lee's treatment of the Psalms. I pointed out that he went from "Christ is everything"- the reality of all positive OT types - to a nearly wholesale dismissal of the "natural concepts" of the OT writer trying to please God, and obey. I pointed out the contradictory treatments of different psalms, arbitrarily labeling them as "fallen human sentiments" or "revelatory", apparently at whim. I noted how this treatment of the OT text was at stark variance with the NT reception.

So your reply is, So what? Similar to your perfunctory dismissals after we pointed out the Timothy Lee Daystar money fiasco and the Philip Lee Affairs.

Perhaps we should have a similar reaction to all the conferences, trainings, self-published book titles. All the thousands of footnotes and cross-references in the RecV. All the outlines and HWMR "we should" and "we need to" exortations.

Just look at the source of it all. Enough said.

[awareness]

Again, so what?

Drake

Thanks for that bro Drake ; finally the sound of reason. This whole thing is absurd. Psalms are not the word of Christ. Psalms is a composition of over 5 centuries, all of it written by fallen men. Still, it is great literature ... except 137:9, and all the other verses about destroying enemies ... that Jesus countered with "love your enemy."

Meanwhile, let's continue -- in the spirit of Psalms -- to pile on bro Drake. It's fun. After all, he's in that awful local church. Where's David's slingshot when we need it. We needed it for that giant Witness Lee.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for that bro Drake ; finally the sound of reason. This whole thing is absurd. Psalms are not the word of Christ. Psalms is a composition of over 5 centuries, all of it written by fallen men. Still, it is great literature ...

Awareness,

You are going too far in the other direction. All Scripture is God breathed including the Psalms and profitable for correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. Every Psalm is there in the Holy Writ by design and for our benefit.

No one will correct you but I will ... because I care about you.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Then the spin-offs get spin-offs. With the LC, now they wonder "who has the mantle"? The splinter groups all claim the true line from Martin Luther.

Originally Posted by aron

So your reply is, So what? Similar to your perfunctory dismissals after we pointed out the Timothy Lee Daystar money fiasco and the Philip Lee Affairs.

Careful there aron. If you keep mentioning the Midwest "spin-off" or Lee's profligate boys, Drake will put you on his "ignore list" like he did to me, pick up all his marbles, and won't talk to you anymore.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

You present a false choice set: either 18 of the first 21 Psalms are natural, per Witness Lee, or "every word of every Psalm" must unequivocally show Christ. You say, it's either Lee's 15% or it must be 100%. My first posts made clear that I wasn't going for the second option of 100%. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it. I made my case with a few of the first Psalms. Point made. And I've repeated this several times. I never said I was going to do a systematic review of every word of every Psalm. I doubt you think that way, either - rather you're trying to divert attention from Brother Lee's deficient Bible study.

aron, when dealing with folks who only know extremes, you must learn to repetitively repeat yourself redundantly again and again.

Just trying to help you out.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

You present a false choice set: either 18 of the first 21 Psalms are natural, per Witness Lee, or "every word of every Psalm" must unequivocally show Christ. You say, it's either Lee's 15% or it must be 100%. My first posts made clear that I wasn't going for the second option of 100%. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it.

The problem with WL's treatment of Psalms (and Proverbs, Job, James and Peter) is not that he missed places that were about Christ.

The problem is that WL taught, especially later in his life, that if the Bible does not emphasize what WL emphasizes, then that part of the Bible is erroneous human concept.

There are many parts of the Bible, including Psalms that are not about Christ or the church. Most of Psalms show by experience how to live a godly, humble, down-to-earth, honest life. This is part of a balanced diet of the truth. WL said that such verses or whole Psalms or whole books were not the word of God, but are human concepts contrary to God's truth. I think this was WL's greatest error.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

The problem with WL's treatment of Psalms (and Proverbs, Job, James and Peter) is not that he missed places that were about Christ.

The problem is that WL taught, especially later in his life, that if the Bible does not emphasize what WL emphasizes, then that part of the Bible is erroneous human concept.

There are many parts of the Bible, including Psalms that are not about Christ or the church. Most of Psalms show by experience how to live a godly, humble, down-to-earth, honest life. This is part of a balanced diet of the truth. WL said that such verses or whole Psalms or whole books were not the word of God, but are human concepts contrary to God's truth. I think this was WL's greatest error.

