The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

I wanted to mention something which I wrote earlier in the "Recovery Terminology" thread, following OBW's remark about how the book of James was ostensibly only in the NT to show us something "not according to God's economy".

I mentioned that much of the Psalms seemed to be in the same state under the eyes of the Living Stream ministry "trainers". They basically followed a format that whatever lined up and buttressed the "God's economy" template got covered, and the rest got dismissed. Which happened to be the bulk of the material in question.

Here was my comment:

I tried to read the Psalms in detail in the Recovery Version, which I still own, and gave up in the 34th chapter and skimmed the rest....and my sense was that the trend continued through the whole book of Psalms. ... I estimated that they actually addressed 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms.

In chapter 1, verse 1 footnote, LSM introduces the Psalms as either written by "fallen man's concept", i.e. the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or by a "revelation of Christ". LSM with the "God's economy" template, naturally gets to decide which are which.

So Psalm 1 is a "natural concept of David" Psalm.

Then Psalm 2 is a revelation of Christ.

Then Psalms 3 through 7 were written according to "David's concept".

Then Psalm 8 is a "revelation of Christ" psalm.

Then Psalms 9-15 are full of the concepts of good and evil, and void of Christ. See footnotes in 9:3 and 15:1. The intervening psalms (9 through 15)pass without mention (i.e. footnotes).

Then psalm 16 is a "revelation" psalm. Footnotes ensue.

Then psalms 17-21 are "David's concept" psalms. See footnote 17:1.

Out of the first 21 chapters of the Psalms, only 3 have any value according to the 'God's economy' metric. The rest are seen merely as placeholders, or worse.

So we are supposed to believe that David was limited by his "concepts" while Mr. Lee entertained no concepts? All I see in the Psalms footnotes are concepts, and rather shallow and rudimentary ones at that.

I will mention why I think Christ possibly found in Psalms 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 in the next post. Maybe, just maybe, Lee fit the Palms into a "Procrustean bed" and cut off some of the Christ waiting to be seen there.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I will mention why I think Christ possibly found in Psalms 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 in the next post. Maybe, just maybe, Lee fit the Palms into a "Procrustean bed" and cut off some of the Christ waiting to be seen there.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

A procrustean bed is when you cut the material to fit your template. Not a good thing when you are dealing with A) your concept and B) the Bible. But the LSM "God's economy" template cuts off 18 of the first 21 Psalms.

I would like to make my case merely using a few verses from the first Psalm.

Psalm 1, vv. 1-3

1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.

LSM (Lee) says this is the concept of David, and since David sinned (he numbered Israel in his pride and 70,000 died; he had sex with a married woman [Bathsheba] etc) then he was not this hypothetical "righteous man" from Psalm 1. True, but my point is that this was fulfilled by Jesus the Nazarene. Remember where Peter was standing testifying in the beginning of Acts, and he said that David's declaration that God would not allow him to see corruption was fulfilled by Jesus?

Acts 2:29-32 “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."

David's declaration in the Psalms was not fulfilled by him, but by his descendant Jesus the Nazarene. Similarly, Psalms chapter 1 is not fulfilled by David but by Jesus the Nazarene, and only by Jesus the Nazarene. It is, in one sense, a shallow statement of a well meaning, God-fearing but ultimately fallable human being. But Psalm 1 also paints a picture of the coming Christ.

In all the declarations of the "God-fearing, law-abiding righteous man" throughout the chapters of the Psalms, we see picture after picture of Jesus. Jesus didn't overturn the law; he fulfilled it, and raised it to its true spiritual source (e.g. love, holiness, righteousness).

My second point is that Paul twice (in his epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians) calls the Psalms "the word of Christ". Was Paul just referring to Psalm 2, 8, and 16, and 22, and not to the "natural concept" Psalms 1, 3 through 7, 10 through 15, and 17 through 21?

That is the strong sense I get from the Lee/LSM interpretation, and I disagree. There are a lot of revelations of Christ in those "natural concept" Psalms. The pictures are there, and were ignored because of a natural concept: that of the interpreter.

I have not covered Psalms 2 through 150 (Nigel Tomes?). But I hope my point from Psalm 1 is made adequately, none the less, and is suggestive of further riches thus far ignored.

[aron]

One further point can be made initially, and I will continue with Psalm 1 to make it.

Psalm 1:4-6

4 Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff
that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.

The Psalms take quite a bit of time going over the righteous vs. the wicked. Their source, their ways, and their end.

Who is the righteous one? Jesus Christ the righteous. Who are the wicked?

"Behold, we are all like sheep, gone astray, we have all gone our own way, and the LORD has laid on him [Christ] the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6

"For all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Romans 3:23

All men have gone astray, have fallen short of God's glory, save the One. Jesus the Nazarene; in no other name can we be saved.

So we Christians don't trust our own righteousness, but are saved by believing into the Righteous One. In Psalm One, verses 1 through 3 we see Jesus of Nazareth, and verses 4 through 6 we recognize ourselves, outside God's mercy in Christ Jesus. And so on, continued in Psalms 2 through 150.

Again, this is a vast generalization, with much more explication needed (obviously Jesus the Nazarene is not the repentant protagonist portrayed in Psalm 51, for example). But if you use this "interpretive grid" you might not so quickly pass over 18 of the first 21 chapters of the Psalms as irrelevant.

And what about the compilers of the Psalms? Why did they put Psalm 1 first? To show us what not to be? Or were they as confused as David, with their natural concepts? If so, then why did God allow all these confused people to write and then compile the Psalms? I suspect that there are depths there, beyond the initial "natural concept" level, and those depths contain Christ. Just because Mr. Lee didn't see Jesus the Nazarene in all those Psalms, it doesn't mean Jesus isn't there, vividly portrayed. It just means that Mr. Lee didn't see Him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And what about the compilers of the Psalms? Why did they put Psalm 1 first? To show us what not to be? Or were they as confused as David, with their natural concepts? If so, then why did God allow all these confused people to write and then compile the Psalms? I suspect that there are depths there, beyond the initial "natural concept" level, and those depths contain Christ. Just because Mr. Lee didn't see Jesus the Nazarene in all those Psalms, it doesn't mean Jesus isn't there, vividly portrayed. It just means that Mr. Lee didn't see Him.

Great points!

Today I still marvel at the arrogance I once participated in. We were instructed to pick apart books like the Psalms, Job, or James without a second thought, yet never would we dare to examine the books and messages of Lee under the same scrutiny.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I ... marvel at the arrogance I once participated in. We were instructed to pick apart books like the Psalms, Job, or James without a second thought, yet never would we dare to examine the books and messages of Lee under the same scrutiny.

We did so because that's what we saw. Monkey see, monkey do. Remember that once we were infants, babes in Christ, and we would imitate whomever seemed to be before us in the race.

Just like children, who will unquestioningly mimic their parents speech, behaviors, and biases. But eventually we must grow into adults and take responsibility for our own thoughts, feelings, and actions. And for our own biblical interpretation.

What I marvel at is that it took me so long to be able to look at the Bible without "Witness Lee glasses" on. I have not been meeting with his "churches" for 15 years. Only in the last couple of years could I read the Bible without the "God's economy" template dominating my dialog with God in His word. Today I, and we, can scrutinize Lee's "natural concepts" just as Lee examined those of James, David the psalmist, and Job.

[aron]

Today there is widespread agreement that the Psalms prefigured the coming Christ. Psalm 2, Psalm 8, Psalm 16, Psalm 22, Psalm 91, Psalm 110 are heavily quoted in the New Testament, for example.

But when Paul twice (Col 3:16, Eph 5:19) urged the saints to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly as they sang psalms, singing praise to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, do you think he was thinking of limiting them to those few? I don't get any indication of that. What about all the other chapters, which Lee passed over without mention, other than that they are "natural"? Do you think Paul had the same judgment, the same caveat? I don't get that impression.

Do you think, when the Psalmist wrote "In the midst of the assembly I will sing hymns of praise to you", that this applies only when we sing Lee's "revelation of Christ" psalms? That Christ will not/cannot join us if we sing the "natural concept" psalms? Child, please.

I personally think the psalms are much deeper and more revelatory of Christ than Lee realized. It is not that the Psalms are lacking the revelation of Christ, but that Lee was lacking the revelation of Christ. Which brings the next question: why? How could a man who teased images of Christ from the badger skins and silver sockets on the ark of the covenant, and from the windows on Noah's ark, not see Christ there in so many of the Psalms?

I think it is two-fold. First, he had a bias against the "law" by Paul's expositions (see Galatians 2, Romans 7, etc). So when the psalmist expressed a love for the law, Lee recoiled instinctively. The voices of Paul the apostle and Martin Luther the expositor shouted "No!!!" within him. This prevented him from seeking, or seeing, any Christ there.

Secondly, the man clearly had control issues. When the saints actually began to take the apostle Paul at his word and sing the Psalms, "As the hart panteth after the water brooks/so panteth my soul after Thee, O God", then Lee got worried because they were enjoying the Word outside his ministry and this to him was most dangerous. Lee wanted to be the sole mediator of man's revelatory experience in the Word of God. So Lee told the fellowships in the Lord's Recovery to stop singing the Psalms, because they were too low. I have heard this verbally from several people who were there.

He didn't, of course, say "Stop singing the Psalms"; he said, "It would be better if you sang verses from Ephesians than from Psalms". Then he imitated in a mocking way the saints as they praised God using the words of the psalmist. His "shaming" actions were enough to discourage the saints.

So Witness Lee was willing to directly contravene Paul's encouragement, if Paul's encouragement led to a loss of his (Lee's) control. The Spirit was starting to move among the assemblies, and it was moving away from Lee's dominion, and this probably threatened him. Loss of control could not be tolerated. So he stopped it.

And the "spirit of wisdom and revelation" which Paul asked for in Ephesians 1:17 got frustrated. The psalms then were declared to be the "natural concepts of men", versus revelatory pictures of the persecuted, praying, believing, hoping, trusting, declaring, thirsty, hungry, stricken, suffering, fighting, struggling Jesus the Nazarene. "Oh, that's just David (or Asaph, or Lemuel, etc) trying to be good." No, that is Jesus fulfilling the destiny of humankind. That is none other than the "Savior of the world" (1 John 4:14) revealed in detail far beyond Lee's capacity to see.

[aron]

Unfortunately I have little expertise on the theology of 'the law versus grace'. Paul's epistle to the Romans presents challenging arguments to me, as are his expositions elsewhere, such as in the book of Galatians. I give this disclaimer lest anyone think I am holding forth some "truth" which I think should apply universally. Rather, what follow are just some comments on Jesus the Nazarene as seen in Psalm 1.

1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.

Now, as imitators of Paul, and as followers of Martin Luther, we reject the notion of being saved by the law. Salvation is by grace, by the gift of faith.

But perhaps there was One who delighted in the law of the LORD, whose heart was pure, who received God's word as it was intended: as His Spirit, truth, wisdom, light, counsel, food, encouragement, power, and life. So this One stepped fully into the reality of what the prophets and psalmists had hoped for. We the failed, the hopeless, the fallen, see this overcoming One and we live.

Now, let's look at Psalm 1, and see the One who "meditates on God's law day and night". In Matthew 22, Jesus was asked, "Which is the greatest of the commandments?". Jesus responded with Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Those passages could be seen as just obscure "riders" in a legal document. Leviticus 19:18, I believe, is dealing with the context of a neighbor's wandering cow. But Jesus saw the reality behind the law. Jesus didn't overturn the law, He fulfilled it (Matt 5:17). Paul also says this. "The law is spiritual" (Rom 7:14) ... the problem is not the law, but our inability to keep it.

"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin." But jesus was not unspiritual. So the law was to Him a completely different animal than to we the fallen. We should not see the Psalms as "natural concepts" of David (or Witness Lee) but as Jesus saw them. They were the framework for His dialog with the Father.

So when you see the psalmist expressing love for the law of God, think about Jesus and His Father. As I said, these are merely the ruminations of a sinner trying to follow Jesus back home to the Father. "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet", and this seems to include the Psalms, much more than we were hitherto led to believe.

[aron]

As I said, Witness Lee got bothered by the ministries in God's word which sprang up in the "local churches" by singing the Psalms. Several gifted musicians started doing things in the Word which the saints loved, and picked up on. This was a movement "in the churches" which hadn't been sanctioned and directed by Lee the Oracle and Apostle of the age, so it was squelched. People were passing around music cassettes which didn't have "Living Stream Ministry" on them. Lee wanted full control.

Now, what is the consequence of this attempt at man to direct the move of God on the earth? The Spirit was frustrated. The word was closed. The light was turned off.

The fruit of this was evident, a year ago, when I looked at their music catalog. When I looked at their various merchandise being sold, among music there were no psalms. They once had them for sale (i.e. the 1970s, 1980s), but now they were gone. Those gifted and anointed saints were silenced, and evidence of their ministry had disappeared. One could purchase hymns, footnotes set to music, and outlines, and some verses. But no psalms.

And the top of the page selling this stuff quoted the verse with Paul's admonition to sing psalms! Too ironic. This is what happens when the lights turn off.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Aron,
Great thread.
I am slowly going thru the Psalms and making songs of them so I can memorize them by singing them. I get a lot from them. They are both practical and spiritual. I haven't found any word in them which is not God's word. I've done Psalms 1-28 and others non-consecutively after that.
They're at http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalms.htm

Brother Lee had this damaging concept of the Psalms early on and it bore ugly fruit later in his ministry. The result was that you couldn't trust the Bible, only W.Lee's expounding of it.

Here is W. Lee's expounding of 1 Peter 3 where Peter quotes Ps 34. It is good. It was published in 1986, so it was given before 1986. Following that I have quoted W. Lee's exposition of Ps 34, the same verses as in Peter, published in 1996. It speaks for itself: In his later years, W. Lee was far more arrogant than I ever remembered. He puts his ministry above the Bible. Not only does he say that Psalm 34 is unspiritual, but belittles the NT apostle Peter for quoting the Psalm. Also the interpretation he puts on David's words is low. Besides that, Paul and Jesus said the same things as Ps 34.

W. Lee's msg on 1 Peter 3 where Peter quotes Ps 34
IN COMMON LIFE
In 3:8-13 Peter speaks of the Christian life and its sufferings with respect to common life. Verse 8 says, "And finally, be all of the same mind, sympathetic, loving the brothers, tenderhearted, humble minded." This verse is filled with good terms. Paul also uses such terms, but he does not put them together the way Peter does. Verse 9 continues, "Not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, because to this you were called that you might inherit blessing." In the first part of this verse "blessing" is not a noun as the object of "rendering"; instead, it is a participle, meaning "be blessing." When others revile us, we should not revile them in return. On the contrary, we should bless them. Peter's word here corresponds to what the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 5:44 and to what Paul says in Romans 12:14. In verse 9 we are told that we have been called that we might inherit blessing. We have been called to bless others, so we, as a blessed people, should always bless others that we might inherit blessing. What we bless others with, we shall inherit ourselves (Matt. 10:13). Of course, the blessing here is not material. According to the context, the blessing refers to life, indicating that we shall inherit more
life.

In verse 10 Peter continues, "For he who is desiring to love life and see good days, let him cause his tongue to cease from evil and his lips to speak no guile." Good days are days of good, referring to good things as blessing. If we would see such good days, we should cause our tongue to cease from evil and our lips to speak no guile. Concerning this, Christ is a pattern for us to follow. In 2:22 Peter tells us that Christ "did no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth." But our lips and tongue cause much trouble. Many negative things have resulted from the improper use of our tongue and lips. In verse 11 Peter speaks of turning from evil, doing good, and seeking and pursuing peace. In verse 12 he says that the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and His ears are unto their petition, but His face is against those who do evil. Then in verse 13 Peter says, "And who will harm you if you become zealots of good?" According to this verse, we should not only be zealous of good; we should become zealots of good. The word "zealots" denotes a particular kind of person. We all should become zealots of good.

Now, here is his msg on Psalm 34.
Judge it for yourself

X. IN BLESSING AND PRAISING GOD
Psalm 34 shows us the mixed expressions of the psalmist’s sentiment in his enjoyment of God in God’s house in blessing and praising God. To bless God is to speak well about God, to talk about God in a good way. To praise God is to give the honor and the glory to God.

A. Written After David Disguised Himself as Being Insane before Abimelech It is good to bless and praise God, but we should not forget that such a wonderful psalm was written after David put on a ‘‘mask.’’ He wrote this psalm after he disguised himself as being insane before Abimelech. This story is recorded in 1 Samuel 21:10-15. There David disguised himself before this Philistine king in order to escape from being killed.

B. Because of God’s Answer and Deliverance David blessed and praised God because of God’s answer and deliverance (vv. 1-6). In verse 1 he said, ‘‘I will bless Jehovah at all times; / His praise will continually be in my mouth.’’ This is good, but we have to remember the situation in which David said this. When he disguised himself before Abimelech, he surely was not blessing God at that time. Instead, 1 Samuel 21:13 says that David scrabbled on the doors of the gate and let his spittle fall down upon his beard to make Abimelech think that he was insane. Verses 2-6 say, ‘‘My soul makes its boast in Jehovah; / The lowly hear and they rejoice. / Magnify Jehovah with me, / And let us exalt His name together. / I sought Jehovah, and He answered me; / And He delivered me from all that terrified me. / They looked to Him and were radiant; / And their faces will never be abashed. / This poor man called out, and Jehovah heard; / And He saved him out of all his troubles.’’

David said that Jehovah delivered him. But I would like to ask whether he was delivered out of the hand of Abimelech by Jehovah or whether he delivered himself. People may pray for a number of things, and then give all the credit to God when they are done. Actually, however, God did not do any one of them. Instead, they prayed according to their own desire, and they did it on their own. Sometimes they might have even done something in a way to cheat people, but God surely did not cheat people for them. We may pray for something, get what we prayed for, and then give the credit to God. This is an insult to God. In this case the credit should not go to God but to us to become a debit.

C. Advising and Teaching Others to Fear God and Take Refuge in Him Verses 7-22 show us David’s advising and teaching others to fear God and take refuge in Him. In verse 8 David said, ‘‘Blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him.’’ However, when David disguised himself in front of that king, he did not take refuge in Jehovah but in his ‘‘mask,’’ in his disguising himself. In verse 11 David said, ‘‘Come, children; hear me. / I will teach you the fear of Jehovah.’’ Do we want David to teach us to disguise ourselves, to put on a mask? This shows that on the one hand, we may trust in the Lord; on the other hand, we may put on a mask to deliver ourselves. Eventually, who saved us----the Lord or our mask?

1. The Goodness of Fearing God and Taking Refuge in Him In Psalm 34 David spoke of the goodness of fearing God and taking refuge in Him (vv. 7-10, 17-22). Verse 10 says, ‘‘The young lions hunger and starve, / But those who seek Jehovah will not lack any good thing.’’ People may quote these verses for their personal benefit but eventually end up lacking the material things they desire. Second Corinthians tells us that Paul passed through much suffering and deprivation, even to the extent that he was lacking food and clothing (11:27).

2. The Way to Fear God In Psalm 34 David spoke of the way to fear God (vv. 11-16; 1 Pet. 3:10-12). Verses 12-16 say, ‘‘Who is the man who desires life, / Who loves having days in order to see good? / Guard your tongue from evil, / And your lips from speaking deceit. / Turn away from evil and do good; / Seek peace and pursue it. / The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the righteous, / And His ears, toward their cry. / The face of Jehovah is against those who do evil, / To cut off the memory of them from the earth.’’ These verses were quoted by Peter in 1 Peter 3:10-12, but Paul did not quote such a word. Paul’s vision of the New Testament economy was clearer than that of all the other apostles.

When David asked, ‘‘Who is the man who desires life, / Who loves having days in order to see good?’’ he was not talking about the eternal life but about the physical life. David was a great saint in the Old Testament, and Peter was one of the great apostles in the New Testament, but I do not believe that what David said here is spiritual. Even among us, who dares ask the Lord to give him long days that he may enjoy many good things?

David said that if we love having days in order to see good, we should guard our tongue from evil and our lips from speaking deceit. But who has ever succeeded in guarding his tongue from evil? What David spoke here was according to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Verse 15 says, ‘‘The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the righteous, / And His ears, toward their cry.’’ But who is righteous on this earth? Paul said that not one is righteous (Rom. 3:10), and Isaiah said that our righteousnesses are like filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). If we depend upon our righteousness to enjoy God’s eyes and ears being set toward us, we will enjoy nothing, because we have no righteousness of our own.

Concerning the righteous man, David said, ‘‘He keeps all his bones; / Not one of them is broken’’ (v. 20). This is a verse concerning Christ because David was a type of the suffering Christ. When Christ was on the cross, the soldiers did not break His legs when they saw that He had already died (John 19:33). John said, ‘‘These things happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘No bone of His shall be broken’ ’’ (v. 36).

There were times in describing his sufferings that David typified Christ. When we look at Psalm 34, we can see the mixed expressions of David’s sentiment. Verse 20 refers to Christ, but most of this psalm is not according to the tree of life. Our concept needs to be changed to the divine concept according to the tree of life. As we grow in Christ, our concept will be changed.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

I mentioned that much of the Psalms seemed to be in the same state under the eyes of the Living Stream ministry "trainers". They basically followed a format that whatever lined up and buttressed the "God's economy" template got covered, and the rest got dismissed. Which happened to be the bulk of the material in question.

Here was my comment:

I tried to read the Psalms in detail in the Recovery Version, which I still own, and gave up in the 34th chapter and skimmed the rest....and my sense was that the trend continued through the whole book of Psalms. ... I estimated that they actually addressed 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms.

In chapter 1, verse 1 footnote, LSM introduces the Psalms as either written by "fallen man's concept", i.e. the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or by a "revelation of Christ". LSM with the "God's economy" template, naturally gets to decide which are which.

So Psalm 1 is a "natural concept of David" Psalm.

Then Psalm 2 is a revelation of Christ.

Then Psalms 3 through 7 were written according to "David's concept".

Then Psalm 8 is a "revelation of Christ" psalm.

Then Psalms 9-15 are full of the concepts of good and evil, and void of Christ. See footnotes in 9:3 and 15:1. The intervening psalms (9 through 15)pass without mention (i.e. footnotes).

Then psalm 16 is a "revelation" psalm. Footnotes ensue.

Then psalms 17-21 are "David's concept" psalms. See footnote 17:1.

Out of the first 21 chapters of the Psalms, only 3 have any value according to the 'God's economy' metric. The rest are seen merely as placeholders, or worse.

So we are supposed to believe that David was limited by his "concepts" while Mr. Lee entertained no concepts? All I see in the Psalms footnotes are concepts, and rather shallow and rudimentary ones at that.

Something I read this morning in the Gospel of Luke,

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24:44

And LSM wants to cherry-pick that which is profitable for "the ministry"? I say this, because too many times there is (LSM) ministry commentary that devalues scripture. Remember the song "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching..."?

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Brother Lee had this damaging concept of the Psalms early on and it bore ugly fruit later in his ministry. The result was that you couldn't trust the Bible, only W.Lee's expounding of it..

Yes; eventually Witness Lee's interpretation overrode the plain words in front of us.

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

...here is [Lee's] msg on Psalm 34.
X. IN BLESSING AND PRAISING GOD
Psalm 34 shows us the mixed expressions of the psalmist’s sentiment in his enjoyment of God in God’s house in blessing and praising God. ....

True, David was mixed. But so is Witness Lee, and so am I. Jesus, however, as the fulfillment of David's type, was not mixed, but pure. This point is not raised.

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

A. Written After David Disguised Himself as Being Insane before Abimelech
It is good to bless and praise God, but we should not forget that such a wonderful psalm was written after David put on a ‘‘mask.’’ He wrote this psalm after he disguised himself as being insane before Abimelech. This story is recorded in 1 Samuel 21:10-15. There David disguised himself before this Philistine king in order to escape from being killed.....

If you read Psalm 34, it says that the righteous cry out and that God delivers them from all their trouble. David was praying, and crying out to God, there as he scratched the wall in front of Abilimilech. And God delivered him. Just as the whale spit out Jonah after he began to praise God in its belly, just as Paul and Silas got freed by an earthquake when they praised God in the jail in Philippi, just as Jesus prayed to the Father in the heart of the earth after 3 days and was raised, so did David call on the Lord in his time of trouble, and the Lord delivered him. David says this plainly in verses 15 and 17.

This point seems to have escaped Witness Lee's cognizance.

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

B. Because of God’s Answer and Deliverance
David blessed and praised God because of God’s answer and deliverance (vv. 1-6). In verse 1 he said, ‘‘I will bless Jehovah at all times; / His praise will continually be in my mouth.’’ This is good, but we have to remember the situation in which David said this. When he disguised himself before Abimelech, he surely was not blessing God at that time......

The reason Mr. Lee says this is because he didn't sing Psalm 34. He merely analyzed it as if it were an insect pinned to a cork board. How do you know David wasn't blessing God while he was there facing the wall? He was a type of Christ, wasn't he? I believe David was saying something like, "God, I will praise You. If I die here, I will die praising You."

And Abimilech said, "Get this madman out of here". Just like when David was mocked by his wife for dancing in front of the ark, just like Festus said "You are insane, Paul", for enjoying Christ while in chains, so was David doing his final death dance before the God of his life. Why, because David was righteous? No, because David was a type of the coming victorious Christ.

All of these pictures of Christ in Psalm 34 escaped Mr. Lee's notice. He only acknowledged verse 20.

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Verses 2-6 say, ‘‘My soul makes its boast in Jehovah; / The lowly hear and they rejoice. / Magnify Jehovah with me, / And let us exalt His name together. / I sought Jehovah, and He answered me; / And He delivered me from all that terrified me. / They looked to Him and were radiant; / And their faces will never be abashed. / This poor man called out, and Jehovah heard; / And He saved him out of all his troubles.’’ David said that Jehovah delivered him. But I would like to ask whether he was delivered out of the hand of Abimelech by Jehovah or whether he delivered himself. ......

Again, the assumption here is that David did the delivering, even though he plainly says that he sought God, who then saved him. Strange. Did David deliver Israel from Goliath's threats, or did God? Did David escape from Saul, or did God deliver him?

I will skip the intermediate verses, and come to this part:

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

2. The Way to Fear God In Psalm 34 David spoke of the way to fear God (vv. 11-16; 1 Pet. 3:10-12). Verses 12-16 say, ‘‘Who is the man who desires life, / Who loves having days in order to see good? / Guard your tongue from evil, / And your lips from speaking deceit. / Turn away from evil and do good; / Seek peace and pursue it. / The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the righteous, / And His ears, toward their cry. / The face of Jehovah is against those who do evil, / To cut off the memory of them from the earth.’’ These verses were quoted by Peter in 1 Peter 3:10-12, but Paul did not quote such a word. Paul’s vision of the New Testament economy was clearer than that of all the other apostles.

When David asked, ‘‘Who is the man who desires life, / Who loves having days in order to see good?’’ he was not talking about the eternal life but about the physical life. David was a great saint in the Old Testament, and Peter was one of the great apostles in the New Testament, but I do not believe that what David said here is spiritual. Even among us, who dares ask the Lord to give him long days that he may enjoy many good things?

David said that if we love having days in order to see good, we should guard our tongue from evil and our lips from speaking deceit. But who has ever succeeded in guarding his tongue from evil? What David spoke here was according to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Verse 15 says, ‘‘The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the righteous, / And His ears, toward their cry.’’ But who is righteous on this earth? Paul said that not one is righteous (Rom. 3:10), and Isaiah said that our righteousnesses are like filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). If we depend upon our righteousness to enjoy God’s eyes and ears being set toward us, we will enjoy nothing, because we have no righteousness of our own.

Concerning the righteous man, David said, ‘‘He keeps all his bones; / Not one of them is broken’’ (v. 20). This is a verse concerning Christ because David was a type of the suffering Christ. When Christ was on the cross, the soldiers did not break His legs when they saw that He had already died (John 19:33). John said, ‘‘These things happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘No bone of His shall be broken’ ’’ (v. 36).

There were times in describing his sufferings that David typified Christ. When we look at Psalm 34, we can see the mixed expressions of David’s sentiment. Verse 20 refers to Christ, but most of this psalm is not according to the tree of life. Our concept needs to be changed to the divine concept according to the tree of life. As we grow in Christ, our concept will be changed.

This really is strange to me. The previous verses, of loving life, seeing many good days, keeping one's tongue from evil, seeking peace, are called vain by Mr. Lee. He asks, "But who has ever succeeded in guarding his tongue from evil?" What a strange question for a minister of Christ Jesus to ask. The answer is that Christ Himself guarded His tongue from evil. Christ sought peace, Christ was righteous, and God heard the cry of Christ and delivered Him.

Then, suddenly, Mr. Lee sees Christ in Psalm 34. In verse 20. "None of his bones shall be broken." If this hadn't been quoted in the New Testament, I doubt he would have seen Christ here, either.

I surmise that the "young men were having visions" by the pouring out of the Spirit as they sang the Psalms (see Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17), and since this ministry wasn't from "the throne of the Oracle" (Mr. Lee) then it was stopped. Lee wouldn't sing the Psalms because a) someone got there before him and he didn't want to follow, and b) because it would "decentralize the revelation" and this would undermine his ministry/merchandising business.

So you get the plain words of Christ in the Psalms being ignored (vv. 1-19), and acknowledged only when absolutely necessary (v. 20).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

Something I read this morning in the Gospel of Luke,

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24:44

Here is another one from Luke chapter 4:

16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,

19to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him,

21 and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

The proclaiming, the release, the preaching, the recovery, which was accomplished by the anointed Isaiah as a figure, was ultimately fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Isaiah was a type, a figure. Jesus was the fulfillment.

In the Psalms you see David struggling against a host of foes on all sides, calling on the LORD (Jehovah, God, Jah, Yahweh), and being saved. David had a unique attribute that when the going got tough and his soul quaked, he called on the God he loved. Again, and again, God delivered him from the jaws of death.

I believe that Jesus fulfilled this type in much more detail than Mr. Lee and the Maximum Brothers of LSM ever realized. They had their "God's economy" metric and held it firm, even when it necessitated cutting off vast chunks of scripture as void of revelation. As I have said, I think the void in revelation was not in the scripture, but in the expositors.

Originally Posted by Terry

And LSM wants to cherry-pick that which is profitable for "the ministry"? I say this, because too many times there is (LSM) ministry commentary that devalues scripture. Remember the song "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching..."?

This is my thought, as well. There is way too much scripture being devalued here.

Think back to that point where Mr. Lee mocked the saints for singing psalms of praise and blessing to the Father. I imagine that the heavens shut themselves and turned to brass, if they had not already done so.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Brother Lee had this damaging concept of the Psalms early on and it bore ugly fruit later in his ministry. The result was that you couldn't trust the Bible, only W.Lee's expounding of it. In his later years, W. Lee was far more arrogant than I ever remembered. He puts his ministry above the Bible. Not only does he say that Psalm 34 is unspiritual, but belittles the NT apostle Peter for quoting the Psalm.

Brother Steve, Very true.

For many years I was deluded into thinking that the ministry of W. Lee was higher and richer than all others before him with the possible exception of the Apostle Paul. One would think that since WL actually critiqued the validity of various books of the Bible, that some how, some way, he had "surpassed" their authors, even the original "Twelve." We were actively taught that the ministry of WL subsumed all those before him, standing on their shoulders, and learning from their shortcomings.

This was accentuated by the fact that WL regularly highlighted the faults and failures of both Biblical authors and ministers throughout church history. At one point, I came to the stark realization that, besides the Lord Jesus Himself, only WL was without shortcomings and failures. Was he not the consummate God-man, the acting God, raised up by the Lord to close out the age of grace, and prepare the bride of Christ? I may sound facetious here, but I and many others really believed that stuff. It ordered our lives.

.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

...when Paul twice (Col 3:16, Eph 5:19) urged the saints to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly as they sang psalms, singing praise to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, do you think he was thinking of limiting them to those few? I don't get any indication of that.

Mr. Lee did not say "Stop singing the Psalms"; he said, "It would be better if you sang verses from Ephesians than from Psalms". Then he imitated in a mocking way the saints as they praised God using the words of the psalmist. His "shaming" actions were enough to discourage the saints.

If Mr. Lee wanted us to sing verses from Ephesians, which we dutifully began to do, telling us that they were so much fuller and higher and more revelatory than the Psalms, then what are we to make of the fact that the book of Ephesians itself encourages us to sing the Psalms, equating this to being filled with the Spirit (5:18,19)?

Was Paul merely using his fallen "natural concept" when telling us that we could be filled with the Spirit by singing the Psalms?

And if this was some kind of "slip" in Paul's revelatory ministry, some kind of momentary regression, why did Paul repeat this encouragement in Colossians chapter 3? Two is the number of witness. Writing it twice, in separate epistles, rather reduces the probability that this had been a momentary lapse on Paul's part.

And this brings me to back to Ohio's earlier question: how could we have unprotestingly swallowed these teachings? How could thousands of otherwise mostly bright and capable people have sat there in a conference and listened to a lengthy and sometimes tortuous exposition on how much the Psalms lacked revelation of Christ, without someone, anyone, going, "Um.... Mr. Lee... it says here..."?

My feeling of Lee and the Psalms is that he neither entered in, nor did he allow his disciples to enter in, as it says in Matthew 23:13: "...You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

It took 15 years out of my immersive mental bath of Living Stream Ministry teachings, before the scales came off and I began to see Jesus Christ, as He is so vividly depicted in the Psalms. And I began to "see" Jesus in the Psalms, believe it or not, by singing them. The apostle Paul was right. Funny how that goes.

"You foolish people! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed..." See Galatians 3:1

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

...how could we have dutifully swallowed these teachings? How could thousands of bright and capable people have sat there in a conference and listened to a lengthy and sometimes tortuous exposition on how much the Psalms lacked revelation of Christ, without someone, anyone, going, "Um.... Mr. Lee... it says here..."?

My feeling of Lee and the Psalms is that he neither entered in, nor did he allow his disciples to enter in...

I may not have been clear on the text which was the source of my discussion, because in writing I was thinking specifically of the quotes from Mr. Lee's Life-Study of Psalms 34 which VoiceInWilderness posted earlier:

"Verse 15 says, ‘‘The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the righteous, / And His ears, toward their cry.’’ But who is righteous on this earth?"

and

"David said that if we love having days in order to see good, we should guard our tongue from evil and our lips from speaking deceit. But who has ever succeeded in guarding his tongue from evil?"

The answer to these is obviously the coming Christ, Jesus the Nazarene (and should, in our NT experience, extend to those believers "in Christ"). It is understandable why Lee, who had an emotional (and financial) investment in his "God's economy" template, would avoid Jesus the Nazarene as the answer to both of these questions. But, in retrospect, it is stunning to think that from an audience numbering in the thousands, and of Christians no less, not one person could produce come up with this answer. Could this be true?

That is why I quoted Matthew 23:13 and Galatians 3:1. One hardly knows what else to make of such a lack of response, from so many listeners.

[OBW]

Yes, both Colossians and Ephesians clearly recommends psalms — the first as a source of wisdom and the second as kind of evidence of the filling of the Spirit in the context of fellowship among believers. I believe both verses make reference to speaking and/or singing psalms "to one another."

I do find psalms, along with most of the instruction, wisdom and prophecy in the OT to reveal God, who is further revealed in Christ, therefore quite "revelatory." Yet neither of these passages really makes that statement. (I do not diminish the revelation of God in the history, but it often comes in observations of larger portions of narrative than in the pointed references in these other portions.)

An observation about all that has gone on here so far. We have shown (and are continuing to show) how Christ is revealed in the psalms. And how the psalms are pointed to as a source of wisdom, and as something that arises from the filling of the Spirit. But while I understand the idea that Christ is God, therefore all speaking of God can be argued as being speaking of Christ, at some level, I think that even naming this thread "The Psalms are the Word of Christ" takes this a little further than the revelation suggests. We can accurately say that it all points to Christ. But the scripture itself does not say that it is all the speaking of Christ or the Word of Christ. It says it is the Word of God. And then in Hebrews, it says that God spoke in the past in various ways through the prophets, but is now speaking through the Son.

I believe that, rather than always redefining things, we should remain faithful to the way that scripture describes itself and the way that it says what it says. While it may be possible to build a linkage of terms and arrive at the conclusion that Christ spoke it all, that is not the way scripture describes it. Why are we compelled to do it now, 2,000 years later?

On the other hand, it is clear that scripture of all kinds from all parts of the OT were used to tell us about God, and much of it tells us about Christ. So there clearly is revelation concerning Christ. And a lot of it is in the psalms.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

... I understand the idea that Christ is God, therefore all speaking of God can be argued as being speaking of Christ, at some level, I think that even naming this thread "The Psalms are the Word of Christ" takes this a little further than the revelation suggests. We can accurately say that it all points to Christ. But the scripture itself does not say that it is all the speaking of Christ or the Word of Christ...

Yes; in my efforts to counterbalance Mr. Lee, I went further than Paul's phraseology in Ephesians and Colossians might allow. So my title should not be taken literally, as in "...all the words in the Psalms are words of Christ".

As I have said before, I have the penchant for dramatic effect, and often overstate my point to make it. My take on LSM's version of Psalms was that they felt that only a little of it was "The word of David", a man who was "natural", i.e. fallen. Those "natural concept" sections are either ignored, or dismissed summarily, even perjoratively.

Then there are what they call the "revelation of (i.e. about) Christ".

See 1 Peter 1:10-12:

10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

LSM teaches that there are revelatory words of the "Spirit of Christ" interspersed with the "natural" words of David and the other psalmists. My point is this: that according to Mssrs Lee et al there are few revelations of Christ to be found in the Psalms, and a lot of "natural" speaking. See my post regarding the footnotes of Psalms 1 through 21, and also VoiceInWilderness' excerpt from the Life-Study of Psalm 34 as representative samples. As I noted, only 3 of the first 21 Psalms are "of Christ" according to Lee & Co, and only verse 20 from the whole of Psalm 34. The rest is "natural", or "shallow".

In my rebuttal of this notion, I may have left the door open to an interpretation which is equally unbalanced. And thank you OBW for closing that.

--------------------

Another reason why the Psalms deserve closer scrutiny than they have been given, at least by Mssrs Lee, Kangas, Marks et al, is that the notion of "voice" in the Psalms is quite muddled. Sometimes the voice is first person: "The zeal of thy house has eaten me up" in Psalms 69 -- the "Me" here, according to the quotation in John chapter 2, would seem to be of Christ Himself. "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" from Psalm 22 also is the example of the "word of (from) Christ" Himself.

But sometimes the psalmist is speaking to Christ: "they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone." from Psalm 91, as an example.

Sometimes the psalmist is speaking to another about Christ: "Kiss the Son unless He become angry..." in Psalm 2.

And so forth. You also might have God speaking through the psalmist about Christ; you might have God speaking through the psalmist about the "wicked" who reject Christ, you may have the psalmist in his "natural concept" saying things about himself, etc etc. Many voices. Not easy to sort out. And resistant to the template put forth by Lee.

The problem is confounded by the fact that sometimes the "voice" may be seen to be the psalmist, but upon further reflection a deep revelation of "the mystery of Christ" awaits. My analogy is that a college physics book might show an image of "an orange ball" in its pages. A second grader would not be incorrect to identify it as such. But a more sophisticated reader (i.e. a college student) might identify it is a representational of an atom's electron shell. Neither answer is incorrect; one merely goes deeper into the heart of the matter.

My question is: how could so many people who were otherwise possessed of critical faculties be so oblivious to a teaching which is very shallow and inadequate? And, especially, when it is void of the very Christ whom they profess to seek?

Currently, my answer tends toward John 7:13: "But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews", and John 12:42: "Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him... but... they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue..."

Ironically, the ministry which is supposed to free people from the bondage of the clergy/laity system put them into the silence of fear: don't mention that the emperor's teachings have no clothes. Don't be "negative", or "critical".

I suspect that within the Lee crowd there were/are some who believe that there is "more Christ" in the text than what has been officially pronounced. They believe this, but because of trepidation they won't speak it.

[aron]

Let me put it to you this way: do you get any sense from Paul's writings that Psalms 2, 8, 16 alone are "revelation" Psalms, while all the rest (1 through 21)are "natural concept" Psalms? And so on, through the rest of the book?

Or some other writer or expositor besides Paul, for that matter; New Testament or otherwise. If the Psalms were full of "stubble", don't you think someone would have pointed this out?

[aron]

Hebrews 5:7

"During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." (NIV)

Where in the gospels do we see loud cries and tears and prayers and petitions to the One who could save Jesus from death?

In the Psalms we see it again, and again. We see "reverent submission"; We see tears and petitions and fasting and groaning.

Psalm 30:8 To you, LORD, I called;
to the Lord I cried for mercy:
9 “What is gained if I am silenced,
if I go down to the pit?
Will the dust praise you?
Will it proclaim your faithfulness?
10 Hear, LORD, and be merciful to me;
LORD, be my help.”

Again and again through the Psalms David is crying out for help, declaring with faith, and praising the One who can save him.

I met some LSM-affiliated believers a couple of months ago. They were waxing poetic about the Psalms. Evidently there has been a "training" on them recently. They said that Psalm 102 shows "Christ in His resurrection and ascension". They showed me an outline by the LSM regarding this. Lots of NT verses regarding resurrection, acension, enthronement.

You know what? They started Psalm 102 at verse 12! I showed them the first 11 verses:

1 Hear my prayer, LORD;
let my cry for help come to you.
2 Do not hide your face from me
when I am in distress.
Turn your ear to me;
when I call, answer me quickly.

3 For my days vanish like smoke;
my bones burn like glowing embers.
4 My heart is blighted and withered like grass;
I forget to eat my food.
5 In my distress I groan aloud
and am reduced to skin and bones.
6 I am like a desert owl,
like an owl among the ruins.
7 I lie awake; I have become
like a bird alone on a roof.
8 All day long my enemies taunt me;
those who rail against me use my name as a curse.
9 For I eat ashes as my food
and mingle my drink with tears
10 because of your great wrath,
for you have taken me up and thrown me aside.
11 My days are like the evening shadow;
I wither away like grass.

I guess the first 11 verses was just David in his natural concepts, trying to do good. Just ignore the tears and cries, and go right to the revelation of Christ in ascension. Anyway, when I showed them the first 11 verses, they just stared at me blankly. No "Amens". It wasn't covered in the training.

Okaaaaaaaay.....

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Let me put it to you this way: do you get any sense from Paul's writings that Psalms 2, 8, 16 alone are "revelation" Psalms, while all the rest (1 through 21)are "natural concept" Psalms? And so on, through the rest of the book?

Or some other writer or expositor besides Paul, for that matter; New Testament or otherwise. If the Psalms were full of "stubble", don't you think someone would have pointed this out?

I would say that there is little doubt that Paul thought very highly of all of the psalms. It is clear that different psalms reveal different things about God. That is because some are written more from the perspective of man in his fallen state looking for God's help (among other perspectives). (I can hear Lee complaining about those by mocking "His mercy endureth forever, and ever, and ever, and ever. . . ."

And the blatant fact is that his mercy absolutely does endure forever, and ever, and ever. And we need to hear it more. Not less.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is clear that different psalms reveal different things about God. That is because some are written more from the perspective of man in his fallen state looking for God's help (among other perspectives).

True. And my point was that even though some psalms are written from the perspective of man in his fallen state looking for God's help, or trying to be righteous and thus secure God's promised blessing, in these pictures is the framework for God's chosen and anointed Christ to come in to our aid.

God arranged for His Son to temporarily become the "Son of David". This Son of Man suffered and was even cut off, taking the sinner's place. So the fallen man looking for help was redeemed by the "paraclete" in human form, Jesus the Nazarene. This One came alongside and opened His mouth and said, "Yes, Father, save us from our sins", and the Father heard Him. Through the Father hearing and saving Jesus from the pangs of death, we all vicariously may partake in God's victory over sin and death.

Without Jesus coming alongside and breathing life into these psalms, they would indeed have been vain. But with Jesus they become the framework for God's salvation of all humankind. The word is now living, and operating.

When Jesus inhabited the types, the forms, the pictures, so vividly portrayed in the Psalms (among other scriptures, such as "the law" and "the prophets", of course), then these writings became much more than a fallen man declaring vain things in his natural concepts. They became the Word made flesh, and tabernacling among us, full of grace and reality.

Originally Posted by OBW

I can hear Lee complaining about those by mocking "His mercy endureth forever, and ever, and ever, and ever. . . ."

Yes, this (perhaps among others) was the incident I was referring to. I'm pretty sure I saw it on video tape, as well as had it relayed to me by several others. An enthusiasm for singing the Psalms was moving through the local churches, and Lee shut it down.

Even if they had been approaching God's word in a shallow way, chanting "His mercy endureth forever" ad nauseum, the Holy Spirit could still come alongside and take them somewhere deep. While Mr. Lee may have thought he was shepherding them to the deep end of the pool, by diverting their attention to Ephesians and Colossians, I strongly sense that he merely quenched the Spirit (notwithstanding that Ephesians and Colossians recommend singing the Psalms).

The Spirit can take you deeper than you ever imagined, and you'd be surprised what route it may take, if you let go of your concepts.

And the blatant fact is that his mercy absolutely does endure forever, and ever, and ever. And we need to hear it more. Not less.[/QUOTE]

Yes. My burden in this thread was to say that the blatant facts of the Bible were over-ridden by the "natural concepts" of Lee. The more we push into these plain words, in the light of the New Testament revelation, the more we will in fact "see Jesus", as Hebrews 2:9 states. Jesus is right there in front of us, in plain words, crying, struggling, calling on the Father, praying, praising, singing, hoping, waiting on the Lord, full of faith, undaunted by sin and death crowding around Him and constantly threatening Him, declaring His Father's victory over the wicked spirits, freeing the prisoners, shining into the valley of the shadow of death.

Should not we come alongside Him, He who has come alongside us, and say "amen" to His speaking? To dismiss these writings as the merely the fallen concepts of a natural man dependent upon his own strength, enthusiasm, and righteousness is to sell ourselves far short of our birthright.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Let me put it to you this way: do you get any sense from Paul's writings that Psalms 2, 8, 16 alone are "revelation" Psalms, while all the rest (1 through 21)are "natural concept" Psalms? And so on, through the rest of the book?

Or some other writer or expositor besides Paul, for that matter; New Testament or otherwise. If the Psalms were full of "stubble", don't you think someone would have pointed this out?

The N.T. only speaks highly of the Psalms. Whether Jesus or the apostles, never once are any of the Psalms disparaged. Jesus promised all things will be fulfilled which have been written in the Psalms. Who could possibly know the limits and extent of all that has been written about the coming Savior?

Not only that, the Psalms seem to be intertwined with the lives of the early believers. When they gathered together, each one had a Psalm, and they were encouraged to speak to one another in Psalms. When alone, they were singing and psalming with their hearts to the Lord. When the apostles were with the Lord, He taught them to worship the Father in the Psalms, and the apostles passed on this rich heritage as part of the good news. When Paul visited a city without a synagogue, he would go down by the river to find those who worshiped God in Psalm.

Paul took it a step further. He spoke about the peace of Christ and the word of Christ dwelling in us and teaching others via the psalms sung with grace in our hearts. The apostle would say that there will never be one body in peace and love, unless we are continually being filled with the joy and grace in the psalms. The Psalms were a uniting bond between Jewish and Greek believers.

Then why would WL and his minions actively remove the Psalms from the spiritual diet of the saints? Why would WL in his "high peak" years teach the LRC to cut off verses and whole psalms, like cutting off gristle from a delmonico steak? Is this what happens when a minister gets elevated to MOTA status, he now is "qualified" to decide which scripture are really scripture?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why would WL and his minions actively remove the Psalms from the spiritual diet of the saints? Why would WL in his "high peak" years teach the LRC to cut off verses and whole psalms, like cutting off gristle from a delmonico steak?

Saints can write, sing, record and share songs based on the Psalms without LSM having any control or claim. However, if they wrote songs inspired by the ministry of WL then LSM still owns the copyright. How do you discourage turning Psalms into songs? Argue that many of the psalms are man's natural concept, therefore the saints are afraid to turn them into songs lest they are exposed as not being able to discern between natural concept and psalms worthy of the NT Economy. So, sure his teaching was designed to keep LSM relevant, but look at how many wonderful songs were written inspired by the ministry of WL.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

While Mr. Lee may have thought he was shepherding them to the deep end of the pool, by diverting their attention to Ephesians and Colossians, I strongly sense that he merely quenched the Spirit

I like the way you put these two thoughts together. We liked to speak of drinking of or from the Spirit, yet the Spirit is more often likened to something burning. How fitting that the LRC is being lead to the deep end of a pool when the goal is the burning Spirit.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is this what happens when a minister gets elevated to MOTA status, he now is "qualified" to decide which scripture are really scripture?

I think that is exactly what happens. And there's lots of fruit to demonstrate it.