This whole thread took an interesting tangent with a great discussion about the inerrancy of scripture. But, I was struck and helped by the above post because when I reread some of “the go to verses” in the New Testament (including those cited in this thread) they support this thought. First here are links to the verses I checked:

https://biblehub.com/blb/luke/24.htm

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-11.htm

I was struck with this. In Luke 24 Jesus was able to point out during part of a 7 mile walk (say 6 hours?) the parts of scripture (Old Testament of course) that were about himself. Then what exactly do the other verses say scripture is for?
“profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness” and “these things happened to them as types and were written for our admonition..”, they don’t say “are all about Christ” nor “are all about Christ and the church”, nor “are all about God’s economy”.

I don’t know about you, but I find that liberating. Thanks VoiceInWilderness!
No more hunting every scripture to see how it is about Christ (what I’ve been burdened with).

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

I don’t know about you, but I find that liberating.

No more hunting every scripture to see how it is about Christ (what I’ve been burdened with).

I never said "every scripture is about Christ", or if I did I mis-spoke. What I said in the first couple of posts on this thread was that there is probably "more Christ" in the first 21 Psalms than merely Psalm 2,8, and 16.

I pointed out Psalm 3 and Psalm 6 and Psalm 18 as examples.

Drake and Evangelical will point out Job's companions speaking "naturally" &c; I likewise pointed out Manoah and his wife. But that was never the issue of this thread: it was rather, are 18 of the first 21 Psalms likewise "natural human concept"? That was my inquiry.

The NT reception gives us ample latitude to "see Jesus" a la Hebrews 2:9, in the types and figures of the OT. The pious Jew who loves God's word, who obeys, and is rewarded - "He rescued me (Christ) because He delighted in me" is an obvious example (from Psalm 18).

But I never insinuated that every word of Psalms, or Scripture, must be "Christ". The Psalmist writing in Psalm 51, "In sin I was conceived" doesn't sound like Christ to me.

To re-iterated my theme, WL departed from the apostolic precedent set in Acts 2 by Peter and Acts 13 by Paul in finding "Christ" in the Psalms. This pattern of reception and usage was similarly followed in Hebrews, Peter's epistle, and the four Gospels. The sinner David, in his struggle to find God, was a picture of the coming "Seed of David". And Asaph, Lemuel, etc. These "godly sentiments" were fulfilled by Jesus the Nazarene.

But no, not every single word has to be "Christ". I don't think that I ever suggested that. What I am saying is that there is a pattern of reception and usage in the NT, and we shouldn't be so quick, as WL was, to dismiss the pattern given us by the apostles and writers of the NT.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I never said "every scripture is about Christ", or if I did I mis-spoke. What I said in the first couple of posts on this thread was that there is probably "more Christ" in the first 21 Psalms than merely Psalm 2,8, and 16.

Actually, what you said is that all a Psalms portray Christ. I responded to this in post #717.

Aron, you reserve the right to change your mind or admit you misspoke but it’s not accurate to say you never said it. Why is that important? Well, you staked out a position and we all met you there to discuss it. Thinking you had mistakenly and inadvertently driven a peg in the wrong place, I asked you at one point if your disagreement with Brother Lee was that you saw Christ in the Psalms in more places than he did because I intimated that if that was the case then, “so what?”. That was your out..... I was facilitating a path for you to a more reasonable and moderate position. I’m glad you have reconsidered and backed off that ardent and unreasonable stake in the ground.

So then, if your objection is that you see Christ in more Psalms than Brother Lee did then I ask again......so what?

Drake

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by JJ

This whole thread took an interesting tangent with a great discussion about the inerrancy of scripture. But, I was struck and helped by the above post because when I reread some of “the go to verses” in the New Testament (including those cited in this thread) they support this thought. First here are links to the verses I checked:

https://biblehub.com/blb/luke/24.htm

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-11.htm

I was struck with this. In Luke 24 Jesus was able to point out during part of a 7 mile walk (say 6 hours?) the parts of scripture (Old Testament of course) that were about himself. Then what exactly do the other verses say scripture is for?
“profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness” and “these things happened to them as types and were written for our admonition..”, they don’t say “are all about Christ” nor “are all about Christ and the church”, nor “are all about God’s economy”.