Or as Dr Phil would say, "How's that workin' for ya?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Who could possibly know the limits and extent of all that has been written about the coming Savior?

Evidently the "God's economy" and "processed and consummated Triune God" metrics allow one to do just that. One holds up scripture to the theory, and whatever scripture doesn't support it gets set aside as unprofitable.

And look what gets set aside. In Psalm 34, all the discourse on the ways of the righteous man is discarded as irrelevant. Who is righteous? asks Lee. Nobody. Then, suddenly, in verse 20, there is a righteous man! One whose bones are not broken. Can't be discarded because it's quoted in the N.T. So that is a revelation of Jesus. The impression one gets is of chopping up the scriptures up to fit the template, instead of vice versa.

Arguably, the burden of the Gospel of God is to tell us all about the One Righteous Man; and Jesus the Nazarene is clearly that Man. We are all the wicked, but because of one righteous act the door has been opened for salvation for us all, through believing into this One. Now we must put our money where our proverbial mouth is and obey the Righteous One just as He obeyed the Father ("As the Father has sent Me, so also I send you", etc).

All of this seems rather wide open to me, in the Psalms, and it gets shut up just to satisfy the "God's economy" metric.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Evidently the "God's economy" and "processed and consummated Triune God" metrics allow one to do just that. One holds up scripture to the theory, and whatever scripture doesn't support it gets set aside as unprofitable.

aron, unfortunately, this is all too common with some Christian teachers in their attempts to package the expanse of scripture within their own limited hearts. When I left the LC, I hooked up with a local community church with a pentecostal accent. I quickly noticed that every mention of being "in the Spirit" was interpreted as praying in tongues. The scripture never said as much, but the translation "metric" took over to interpret scripture according to tongues. Subsequently, as you noted, many other scripture gets set aside as unprofitable because they don't fit their limited paradigm.

This observation helped me to understand the LRC in hindsight. I was thoroughly convinced that "God's Economy" was the consummate view of scripture, whereas it was really just one of many "peep holes" through which teachers have viewed the whole. It seems every congregation and denomination has latched on to a few of these "peep holes." Otherwise how could congregations be so different, when they all start from the same Bible? The real tragedy is that all these different views become sources of conflict instead of complimentary insights into the whole of God's word.

I used to think that WL's Life Study was a "verse-by-verse study of the Bible in the way of Christian experience," but so much has been discarded by WL as irrelevant. For example, WL has a hundred messages about proper Christian service, yet he has totally missed the matter of "good works." So much of his ministry was skewed in the direction of self-serving interests, especially in his later years, and specifically when his own sons were involved.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

...this is all too common with some Christian teachers in their attempts to package the expanse of scripture within their own limited hearts.

With the Lee/Nee ministry we were supposedly exempt from this limitation because Nee read so many books. We were told of his vast library, from which he extracted the wheat and discarded the chaff.

So the limitations of Nee were perhaps not as egregious as those of others. Remember how we heard the word "balanced"? How Nee had a "balanced ministry"?

The problem with Nee, and later by extension Lee, wasn't that they were limited. It is that was that we got taken by the pretense that they were not limited, that they had "all-inclusive" ministries. One-stop shopping. Just read Lee and you will get your complete, Recommended Daily Allowance of divinity.

So then the shortcomings, the limitations, the defects and errors snowball without correction. You get one ministry which is beyond the correcting forces of the ekklesia's multiple witnesses, and which attempts to subsume the whole witness of the ekklesia.

I think "God's economy" has something to recommend for it. After all, Paul wrote the phrase in his epistles. But look what happens when you try to measure the whole Bible by your understanding of one phrase.

Originally Posted by Ohio

...I was thoroughly convinced that "God's Economy" was the consummate view of scripture, whereas it was really just one of many "peep holes" through which teachers have viewed the whole. It seems every congregation and denomination has latched on to a few of these "peep holes"...The real tragedy is that all these different views become sources of conflict instead of complimentary insights into the whole of God's word.

Right. This is essentially what I was saying above. The ekklesia has the real balanced, complementary view. And Jesus gathers His ekklesia together, not via one man's ministry, or one theological viewpoint, but via 'the Body building itself together'... without pruning and limitation you get something analogous to a cancerous cell taking over (dominating) its host body, when only Jesus should be the "all in all". None of us is qualified to infiltrate the entire Body. None of us should presume that our peephole into the revelations of God's Christ should dominate the entire conversation.

Originally Posted by Ohio

...I used to think that WL's Life Study was a "verse-by-verse study of the Bible in the way of Christian experience," but so much has been discarded by WL as irrelevant. For example, WL has a hundred messages about proper Christian service, yet he has totally missed the matter of "good works." So much of his ministry was skewed in the direction of self-serving interests...

Faith instead of good works.

Dispensing instead of obedience.

Paul's oikonomia instead of Jesus' oikonomia.

Note that the first items listed are not wrong. But when they dominate the conversation it weakens and loses its reflection of God. It loses balance; it loses the natural tension of allowing different "voices" in the conversation. And that is how you end up with a study of the Psalms in which the vast majority of the text is simply set aside as "natural", i.e. of no value. It is not studied; it is rather dismissed without study. The "verse-by-verse study of the Bible" becomes a study of only those Bible verses which match the viewpoint at hand.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Saints can write, sing, record and share songs based on the Psalms without LSM having any control or claim.

When you get into writing of Psalms and other spiritual songs, in the past it has been discouraged. I do not know about the present. Sisters and brothers who are musically gifted in this manner would be suggested in no uncertain terms to suppress their gift and be directed more towards the ministry. To get involved in extensive song writing based on Psalms would be viewed as rivalry with the ministry.
Isn't that what happened with the late Howard Higashi? A vastly gifted brother in music who at one time did write many scripturally based songs. At least 66 if not more. As the New Way began his songwriting appeared to cease. None of Howards's ministry through music was made available thorugh Living Stream until after he died.

[UntoHim]

Actually by the time the mid-70s rolled around many of Psalms were set to music and sung in meetings, especially in young peoples meetings. This was a very positive thing, and somewhat counteracted, or at least mitigated, all the "down with Christianity" themed stuff. Nevertheless, it seems that for every "how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity" there were two or three "down with Babylon"s.

Alas, the Word of God turns out to be not good enough for the followers of Witness Lee. The words they sing must contain "the higher gospel" and "high peak truths"....no sir...apparently the Bible is not living, active or sharp enough for these people. May God have mercy.

Oh my God shine your light on us, that we might live.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

When you get into writing of Psalms and other spiritual songs, in the past it has been discouraged....To get involved in extensive song writing based on Psalms would be viewed as rivalry with the ministry.

There were at least 2 "Psalms music tapes" marketed by LSM 30 years ago. Unfortunately these songs were released before the "received text": the Recovery Version of the Bible. Later, LSM couldn't sanction any other translation besides the Recovery Version. So LSM has these songs which they can't merchandise. I imagine that chafes them at least somewhat, especially since they had Paul's NT encouragement to the saints to 'sing the Psalms' displayed prominently on the top of their web page selling music.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually by the time the mid-70s rolled around many of Psalms were set to music and sung in meetings, especially in young peoples meetings.

Yes! This was my experience in the early 1980's in the Young People's meetings. I remember many a Saturday night all we needed was a KJV Bible and hopefully a sister or brother with an accoustic guitar.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

UntoHim: Actually by the time the mid-70s rolled around many of Psalms were set to music and sung in meetings, especially in young peoples meetings.

Originally Posted by Terry

Yes! This was my experience in the early 1980's in the Young People's meetings. I remember many a Saturday night all we needed was a KJV Bible and hopefully a sister or brother with an accoustic guitar.

One of my favorite lines in the New Testament is in the beginning of Hebrews, where the author says, "God spoke in the past to our forefathers through the prophets in many forms and many ways, but now in these final days He has spoken to us by His Son..."

This is a safeguard, a caution, against relying too much on someone's "interpreted word". We should get the speaking right from the Son, not from some mediatorial office (oracles, trainers, full-timers, co-workers, etc). When we praise the Father, the Son of God Himself should come and inhabit our praises.

Witness Lee used to speak about "poor christianity, nullifying the function of all the members of the body". But by setting himself as the sole interpreter of the word, and thus mediating the speaking of God's Son, Lee did just that: he nullified all the brothers and sisters with their guitars and KJV and NIV bibles, who were opening themselves to the Spirit of God's Son who was singing praises to the Father in the midst of the assembly. This activity Lee declared to be independent and thus unauthorized, and so it got pushed "outside the camp". And you ended up with a very weird Bible; an interpreted Bible, said interpretation necessitating the cutting off of large portions of scripture as "natural" and "fallen" in order to preserve itself.

So you got a "ministry" and an "interpretation", and you lost the scripture, the functioning of the saints, and the speaking of the Son. Hmph. Forgive me if I'm not eager to sign on.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

So you got a "ministry" and an "interpretation", and you lost the scripture, the functioning of the saints, and the speaking of the Son.

Put it another way: Jesus said, "These things were written concerning Me." Witness Lee said, "No they were not. These things were written by fallen men, according to their natural concepts; they are devoid of the revelation of Christ."

Jesus said, "Man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Lee said, "My 'economy of God metric' tells us what words are from the mouth of God and what words are from fallen man".

Gee, lucky for us! Witness Lee did all the hard work for us! The only revelation we need is to see that Lee is God's oracle; if he can't see any Christ there, then Jesus' words don't apply. Nor do Paul's repeated admonitions to let the word of Christ dwell in us richly by singing the Psalms. Thank God Lee vetted the Bible for us; otherwise we might waste our time singing "fallen" and "natural" songs. Nobody, including Paul, apparently got this revelation until God raised up Witness Lee to be the apostle of the age, and complete God's speaking.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Evidently the "God's economy"... metric allows one to... hold up scripture to the theory, and whatever scripture doesn't support it gets set aside as unprofitable.

And look what gets set aside. In Psalm 34, all the discourse on the ways of the righteous man is discarded as irrelevant. Who is righteous? asks Lee. Nobody. Then, suddenly, in verse 20, there is a righteous man! One whose bones are not broken. Can't be discarded because it's quoted in the N.T. So that is a revelation of Jesus.

Lee was in a conundrum, it seems. He thinks "the things which were written" are beneath his "high peak" standard. Yet they were held by the writers of the NT as indicative of the coming Christ. So he allows the bare minimum, that which is cited by NT authors (and even some of that is discarded, as in Peter & James' citation of "all flesh is like grass that withers and passes away").

So you get the obligatory citations, with all due reverence. And anything else is waved off. Do you suppose that ONLY those Psalms cited in the gospels and epistles, with the accompanying "as the scripture had said", were fulfilled by Jesus? Do you see any composer of the NT, or their near contemporaries, limiting scripture thus? No. Then along comes Lee with his supposedly divine measuring stick and slams the door shut. If his metric says something is "low" or "fallen", so it is, says Lee. But I am increasingly convinced that his metric is what is low, natural, and fallen.

When John wrote "To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” (John 2:16,17), do you think that only that verse reveals Jesus? Had John been doing an exhaustive, systematic survey of the OT and had told us expressly "do not go beyond this" I would have to at least consider it from the Lord. But John did not, nor did any other (that I am aware of), and I would even argue that John's brief citation here, early in the account of Jesus' life and work, would suggest a rather open-ended approach to dealing with the OT and Jesus.

And Lee did, actually: finding "types and figures" right and left. But when it came to the Psalms, the skies turned to brass. The heavens closed. No revelations beyond what was necessitated by the NT. And even some of that didn't make it past Lee's measure.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

And Lee did, actually: finding "types and figures" right and left. But when it came to the Psalms, the skies turned to brass. The heavens closed. No revelations beyond what was necessitated by the NT. And even some of that didn't make it past Lee's measure.

Of course, in retrospect I over-spoke, and over-generalized... I have that habit because it makes (to me) good copy.

In truth, I met some old LSM freinds about 8 months ago who were reviewing the Psalms, and they spoke glowingly about Psalm 45 where the Sons of Korah wrote a "wedding song" which they (the LSM "trainees") claimed was rich in typology. I had never noticed Psalm 45 before, nor was I aware of any NT citation of this, so this was new to me, and it was delivered to me via the LSM folk. So I cannot say that they only acknowledge what they are forced to by the NT corpus. But still, for the most part that is my impression.

Secondly, the "tone of my posts" is probably too sarcastic, and I apologize. Sarcasm is such an easy road, and I doubt Christ takes it as often as I do (I always think as I write, But Paul did it!! Paul effectively employed sarcasm!! It's in the Bible!!).

Third, the danger of an "open-ended" typological situation vis-a-vis the poetic books is that anyone is free to say "this means that". So if I see Jesus speaking in Psalm 3: "I lay me down and slept/I awaked for the LORD sustains me" equalling "I have the power to lay My life down, and the power to raise it up again", or if I see Christ revealed in Psalm 27, or in Psalm 34 beyond merely the NT citation (verse 20 is referenced), or in Psalm 69 beyond the referenced verse 9, then that is, of course, merely my personal interpretation.

I cannot claim that my interpretations ("this equals that") have any more weight than Lee's "God's New Testament Economy" template. I am no more "right" or "wrong" than Lee when it comes to examining such OT passages. But my sense is that the gospel writers continually based the validity/importance of their accounts on the fulfillment of what we now call the OT, and what they called the scriptures. Look at how many times they say "...as the scripture said" or "that the scripture might be fulfilled". And this is important: nowhere do I see them saying "Don't allegorize further than we have here." The writer of Hebrews actually says there are types that he/she doesn't have the where-withal to get into.

So why should Lee's audience let him so pre-emptively and presumptuously dismiss the vast body of the Psalms? To me, it really is a case of the emperor wearing no clothes. Can't any of them see this? Or are they just too embarrassed to have an opinion?

As usual, I have gone on far too long and have so thoroughly beaten my "dead horse" that most of my readers are groaning, or have given up. To those of you who've stuck with me: thanks, and peace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

So why should Lee's audience let him so pre-emptively and presumptuously dismiss the vast body of the Psalms?

Because it occurred gradually over a long period of time.

Also, there is an interesting phenomenon I would like to mention. As a Catholic I tried to read the scriptures, yet never could "connect." It was like reading ancient history in a foreign language. Then a friend, newly saved, talked about the Lord and gave me a paraphrased version of the N.T.. I was gloriously saved in my bedroom. Immediately I was joined to my friend in Spirit.

Likewise, many of us entered the Recovery with little personal contact with the Lord. We may have been already believers, as I was, but for the first time we were really filled with the Lord in the Spirit. What a connection we immediately had with the saints and the ministers there. It was a bond not easily severed.

This is why I have spoken up in protest about how LC leaders have violated the normal trust which naturally takes place between young believers and LC leaders. I personally believe that this bond is God-given and part of our spiritual birth and heritage. It is akin to the bond that exists between a mother and her new-born. Initially all the responsibility lies with the parent, or the Christian leader.

It is not the newborn's responsibility to discern the quality of the mother's milk, nor is it the newborn believer's responsibility to discern the quality of the leader's care. This is why the Lord places a higher responsibility on leaders, accompanied by serious rewards and disciplines for stumbling the little ones. Eventually the children do have to grow up and make their own decisions, but until then they are generally relieved of responsibility for serious decisions in their lives.

Lee's interpretation of Psalms was like this. Slowly over time he twisted their importance to the congregation to the point that many of the Psalms were discarded as unnecessary for the divine record. The same was true of James. Think about how the importance of Lee's writings rises if the value of certain scripture actually diminishes. Who is this minister who can even tell us which part of scripture is God-breathed and which is not!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

... there is an interesting phenomenon I would like to mention. As a Catholic I tried to read the scriptures, yet never could "connect." It was like reading ancient history in a foreign language. Then a friend, newly saved, talked about the Lord and gave me a paraphrased version of the N.T.. I was gloriously saved in my bedroom. Immediately I was joined to my friend in Spirit.

Likewise, many of us entered the Recovery with little personal contact with the Lord. We may have been already believers, as I was, but for the first time we were really filled with the Lord in the Spirit. What a connection we immediately had with the saints and the ministers there. It was a bond not easily severed.

I relate to this. For years I couldn't read the Psalms because they were dry as dust. Absolutely nothing there for me. So if I was in an environment which didn't open them up, why should I pay any attention to them? If the LC saints were going on about "masticating God" or "Thy words were found and I did eat them", then I guess that's what I would focus on. Not on something like, "...these things were written concerning Me."

One day, something like scales fell off from my eyes, and quite literally I felt that I could "hear" the voice of God's Son in the Psalms. God was talking to me! The voice of His Son was there! It's like what Hebrews said: "God ... has now spoken to us in His Son". I could hear the Son, in the midst of the assembly, singing hymns of praise to the Father. It wasn't "us" singing, it was "God's Son in us" singing. And He was singing the Psalms! Aside from being "born again", it was the most amazing thing that happened to me in my spiritual journey. Instead of hearing an interpreter or some expositor telling me what to think, I could "feel the heart of God" touching the writer, and coming to me through the text as we sang it. Now if that ain't "God's economy", what is?

Anyway, the local churches were part of my journey, so I shouldn't be too hard on them. I guess I should just say that I strongly disagree with their perfunctory handling of the Psalms and leave it at that. God is good.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

As usual, I have gone on far too long and have so thoroughly beaten my "dead horse" that most of my readers are groaning, or have given up.

Oh, and one more point (Ha-ha).

Perfunctory: routine, mechanical, superficial, lacking enthusiasm (Mirriam-Webster).

My sense that the LSM/Lee Psalms exposition was perfunctory (not careful, or thoughtful, but hurried through) was based on a number of things. I will list 3 examples. I believe I could list dozens.

1. In Psalm 1, in which we see the distinctions between the righteous and the wicked, Lee says "There is no righteous person", so the whole psalm is "natural" and therefore dismissed. In Psalm 1, verse 5, the "assembly of the righteous" is simply ignored without comment. But in Psalm 22, we see the victorious One praising the Jehovah in the midst of the assembly! What is the difference between the assemblies in Psalm 1 and Psalm 22? Well, the assembly in Psalm 1 is not referenced in the NT and the assembly in Psalm 22 is referenced. So in Psalm one there is nothing, and in Psalm 22 Lee sees "the church". This seems a little schizophrenic (contradictory or antagonistic attitudes -- MirriamWebster). To Lee, the "assembly" seems to either exist or not depending on whether he is forced to acknowledge it.

2. Similarly, here is a quote (in red) from the Life-Study of Psalm 34:

Concerning the righteous man, David said, ‘‘He keeps all his bones; / Not one of them is broken’’ (v. 20). This is a verse concerning Christ because David was a type of the suffering Christ. When Christ was on the cross, the soldiers did not break His legs when they saw that He had already died (John 19:33). John said, ‘‘These things happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘No bone of His shall be broken’ ’’ (v. 36).

Before this Lee says there is no righteous person. Verses 1 through 19 are called "natural". Suddenly in verse 20 Lee is confronted with a referenced verse. He can't ignore it. So he says that we have 19 verses with no righteous person, then suddenly, with no context, one verse with the righteous suffering Christ, then back to "no Christ" again. That is what I mean by szichophrenic. It is a contradictory exposition. You have no reality, then reality, then no reality again.

There were times in describing his sufferings that David typified Christ. When we look at Psalm 34, we can see the mixed expressions of David’s sentiment. Verse 20 refers to Christ, but most of this psalm is not according to the tree of life. Our concept needs to be changed to the divine concept according to the tree of life. As we grow in Christ, our concept will be changed.

I find this to be a wholly unsatisfactory exposition of the Psalms. This is quite perfunctory. If verse 20 had not been cited in John chapter 19, Lee probably would have ignored the whole of Psalm 34 altogether.

3. In Psalm 23, the famous "The LORD is my shepherd" psalm, we find an interesting approach. To me, there we have 3 possible readings.

First, Jehovah shepherds (guides, leads, cares for) the righteous man, personified in this case by David, the now-grown shepherd boy.
Second, Jehovah shepherds the Son of David, the human, righteous Messiah, who we Christians believe was Jesus the Nazarene. In His human life, led always by His Father in heaven, Jesus fulfilled and fully completed David's type in the Psalms.
Third, Jesus is Jehovah (John 8:24) shepherding the christian flock (John 10:11).

Lee presented us with the third interpretation. Surely that is not incorrect. But Lee ignored the second reading (please note that these interpretations are not mutually exclusive -- seeing one doesn't preclude another). Somehow in Psalm 23 Lee simply could not see Jesus the righteous Son of David, the fully obedient Son of God. He could only see Jesus/Jehovah shepherding Lee. My point is that you don't get to experience the third without the second. The incarnation is fully expressed in Psalm 23.

In spite of Lee's talk of "the humanity of Jesus" I cannot find the humanity of Jesus in his review of Psalm 23. Is that because the previous chapter, Psalm 22, vividly depicted the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of the Christ? If this logic holds, then why are there (many) more psalms after Psalm 22 which depict the psalmists' human pain and suffering?

I think that we have been given a very superficial and perfunctory reading of the Psalms. The Christian assembly deserves a deeper and more thorough look. It is as if someone has been giving us milk mixed with water while saying, "Isn't this steak delicious?" Um, sorry; no. What you are giving us here is not steak. It is barely milk.

[Ohio]

Witness Lee took the extremely narrow view of "finding Christ" in the O.T. based on the old Brethren way of types and figures. If he could not "find Christ," then he often considered these verses of lesser value. It seemed to most of us, that "finding Christ" was to study the Bible on a higher plane, and it's hard to rebut this manner of study, that is, until the results are examined in the light of day. Your study of Psalms, aron, exposes some of these shortcomings. If WL had only said that his intention was to take a new look at scripture, then I would say that is fine. But he did not do just that. He reproached all the other studies, and elevated his own above that of scripture, at least in the ears of his adherents.

Paul said these things are written for our admonition. (I Cor 10.11) Thus there are many stories in the Bible in which we do not particularly "find Christ," but are excellent examples of just the kinds of things that we confront in our christian walk. Recently I mentioned the story of old Eli the high priest in I Samuel. Apparently there was no "Christ" to be found there, but if WL would have heeded the lessons in the story about his own children, then perhaps our LC history would have been different, just as Israel's might have been.

This highlights the inherent dangers with receiving from only one teacher as the LC's are want to do. You may get some very good teachings, but what you don't get might be far more necessary to meet your current situation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee took the extremely narrow view of "finding Christ" in the O.T. based on the old Brethren way of types and figures. If he could not "find Christ," then he often considered these verses of lesser value. ... If WL had only said that his intention was to take a new look at scripture, then I would say that is fine. But he did not do just that. He reproached all the other studies, and elevated his own above that of scripture, at least in the ears of his adherents.

I agree, especially with the bolded part. Lee's study the Psalms is adequate of itself, as an introductory Christian look at the Psalms, and as a very small part the larger Christian conversation. He did better than some, my treatments here -- his approach was systematic, while mine has been just to touch on a few representative samples. But as a "definitive" account of Christ in the Psalms, I find his "life study" to be very superficial and incomplete. It treats maybe 10 to 20% of the text, and I think that is mostly because the New Testament writers got there before he did. And when he downplays the whole body of the psalm text as irrelevant and suddenly sees a revelation of Christ in the one verse cited in the NT, it really looks schizophrenic, unless you've been steeped in the LSM "Lee speaks alone" culture.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This highlights the inherent dangers with receiving from only one teacher as the LC's are wont to do. You may get some very good teachings, but what you don't get might be far more necessary to meet your current situation.

This goes back to your statements on young christians being dependent on those before them. A new believer might find this Psalms exposition very helpful as an cursory first look. But for a mature believer to be stuck with this, years or even decades into his or her Christian journey.... I remember one "blended" declaring proudly that he would eat "Witness Lee leftovers" the rest of his life. How can any Christian deliberately limit themselves thus? What happened to the "all-inclusive Christ"?

[aron]

What I find interesting is that within 4 generations the Israelite story was transformed. With David's parents' generation, they came under a King (Saul) but the "kingdom" itself was a conception and a hope more than a reality. The Philistines were a real threat. Goliath was a big dude, and he had brothers and cousins. The Israelites and Philistines had been battling for years (see Samson, etc).

With the emergence and ascension of David, victory over all foes was the theme. Then Solomon was the apogee of glory, in appearance. By the time of Solomon's sons, the kingdom was divided.

Why so short? David couldn't handle peace very well. He had "roving eyes", as they say. Solomon couldn't handle prosperity. His many wives turned his heart to foriegn idols. The tree of knowledge, indeed.

What this has to do with the Psalms, for me, is that there really is no truly "righteous man" evidenced there. No one is pure. Solomon said, "teach a youth the way to go and he will follow that path his whole life" (Proverbs 22:6). But Solomon didn't teach his own children, and the kingdom fell apart.

But, if you see these as "the words of Christ", as Paul calls them, and not the words of David or Lemuel or Asaph or Solomon, then suddenly you are not in the earthly plane but the heavenly. You get not the faltering, shadowy aspiration but the full reality. And if you engage the text by singing, shouting, declaring, praying, stamping your feet, lifting your hands, and by "meditating day and night" (Psa 1:2) and making it your own, then it will indeed be "Christ making His home in your heart", and "the word of Christ dwelling in you richly". It will indeed be "Christ in you, the hope of glory."

All of which may sound like Lee's "God's New Testament Economy". But we differ in that Lee said most of the text was simply the word of David, where I suspect that much more of the text is actually the word of Christ. I think we differ greatly in how much Christ was revealed in the text.

Secondly, and of nearly equal importance, is the fact of the stunning fall of the "house of David". It was clearly shown that the Davidic/Solomon line had its glaring flaws, and these contributed to a great schism in the Israelite flock. Similarly, in the NT, with the end of merely the first generation of disciples, you find the aged apostle John writing to the assemblies in Asia and telling them to "repent", just as John the Baptist and Jesus had initiated their ministries a half-century earlier. So to me, trying to replicate the first-century church (i.e. "the normal christian church") is a waste of time. It was as flawed as Solomon's house. Sure, there was glory there, but the flaws were there too, and the cracks were already beginning to appear.

No, the only hope is in Christ. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. Peace to all who put their hope in Him.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee said most of the text [of the Psalms] was simply the word of David, where I suspect that much more of the text is actually the word of Christ. I think we differ greatly in how much Christ was revealed in the text.

I have already written, here and elsewhere, about how Lee dismisses David's rescue from Gath in Psalm 34 as engineered by human craftiness rather than divine intervention. The Psalm title's claim that "God rescued him" was disparaged by Lee.

I would like to continue, here, with Psalm 35. I am unwilling/unable to do a thorough systematic review of the Psalms footnotes, but hope that these few samples will make a point.

The 28 verses of Psalm 35 get one comment, in the first verse. David asks God, "Fight, O LORD, with those who fight against me." Here is the footnote:

"In the New Testament economy, a spiritual person would never ask God to fight against his enemies as David asks in this psalm."

So why did Jesus tell the parable of the unrighteous judge in Luke 18? "Avenge me of my enemies", the widow repeatedly asks the judge. Who are her adversaries? "We fight not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces of darkness", writes Paul.

John wrote, "There was war in heaven, Michael and his angels against the devil and his angels". Don't you think there is some spiritual warfare going on? Why does Lee pretend it doesn't exist in the Psalms? When Jesus showed up, the demons cried out in fear. "What do you have to do with us, Jesus, Nazarene! Have you come to destroy us before our time?!?"

Jesus said, "When you go out to battle with ten thousand troops, be careful if you run into someone coming against you with twenty thousand. Better not fight with them at that point." (cf. Luke 14). Was Jesus failing Lee's New Testament economy in Luke 14? Or was Jesus referring to a spiritual struggle, using images (i.e. parables)? When faced with the type or shadow of this warfare, par excellence, of David's fight(s) in the book of Psalms, Lee pointedly ignores this option.

So my question is, how can a book so deficient in explanation be held up by anyone as the, or even a, definitive exposition of the Bible? I can only surmise, as one of the posters has previously done earlier, that Lee was so tapped out by his exhaustive work in the NT that he simply had no gas left in the tank to give the Psalms (among other works) the careful study it deserved. So he just blew off chapter after chapter with a perfunctory wave of the hand: "Not according to the NT economy". And his captive (pun quite intended) audience was forced to take the "definitive Biblical exposition" from this "rich ministry". Child, please.

[aron]

Continuing on to Psalm 36. The footnote to verses 8 and 9 says, "Verses 8 and 9 reveal the Divine Trinity in His divine dispensing as the enjoyment of God's people in His house."

Verses 8 and 9 talk about the fatness of God's house, drinking the river of God's pleasures, and the fountain of life, in whose light we see light.

But in the preceding footnote, on verse 5, it says, "Verses 5-10 are David's praising God for His lovingkindness, faithfulness, and righteousness mixed with the enjoyment of God in His house. However, such praising followed David's accusing the wicked (vv 1-4), showing again the mixture of human concept and the divine concept in the Psalms."

So Lee says David, in accusing the wicked, is being natural and fallen. David is neither enlightened nor revealing to us the Divine. Just God's judgment upon the wicked. I suppose David was wrong for throwing a stone at Goliath as well. David was supposed to turn the other cheek, right?

This is reminiscent of pseudo-intellectuals who judge others as unenlightened based on arbitrary and impossible criteria. Like, the founders of the U.S. Constitution were sexist pigs because they didn't give women the right to vote. Look at John Adams' letters to his wife Abigail and you'd hardly call him that.

But we can, if we want, drag in irrelevant criteria and make all sorts of unpleasant assessments of our subjects.

David and Israel were in a great struggle. It was violent, and a lot of people died. "A thousand fall at your right hand, and ten thousand at your left" wasn't too far-fetched as hyperbole. So I don't think it's relevant to judge David by "God's NT economy" standards. God's economy, at that time, was to establish Jerusalem. If David hadn't bonked Goliath, among others, there wouldn't be any Solomon building a temple and so forth. Just like propertied white males in 1781 getting to choose government representatives being the precursor of later rights given to women, ethnic minorities, etc.

Anyway, this is basically my way of re-iterating that I find the analysis of Psalms to be rather unsatisfying (if you hadn't picked that up by now).

[countmeworthy]

I am so glad I never read the Psalms or much of the RcV with it's footnotes. It is bad enough I recall, observe and read the damage done to people by this man's ministry.

May our Loving, Gracious and Patient God set all the captives of the LRC FREE forevermore in the Mighty Name of JESUS!!!!

Peace and Blessings,

Carol G

[OBW]

While it is a nit-picky point, I would have titled the thread "The Psalms are the Word of God" rather thant "of Christ." Just a preference for avoiding the kind of mixing up of the Three of the Trinity. I note that in Hebrews it says that God spoke in various ways, but more recently through Christ (my paraphrase).

We can take the "Christ is the Word of God" to the extreme. But the OT itself reveals God as speaking and the NT reveals that Christ spoke in later times. I also note that Christ is the Word of God, not the Word of Christ. When we speak of Psalms, we are talking about the Word of God, not the Word of Christ.

But that was not the reason for posting. I think that the point concerning Lee's virtual dismissal of the Psalms is well made. I had a lot more to say about it, but it was not much more than observations of the amount of ink given to Psalms, much of which was all but suggesting that it should not have been included in the Bible.

The real problem is not even in the amount of time and ink given, but in the attitude toward so much of it. We have now seen through footnotes that Lee really didn't think much of the Psalms.

That means he didn't think very much about God's Word.

And that kind of a person really has no business claiming to be a teacher of God's Word.

Period.

End of story.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

So my question is, how can a book so deficient in explanation be held up by anyone as the, or even a, definitive exposition of the Bible? I can only surmise, as one of the posters has previously done earlier, that Lee was so tapped out by his exhaustive work in the NT that he simply had no gas left in the tank to give the Psalms (among other works) the careful study it deserved. So he just blew off chapter after chapter with a perfunctory wave of the hand: "Not according to the NT economy". And his captive (pun quite intended) audience was forced to take the "definitive Biblical exposition" from this "rich ministry". Child, please.

When it came to the OT, Lee followed the old Brethren pattern of "looking for Christ." For the most part, it had little to do with "life" study. OT scripture was evaluated based on whether Christ could be seen in type, prophecy, figure, etc. Unfortunately, after the 80's came around, Lee had little desire to learn spiritual lessons from the OT characters. Perhaps his course of action dramatically changed after he begun I Samuel. He totally missed the message concerning "old Eli and his sons," which should have struck real close to home, and instead latched on to his ridiculous notions about Samuel being the "acting God."

His commentary on Psalms was part of this fallout. If a Psalm could directly point to Christ, like Psalm 22, then it was extolled as worthwhile according to God's economy. If he could not "find Christ," then the Psalm was worthless according to God's economy, and considered to be merely human sentiment of little value. WL really believed that his method of interpretation was on the highest plane, and part of his "high peak" ministry of his final years. He truly believed that he had culminated and consummated the NT ministry, and he himself had grown to such a stage that he could now evaluate and rate all the passages of the Bible.

It seems that Lee somehow experienced delusions of grandeur, almost as a megalomaniac, where he was completely above the law, and any critic of his teachings or decisions must be attacking God's throne itself, even though the "critic" was just a little upset that his wife was molested by Philip Lee in the LSM offices.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

I would like to continue, here, with Psalm 35. I am unwilling/unable to do a thorough systematic review of the Psalms footnotes, but hope that these few samples will make a point.

The 28 verses of Psalm 35 get one comment, in the first verse. David asks God, "Fight, O LORD, with those who fight against me." Here is the footnote:

"In the New Testament economy, a spiritual person would never ask God to fight against his enemies as David asks in this psalm."

So why did Jesus tell the parable of the unrighteous judge in Luke 18? "Avenge me of my enemies", the widow repeatedly asks the judge. Who are her adversaries? "We fight not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces of darkness", writes Paul.

John wrote, "There was war in heaven, Michael and his angels against the devil and his angels". Don't you think there is some spiritual warfare going on? Why does Lee pretend it doesn't exist in the Psalms? When Jesus showed up, the demons cried out in fear. "What do you have to do with us, Jesus, Nazarene! Have you come to destroy us before our time?!?"

Jesus said, "When you go out to battle with ten thousand troops, be careful if you run into someone coming against you with twenty thousand. Better not fight with them at that point." (cf. Luke 14). Was Jesus failing Lee's New Testament economy in Luke 14? Or was Jesus referring to a spiritual struggle, using images (i.e. parables)? When faced with the type or shadow of this warfare, par excellence, of David's fight(s) in the book of Psalms, Lee pointedly ignores this option.

I think the correct term for this, though I don't want to get too technical with the jargon, is poppycock.

WL's sharing on the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and a number of other books was a complete waste of time and money.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee took the extremely narrow view of "finding Christ" in the O.T. based on the old Brethren way of types and figures. If he could not "find Christ," then he often considered these verses of lesser value. It seemed to most of us, that "finding Christ" was to study the Bible on a higher plane, and it's hard to rebut this manner of study, that is, until the results are examined in the light of day. Your study of Psalms, aron, exposes some of these shortcomings. If WL had only said that his intention was to take a new look at scripture, then I would say that is fine. But he did not do just that. He reproached all the other studies, and elevated his own above that of scripture, at least in the ears of his adherents.

Paul said these things are written for our admonition. (I Cor 10.11) Thus there are many stories in the Bible in which we do not particularly "find Christ," but are excellent examples of just the kinds of things that we confront in our christian walk. Recently I mentioned the story of old Eli the high priest in I Samuel. Apparently there was no "Christ" to be found there, but if WL would have heeded the lessons in the story about his own children, then perhaps our LC history would have been different, just as Israel's might have been.

This highlights the inherent dangers with receiving from only one teacher as the LC's are want to do. You may get some very good teachings, but what you don't get might be far more necessary to meet your current situation.

............................

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Continuing on to Psalm 36. The footnote to verses 8 and 9 says, "Verses 8 and 9 reveal the Divine Trinity in His divine dispensing as the enjoyment of God's people in His house."

Verses 8 and 9 talk about the fatness of God's house, drinking the river of God's pleasures, and the fountain of life, in whose light we see light.

But in the preceding footnote, on verse 5, it says, "Verses 5-10 are David's praising God for His lovingkindness, faithfulness, and righteousness mixed with the enjoyment of God in His house. However, such praising followed David's accusing the wicked (vv 1-4), showing again the mixture of human concept and the divine concept in the Psalms."

Wow, from the words of your mouth the secrets of your heart are revealed.

Accusing the wicked is "the human concept" whereas praising God for the fatness of His house is spiritual. So if you make a wonderful testimony about how rich the LRC is, that is spiritual, but if you accuse WL and Sons for their wickedness then you are a mixture of fallen human thinking.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When it came to the OT, Lee followed the old Brethren pattern of "looking for Christ." ... OT scripture was evaluated based on whether Christ could be seen in type, prophecy, figure, etc. Unfortunately, after the 80's came around, Lee had little desire to learn spiritual lessons from the OT characters.

It seems strange to me: if any character was ripe for allegorization it would be the OT character David. He was the great conquering king who slew the monster Goliath. There is so much detail, both in the historical books, and the "inner life" of the character revealed in the Psalms.

Even the failures have Christ nearby. When David writes in Psalm 51 that if God restores him, he'll teach other sinners, you can sense Christ restoring sinners so that they can likewise shepherd others (see Jesus' dialogs with Peter, for example). There is so much "Christ" here to be seen. No wonder the Psalms were cited so extensively by the authors of the NT!

And yet Lee seemed oblivious to all of this.

His commentary on Psalms was part of this fallout. If a Psalm could directly point to Christ, like Psalm 22, then it was extolled as worthwhile according to God's economy. If he could not "find Christ," then the Psalm was worthless according to God's economy, and considered to be merely human sentiment of little value.

There is no indication to me from the writers of the NT that the quotes they used referencing the Christ are the ONLY places where Christ is is to be found. Look at Psalm 69, cited in John chapter 2: "Zeal of Thy house has eaten Me up". John's gospel doesn't indicate that this is the only section of Psalm 69 which reveals Christ. In fact, I would argue the opposite: the citation points the reader back toward a source text. And John's gospel acknowledges the open-ended nature of his work, and it's subject: see e.g. John 16:12, and 21:25. Lee, however, makes perfunctory acknowledgements of the NT citations, with the surrounding text often dismissed as "natural". He won't find Christ unless the NT authors compel him to.

WL really believed that his method of interpretation was on the highest plane, and part of his "high peak" ministry of his final years. He truly believed that he had culminated and consummated the NT ministry, and he himself had grown to such a stage that he could now evaluate and rate all the passages of the Bible.

Yes; his template allowed him to parse the Bible. It really was superior to the scriptures themselves, which could be dismissed as the uninspired work of fallen man, rather than the inspired word of God. But who before Lee with his "NT Economy" template ever disparaged the scriptures thusly? Paul wrote to Timothy that "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable..."; who besides Lee cut off such extensive sections as unprofitable?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

It seems strange to me: if any character was ripe for allegorization it would be the OT character David. He was the great conquering king who slew the monster Goliath. There is so much detail, both in the historical books, and the "inner life" of the character revealed in the Psalms.

Even the failures have Christ nearby. When David writes in Psalm 51 that if God restores him, he'll teach other sinners, you can sense Christ restoring sinners so that they can likewise shepherd others (see Jesus' dialogs with Peter, for example). There is so much "Christ" here to be seen. No wonder the Psalms were cited so extensively by the authors of the NT!

And yet Lee seemed oblivious to all of this.

I think you will find he was willfully ignorant. Many of those verses that he tried to skip, ignore and dismiss condemned him.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by aron

Paul wrote to Timothy that "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable..."; who besides Lee cut off such extensive sections as unprofitable?

I've brought this verse up numerous times to people and their response was always, "yes, that's true. Those Psalms that are according to fallen man are profitable for teaching insofar as they show us how NOT to be." Then they show me the verses where Satan temps Jesus and ask, are his words "God-breathed?":c onfused: I think a lot of the problem is that people don't know how to read narratives.....
A brother in faith

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I've brought this verse up numerous times to people and their response was always, "yes, that's true. Those Psalms that are according to fallen man are profitable for teaching insofar as they show us how NOT to be." Then they show me the verses where Satan temps Jesus and ask, are his words "God-breathed?":c onfused: I think a lot of the problem is that people don't know how to read narratives.....
A brother in faith

Once again this is as fishy an explanation as the explanation for why WN was excommunicated. Let's call a spade a spade. WL was condemned by many of those verses. If he admitted they were part of the "divine revelation" then he would literally skin himself alive during the training. That is also true for Proverbs. So instead of confessing his sins he felt it was better to just decide that certain books of the Bible were not "part of the divine revelation". Just like Animal Farm that was a major departure from the original contract in which all scripture was God breathed. Once the writing on the Barn changed his ministry was a waste of time and money.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I've brought this verse [from 2 Timothy] up numerous times to people and their response was always, "yes, that's true. Those Psalms that are according to fallen man are profitable for teaching insofar as they show us how NOT to be."

That is a rather subjective assessment. I could also say that Lee's footnotes show us how NOT to write footnotes.

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Then they show me the verses where Satan tempts Jesus and ask, are his words "God-breathed?"

But this is clearly shown in context not to be God's speaking, even when Satan is quoting Psalm 91: "He shall give his angels charge over Thee". But where is a similar judgment, besides that of Witness Lee, that David's writing is valueless except as a caution?

I see Witness Lee waaaay out on a limb, with his "God's economy" metric. No one is joining him there. No where in the Bible or later do I see any other writers casting such aspersions on the Word. Not the Church Fathers, not anyone after. Witness Lee is basically coming back in and re-canonizing the scriptures according to his own metric.

Number one, that's kind of megalomaniacal, as Ohio said. Number two, it just doesn't wash. There is a lot of evocative and fruitful symbolism speaking to us of, to, and from the Son of God, which Lee jettisons to preserve his "economy".

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just like Animal Farm that was a major departure from the original contract in which all scripture was God breathed. Once the writing on the Barn changed his ministry was a waste of time and money.

I admit to being a novice in the Psalms. I only recently have come to see why they were quoted so extensively by the NT writers. So I don't have a lot of basis of comparison. But I can say that I have found his teachings here to be a great disappointment.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I've brought this verse up numerous times to people and their response was always, "yes, that's true. Those Psalms that are according to fallen man are profitable for teaching insofar as they show us how NOT to be." Then they show me the verses where Satan temps Jesus and ask, are his words "God-breathed?":c onfused: I think a lot of the problem is that people don't know how to read narratives.....
A brother in faith

Psalm
35:1 Plead my cause, O LORD, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me.

This is David's prayer. For WL to judge that David was natural, in his mind, or whatever terminology he uses is not warranted by the narrative.

35:2 Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help.
35:3 Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation.

Imagine if JI was praying this, or the saints molested by PL, or JS, or BM etc.

35:4 Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul: let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt.
35:5 Let them be as chaff before the wind: and let the angel of the LORD chase them.
35:6 Let their way be dark and slippery: and let the angel of the LORD persecute them.
35:7 For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, which without cause they have digged for my soul.

Imagine the Sister's rebellion. "Without cause they have digged for my soul". That sums it up. Clearly these verses expose the sins of WL.

35:8 Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.

This is the final conclusion, WL set a trap. He baited it with a bogus story about WN, he made merchandise of saints with fabricated words, etc. these verses expose WL. No wonder he feels they are "natural" and not what a "spiritual" man would pray.

35:9 And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: it shall rejoice in his salvation.
35:10 All my bones shall say, LORD, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and the needy from him that spoileth him?
35:11 False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.
35:12 They rewarded me evil for good to the spoiling of my soul.

WL is the false witness. He created charges for things that those accused knew not. It is just like the testimony that Awareness gave. It is just like the thread of Gold.

35:13 But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.
35:14 I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother.
35:15 But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; they did tear me, and ceased not:
35:16 With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.

Compare this to the BBs and WL. We behaved as though WL had been our friend or brother. We were like mourners while they were like hypocritical mockers in the feast. All those saints screaming in Awareness testimony, just like the description here of "they gnashed upon me with their teeth."

35:17 Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions.
35:18 I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: I will praise thee among much people.
35:19 Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.
35:20 For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.

Once again this is an apt description of WL who devised deceitful matters against various saints.

35:21 Yea, they opened their mouth wide against me, and said, Aha, aha, our eye hath seen it.

Talk about hypocrisy. They publish a book TFOTPR, that is "opening their mouth wide" yet they criticize others for posting on the internet.

35:22 This thou hast seen, O LORD: keep not silence: O Lord, be not far from me.
35:23 Stir up thyself, and awake to my judgment, even unto my cause, my God and my Lord.
35:24 Judge me, O LORD my God, according to thy righteousness; and let them not rejoice over me.
35:25 Let them not say in their hearts, Ah, so would we have it: let them not say, We have swallowed him up.
35:26 Let them be ashamed and brought to confusion together that rejoice at mine hurt: let them be clothed with shame and dishonour that magnify themselves against me.

Perhaps this should go into the mission statement of this forum.

35:27 Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let the LORD be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.
35:28 And my tongue shall speak of thy righteousness and of thy praise all the day long.

Now according to WL only these last two verses are spiritual?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

, I would have titled the thread "The Psalms are the Word of God" rather than "of Christ." ... in Hebrews it says that God spoke in various ways, but more recently through Christ (my paraphrase)... When we speak of Psalms, we are talking about the Word of God, not the Word of Christ..

Your points are true, but I was riffing off Paul's comments in Colossians 3, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly..." then he encourages them to sing the Psalms. I was merging the two, which might be implied but wasn't stated directly. As usual, I was taking liberties with the text because it gave me good copy. I often write like that, and accept your correction: the title of this thread shouldn't be taken as a blanket statement. Rather, it just seemed like a catchy title at the time.

We have now seen through footnotes that Lee really didn't think much of the Psalms.

That means he didn't think very much about God's Word.

And that kind of a person really has no business claiming to be a teacher of God's Word.

Well, I might try to say, that to some degree he was a teacher of the Word of God, as are and have been many. But he fell flat on his face when he got into the Psalms. And the system which he set up, which placed him as God's voice of this age, falls flat on its face also.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Psalm 35:1 Plead my cause, O LORD, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me.

This is David's prayer. For WL to judge that David was natural, in his mind, or whatever terminology he uses is not warranted by the narrative.

I think that I understand your point, but I would argue that the "them" which strive against us, and against whom we plead divine intervention, are not human agents but rather spiritual forces. Again, see Paul's comments in this regard. WL had control issues, which led to righteousness issues and truth issues, but the culprit was not WL but the dark spiritual forces disguised as angels of light, which captured him and used him as their pawn.

Remember that Jesus didn't rebuke Peter, but Satan: "Get behind Me". We should do the same to those forces which created the system which once controlled us and has enslaved the hearts, minds and wills of so many.

Remember that John wrote to the angel of the church in Ephesus, not to the Ephesians themselves. He was commanding the spiritual entity which was robbing the saints of their first love: "Repent". These forces cannot stand, and they will not stand. In the name of Jesus your time on earth is over.

We ourselves often are caught by dark forces. Therefore, I would argue that we cannot properly pray Psalm 35, nor could David, any more than Lee could decipher it. Rather, "But we see Jesus" (cf Heb ch. 2) praying this prayer, and we see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (cf John ch 1). And in our prayer we say, "Amen, Lord Jesus. Come quickly"

Like Gamaliel said, "We don't want to fight against 'them', because we might find ourselves fighting against God." Rather, we see God in Christ Jesus subduing all of 'them', which unfortunately occasionally includes 'us', and we rejoice. Christ is the victor. Satan has been cast down. "Amen; even so come Lord Jesus."

Peace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Remember that John wrote to the angel of the church in Ephesus, not to the Ephesians themselves. He was commanding the spiritual entity which was robbing the saints of their first love: "Repent". These forces cannot stand, and they will not stand. In the name of Jesus your time on earth is over.

Never thought about that before. Are you sure about this?

[ZNPaaneah]

There is no doubt that in some places (in the Bible and in Psalms) the "them that strive against me" could be considered, flesh, world, sin, fallen nature, etc. You also might be able to see through WL and PL and see that it is Satan that is "seeking your soul".

But to spiritualize it away and say that "without cause they have for me their net in a pit" does not refer to WL and what he did in the "Sister's rebellion" is to be so heavenly that you are of no earthly good. If you are not familiar with the sister's rebellion WL's sons were caught in sin, WL anticipating that sisters would talk and the molested sister's story would therefore spread he took preemptive action and accused a sister's fellowship of being "rebellious". These sisters were then castigated without cause and drummed out of the church merely as a smoke screen for his own sins.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Never thought about that [Revelations 2 & 3 being addressed "to the angel of the church in..."] before. Are you sure about this?

No, I am not sure. But that never stopped me from wildly speculating before, did it?

What got me thinking along those lines was where the 70 disciples said, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name". They were evidently commanding the demons in the name of the Lord Jesus.

As well as Paul speaking to the girl who followed him around for 3 days in Acts 16. Finally Paul said, "I command you (not the girl, but the spirit) to come out..."