I don’t know about you, but I find that liberating. Thanks VoiceInWilderness!
No more hunting every scripture to see how it is about Christ (what I’ve been burdened with).

You're very welcome bro. Thank you for you comments.
I actually found that truth liberating also.
You might like the song I made out of Psalm 26 about the working together of faith and works.
http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalm_26.htm

[JJ]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

You're very welcome bro. Thank you for you comments.
I actually found that truth liberating also.
You might like the song I made out of Psalm 26 about the working together of faith and works.
http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalm_26.htm

Wow! Thanks for sending the link to your web site. I’m blown away. Looks like an amazing resource.

Peace and grace to you in Christ.

JJ

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Aron. So you’ve changed your mind since a few posts back when I posed this question to you.

Nevertheless, now that we know where you are coming from with the above statement then your reasons for objecting to anyone characterizing any Psalm as a human concept and not a portrayal of Christ is consistent. You accept every Psalm as a portrayal of Christ without exception.

Drake

If that is the case then smashing babies into rocks portrays Christ to Aron. He must divide the Psalms somehow, and if he doesn't do that then he is comparing Christ to all the negative things in the Psalms.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If that is the case then smashing babies into rocks portrays Christ to Aron. He must divide the Psalms somehow, and if he doesn't do that then he is comparing Christ to all the negative things in the Psalms.

Yep. That too.

I'm addressing the duplicitous nature of his argument.

As examples, aron recognizes human concepts in the Psalms but won't name the verses or how he derives that they are human concepts. Then his feathers get all ruffled when you quote him directly stating he sees Christ in every Psalm but then he responds suggesting he never meant that. In another place he refers to James as an ignorant leader but then rents his clothes and throws dust in the air at a reasonable explanation that James' epistle is influenced by the law. He demands precision from others but then asks the reader to forgive his frequent exaggerations. He criticizes others for holding an opinion but prizes his own very highly.

I still don't really know what he thinks about the Psalms because of that..... but it seems his purpose is not to generate light but rather heat. That is, just to find fault with Brother Lee's explanation without offering a cohesive one of his own.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

As examples, aron recognizes human concepts in the Psalms but won't name the verses or how he derives that they are human concepts. Then his feathers get all ruffled when you quote him directly stating he sees Christ in every Psalm but then he responds suggesting he never meant that. In another place he refers to James as an ignorant leader but then rents his clothes and throws dust in the air at a reasonable explanation that James' epistle is influenced by the law. He demands precision from others but then asks the reader to forgive his frequent exaggerations. He criticizes others for holding an opinion but prizes his own very highly.

I still don't really know what he thinks about the Psalms because of that..... but it seems his purpose is not to generate light but rather heat. That is, just to find fault with Brother Lee's explanation without offering a cohesive one of his own.

Drake

I'll patiently restate my case for what seems like the 35th time. How is it that David hitting Goliath in the face with a rock is "Christ" but smashing infants on the rocks is not? Do you retrospectively impose the Geneva convention?

Paul already answered this: we struggle against spiritual forces. The OT allegories still hold.

And yes, James was influenced by the law. He was a Jew. As was David. How is it that you require the Jews to live like the gentiles? (But I don't think you'll get that one).

p.s. I did name the verse: Psalm 51:5.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I'll patiently restate my case for what seems like the 35th time. How is it that David hitting Goliath in the face with a rock is "Christ" but smashing infants on the rocks is not? Do you retrospectively impose the Geneva convention?.

That is your argument? You see in the Psalms Christ in the smashing of infants on rocks....?

Well, alrighty.... I see what Evangelical meant....

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

That is your argument? You see in the Psalms Christ in the smashing of infants on rocks....?

Well, alrighty.... I see what Evangelical meant....

Drake

And likewise, you see Christ in David smashing Goliath in the head with a stone? And Agag getting stabbed by Samuel? And Deborah driving a nail into the skull of Sisera?

Well, alrighty then. We all can see where you stand on violence in the OT.

Shouldn't David submit to Goliath? That would have been the NT thing to do in those circumstances. Show love. Turn the other cheek, go the second mile.