And Jesus asking to the man in the Gadarenes, "What is your name?" He wasn't expecting the guy to say, "My name is Fred Johnson. Who are you?" Instead, Jesus was addressing the spiritual force(s) controlling him.

And, like I said, Jesus didn't tell Peter to get behind Him, but rather Satan, who'd usurped Peter. So I read Paul's "we fight not with flesh and blood but against spiritual powers" in that context.

To push that reading onto the epistles in Revelations 2 and 3 is not a slam-dunk by any means. But still it's worth considering why John wrote to the angel, and not the church. I also remembered some kind of "midrash" commentary on the book of Daniel, where the rabbi was saying how every geographical area has an uber-spirit (i.e. the "prince of Persia").

Leaving this subject for a minute, it also answers MacDuff's question of who gets to decide proper interpretation of the Bible. My answer is that we all get to interpret, in the ekklesia, and all the rest are free to go, "Whoa, there, Pardner! Where'd you come up with that one?" Giving one person unrestricted license to say, "This means that" is a recipe for disaster. But if (most) everyone can interpret, that is better because all can be checked by all. Sort of "democracy in action".

So I like speculating in the ekklesia. Usually someone will rein me in.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is no doubt that in some places (in the Bible and in Psalms) the "them that strive against me" could be considered, flesh, world, sin, fallen nature, etc...

But to spiritualize it away and say that "without cause they have for me their net in a pit" does not refer to WL and what he did in the "Sister's rebellion" is to be so heavenly that you are of no earthly good. If you are not familiar with the sister's rebellion ...

I respect your point, and am not quarreling with you by any means. Maybe the best way to put it is that yes, I am being quite "heavenly" in my vantage point. Deliberately so. And perhaps the corollary is that I am not being of much earthly (i.e. practical) good.

But let me defend my stance by giving an example. There is a place where the psalmist says of the wicked ones: "I hate them with perfect hatred" (139:22). The usual Christian stance is to say, "Well, in the New Testament we don't do that." A la Witness Lee and his NT Economy.

But suddenly I saw it from a spiritual and not physical perspective. The only Person who could truly say that was the Christ. All the rest of us, without exception, have compromised at some point with the taint of evil. We all are sinners, defeated and fallen. But Jesus never compromised with sin. "The ruler of this world is coming, and in Me he has nothing."

So when Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan", Peter saw that "pure hatred". Everyone else, I posit, has a weak and insipid hatred in comparison. Like I've said, the demons cried out with fear whenever Jesus showed up. They knew that their proverbial goose was cooked.

So leaving aside WL and PL's sins for a moment (as well as yours and mine), I just find the most "practical reading" of those scriptures to be in the Person of Jesus Christ, and nowhere else. This of course I admit is my own reading, and subject to amendment. Peace & thanks for your comments.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

No, I am not sure. But that never stopped me from wildly speculating before, did it?

To push that reading onto the epistles in Revelations 2 and 3 is not a slam-dunk by any means. But still it's worth considering why John wrote to the angel, and not the church. I also remembered some kind of "midrash" commentary on the book of Daniel, where the rabbi was saying how every geographical area has an uber-spirit (i.e. the "prince of Persia").

Leaving this subject for a minute, it also answers MacDuff's question of who gets to decide proper interpretation of the Bible. My answer is that we all get to interpret, in the ekklesia, and all the rest are free to go, "Whoa, there, Pardner! Where'd you come up with that one?" Giving one person unrestricted license to say, "This means that" is a recipe for disaster. But if (most) everyone can interpret, that is better because all can be checked by all. Sort of "democracy in action".

So I like speculating in the ekklesia. Usually someone will rein me in.

Speculation is a good thing!

It's actually a normal part of our learning process. One time, many moons ago, I was chatting with my elder Phil Comfort (about the time he just started getting into the Greek) about studying the word. He said he would often develop a "hunch" and then go digging in the scriptures to check it out. That process of "digging" is perhaps the most instructive form of learning. Eventually, however, Titus Chu publicly destroyed the young Phil Comfort in front of other brothers for being "too theoretical, and not at all practical." Hmmm. Is that what digging in the scripture does to us?

Years later it all came back to bite TC. One of the most "serious" accusations against him at the ITERO Whistler Kangaroo Quarantine Court, apart from demanding clean sheets in Thailand, was his method of training, so different from Anaheim's. As recently posted, LSM officially requires its members to read its own footnotes and ministry publications first, before one studies the Bible, so that their members don't "misunderstand" what God has intended to speak to us.

This is the worst way to know the Bible. You get it all second hand. You get it all with serious bias. You get it all leavened. Oh sure, you will make lots of mistakes, but that's how we really learn. Speculate and then check it out in the word!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

But let me defend my stance by giving an example. There is a place where the psalmist says of the wicked ones: "I hate them with perfect hatred" (139:22). The usual Christian stance is to say, "Well, in the New Testament we don't do that." A la Witness Lee and his NT Economy.

But suddenly I saw it from a spiritual and not physical perspective. The only Person who could truly say that was the Christ. All the rest of us, without exception, have compromised at some point with the taint of evil. We all are sinners, defeated and fallen. But Jesus never compromised with sin. "The ruler of this world is coming, and in Me he has nothing."

The question is what is a "perfect hatred"?

According to James the man that does not offend with his words but bridles his tongue in all things is "perfect".

According to Paul we can know the "perfect will of God".

According to Psalms the law of God is perfect.

Therefore, if you hate something without offending with your words, and according to the perfect will of God, and you act in accordance with the law of God then that hatred is "perfect".

So then, the question becomes can you "hate" according to the will of God?

There is no Biblical reason to say that you can't. For example: Psalm 11:5 "The LORD tries the righteous: but the wicked and him that loves violence his soul hates." We are made in the image and likeness of God and it is therefore reasonable that our soul would, like God's soul, hate.

Paul says "Be angry and sin not". We are admonished to "be angry" in the New Testament. There are things that should make you angry, just as the Lord was angry and made a whip.

In Psalm 139 which you quote, the psalmist follows this verse about hating them with a perfect hatred saying

Psalms
139:22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them my enemies.
139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
139:24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

This Psalm presents God as being omniscient and omnipresent, and these three verses are the conclusion. He is inviting God to search him and see if there is any wicked way within him, and he begins by confessing "I hate them with a perfect hatred". As you mentioned superficial Christians will pretend that "they don't hate". That is not true, that is a lie, they do many wicked things like envy, jealousy, and gossip that reveals hatred. But this psalm represents someone who is perfected, transformed into a precious stone (in this case emerald which signifies God the Father who is omniscient and omnipresent). So this person is now honest. Does he hate, yes, but it is with a "perfect" hatred. No offense with his words, nothing contrary to the perfect will of God, and nothing contrary to God's perfect law. His soul is in the image and likeness of God, who also hates. This person's soul is completely illuminated, the omniscient God searches his heart, tries his heart, knows his thoughts, and reveals any wicked way.

The Psalms, imo, are about being transformed into a precious stone, and the conclusion of the Psalms conveys being transformed into the 12 different precious stones in the New Jerusalem. Psalm 139 is about emerald.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In Psalm 139 which you quote, the psalmist follows this verse about hating them with a perfect hatred saying

Psalms
139:22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them my enemies.
139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
139:24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

... this psalm represents someone who is perfected, transformed into a precious stone (in this case emerald which signifies God the Father who is omniscient and omnipresent). So this person is now honest. Does he hate, yes, but it is with a "perfect" hatred.

The Psalms, imo, are about being transformed into a precious stone, and the conclusion of the Psalms conveys being transformed into the 12 different precious stones in the New Jerusalem. Psalm 139 is about emerald.

In Psalm 139 I see Jesus, and you see an emerald. Is it possible we are seeing the same thing?

My guide for seeing Jesus in the Psalms was Peter, in Acts 2. He cites a passage from the Psalm 16 - "For you will not let my soul be in hell and you will not give up your Holy One to destruction" - which could only have been fulfilled by Jesus the Nazarene. I likewise see Psalm 139, and many others, as only being fully realized in Jesus the Nazarene (or at least initially; we of course are told repeatedly to follow Him. He cut the way, and we follow).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

. As recently posted, LSM officially requires its members to read its own footnotes and ministry publications first, before one studies the Bible, so that their members don't "misunderstand" what God has intended to speak to us.

Wow. I got out just in time. That building is going up in flames.

Allowing only one person the exercise of interpreting God's word is boring at best, and at worst it's just plain nutty. I remember WL making a big deal about how "...christianity nullifies the functioning of all the saints." You know, the pulpit-and-pew thing. This, I strain to find the words to categorize it.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As recently posted, LSM officially requires its members to read its own footnotes and ministry publications first, before one studies the Bible, so that their members don't "misunderstand" what God has intended to speak to us.

This is one of the things that drives me crazy. Reading something and before even taking a minute, a literal minute, to consider what a verse or group of verses says many people just go straight to the footnotes and read them then move on as if they now understood perfectly.

God gave us a mind. AND, according to 1 Cor. 2:16 We have the mind of Christ. To go to someone else FIRST is to neglect God's provisions.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As recently posted, LSM officially requires its members to read its own footnotes and ministry publications first, before one studies the Bible, so that their members don't "misunderstand" what God has intended to speak to us.

This is the worst way to know the Bible. You get it all second hand. You get it all with serious bias. You get it all leavened. Oh sure, you will make lots of mistakes, but that's how we really learn. Speculate and then check it out in the word!

Matt 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

The BBs gained control by being most ardent supporters of WL and LSM. The only thing they know is the footnotes. So this requirement is to keep them relevant. They are unable to get light from the word.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

We have now seen through footnotes that Lee really didn't think much of the Psalms.

That means he didn't think very much about God's Word.

I have been thinking about this comment. It is a logical statement, extrapolating from the part to the whole. And, as such, it is arguably correct.

But on the other hand you could argue that Lee cared a lot about God's Word. He spent his life studying it, and teaching it. I would rather say that Lee loved God's Word, but he got turned away from his first love by the meta-narrative which he constructed out of God's Word. The meta-narrative was his "merchandise" with which he caught and made merchandise of the saints.

So when the Word of God conflicted with his narrative, or interpretation if you will, then he was forced to dismiss the Word as of no value, except "to show us what NOT to be", even though the Word itself never indicated this nor have any subsequent christian writers that I am aware of, from the Church Fathers on. Lee's proprietary "economy" superseded all, even the Christ revealed there in the Word.

In that sense ZNP was right in his comments on Psalm 35. Lee really was caught by his own snare.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Matt 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

The BBs gained control by being most ardent supporters of WL and LSM. The only thing they know is the footnotes. So this requirement is to keep them relevant. They are unable to get light from the word.

ZNP,

There is some light in the footnotes. Occasionally there may be a lot. I still sometimes share things with my Christian friends which originally came to me via outline, footnote, and Lee aphorism. And other than my recent foray into the Psalms footnotes, I haven't read them for years. Yet some of them still resonate, at least faintly.

But I would like to contrast that to my recent experiences. Like I shared about how in Acts chapter 2 Peter "saw Christ" there in the text of Psalm 16, I began to see Christ in the experiences of these characters. I began to hear His voice. I could feel His love for His Father. I can tell you, it was spiritually, psychologically, emotionally devastating. I cannot put into words what it was like, to feel Jesus Christ. It was right there in those words in front of me: all the pain, the hope, the fear, the faith. It was an overwhelming experience. It was like Christ was suddenly real, right in front of me, and everything else just faded away. All the doctrines, all the teachings, all the footnotes, all the trainings. Compared to the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ, it was all dross.

Whether or not I am now too heavenly to be any earthly good, I guess I'll find out at the Judgment Seat, if not before. But I can say this: all those intermediaries (like Lee and his footnotes) to the text can now take a back seat. And if the footnotes tell me there is no Christ here to be found, I will rather firmly disagree.

Today I have a great hunger for the Word of God, if only that I want to see that blinding light again. I want my heart to be aflame again. So I foray into the text again and again, searching.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Remember that John wrote to the angel of the church in Ephesus, not to the Ephesians themselves. He was commanding the spiritual entity which was robbing the saints of their first love: "Repent". These forces cannot stand, and they will not stand. In the name of Jesus your time on earth is over.

Was "angel" meant to indicate spiritual being as we think of an angel, or was it "messenger" as some translations have rendered it? Whoever it was written to would need to be in true communication with at least the living humans in leadership, if not the whole assembly. Otherwise, it is like writing a stack of letters but never actually sending them.

But it is an interesting thought. I tend to think that since the instructions were to the actual practices of the people it has to be to someone with flesh and bones in the assembly. And since it was John who was instructed to write the words and include it as part of a longer letter to instruct living people in things that were/are to take place, then assuming that it is really to no one in particular, but rather to a non-tangible being makes its purpose truly vague. Why are you telling an entirely spiritual being that they need to "overcome"? Those words are for us, whether the direct words were intended to be to leadership or to the whole assembly. Until it reaches the church, it is pointless.

And if we presume that the inclusion within the letter that we call "Revelation" is how the humans were to discover the content of the seven short letters, then I am unable to decipher the purpose of sending the "original" to a spiritual being who was not party to any of the actions in progress or the corrections needed.

Just asking. I'm pretty sure that there are no absolute answers available.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

ZNP,

There is some light in the footnotes. Occasionally there may be a lot. I still sometimes share things with my Christian friends which originally came to me via outline, footnote, and Lee aphorism. And other than my recent foray into the Psalms footnotes, I haven't read them for years. Yet some of them still resonate, at least faintly.

John
3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

If you aspire to be a leader of God's people it is not sufficient to know various teachings and footnotes, that is merely a scribe. You must be able to commune with the Lord and get a word from Him.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

John
3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

If you aspire to be a leader of God's people it is not sufficient to know various teachings and footnotes, that is merely a scribe. You must be able to commune with the Lord and get a word from Him.

You get this from those verses?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

But I would like to contrast that to my recent experiences. ...I began to see Christ in the experiences of these [frail Biblical] characters. I began to hear His voice. I could feel [Jesus'] love for His Father ... I cannot put into words what it was like, to feel [the heart of] Jesus Christ...

It cannot be overstressed that the presentation of such an experience really means nothing, in the big scheme of things. The one who comes down from the mountaintop with his or her tales of glory may be just as mean and selfish as before. "Touching Jesus" may be all that really matters, but it is in and of itself no guarantee of enduring reality.

I say this because Peter, when he came down from the mountain, still denied the Lord three times. The disciple Judas got to kiss Jesus on the cheek! The two sons of Aaron got to sit with Moses and the seventy elders in front of God's throne, and eat and drink. They saw God and lived to tell about it, but later they were burned up.

And so forth. Many people were allowed some real access to God, only to be cast off later for transgression. So I can't pretend to be anything. My offering the story of seeing Jesus in the Psalms was for this purpose: suppose in God's Word I experience something of the heart of Jesus Christ, and can feel it, as it felt to the young disciple John as he lay on Jesus' breast at supper. In God's Word I can hear "...the voice of my Beloved, saying 'Rise up and come away.' " Then in the LSM Bible I read a footnote telling me, "There is nothing to be found here. Move along." I am going to respectfully but firmly tell LSM to go jump in the lake.

John did the same thing, I think, to the gnostics with their "Jesus was only a vapor" teachings. John replied, "We handled Him with our hands". Basically someone was coming along and saying, "Who are you going to believe, our ideas or your experiences?" And John was telling them to get lost. Likewise I will tell Lee's "economy" to get lost if it tells me to ignore the Christ I have seen in scripture.

And as I've noted, this "...no Christ is here to be found" is a rather prevalent theme in Lee's psalm expositions. In the first 35 psalms, for example, we see barely 10, if that, which acknowledge some divine revelation. And usually that is simply because the NT authors got there before Lee did. So he has to pay lip service.

I am aware that I am not supposed to judge anyone's heart. What was in Witness Lee's heart the Lord knows. If there was darkness, perhaps mine is ten times darker. But I can and will say that his teachings missed the mark by a wide margin. Lee's teachings are telling me to turn away from the precious Jesus who is speaking to me there in God's Word. But I will reject Lee's teachings instead.

The author of Hebrews was right: God is speaking to us in these last days in the person of His Son. We should accept no substitutes. Nothing should ever distract us from "the voice of our Beloved".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

You get this from those verses?

Please read the following verses:

John
3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

My understanding of these verses is that only Jesus is the man who knows both heavenly and earthly things (and although it isn't mentioned here, also things of the various realms of hades) and that this is one requirement for a leader. Second, Jesus is the one who will be lifted up that we all must look to to be healed. According to the context of talking to Nicodemus, this also is an aspect of His leadership. Third, Jesus has come into the world to save the world. This is the third aspect of His leadership.

In every case only Jesus can fulfill these.

Therefore, if Nicodemus wants to be a "leader" of the people his only way is if he can commune and receive the fellowship that Jesus and the Apostle's are giving.

But more importantly we have to look at the question that Nicodemus "secretly" asked Jesus

John
3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3:3 Jesus answered...

If you look at Jesus answer to the "question" you have to conclude that Nicodemus is asking

"How can I be a teacher come from God?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

You get this from those verses?

I think I get the point. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a "man of the Word". He was of the ruling council, so he'd surely had some success in handling the Word of God.

So he has some success in "the interpreted Word". But now he is facing the Word Himself. A whole nuther level.

So ZNP is comparing that to the scribes of LSM, whose teachings are arguably based on the Word, i.e. the Bible. He's saying, Do not pretend that your handling, however skillfully, of the interpreted Word is any substitute for dealing with the Word Himself.

And if these "wordsmiths" tell you that their interpreted Word is tantamount to the path to the Word Himself, tell them what Jesus told Nicodemus: You must be born again. In other words: Nice try. Try again. Start over. Better luck next time. See ya on the other side.

The scribes and merchandisers of God's Word are on the wrong side. Their merchandising is itself a testimony that their teaching is of the earth. Just as Nicodemus' Pharisaic activity was a testimony of its earthly nature.

Anyway, I am of course not speaking for ZNP. But that's what I got from his quote, and comment.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

... if Nicodemus wants to be a "leader" of the people his only way is if he can commune and receive the fellowship that Jesus and the Apostle's are giving.

I posted while ZNP was giving this reply. Obviously I defer to his explanation over mine. I was just thinking aloud, in the assembly. But I think that his points and mine dovetail somewhat.

[aron]

I think it's also important to add that when you come down from the mountain with a fresh word from the Lord, i.e. a genuine and novel experience in God's Word of God's Christ, there is always the danger that you've been led astray, or at least that you only see in part. That is where the ekklesia comes in. The fellowship will test, or try, your Word and see of what sort it is.

Lee rejected this protective oversight of the ekklesia. In his schema the Church had to listen to him, not vice versa. So he opened himself to uncorrected error, which I think also to led many astray, who likewise held him as "God's oracle."

Again, only Jesus is "God's Oracle". Only Jesus is the "Faithful and True Witness" (Rev. 1:5) whose speaking is tantamount to God's speaking on the earth today (Heb. 1:2).

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Was "angel" meant to indicate spiritual being as we think of an angel, or was it "messenger" as some translations have rendered it? Whoever it was written to would need to be in true communication with at least the living humans in leadership, if not the whole assembly. Otherwise, it is like writing a stack of letters but never actually sending them.

As you've said, there are probably no absolute answers available. All I can do is make available my thinking.

First, as I mentioned, there is the direct speaking to spiritual entities behind the human person in question, amply documented in the Gospels and in the Acts. Of course writing to sprititual entities is another order entirely. I admit that.

Secondly, angels are not necessarily merely to be seen as empty messengers; rather, they seem to have power to act. Consider the angel who rebuked Zecharias for his unbelief, and said that he'd be blind for a time. The angel didn't run back to God for further orders when Zecharias was noncompliant. The angel spoke, and it was done.

Thirdly, I was referencing intertestamental rabbinical commentaries on the Book of Daniel, which posited that an angel watches over each geographical area (i.e. "the prince of Persia"). There are thus perhaps not only personal angels (cf Peter's angel in Acts 12:15; Jesus' "their angels see God's face" in Matt. 18:10) but also what we might call "geographic angels" as well.

I tend to think that since the instructions were to the actual practices of the people it has to be to someone with flesh and bones in the assembly. And since it was John who was instructed to write the words and include it as part of a longer letter to instruct living people in things that were/are to take place, then assuming that it is really to no one in particular, but rather to a non-tangible being makes its purpose truly vague. Why are you telling an entirely spiritual being that they need to "overcome"? Those words are for us, whether the direct words were intended to be to leadership or to the whole assembly. Until it reaches the church, it is pointless.

My thought is that "non-tangible beings", not people, are controlling events. For example, Witness Lee is gone, but his "controlling vision" seems to be doing fine in Anaheim, and elsewhere. And since this controlling vision is not from God, we can and should rebuke it. And given that Jesus said, "Speak to the mountain and it will be cast into the sea", maybe here John is perhaps speaking to the angel of the assembly in Ephesus.

And if we presume that the inclusion within the letter that we call "Revelation" is how the humans were to discover the content of the seven short letters, then I am unable to decipher the purpose of sending the "original" to a spiritual being who was not party to any of the actions in progress or the corrections needed.

These letters were sent to real people, and were likely read aloud to other people, in the assemblies in question. Remember that illiteracy was large, and printing was nearly non-existant. So it was usually orally disseminated to the congregation. But who heard - only people? Or people and the forces behind them? Remember that Jesus would tell the spiritual entities to "Come out of that person" and the humans heard His voice as well. I would therefore say that in the Asian assemblies physical people were hearing "non-tangible beings" being rebuked. So both parties are being served notice: angels and humans.

Some rotten teachings had come to roost in the seven assemblies in Asia, and God, through John, was addressing them, out loud and in public: "Repent." As I was telling ZNP, the rotten teachings of Lee were due not to Lee being a rotten person but to spiritual forces which were using Lee. Lee's control issues over the local churches were indications that some dark spiritual forces had controlled him. And Lee's teachings in turn became vectors to capture even more people. Lee was a pawn of dark forces.

All of which might have little or nothing to do with the angels of the assemblies in Asia. Importantly, nowhere else in the Word do I see angels themselves being told to repent. So my position may be untenable.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

intertestamental rabbinical commentaries on the Book of Daniel ... posited that an angel watches over each geographical area (i.e. "the prince of Persia"). There are thus perhaps not only personal angels (cf Peter's angel in Acts 12:15; Jesus' "their angels see God's face" in Matt. 18:10) but also what we might call "geographic angels" as well...

Perhaps the way to discern whether such notions influenced John in his writing "To the angel of the church in..." would be to know how widespread such ideas may have been in the intertestamental period. Certainly some of these sources influenced the NT: Jude, 2 Peter, and Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man were (likely) informed by uncanonical intertestamental sources.

If we could see "geographic angels" being considered elsewhere (besides what I have cited already) it would strengthen the notion that John referenced something like that (which might also be familiar to his readers); if scant sources are extant then it would weaken the idea. One of the shortcomings of the LSM analyses were that they didn't (to my knowledge) reference any intertestamental/extra-canonical sources. It is widely done by scholars; in contrast Lee's analyses look rather crude ("but they're LIFE studies!!!").

[VoiceInWilderness]

I think brother Lee was a servant of God who made some big mistakes especially later. I think his 2 biggest errors were:

1. Saying that parts of the Bible were not God's word. This started with Psalms early on. In his later ministry it went to Proverbs, Job, James and even Peter and Jeremiah.

2. In 1984 he told the church, whoever doesn't agree with "the new way" should leave like gentleman. This was contrary to everything the local churches had stood for. After 1988 when most leaders with their own scriptural-based views were expelled, we had no more English-speaking fruit in the U.S.

Aron, I think your enjoyment of the Psalms if very good. However, it seems to me that you try to make every exhortation to righteousness as applying to Christ and not to us. This is not how Peter quoted Psalm 34, nor how Paul quoted Ps 4 in Ephesians. The exhortations to live righteously are mainly to us. They weren't just fulfilled in Christ. They are also to be fulfilled in us by living in union with Christ, and we can fulfill them because we are born of God.

This brings up a shortcoming of brother Lee's ministry: there was near nothing on the working together of faith and works. This should not have been a big problem except that later his ministry was supposed to be all-inclusive. Brothers who had this important portion had been expelled. You didn't need and shouldn't waste your time with any other ministry. This brought a stilted understanding of the Chrisitian life.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

In 1984 he told the church, whoever doesn't agree with "the new way" should leave like gentleman. This was contrary to everything the local churches had stood for.

My understanding being raised in the recovery was if you're Christian in _______, the local church is for you. As it is inclusive for all members of the Body. It was that way until I graduated frm high school in 1986.
Now? In recent years it has become transparent the local churches who embrace LSM as the one publication is not for everyone. Just because you are a member of the Body, the recovery may not be for you. As broad the Body of Christ is, the LSM local churches; not so much. It's not that different from the military. Just because many may serve in branches of the Armed Forces, not all can be members of the Special Forces.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Aron... it seems to me that you try to make every exhortation to righteousness as applying to Christ and not to us. The exhortations to live righteously... weren't just fulfilled in Christ. They are also to be fulfilled in us by living in union with Christ, and we can fulfill them because we are born of God.

I probably didn't make my argument clearly. There is one righteous man, Jesus Christ. The rest were defeated by God's enemy, Satan. Jesus is the sole fulfillment of the prophecies. There is only one name by which we can be saved (Acts 4:12). There is only one Christ.

Having said that, Jesus is the Savior, and there are many saved (i.e. believers) who are supposed to follow Him by faith. We are supposed to enter into His experiences in full. So we are supposed to live them just as He did.

I probably didn't present that clearly, the idea that Christ is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets and the psalms, and not just the select passages deemed by Lee et al to be 'divinely revelatory', in that I seemed to dismiss or downplay the subsequent experiences of the believers.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... [My argument was] that Christ is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets and the psalms, and not just the select passages deemed by Lee et al to be 'divinely revelatory' ...

Paul called psalms the "word of Christ" in Colossians 3:16. I don't see him anywhere adding, or even alluding, that some psalms were natural and fallen, and some psalms were divinely revelatory.

The author of Hebrews quotes psalms (and other parts of the OT) and says, "...we see Jesus"(2:9). Lee said, in effect, "No you don't; you see a natural, fallen man's concepts". Where does the author of Hebrews indicate such a thing?

Jesus said, "These things were written concerning Me" in Luke 24:44... where does He or anyone indicate that some of the law, psalms, and prophets was to be dismissed as irrelevant, or only presented as cautionary exceptions "to show us what God doesn't want"...?

Who are you going to believe: the words of Jesus, Paul, and Hebrews, or the words of Lee?

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Aron, I think your enjoyment of the Psalms if very good. However, it seems to me that you try to make every exhortation to righteousness as applying to Christ and not to us. This is not how Peter quoted Psalm 34, nor how Paul quoted Ps 4 in Ephesians. The exhortations to live righteously are mainly to us. They weren't just fulfilled in Christ. They are also to be fulfilled in us by living in union with Christ, and we can fulfill them because we are born of God.

I would argue that the exortations to live righteously are to us, but that we fail. Lee failed just as surely as David, and as you and I. The law, ultimately, condemns us.

But, by faith we see One who lives and abides in the Father's word. We see One who expresses the Father to such an extent that when we see Him we see the Father, and through this Obedient Son we prodigals can hear our Father calling us home. We no longer have the written word, which condemns, but we the redeemed and reborn can hear and apprehend the living Word, who speaks "better things"(Heb 12:24), and who now abides a Son forever.

And, importantly, we have this Living Word abiding in us. I argue that "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" in Colossians 3, and "That Christ may make His home in your heart" in Ephesians 3 are synonymous. As is the largely parallel "Be filled in Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms" in Ephesians 5. We can exclaim, with the apostle, "Now it is no longer I but Christ who is in me", and also "the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead now gives life to our mortal bodies". The fulfillment of the law's command is found not in us, but Christ in us.

All of which is standard Christian boilerplate, and is also reminiscent of Lee's beloved "economy" interpretation. Where I differ from Lee is that he basically overturns Paul, Jesus, Hebrews et al by saying that a good chunk of God's word in the psalms is not in fact the "word of Christ" but is rather the word of fallen man. As I said, I don't have the wherewithal to do a verse-by-verse comparison of Lee and the text of all 150 psalms.

But just look at Psalm 1 as a representative and introductory sample. Lee says there is no righteous man. In doing so he ignores Christ. He also lets the "assembly of the righteous" (v.5) pass without comment. If there is no righteous man then there is also therefore no assembly of the righteous in Lee's spriritualized Bible. But what about the assembly of the righteous in Psalm 22? "I will sing praises to You in the midst of the assembly"? And so forth? The church? Hello?

I think that Lee's spiritualized/interpreted Bible is distorted, subjective, and grossly deficient. As is, of course, my subjective spiritualized/interpreted word and those of many others. But I (and most others) don't push my ministry, my speaking, as the definitive word from God, superseding even the canonized but uninterpreted Bible. However, Hebrews 1 says that God is speaking to us in the Son. Not, unfortunately, Mr. Lee; and not aron, not Luther, not David. God is speaking to us in the Son. And this Son is speaking to us, among other places, in the Psalms.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... by faith we see One who lives and abides in the Father's word. We see One who expresses the Father to such an extent that when we see Him we see the Father, and through this Obedient Son we prodigals can hear our Father calling us home.

...Hebrews chapter 1 says that God is speaking to us in the Son. Not, unfortunately, Mr. Lee; and not aron, not Luther, not David. God is speaking to us in the Son. And this Son is speaking to us, among other places, in the Psalms.

I was reading various "spiritualized" versions of Psalm 61 recently. "Lead me to the rock that is higher than I" is well known. Many songs are being written, and many blogs holding forth. But in this holding forth in story and song I notice a trend in one or two ways. First, the singer is singing to God. "God you are my high rock and my shelter from the enemy". So he/she is repeating the psalm verbatim and largely ignoring or bypassing Christ. Second, the interpretation will transpose Jesus Christ with the OT JHWH: "Christ is my rock and my redeemer." All well and good; we remember Paul said that "Christ was the rock" in 1 Corinthians 10, for example. And, also well known is John Chapter One's "The Word [who] was God... became flesh" means to us that Jehovah God in heaven came to us on earth in our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Okay, fine; but did you ever notice in the NT (in Hebrews, or the Gospels, for example) that the Son was speaking to the Father using the words of what they called 'scriptures' and we call "The Old Testament"? Did you ever consider that the words in the Psalms are perhaps not only fallen man's words directed at or towards Jehovah and/or His Christ, but also Christ the Son's words to His Father? In other words, Paul saying "the word of Christ" is not our word about, or regarding Christ, but rather Christ's word about, or regarding His Father? That it really is the Son, in the midst of the assembly of the redeemed, speaking and singing words of praise to His Father and our Father, to His God and our God(Heb. 2:12; John 20:17)?

Jesus Christ the Man on earth spoke the words of the prophets and the psalms and the law to His Father. And He obeyed them. He lived them out. He became the reality, He became the "Word... made flesh". Even in the words of weakness, penitence and failure, such as in Psalm 51, Jesus comes alongside in both His speaking blood and His sending Paraclete.

This living Jesus is right in front of us, depicted plainly in the words of anointed and God-seeking men. If we dismiss them or ignore this testimony as "natural" or "fallen" we risk great loss. Again I ask, who are you going to pay attention to, the words of Lee, or the words of Christ? Who are you going to look to, the "interpreted word" now merchandised, or the Living Word made flesh, and now coming to us straight from the throne in heaven?

Let that word from heaven "dwell in you richly" and "sing praises to the Father" and see what happens. Don't let Witness Lee cheat you by dismissing it as merely the word of fallen man with his natural concepts. I would rather dismiss Lee as guilty of his own charge. I argue that Lee's interpretation is the fallen and natural word.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... did you ever notice in the NT (in Hebrews, or the Gospels, for example) that the Son was speaking to the Father using the words of what they called 'scriptures' and we call "The Old Testament"? Did you ever consider that the words in the Psalms are perhaps not only fallen man's words directed at or towards Jehovah and/or His Christ, but also Christ the Son's words to His Father? That perhaps Paul saying "the word of Christ" is not our word about, or regarding Christ, but rather Christ's word about, or regarding His Father? That it really is the Son, in the midst of the assembly of the redeemed, speaking and singing words of praise to His Father and our Father, to His God and our God(Heb. 2:12; John 20:17)?

Look at Psalm 86 for example. It gets one footnote from Lee. "David is trying to save himself. But God is after something bigger than David. God is after Christ". Lee doesn't say David's prayer is vain, but he implies it.

But just put that prayer into the mouth of the man Jesus. Who was faithful, and trusted in God (v.2)? Jesus. Who cried in distress and got answered (v.7)? Jesus. Who knew the ways of Jehovah; who had an undivided heart; who feared the Father's name (v. 11)? The man Jesus.

Enough said. I could go on, verse by verse. But the point is that arguably Jesus Christ is quite present in Psalm 86. Lee ignores the possibility.

[aron]

Hebrews presents a remarkable window into the Psalms as an engine of revelation. The Psalms show us an intimate portrait of a Man on earth in relation to His God in heaven. The Gospels show us the miracles, the effect of the relationship. Psalms shows us the relationship. And the epistle to the Hebrews gives us a Christian view into the Psalms through its repeated use of them.

For example, look at Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." Where in the Gospels do you see "fervent cries and tears" so vividly portrayed? You do see fervent prayers in the garden of Gethsemene, but little else. But try a search of the Psalms and you will see citation after citation. "I cried all night to my God"; "My pillow became wet with my tears"; "streams of tears flowed from my eyes", etc.

[aron]

Psalm 119:115 Away from me, you evildoers, that I may keep the commands of my God!

Matthew 7:23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

(All quotes NIV)

Now, do you think that Psalm 119:115 at least deserves a cross reference, if not a footnote? If you go to the RecV Psalm 119 there are pages of text with no footnotes. WL at least recognizes, in a few introductory footnotes of this psalm that its writer had a seeking heart. But is there no shadow, type, or figure of the coming Christ? None?

The lack of any relations between God's Holy One and anything which was unclean or sinful is such a huge point. We may think of Jesus as such a nice guy, "a friend of sinners" and so forth. And he was (thank God). But the demons cried out in fear when he showed up: "We know who You are -- the Holy One of Israel! (Mark 1:24)" Whoever that trod the 'broad path' near Him, including the disciples, found out real quick what Psalm 119:115 sounded like 'in person'.

But there is no comment in the Recovery Version regarding Psalm 119:115, not even so much as a cross reference.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Psalm 119:115 Away from me, you evildoers, that I may keep the commands of my God!

But there is no comment in the Recovery Version regarding Psalm 119:115, not even so much as a cross reference.

By that time, LSM was in a hurry to wrap things up and get the thing published.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

By that time, LSM was in a hurry to wrap things up and get the thing published.

I agree. Interpretation had been exhausted and merchandising was in full swing. University Press in England was ready to go.

[aron]

I would like to make 3 more comments. I will start with another verse from Psalm 119: verse 120.

"My flesh trembles in fear of you; I stand in awe of your laws." (NIV)

This verse, like most of Psalm 119, gets no comment or cross-reference in the RecV. In no way, evidently, is this indicative of the coming Christ, who "In the days of His flesh... offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety." (Heb. 5:7 NASB)

In Psalm 119 WL saw, at best, the piety of the psalm writer. Not the piety of Christ.

Second, in spite of numerous NT references to Jesus Christ as revealed "in the flesh" in the psalms, where WL did see Christ in the text it was as "Jehovah God". As in Psalm 23: "Jehovah is my shepherd, I shall not want, etc". To Lee, this meant that Jesus/Jehovah is our shepherd. Perhaps, but what about the Father shepherding the Son, in the days of the Son's flesh (incarnation)? Evidently not considered.

If WL was not forced by existing NT exposition to read the text as showing us Christ in the flesh (incarnated, suffering, resurrecting, glorified), then he either saw the writing as indicative of the psalmist's natural (uninspired) inclinations or at best a revelation of Jehovah/Jesus. But Jesus the persecuted and suffering and faithful Nazarene was not sought for.

I would like to correct this tendency by using the hermeneutic (interpretive strategy) which Peter displayed in his speech, standing with the eleven: "Brothers, we all know that this word (by David, of being saved from corruption) could not have been fulfilled by him, as we have his grave with us to this day. It was rather fulfilled by his seed, Jesus, the Son of David, as we have all witnessed." This is my paraphrase from memory; see Acts 2 for the exact words.

I argue that the Psalms are most importantly the words of Jesus Christ our Lord, not merely words about Christ or to Christ (though both do exist) and even less the words of a well-meaning, sinful psalmist. To WL they were predominantly the latter. He really only saw Jesus Christ where he was absolutely forced to.

Third, I would like to go back to the idea of keeping the law, and being righteous. I believe this was the big stumbling for WL; he dismissed this, and therefore the bulk of the text, out of hand. I say not so fast: we do see Jesus clearly fulfilling the law, down to the proverbial 'jot and tittle', and we do see Jesus telling His disciples that "if you love me you will keep my commandments". Faithfulness and obedience are NT characteristics as well. If we believe in Jesus the righteous one we are supposed to try and follow him.

Today, our "law" is the law of the Spirit of life, and not the law of letters engraved on stone. But our law still exists. The Father speaks, and we (should) obey. "Your word, O Father, is eternal; it stand firm in the heavens" Psalm 119:89

In Psalm 1, the introductory psalm, Lee categorically states that no one can keep the law. I do understand his point but this unfortunately became his basis for effectively dismissing the whole book. His dismissal, however, couldn't make it through the text of Psalm 1, much less the next 149 chapters. To the 'righteous man' in Psalm 1, WL retorts, "There is no righteous man". Then, when the "assembly of the righteous" appears later in the same chapter, he ignores it. But the psalmists' "assembly of the righteous" is quoted by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews! It is the church!

But WL already said that "there is none righteous; no, not one" so he had to dismiss the assembly of the righteous. And so on for the next 149 chapters; in order to keep his premise WL essentially had to rid the Psalms of any meaning.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by aron

In Psalm 1, the introductory psalm, Lee categorically states that no one can keep the law. I do understand his point but this unfortunately became his basis for effectively dismissing the whole book. His dismissal, however, couldn't make it through the text of Psalm 1, much less the next 149 chapters. To the 'righteous man' in Psalm 1, WL retorts, "There is no righteous man". Then, when the "assembly of the righteous" appears later in the same chapter, he ignores it. But the psalmists' "assembly of the righteous" is quoted by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews! It is the church!

But WL already said that "there is none righteous; no, not one" so he had to dismiss the assembly of the righteous. And so on for the next 149 chapters; in order to keep his premise WL essentially had to rid the Psalms of any meaning.

Aron,
Isn't our righteousness in Christ and not from the law? When Paul says, "as it is written, there is none righteous, no not one" he's showing us that the law cannot save us because we can't keep it, but faith in Christ makes us righteous because He kept the law, He fulfilled it.
Abraham was accounted as righteous...how does WL address that? Solely with respect to the law no one (save Christ) can be considered righteous. With respect to faith, all those who believe in God and Christ can be considered as such. The assembly of the righteous is the church as it stands in faith and in Christ. I think you're right on target when you say that the Psalms are Christ's words just as much as they are about him. To dismiss any of them is, I think, to miss the mark entirely. Such a slight misstep leads one far far away.
This is a great thread. Thanks to everyone for helping me work through my understanding of Psalms and its place in the Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Isn't our righteousness in Christ and not from the law? When Paul says, "as it is written, there is none righteous, no not one" he's showing us that the law cannot save us because we can't keep it, but faith in Christ makes us righteous because He kept the law, He fulfilled it.

We do believe that Christ fulfilled the law, and that He then said to us, "A new commandment I give unto you." We are discipled to follow Him. This "new law" is of course fulfilled by the faith of "the new man" in Christ alone and not our "old man" in the flesh. Nonetheless the aspiration of the seeking OT psalmist to obey God's commands is not merely a "natural" aspiration, vain and a distraction to us. On the contrary; perhaps we can see that aspiration fulfilled, even in a higher "interior" or "celestial" level as in Christ Himself.

For example, look at the epistle to the Hebrews' characterization of Jesus. The author only heard about Jesus from others (2:3), yet says "We see Jesus"... where? Among the shadows of the scriptures, penned by the ancients, the writer sees the shining light; among the OT types and figures, the fulfillment emerges. Look at the detailed picture of Jesus that comes forth in this epistle -- surely this is a challenge to us, and an invitation!

Abraham was accounted as righteous...how does WL address that? Solely with respect to the law no one (save Christ) can be considered righteous. With respect to faith, all those who believe in God and Christ can be considered as such.

Agreed. And yet none of these basic tenets of the Christian faith, such as salvation by faith, implies that we should downplay the psalmists' devotions as 'natural' or 'fallen'. Jesus never said nor implied this, nor did Paul, nor did any of the NT writers, nor church Fathers that I am aware of. That kind of diminshment, I believe, came millenia later, mostly in reaction to the Catholic abuse of 'works'. Moreover, I am not aware of any Christian teacher of the last 500 years who so thoroughly disparages the Psalms (among other scriptures) as WL did. It was as if he trusted his "God's economy" template more than the actual words themselves.

The assembly of the righteous is the church as it stands in faith and in Christ. I think you're right on target when you say that the Psalms are Christ's words just as much as they are about him. To dismiss any of them is, I think, to miss the mark entirely. Such a slight misstep leads one far far away.

Amen. But I don't think we need to force anyone to "see Jesus", a la Hebrews 2:9, too extensively in the words of the OT text. If I get an insight into some aspect of the 'hidden life' of Jesus from some seemingly obscure verse (and the Psalms are loaded with obscurity) that doesn't need to be a point of doctrine, and contention toward others who "don't get it". OBW mentioned earlier on this thread about the peril of reading too much into the text, and treating possibility as fact. At the same time, I believe WL sold us far short of the goal by rejecting so much scripture. He not only would not enter in, but forbade any of the rest to enter (Matt 23:13). We know how he mocked those who were singing the Psalms as being unbalanced and departing from the NT revelation.

Ironically, one could say of the Psalms, a WL said about the Trinity, "It's not for doctrine... it's for dispensing". It's for experience, foremost; Jesus is not something for merely for interpretation or understanding. When you experience Jesus Christ it changes your life. The experience changes your outlook, your thinking, and your behavior. And I believe that Christ is right there in the Psalms, waiting for us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Aron,
Isn't our righteousness in Christ and not from the law? When Paul says, "as it is written, there is none righteous, no not one" he's showing us that the law cannot save us because we can't keep it, but faith in Christ makes us righteous because He kept the law, He fulfilled it.
Abraham was accounted as righteous...how does WL address that? Solely with respect to the law no one (save Christ) can be considered righteous. With respect to faith, all those who believe in God and Christ can be considered as such. The assembly of the righteous is the church as it stands in faith and in Christ. I think you're right on target when you say that the Psalms are Christ's words just as much as they are about him. To dismiss any of them is, I think, to miss the mark entirely. Such a slight misstep leads one far far away.
This is a great thread. Thanks to everyone for helping me work through my understanding of Psalms and its place in the Bible.

So then, if I understand correctly, the only way Psalm 1 can fit with the rest of the Bible is if it is specifically referring to Christ.

1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
1:5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
More
1:6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

"The way of the righteous" would have to refer to Jesus who said "I am the way". This would have to refer to the way of the cross.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

I would like to make 3 more comments. I will start with another verse from Psalm 119: verse 120.

"My flesh trembles in fear of you; I stand in awe of your laws." (NIV)

Based on the idea that this must refer to Christ, "standing in awe of your laws" could refer to the idea that according to the Law of God He offered up His son to die on the cross to fulfill all righteousness. A path that Jesus chose to take.

That is certainly a view that would cause my flesh to tremble in fear of God and to also stand in awe of His laws.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, if I understand correctly, the only way Psalm 1 can fit with the rest of the Bible is if it is specifically referring to Christ.

1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
1:5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

1:6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

"The way of the righteous" would have to refer to Jesus who said "I am the way". This would have to refer to the way of the cross.

I think you are certainly closer than WL was. Look also at "fruit"(v.3): his footnote said that this referred only to material blessings and was vain. Again, he ignores the many NT references to "fruit" (gospels, epistles, and Revelation), which are spiritually oriented. A connection seemingly never occurs to him: I think because it would upset his whole premise.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

I think you are certainly closer than WL was.

Psalm
110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Jesus asked how Christ can be the son of David if David calls Him Lord. Likewise we should ask, what do you think of the Psalms, whose words are they? Are these the words of Christ or the words that are lightly esteemed? Witness Lee said "This shows us that Psalm 1 is good, but it was written with a wrong concept." Are these words a stone that the builder refused? Psalm 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. Or are these words the testimony of God? According to Hebrews 2:6 Psalms are the testimony of God.

Sometimes He testified with a loud voice crying "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken Me".

Other times He confided 41:9 "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." Even His dying words 31:5 "Into thine hand I commit my spirit" were His testimony recorded in Psalms.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

are these words the testimony of God? According to Hebrews 2:6 Psalms are the testimony of God...

For years I thought the Psalms were shallow and void of revelation. Turns out I was shallow and void of revelation.

Not only in the Psalms, but also in much more, these ancient writings beckon us to explore the Good Land Himself. The heights, the depths, the breadth unknown and unknowable... our hearts yearn... The journey waits...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Other times He confided 41:9 "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."

This verse is indelibly etched in my soul. Years ago I was horribly betrayed by someone particularly close to me. The pain inflicted upon me over the course of months and years was far more than I could hope to bear. There were many nights when I would wake up in fright, after being tormented in my sleep.

This verse was a tremendous anchor against the onslaught of my storm at sea. Jesus Himself was betrayed by His closest friend, Judas. I came to realize that Judas was His own personal valet, arranging his daily meals and accommodations, and that is why he held the "purse" of the offerings given to the Lord. At the last supper, it was John to one side and Judas to His other, eating "of My bread." It is no wonder, since Jesus and Judas were so close, that none of the other disciples even suspected that Judas could betray Him. Judas may not have been the most spiritual one, but he was no doubt the Lord's closest companion as He traveled and ministered.

Our Savior tasted the bitterest of human suffering so that He could sympathize with us in ours. He allowed Judas to betray Him with an affectionate kiss in the night as He prayed at Gethsemane. Other than to fulfill this prophecy, the Lord didn't need to be betrayed by His best friend. But He was, and He was betrayed just for me. And all the others who have endured this during their own journey.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, if I understand correctly, the only way Psalm 1 can fit with the rest of the Bible is if it is specifically referring to Christ.
...
"The way of the righteous" would have to refer to Jesus who said "I am the way". This would have to refer to the way of the cross.

I don't think it's the only way it can fit in the Bible. It fits in the Bible because it's the Word of God, and I'm not adding the caveat that it is although it's written from a man's fallen perspective or something like that.
It fits because it should, in some way, bring us to Christ, just as our study of the law should.

The Bible shows one man who did the things mentioned in the verses you quoted--Jesus Christ. Before Christ came, righteousness came through faith in God (Abraham). Before Christ came the way of the cross wasn't there to offer man anything. Now, after Christ's death, His way (obedience to the Father) is our way through believing in Him and that is our righteousness.

I just can't understand how anyone can read Psalms and say some of it is worth less, is there to teach us how NOT to be/act. Same people who dismiss James I guess.

[UntoHim]

This reminds me of Witness Lee's ignorant and blasphemous "treatment" of the Epistle of James. The garbage Lee spewed out here alone disqualifies him from being considered anything but a false teacher at best, and really more of a fraud who showed his ignorance and abject disdain for the living Word of God. He showed it in his "teachings" in the Psalms and he showed it even more with what he spoke about James.

http://www.ministrysamples.org/excer...CAL-ITEMS.HTML

VIII. BESIDES THE ABOVE LACKS,
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES BEING DEVOID
OF THE FIVE FOLLOWING CRITICAL ITEMS

Besides the above lacks, the Epistle of James is devoid of the five following critical items concerning the believers' spiritual experiences in life, without which the New Testament becomes only a book of doctrine and no longer a book of experience in the divine life.

A. The Union and Minglingof the Believers with the Triune God

The believers are united and mingled with the Triune God (Matt. 28:19; Eph. 4:4-6).

B. The Believers Being Joinedto the Lord as One Spirit

First Corinthians 6:17 says that we believers are joined to the Lord as one spirit. This means that we become Him and He becomes us. This is not merely union but also mingling.

C. The Believers' Regenerated Spirit

James is devoid of the truth concerning the believers' regenerated spirit (Rom. 8:16; 2 Tim. 4:22).

D. The Discernment of the Believers' Spirit from Their Soul

James is also devoid of the revelation concerning the discernment of the believers' spirit from their soul (1 Thes. 5:23; Heb. 4:12). A sister may want to go shopping for items which are on sale out of the desire from her soul. But another part of her being tells her not to do this. This is her spirit. We need to learn to discern our spirit from our soul.

E. Living by the Spirit and Walking according to the Spirit

James also lacks the thought of living by the Spirit and walking according to the spirit (Gal. 5:16, 25; Rom. 8:4b).
All the lacks and defects in the Epistle of James mentioned above are evidences that the Christian perfection stressed by James is not one up to the standard of the high level of the genuine Christian perfection as revealed in the New Testament, but one which is inadequate in fulfilling God's New Testament economy and which is even mistaken under the vague vision concerning God's eternal economy.
The New Testament, which is of twenty-seven books, is composed of mainly nine items. If we see them, we understand the New Testament. These items are the economy of God, the all-inclusive God with His fullness, the all-inclusive Christ with His riches, the all-inclusive Spirit with His supply, the divine life which is Christ Himself as the embodiment of the Triune God, Christ's death, Christ's resurrection, and the Body of Christ. All these items consummate the New Jerusalem (the final item) as the ultimate goal of God. The economy of God is a plan to produce the Body of Christ through the Triune God (the Father, the Son, and the Spirit), through the divine life, and through Christ's death and resurrection. The building up of the Body of Christ will consummate the New Jerusalem. The entire New Testament covers these nine items. All the other things in the New Testament are like the leaves of a tree, whereas these items are the fruit.
The book of James touches only two of the above items: the begetting Father and the indwelling Spirit. But even these items are spoken of by James in an inadequate way. Thus, the book of James is devoid of the main items in the New Testament.
(Crystallization-Study of the Epistle of James, Chapter 5, by Witness Lee)

[james73]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This reminds me of Witness Lee's ignorant and blasphemous "treatment" of the Epistle of James. The garbage Lee spewed out here alone disqualifies him from being considered anything but a false teacher at best, and really more of a fraud who showed his ignorance and abject disdain for the living Word of God. He showed it in his "teachings" in the Psalms and he showed it even more with what he spoke about James.

Amen! Let's pray-read that post together: "Ignorant! Amen! Blasphemous! Amen! Ignorant and Blasphemous! AMEN!"

Although I don't think it was ignorant, it was exceedingly cunning. I think it didn't fit with the pyramid scheme - after all, James says to help the widows and the poor. There's no place in the "body" for charity like that.

The young ones in my group are very proud of this fact: "We are not for anything but building up of the body!" one said recently, eyes a-shining with Lee-ite rapture, criticizing my other church group for it's "Manna Ministry" which feeds poor elderly (and, I should add, has saved around 300 people in its two years of operation, as these elderly see how beautiful and full of grace are the Christian volunteers... but that's probably another issue.) I agree, church should not be a social welfare organization, but still.... the people in my group with the billion dollar property portfolios who go on about building up the body and yet shudder at the sight of a homeless man or mistrust a ex-drug addict with a tattoo, these are the products of Lee's teaching.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

D. The Discernment of the Believers' Spirit from Their Soul

James is also devoid of the revelation concerning the discernment of the believers' spirit from their soul (1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 4:12). A sister may want to go shopping for items which are on sale out of the desire from her soul. But another part of her being tells her not to do this. This is her spirit. We need to learn to discern our spirit from our soul.

How about a better testimony, something like this ...

A brother in the lead may want to start a motor home business using the saints hard-earned money as capital out of a desire from his fallen soul. But another part of his being tells him not to do this. This was his spirit. This LC leader must learn to discern his spirit from his soul.

Because this LC leader could not discern his spirit from his soul, we must ask whether he was devoid of revelation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Our Savior tasted the bitterest of human suffering so that He could sympathize with us in ours. He allowed Judas to betray Him with an affectionate kiss in the night as He prayed at Gethsemane. Other than to fulfill this prophecy, the Lord didn't need to be betrayed by His best friend. But He was, and He was betrayed just for me. And all the others who have endured this during their own journey.

Think of how David was betrayed not once, but twice: once when Saul turned against him in jealousy, and once when his son Absalom rebelled. In both cases some of David's "closest companions" suddenly left him and went over to what they thought was the "winning side". What did that feel like to be abandoned and betrayed thus?

"He who eats with me lifts up his heel against me" indeed. But what was WL's take on Psalm 3, that covers David's experiences during Absalom's rebellion?

"Natural"

David's own son rebelled against him, many of his closest allies betrayed him, but WL wasn't interested.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Think of how David was betrayed not once, but twice: once when Saul turned against him in jealousy, and once when his son Absalom rebelled. In both cases some of David's "closest companions" suddenly left him and went over to what they thought was the "winning side". What did that feel like to be abandoned and betrayed thus?

"He who eats with me lifts up his heel against me" indeed. But what was WL's take on Psalm 3, that covers David's experiences during Absalom's rebellion?

"Natural"

David's own son rebelled against him, many of his closest allies betrayed him, but WL wasn't interested.

When the Lord was kissed in Gethsemane, He considered that to be Judas kicking Him in the face.

And look at all the beloved brothers in the Recovery who were betrayed and thrown under the bus by Witness Lee, so that he could protect his "boys." Max Rapoport and Sandee were betrayed because Max took a stand for righteousness and confronted Philip for molesting that sister. Jesus was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver by his close friend.

Jesus says, "Blessed are those who suffer ..."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

The Bible shows one man who did the things mentioned in the verses you quoted--Jesus Christ. Before Christ came, righteousness came through faith in God (Abraham). Before Christ came the way of the cross wasn't there to offer man anything. Now, after Christ's death, His way (obedience to the Father) is our way through believing in Him and that is our righteousness.

I just can't understand how anyone can read Psalms and say some of it is worth less, is there to teach us how NOT to be/act. Same people who dismiss James I guess.

Yes, Abraham's faith was accounted to him as righteousness when he obeyed God and offered his son Isaac up in a figure. However, this "way of righteousness" was authored by Jesus and perfected by Jesus. Jesus said that He was the way and that "no man comes unto the Father but by Me".

So the verse that Witness Lee had trouble with in Psalm 1 was 1:6 "For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish."

This way, to my mind, must refer to Jesus and it can also be referred to as "the way of the cross". Abraham is an example of one man that took this way and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When the Lord was kissed in Gethsemane, He considered that to be Judas kicking Him in the face.

And look at all the beloved brothers in the Recovery who were betrayed and thrown under the bus by Witness Lee, so that he could protect his "boys." Max Rapoport and Sandee were betrayed because Max took a stand for righteousness and confronted Philip for molesting that sister. Jesus was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver by his close friend.

Jesus says, "Blessed are those who suffer ..."

Psalm 1 refers to the "way of the righteous", which we know is the way of the cross, and says that you will be blessed, that you will be like a tree planted by the water, and that you will prosper.

Psalm 2 presents the resurrected Christ as the King on God's holy hill and the one Kings must kiss. And it says that all those that put their trust in Him are blessed.

Psalm 3-7 were written when David fled from Absalom. This was his experience of being betrayed, similar to the Lord's experience when Judas betrayed him. This takes us into the experience of someone who has put their trust in the Lord taking the way of the cross.

Witness Lee objected that the prayer that the Lord would smite his enemies is contrary to the NT verse that we are to "love" our enemies and those that persecute us. "Psalms 3—7 were composed according to David's concepts of a godly life. In these psalms David asked God to deal with his adversaries and be a shield around him, his glory and the One who lifted up his head (Psa. 3:1-3, 6-8). Does asking God to deal with his adversaries correspond with the New Testament teaching? Surely, it is against the New Testament teaching. The New Testament teaches us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35; Rom. 12:20)." (Chapter 4 section 3 of the Life Study of the Psalms).

Yet the NT also refers to Christ on the cross as defeating sin, Satan, death and the world. These are our enemies. These are they that "say of my soul, There is no help for him in God" (Ps 3:2). These are they that "turn my glory into shame", "love vanity", and "seek after lying" (Ps 4:2). Wickedness and evil (Ps. 5:4) surely refer to Satan and sin. The "foolish" and "workers of iniquity" (Ps. 5:5) surely refer to the world and those who receive the wages of sin, which is death. The "LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man" (Ps. 5:6) should refer to both Satan and the false prophet, Judas. "In death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks" (Ps 6:5) should refer to the crucifixion. "Let all mine enemies be ashamed" (Ps 6:10) should be a reference to Colossians where it says that all of Christ's enemies were put to shame on the Cross. "Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just" (Ps 7:9) should refer to the cross of Christ where the wicked came to an end and where God's established salvation by faith. "Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate." (Ps. 7:14-15). I would think this would refer to the false prophet, Judas.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee objected that the prayer that the Lord would smite his enemies is contrary to the NT verse that we are to "love" our enemies and those that persecute us.

Yet the NT also refers to Christ on the cross as defeating sin, Satan, death and the world. These are our enemies.

You got it brutha. How WL never saw the "spiritual side" of the equation is pretty remarkable, given that he teased pictures of Christ out of every type and figure available. I guess his interpretive template had already pre-determined his understanding, before handling the text.

There is actually warfare in the NT, right up through the book of Revelation. Only the struggle is not against flesh and blood, nor are the enemies. They are spiritual forces. Obviously. Yet WL couldn't see any types of Christ in the struggles of David, which is amazing, when you consider Jesus surrounded by unclean spirits, religious know-it-alls, and vacillating disciples.

I consider that the only warrior greater than King David was his descendant, Jesus the Nazarene.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee objected that the prayer that the Lord would smite his enemies is contrary to the NT verse that we are to "love" our enemies and those that persecute us. "Psalms 3—7 were composed according to David's concepts of a godly life. In these psalms David asked God to deal with his adversaries and be a shield around him, his glory and the One who lifted up his head (Psa. 3:1-3, 6-8). Does asking God to deal with his adversaries correspond with the New Testament teaching? Surely, it is against the New Testament teaching. The New Testament teaches us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35; Rom. 12:20)." (Chapter 4 section 3 of the Life Study of the Psalms).

Gotta give it to Lee here :

This isn't according to Jesus :

Psa 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Mat_19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Gotta give it to Lee here :

This isn't according to Jesus :

Psa 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Mat_19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

The "little ones" are not flesh and blood, but forces.

James 1:15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Those little notions, if you coddle them, can grow and kill you. Deal with them while they are small.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

The "little ones" are not flesh and blood, but forces.

James 1:15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Those little notions, if you coddle them, can grow and kill you. Deal with them while they are small.

Strong's - "little ones":
H5768
עלל עולל
‛ôlêl ‛ôlâl
o-lale', o-lawl'
From H5763; a suckling: - babe, (young) child, infant, little one.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Strong's - "little ones":
H5768
עלל עולל
‛ôlêl ‛ôlâl
o-lale', o-lawl'
From H5763; a suckling: - babe, (young) child, infant, little one.

And sucklings and infants, allegorically, are what? Little one equals little what?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Gotta give it to Lee here :

This isn't according to Jesus :

Psa 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Mat_19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Psalms 137.7 "Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. "Tear it down," they cried, "tear it down to its foundations!"
Psalms 137.8 "Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who pays you back what you have done to us."
Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

God repays the enemies of Israel for what they have done to her. With Israel God operates not spiritually but literally. It is not until Jesus comes are we commanded to love our enemies according to the higher law.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Psalms 137.7 "Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. "Tear it down," they cried, "tear it down to its foundations!"
Psalms 137.8 "Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who pays you back what you have done to us."
Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

God repays the enemies of Israel for what they have done to her. With Israel God operates not spiritually but literally. It is not until Jesus comes are we commanded to love our enemies according to the higher law.

Psalms seems to slip in and out on expressing Christ. One moment it's flying high, gushing praise to Jehovah, and suddenly, it dives down to killing and violent hateful vengeance. That has always puzzled me about the Psalms.

And obviously it troubled Witness Lee as well. It's hard to hold to both Jesus and bashing babies against stones. It produces cognitive dissonance ; that has to be dealt with, one way or another. One reaction is to just dismiss it as "not being the Word of God." Another is to twist it into a metaphor, that means dealing with the little rebellions, by metaphorically bashing them into stones. Witness Lee went with the former.

And it blows my mind that Lee would claim that there are sections of the Bible that aren't the word of God. Not that it rubs me the wrong way. I already know that about the Bible, from learning about its evolution in the writing process (for example, there are more variations between the more than 5000 copies we have of the New Testament books, in the different manuscripts, than there are words in the New Testament -- so the NT is not inerrant).

So I applaud Lee for being honest ... in this case only.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not that it rubs me the wrong way. I already know that about the Bible, from learning about its evolution in the writing process (for example, there are more variations between the more than 5000 copies we have of the New Testament books, in the different manuscripts, than there are words in the New Testament -- so the NT is not inerrant).

Variations in tense and case and spelling, proving that the scriptures we have are authentic and without corruption.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Variations in tense and case and spelling, proving that the scriptures we have are authentic and without corruption.

I wouldn't call the addition of the last 12 verses in Mark a minor difference, nor the addition of what is called the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7-8, nor the addition of the adulterous women, of cast the first stone fame, in John 8.

These aren't tense, case, and spelling differences. And by the way, the earliest manuscripts of NT books had no punctuation or breathing marks. They lacked word spacing, so words, sentences, and paragraphs would be a continuous string of letters. So tense, case and spellings were added later, like the dividing of the books into chapters and verses, that came along in the 13th century.

But everyone is free to fantasize anything they want about the Bible. That's a popular option ... to contain and diminish cognitive dissonance.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Psalms seems to slip in and out on expressing Christ. It's hard to hold to both Jesus and bashing babies against stones. It produces cognitive dissonance ; that has to be dealt with, one way or another.

The OT is a violent place, for sure. But I don't see why I, even as a Christian, should be uncomfortable with that. To me that is like being uncomfortable with evolution because big, nasty dinosaurs chewed on each other with sharp teeth. It is what it is; deal with it.

The way the NT writers dealt with it, as I understand, is allegory. "Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children." In other words, we draw understanding of past events by looking at them with the spiritual lense of born-again believers, who are of course supposed to not be violent, physically. But there is a violent struggle in the New Testament: it is in the unseen and eternal realm (e.g. Matt. 11:12; 2 Cor. 10:4). So Psalm 137 may have relevance, allegorically (and obviously not physically).

Originally Posted by awareness

One reaction is to just dismiss it as "not being the Word of God." Another is to twist it into a metaphor, that means dealing with the little rebellions, by metaphorically bashing them into stones. Witness Lee went with the former.

I have two problems with WL dismissing the word. One is that he loved allegories: why just dismiss the word here? Why not try to see something? Given his penchant for metaphor, the question seems relevant.

Two, why does WL think God suddenly becomes physically violent again, at the end of the NT? I am referring to the book of Revelation. Suddenly God starts slaughtering people again. WL basically said, "The age of grace is over -- time for blood". I find that more uncomfortable, as a Christian, than the statement in Psalm 137:9.

I know some Christians also interpret Revelation allegorically. So when the text says "frogs" or "blood" they think it means something spiritual. But WL took it as physical, and literal, as many Christians do. I would prefer to interpret both Psalm 137:9 AND the book of Revelation metaphorically. Not saying that's right, just that it is an option, and my preference.

But the question remains: why did WL the obsessive allegorizer refuse to allegorize in the Psalms. It really seems out of character.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

But everyone is free to fantasize anything they want about the Bible. That's a popular option ... to contain and diminish cognitive dissonance.

People fantasize about the Bible? That is a new one, to me.


That was humor






...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But everyone is free to fantasize anything they want about the Bible. That's a popular option ... to contain and diminish cognitive dissonance.

Then I guess I am a cognitively diminutive Biblical dissident.

.

Thirty five years ago, the renowned Professor and Biblical Greek scholar of Textual Criticism, Dr. Philip Comfort taught me all that in his very first Greek course taught on the Ohio State campus. He taught it, however, in a way that strengthened my faith and love for the scriptures and not in a way that undermined them. Same information, different result.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then I guess I am a cognitively diminutive Biblical dissident.

Good turn on words Bro Ohio.

Thirty five years ago, the renowned Professor and Biblical Greek scholar of Textual Criticism, Dr. Philip Comfort taught me all that in his very first Greek course taught on the Ohio State campus. He taught it, however, in a way that strengthened my faith and love for the scriptures and not in a way that undermined them. Same information, different result.

Years ago, in Florida, I was reading "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" by Bart Ehrman, and I decided to go to the First Christian Church and share it with the pastor there, who studied under professors from The Jesus Seminar.

As I was walking up to the door I bumped into the lead elder of the church. After friendly greetings I showed the book to him. He looked it over and said, "Why do you read books that destroy your faith?"

I said to him, "I need more faith than you. You stand on the Bible, and I only have faith in God to stand upon. Isn't that where the book says to place our faith?"

I got over Bible worship long ago.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I got over Bible worship long ago.

So then ... if I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, that makes me a Bible worshipper?

Methinks that maybe you should consider the other point I made, that some teachers can point out the flaws, and sow unbelief into our hearts. Others, like Comfort, can point out the same flaws and sow more faith in my heart.

An awful lot in life is not black-n-white facts. There is an agenda in action. This is all too evident in the news. They may all try to convince us that "these are just the facts," but their real goals are slanted in opposite directions.

I am thankful that you have not lost your faith in God, yet how can you know Him well without His word? Perhaps I am a little biased myself. I was incredibly saved all alone in my bedroom one night just by reading the paraphrased New Testament a friend had given me. Later on I learned that some "scholars" felt that paraphrased version was a "corruption" of the scriptures. Yet, that one encounter with God, via the "corrupted" translation, radically changed my life and my views about Him. No one could believe the dramatic change that occurred in me overnight, like one of those "before" and "after" photos of an extreme makeover.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

And it blows my mind that Lee would claim that there are sections of the Bible that aren't the word of God. Not that it rubs me the wrong way. I already know that about the Bible, from learning about its evolution in the writing process (for example, there are more variations between the more than 5000 copies we have of the New Testament books, in the different manuscripts, than there are words in the New Testament -- so the NT is not inerrant).

Hi Harold. Good to see you again.

Your comment here is an example of missing the forest for the trees. The truth in the Bible is inerrant, not our modern texts. There is no piece of Christian doctrine that is brought into question by differences between manuscripts. Take out all the "mistakes" and you still have the same message.

Any intelligent person realizes that there may be mistakes in the modern texts. But any honest person--who really studies the issue and understands how ancient texts with multiple copies are verified--realizes that doesn't matter. The message is intact and unmistakable.

Trying to make the case that the Bible has mistakes in order to place the whole message or any part of it in question is a morally bankrupt position.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hi Harold. Good to see you again.

Your comment here is an example of missing the forest for the trees. The truth in the Bible is inerrant, not our modern texts. There is no piece of Christian doctrine that is brought into question by differences between manuscripts. Take out all the "mistakes" and you still have the same message.

Any intelligent person realizes that there may be mistakes in the modern texts. But any honest person--who really studies the issue and understands how ancient texts with multiple copies are verified--realizes that doesn't matter. The message is intact and unmistakable.

Trying to make the case that the Bible has mistakes in order to place the whole message or any part of it in question is a morally bankrupt position.

Very good a valid points Igzy. And that's why I still love the Bible ... even tho I still have major problems with some of it.

And I must admit that, I'm very familiar with the belief that the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God. I grew up with it. So I can easily slip into that mindset at any given moment.

I guess, actually, I'm a little bit Bible crazy ... if not more.

Some might say that I'm just plain crazy.

But so is the Psalms ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Gotta give it to Lee here :

This isn't according to Jesus :

Psa 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

I agree with you. There is nothing, at all, in the gospels that would support a God or "holy word" exhorting and encouraging people to dash little babies against the stones.

Yes, I can see how you could look at these verses as a metaphor, as Aron has suggested, but I think it is very clear that this verse is referring to an actual event in which babies were dashed against the stones. So it is very crucial to look at exactly what is being said here since the interpretation that Awareness is presenting is reprehensible and would completely undermine the credibility of the Bible. Also, Awareness is correct to say that Witness Lee also teaches this same interpretation (Life Study of Psalms, Chapter 43, Section 7).

First, I would look at Isaiah chapter 13, which is "the burden for Babylon" (v.1). In verse 16 Isaiah repeats this judgment that "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes". However, in this chapter it is very clear that this is referring to the Day of the Lord's judgment (v.6, v.9, v.13). The Lord says "And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible." (Isaiah 13:11). According to Isaiah the Lord's judgment during the Day of the Lord is a punishment for their evil and for their iniquity. This is according to the Jesus of the gospels who said "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matt. 7:2). This is according to Gal 6:7 "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

It was the Babylonians that took the Israelite's babies and dashed them against the rock. It is during the Day of the Lord's judgment that they will be judged for this action.

When the Psalmist says "happy is He", it is referring to the Lord. There is no basis whatsoever to say that the Bible or the OT taught the Israelites to "dash babies against the rock". There is very strong historical evidence to say this is what happened to Israel when they were conquered by the Babylonians, and that the Bible teaches they will be judged for this on the Day of the Lord, by the Lord Jesus.

Once again, I would say Witness Lee was completely wrong in his teaching of Psalms.

[Cal]

Atheists love to make hay about verses like Psalm 137:9. I even saw a t-shirt about it.

It's just shallow opportunism. God doesn't enjoy innocent babies dying. But he did set up certain laws of morality and nature, and when you violate them, you and others suffer, even children.

The Babylonians who pushed the rules to the point of invoking God's vengeance were also responsible for the innocents who died in the acting out of that vengeance. That's why Babylon gets "double."

[aron]

I remember in one of my last visits among the local churches that they were making a big deal about "continuing steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles", a la Acts 2:42. I think the FTTA even put out a newsletter called Continuing Steadfastly.

So where, I wonder, did the teaching and fellowship of the apostles indicate that so much of the Psalms was unprofitable? What apostle indicated such? What early 'patristic' commentary or homily on scripture warned readers away from the "fallen" and "natural" inclinations of the psalmists?

Is this prejudice against the sacred writings a continuation of something ancient; does this antipathy really have such precedence? Or is it rather new and original? If it is indeed recent, and novel, I am not sure if I trust either this "seer" or the his "revelation". I think I would rather continue steadfastly with the apostles and prophets and church fathers of old, gazing steadily at the scriptures with an open heart and open eyes and open ears, waiting for the breath of the Father to give us light, and life.

I believe that the actual writings of precedent, going right back into the written gospels and epistles of the NT itself, indicate to us that the speaking of the Son is here, among these writings. We should not be dissuaded by more recent commentators, from our continuously gaze among them, straining our souls to hear the Master's life-giving voice.

'Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.'

It is good to hear the Son. Don't let someone else come along and attempt to dissuade you from doing so, especially from within the scriptures!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Atheists love to make hay about verses like Psalm 137:9.

Ya don't have to be atheist to question Psalm 137:9. All that's required is to be a caring loving parent.

And I don't care if the baby is a Babylonian baby or not. Babies are innocent. Be honest, this verse is heartless, and does not relate in any way to the message we hear from Jesus. The Psalms doesn't not always reflect Jesus. Sorry, that's the Gods' honest truth.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ya don't have to be atheist to question Psalm 137:9. All that's required is to be a caring loving parent.

And I don't care if the baby is a Babylonian baby or not. Babies are innocent. Be honest, this verse is heartless, and does not relate in any way to the message we hear from Jesus. The Psalms doesn't not always reflect Jesus. Sorry, that's the Gods' honest truth.

I know God loves children more than I ever could. Yet he lets some suffer in ways I find appalling. That doesn't "reflect Jesus" any more than this Psalm does, at least according to your standard.

What makes you seem disingenuous is that you take your frustration out on the Psalmist, because he's an easy target, rather than on God, who let the children suffer in the first place. I mean, what's worse, some creepy Psalmist singing about killing children, or a God who lets them be killed? The Psalmist is chump change. You should be taking aim on God himself. But you don't. Which is why I don't take you seriously when you go off like this. Because you don't have the courage of your own convictions.

[zeek]

Think of God as a literary genius like Shakespeare. Shakespeare created the villain Iago. That does not imply that Shakespeare agreed with Iago devising a plan to induce Othello to murder his wife. God does not necessarily agree with the Psalmist's hatred and baby bashing fantasy. God as an author is not incapable of irony. Maybe the passage is there to show us the danger of zealous prayer gone wrong. We don't always know what the purpose of including a passage in the text. James is a bigger problem. Why would God inspire an entire epistle in which he did not believe? If we have a problem with the inclusion of James in the canon, maybe we need to revise our theology.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I know God loves children more than I ever could. Yet he lets some suffer in ways I find appalling. That doesn't "reflect Jesus" any more than this Psalm does, at least according to your standard.

What makes you seem disingenuous is that you take your frustration about the way things are out on the Psalmist, because he's an easy target, rather that on God, who let the children suffer in the first place. I mean, what's worse, some creepy Psalmist singing about killing children, or a God who lets them be killed? The Psalmist is chump change. You should be taking aim on God himself. But you don't. Which is why I don't take you seriously when you go off like this. Because you don't have the courage of your own convictions.

Bro Igzy, for many reasons I just love you to death. You just have a way of bringing things down to the brass tacks.

Hey, I'm on egg shells on this forum. So I'm just trying to play by the rules of this sand box.

But I think you are right. The Psalmist is just a sock puppet of God, we think. If we accept this verse, and others in the Psalms, we have to accept that God does not love "the little Children," or "those neighbors." Then we're forced to ask : "What's wrong with God, that He could write "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Bro Igzy, it may appear that I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not. I've struggled in my mind with the problem of evil for a long time, and especially since the death of my son. I'm no stranger to cognitive dissonance. I'm loaded down with it, in fact. It's vexing at times.

And I see that Lee dealt with it too. He solved the problem of cognitive dissonance he found in the Psalms by, dismissing it as the work of the Psalmist, not the work of Gods' inspiration. The Psalmist must have been a very hateful scribe. Why would God use such a hateful guy? That seeks to use God to promote his personal hatefulness?

Lee didn't understand it, and neither do I. And it only introduces more dissonance, but I've only been able to come up with one answer :

Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

[Ohio]

John, the older cousin of Jesus, thought that Jesus did evil too.

So he sent his friends to Jesus to question Him, saying basically "we thought you were a good God, and see what have you done."

Jesus said, "look around and see all the good I have done. Are you blind?"

Then He concluded for the sake of us all, "blessed is the man who is not offended by Me.".

John's problem, and ours too, of course, is that when things don't go well for us, we would see evil in God. The tests will always come our way. Whenever disaster strikes, like in Newtown, there's always a few who scream, "how could God let this happen to children?"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

And it only introduces more dissonance, but I've only been able to come up with one answer :

Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Isaiah's conception of God was pre-Platonic. The New Testament is influenced by the Platonic idea that identifies God with "the Good" or ultimate goodness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Isaiah's conception of God was pre-Platonic. The New Testament is influenced by the Platonic idea that identifies God with "the Good" or ultimate goodness.

I disagree that Isaiah or the New Testament authors were influenced by the arrival or departure of Plato from this world.

That's like saying the difference between WWI and WWII was the absence of mustard gas because my loving mother had been born in the interim.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I think you are right. The Psalmist is just a sock puppet of God, we think. If we accept this verse, and others in the Psalms, we have to accept that God does not love "the little Children," or "those neighbors." Then we're forced to ask : "What's wrong with God, that He could write "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Why would God use such a hateful guy? That seeks to use God to promote his personal hatefulness?

You are still avoiding the point. The problem isn't the Psalmist. The problem is God. He's the one who lets little children suffer. The Psalmist is just singing about it.

So why are you so bent out of shape about the Psalmist when you should be bent out of shape about God?

Your frustration is misdirected. You don't want to face the fact that God DOES let little children suffer. Yet, he loves them more than you ever could.

Of course, I'm being the rhetorical. The problem isn't God. The problem is, as U2's Bono so aptly put it, your "hippie" version of God and love. You want love on your terms, not as it really is.

This is the essence of the problem. Instead of trying to make God in your image, try imagining yourself in His.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You are still avoiding the point. The problem isn't the Psalmist. The problem is God. He's the one who lets little children suffer. The Psalmist is just singing about it.

So why are you so bent out of shape about the Psalmist when you should be bent out of shape about God?

Your frustration is misdirected. You don't want to face the fact that God DOES let little children suffer. Yet, he loves them more than you ever could.

Of course, I'm being the rhetorical. The problem isn't God. The problem is, as U2's Bono so aptly put it, your "hippie" version of God and love. You want love on your terms, not as it really is.

This is the essence of the problem. Instead of trying to make God in your image, try imagining yourself in His.

The gospel of salvation would not be a gospel if we were not under the judgment of God as sinners. Prior to Christ's death on the cross God's righteous judgment was not "good news". But after Christ's death it is. We can escape the righteous judgment, not based on our own righteousness but based on Christ's, and that includes Babylonians. That is good news. But how is "salvation" good news if there is no judgment of sin? If the wicked, abominable, sinful liars and murderers are not judged, how is that "good news"? The gospel of Matthew includes chapter 24. All four gospels include the crucifixion. The good news is that this righteous God who rewards us based on our deeds gave us His only begotten Son that we could be saved by believing on Him.

Now, if you have a wicked murderer who has slaughtered innocents and dashed babies against rocks, and this person doesn't have a conscience to repent of these evil deeds and confess that Jesus is Lord, then yes, it is good news that they are judged at the appearing of the Lord of Glory.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I disagree that Isaiah or the New Testament authors were influenced by the arrival or departure of Plato from this world.

That's like saying the difference between WWI and WWII was the absence of mustard gas because my loving mother had been born in the interim.

That, unfortunately, is known as the "Pre Manhattan" (not pre Ohio) view of world annihilation. Since the advent of the atomic bomb man is much more efficient at world annihilation, though unfortunately they still don't know what spirit they are of.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I disagree that Isaiah or the New Testament authors were influenced by the arrival or departure of Plato from this world.

That's like saying the difference between WWI and WWII was the absence of mustard gas because my loving mother had been born in the interim.

The coincidence is that before Plato one does not find a god who is all good anywhere in the world. After Plato you find many in the Alexandrian and then the Roman empires including Philo among the Jews. Why would you choose to ignore the correlation?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The coincidence is that before Plato one does not find a god who is all good anywhere in the world. After Plato you find many in the Alexandrian and then the Roman empires including Philo among the Jews. Why would you choose to ignore the correlation?

I will consider the correlation when you provide evidence that the God of the OT was not "good". According to Jesus in the NT only one is good, and that was God. Clearly, based on the context He is referring to the God of Israel.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The coincidence is that before Plato one does not find a god who is all good anywhere in the world. After Plato you find many in the Alexandrian and then the Roman empires including Philo among the Jews. Why would you choose to ignore the correlation?

Before Plato there is the One God in Israel Who is good. After Plato there is the One God in Israel Who is good.

I didn't ignore the correlation, I only expressed the opinion that it made little sense, as if Isaiah's or the Gospel's concept of God was somehow influenced by the first coming of Plato.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Now, if you have a wicked murderer who has slaughtered innocents and dashed babies against rocks, and this person doesn't have a conscience to repent of these evil deeds and confess that Jesus is Lord, then yes, it is good news that they are judged at the appearing of the Lord of Glory.

Whether in this age or in the next; through salvation or judgment, every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Before Plato there is the One God in Israel Who is good. After Plato there is the One God in Israel Who is good.

I didn't ignore the correlation, I only expressed the opinion that it made little sense, as if Isaiah's or the Gospel's concept of God was somehow influenced by the first coming of Plato.

So then Isaiah did not write Isa 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things"?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So then Isaiah did not write Isa 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things"?

I'm getting a little dizzy, so I'll have to get off this ride.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm getting a little dizzy, so I'll have to get off this ride.

Different perspectives can do that to a person especially when they're not used to them.

[Cal]

The problem of evil would exist if the Bible and the Psalms didn't exist. The problem of evil would exist if there was no religion in the world.

So it's really not a matter of arguing which parts of the Bible we think are truly reflective of God. Because the God who lets innocents suffer would exist even if we didn't have the Bible and all its vexing propositions. So blaming the problem on mean-spirited OT writers doesn't solve it. God has let more innocents suffer than the writer of Psalm 137 ever thought of cursing.

We have a proposition (God is good and loving) and a fact (innocents suffer). If you believe the first then you must believe that innocents suffering is not incompatible with love and goodness. And if you can truly accept that, then Psalm 137 is not a problem to you, because it will mean you've become able to look behind the veil a bit and realize that love is a lot more mysterious and complex than our shallow, Santa Claus, hippie version of it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Different perspectives can do that to a person especially when they're not used to them.

***Moderator note***

Zeek, Ohio is not some rube who is unacquainted with differing opinions. Neither are you the paragon of cutting-edge thinking.

Let's leave the smug innuendo at the door, please. Thank you.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

***Moderator note***

Zeek, Ohio is not some rube who is unacquainted with differing opinions. Neither are you the paragon of cutting-edge thinking.

Let's leave the smug innuendo at the door, please. Thank you.

Just hypothesizing about the etiology of Ohio's dizziness. No offense intended.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

***Moderator note***

Zeek, Ohio is not some rube who is unacquainted with differing opinions. Neither are you the paragon of cutting-edge thinking.

Let's leave the smug innuendo at the door, please. Thank you.

Wow! where did that come from? Did I miss something? Who called bro Ohio a rube? Where was bro Zeek a paragon of anything, and smug?

How did all that get by me? Or maybe I'm just stupid.

And a warning using ad hominems seems self defeating.

But back to the Psalms :

It's pretty obvious that bro Ohio is very intelligent, informed on a wide range of subjects, and gifted with articulation. But none of us can know everything, there's too much to keep up with. And there's no shame if we're not informed on everything.

And I'm reasonably certain, from Ohio's remarks that, he's not familiar with scholars that contend parts of the Psalms have Ugaritic (6000BC - Canaanite - Pagan - Baal) sources. (Google it)

And I find it more than interesting that C.S. Lewis wrote in "Reflections On The Psalms" :

"I have therefore no difficulty accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical." (Reflections On The Psalms, p.110).

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We have a proposition (God is good and loving) and a fact (innocents suffer). If you believe the first then you must believe that innocents suffering is not incompatible with love and goodness. And if you can truly accept that, then Psalm 137 is not a problem to you, because it will mean you've become able to look behind the veil a bit and realize that love is a lot more mysterious and complex than our shallow, Santa Claus, hippie version of it.

Who it's innocent? According to whom? All have sinned. All. Adam's sin constituted everyone sinners. All share that guilt.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Who it's innocent? According to whom? All have sinned. All. Adam's sin constituted everyone sinners. All share that guilt.

I would like to present the shocking proposition that the Bible is primarily about Jesus Christ. Yes, it does mention sinners like you and me (and ALL the rest of us), but our temporary experience of the fall (as ABiF says, "all share that guilt")should prepare us to experience Grace. And we all believe that this grace is found in the person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Now, how does that relate to WL's exposition of the Psalms? I'd like to look at the first section of Psalm 119, which strikingly models the intro in Psalm 1. Psalm 1 celebrated the righteous man who kept the law (and whom WL said didn't exist, and whom I say was actually Jesus Christ). Likewise, Psalm 119 starts off with "Blessed are those whose ways are blameless; who walk according to the law of the Lord" (NIV). See the similarity?

Similarly, WL's commentary here starts with his usual disquisition about "letter-keepers" such as Pharisees and Saul of Tarsus, versus "God-seekers" such as Paul the apostle. The man Jesus Christ is not mentioned, except for a brief note that "Christ is the reality of the law".

Now, Jesus said, "These things were written concerning me". He didn't say they were written concerning Pharisees and/or apostles. Jesus is the one whose ways were blameless. And He is now our way (or, He should be).

My purpose for this post (sorry for the length) is actually found at the end of the first section of Psalm 119: verse 8. "I will obey your decrees; do not utterly forsake me." (NIV) Who is the obedient Son here? Jesus the Righteous. Whose soul was not left in Hades? Whose flesh didn't see corruption? The apostle Paul? No, his grave is also with us. Again, see Peter's speech in Acts chapter 2: for me it's crucial to our NT understanding of the OT text. In verses 29 and 35 Peter said that Psalm 16 and 110 were not about David, but really about one of his descendants, "this Jesus" (v.36). God recognized the obedience and faithfulness of Jesus the Nazarene, and provided proof to all by raising Him from the dead, and placing Him far above everything at His right hand. Jesus was, is, and will always remain, the fulfillment of the "God-seeking" aspirations of the psalmist.

As WL used to say, "I could give a whole conference on this point." Here, in Psalm 119:8, the idea of being "utterly forsaken" (which means all of us sinners) and being redeemed by faith in the obedient ONE is arguably worth a conference, and it doesn't even get a passing note. Somehow, our disobedience, fall, sin, and death, and Jesus' righteousness, with our faith, repentance, redemption, rebirth and obedience/transformation were not part of WL's "God's New Testament economy" yardstick here. And all of us who sat under these messages and teachings were very much poorer for it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I find it more than interesting that C.S. Lewis wrote in "Reflections On The Psalms" :

"I have therefore no difficulty accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical." (Reflections On The Psalms, p.110).

Stop! You're making me dizzy. I'll have to take a break from this ride.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by aron

Now, Jesus said, "These things were written concerning me". He didn't say they were written concerning Pharisees and/or apostles. Jesus is the one whose ways were blameless. And He is now our way (or, He should be).

Exactly! The (unique/only) righteous man was Christ. And because of this, because of His obedience He was blessed as we, through believing in Him are blessed. The fact of His death and all that made it possible (His fulfilling the law, His obedience to the Father) was a blessing to Him and ultimately to all those who believe.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Who it's innocent? According to whom? All have sinned. All. Adam's sin constituted everyone sinners. All share that guilt.

But when was the last time you bashed a baby against the stones?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Stop! You're making me dizzy. I'll have to take a break from this ride.

You calling me a rube?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Who it's innocent? According to whom? All have sinned. All. Adam's sin constituted everyone sinners. All share that guilt.

When Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, children at the day care there died. Those children were the innocent victims of McVeigh's wrath. If you don't understand that then you don't understand what this discussion is about. If you want to make the case that those children deserved what McVeigh dished out then have at it and good luck, but I wouldn't want to be you in the effort.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You calling me a rube?

You putting words in my mouth. It was Igsy who accused me of calling you a rube. You are easily misled.

[UntoHim]

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=3537

Our mission is NOT...

1) To defame the Local Church in any way possible.

2) To provide a forum for vicious, irrational accusations.

3) To question the basic items of the Christian faith.

4) To engage in lengthy discussions of theological, political or social issues which are not directly related to the subject of the Local Church or the process of adapting to life after it.

To all (but especially our friends zeek and awareness)

You guys are interesting and very thought provoking. The problem is that there is only so much time, only so much space and only so much bandwidth. Every Internet forum must have a general theme and even some guidelines for the discussion. We all know that the general theme is here and I think the guidelines are clearly stated in the Forum Rules thread and also right here in the "Mission Statement". While I think some may appreciate your efforts to "enlighten" us with all sorts of thought provoking facts and figures, your constant effort to question the basic items of the Christian faith (and for that matter those of the entire Judeo-Christian worldview) inevitably take the thread off course.

I'm not asking you to leave, just to stay on topic. Also please refrain from provoking other members with overly sarcastic and patronizing jabs - Like

Originally Posted by zeek

.. You are easily misled.

and like

Originally Posted by awareness

But when was the last time you bashed a baby against the stones?

Thanks.

[Cal]

It's sort of like discussing football rules, guys. If several people are trying to figure out what the rules mean, it defeats the purpose if one of them keeps saying "I don't think that's a rule."

Suppose I cite the holding penalty. Several people suggest what they think it means. But one person says he doesn't think holding is or should be in the rulebook. Or worse, he doesn't think the rulebook should be the rulebook.

Whether the rulebook is the rulebook is a whole different discussion and is NOT the purview of this site. You can see how it short-circuits any legitimate discussion of what the Bible means as the word of God.

On this forum, the presumption is the whole Bible is the inspired word of God. Within that context we are free to discuss what passages in the Bible mean.

In certain cases, we can discuss whether declarations in the Bible amount to truths. For example, when David's baby died, he lamented his loss and declared, "I will go to him" (2 Sam 12:23). We can discuss whether this amounts to a truth that deceased infants go to heaven. But it's useless if someone chimes in that this verse isn't really inspired.

I hope this makes sense.

[aron]

I think that problems WL (and others) have had in calling some of the Psalms "the word of Christ", per Paul's phraseology of equvalence in Colossians 3:16, is that they are so obviously the words of a sinner. How can they simultaneously be words presaging Jesus Christ when they are so contrary to everything He did and taught?

A few examples come immediately to mind. One is the recently discussed Psalm 139:8,9. Happy is the one who pays back Babylon, and who dashes her infants against the rocks. Similarly I think of Psalm 137, verse 21: "Do I not hate those who hate you, Lord, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?"

Well, I don't know about everyone else, but as someone who sees the world in terms of "spiritual warfare" none of this is particularly out of place. A lot of this is relevant to the experiences of Jesus in the NT, and those of his followers through history. Its application is not in physical realms but in spiritual, unseen realms. I've made this point before and won't belabor it. It seems rather self-evident to me. The "enemies" here, today, are not human beings but "spiritual forces". They don't like you, they don't like God, and why should you either pretend they don't exist, or coddle them and make peace with them?

Another example of the 'word of sinners' within the psalms is a word of repentance. Psalm 51 is a classic of the genre. Obviously we don't see David as a "type" of Jesus, in having committed adultery and having plotted an honest man's murder. But look at the end. David acknowledges his abject failure, and says that if God will restore him, he "...will teach transgressors Thy ways.(v.13)" Now look at Jesus speaking to Peter: "You will fail. But when you turn and repent, you will be able to strengthen the brothers." So the experience of failure and restoration, while not a "word of Christ" per se, is still a word appropriate to the spiritual journey of the Christian.

Look at Psalm 119:67 "Before I was afflicted I went astray,
but now I obey your word."

It is a classic: failure, affliction, repentance, restoration, obedience. I cannot put into words how much this stuff encourages me. The fact that God allowed it to be presented to us, warts and all, is so helpful! If God had "polished out" all the rough bits I probably would give up in despair! I would think, "This surely has not been written for me".

Even in the "difficult parts" I think it is possible to "see Jesus", a la Hebrews 2:9. We see Him in ways the gospels only hinted at; surely we knew there was a 'hidden life' behind the miracles, the teachings -- here it is. But (forgive me if I am belaboring the point, but I consider it too crucial) calling these scriptures "natural" and "fallen" may put a veil on the eyes of our heart, and cause us to look elsewhere for visions of Christ. What a terrible shame, if that is the case.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=3537



To all (but especially our friends zeek and awareness)

You guys are interesting and very thought provoking. The problem is that there is only so much time, only so much space and only so much bandwidth. Every Internet forum must have a general theme and even some guidelines for the discussion. We all know that the general theme is here and I think the guidelines are clearly stated in the Forum Rules thread and also right here in the "Mission Statement". While I think some may appreciate your efforts to "enlighten" us with all sorts of thought provoking facts and figures, your constant effort to question the basic items of the Christian faith (and for that matter those of the entire Judeo-Christian worldview) inevitably take the thread off course.

I'm not asking you to leave, just to stay on topic. Also please refrain from provoking other members with overly sarcastic and patronizing jabs - Like and like

Thanks.

I didn't violate any rule you listed above. I haven't questioned the faith. I questioned people's concepts of inspiration. Doesn't the Lord say through Isaiah, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." ? Aren't you bothered that Ohio falsely accused me of calling him a rube when it was in fact Igsy? You measure with a crooked stick.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But when was the last time you bashed a baby against the stones?

I think a more relevant question based on the context is "how would you respond if someone bashed your baby against the stones?"

As Aron said, the Psalms record the journey that we as believers take. This person before getting saved might have decided to respond tit for tat.

However, that is not what this Psalm records. Instead this person is not taking vengeance, as the NT says, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" saith the Lord. Instead this person is praying for the Day of the Lord to come and for judgment to be given. Once again, this is still according to the Lord's word in the NT where He said "as you have measured it will be measured to you".

The attitude here may not reach the super spirituality of Awareness, but it is certainly not a basis to say that the Psalms are not the word of Christ, which is how Awareness presented this verse.

Also, as Igzy said, you are confusing "love" with "righteousness". Jesus died for us because He loved us, but His horrific death as a result of being betrayed, a kangaroo court, and then the cruel scourging on top of the crucifixion; that was righteousness.

God is a God of Love and of Righteousness.

Zeek and Awareness would have us believe that this verse somehow is at odds with this. Yet, any other option would violate God's righteousness.

[awareness]

Let's get back to Psalms ... and whether it was right or not for Lee to dismiss parts of the Psalms as non-inspired.

Why would a man that professes to be an exceptional man of the book make such a conclusion?

Witness Lee wouldn't even fit in on this forum.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's sort of like discussing football rules, guys. If several people are trying to figure out what the rules mean, it defeats the purpose if one of them keeps saying "I don't think that's a rule."

Suppose I cite the holding penalty. Several people suggest what they think it means. But one person says he doesn't think holding is or should be in the rulebook. Or worse, he doesn't think the rulebook should be the rulebook.

Whether the rulebook is the rulebook is a whole different discussion and is NOT the purview of this site. You can see how it short-circuits any legitimate discussion of what the Bible means as the word of God.

On this forum, the presumption is the whole Bible is the inspired word of God. Within that context we are free to discuss what passages in the Bible mean.

In certain cases, we can discuss whether declarations in the Bible amount to truths. For example, when David's baby died, he lamented his loss and declared, "I will go to him" (2 Sam 12:23). We can discuss whether this amounts to a truth that deceased infants go to heaven. But it's useless if someone chimes in that this verse isn't really inspired.

I hope this makes sense.

Tell that to Witness Lee.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't violate any rule you listed above. I haven't questioned the faith. I questioned people's concepts of inspiration. Doesn't the Lord say through Isaiah, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." ? Aren't you bothered that Ohio falsely accused me of calling him a rube when it was in fact Igsy? You measure with a crooked stick.

zeek, I'm not bothered because Ohio was joking. He was actually poking fun at me.

Also, my moniker is Igzy, not Igsy.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's get back to Psalms ... and whether it was right or not for Lee to dismiss parts of the Psalms as non-inspired.

Why would a man that professes to be an exceptional man of the book make such a conclusion?

Witness Lee wouldn't even fit in on this forum.

I'm not sure he would admit to actually doing that. Did Lee actually say that some of the Psalms weren't inspired, or, as he did with James, say that they just didn't reveal "God's economy?"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not sure he would admit to actually doing that. Did Lee actually say that some of the Psalms weren't inspired, or, as he did with James, say that they just didn't reveal "God's economy?"

Witness Lee said of certain Psalms they were "human sentiment." Initially, I think he used this expression on verses like "Lord, avenge me of my enemies."

Comparing this to the Lord Jesus who "opened not His mouth," it seemed to Lee that the Psalmist was venting "human sentiment," rather than being the voice of God. Then, as time progressed, with Lee's construct of "Life-Study" and "finding Christ" in the scriptures, he began to diminish both James and numerous Psalms. This was his "Crystalization" phase of ministry.

[Cal]

To me, reserving the option of picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are and are not inspired is the most uninteresting path to take. To me the better path is to accept the Bible is inspired and within that context to wrestle with what it all means. The easy way is just to toss out what you don't like. The harder and more rewarding way is to try to reconcile all the problems in the Bible. I realize this sometimes leads to what seems like rationalization or even hypocrisy. But dealing with those is part of the challenge, too! Whether we like it or not that's the world God has placed us in. He gave us his word and said figure it out. This is the way we get to know what he is like. He didn't give us the option of throwing out parts of it.

What is more interesting, to just chuck Psalm 137, or to try to figure out what it means and how it fits with everything else the Bible says? Here's the real question: Which is more likely to leave you with a God of your own design? Accepting and attempting to reconcile the whole Bible, or just cutting out the parts that make you uncomfortable?

Harold suggested neither C.S. Lewis nor Witness Lee would fit into this board. His point was that we are too narrow here. But I doubt either of them would have a problem with the principle that the entire Bible is inspired, nor that they would feel the need to push forum rules to participate. I think both would operate easily here, at least so far as the rules go. Certainly neither would be so rude as to constantly suggest they are more open-minded than the moderators of this board.

Finally, let's remember that Jesus affirmed the whole Bible. He quoted or referred to almost every OT book and never once gave the slightest suggestion that parts of it were invalid. So let me even suggest that Jesus would not have a problem with the guidelines of this forum in regards to our view of the Bible as the inspired word of God.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee said of certain Psalms they were "human sentiment." Initially, I think he used this expression on verses like "Lord, avenge me of my enemies."

Comparing this to the Lord Jesus who "opened not His mouth," it seemed to Lee that the Psalmist was venting "human sentiment," rather than being the voice of God. Then, as time progressed, with Lee's construct of "Life-Study" and "finding Christ" in the scriptures, he began to diminish both James and numerous Psalms. This was his "Crystalization" phase of ministry.

Right. But when pressed I'm sure he would say they were still inspired. It seems he had a view of levels of inspiration.

To me the somewhat negative Psalms represent the feelings of the psalmists toward their enemies. Clearly the New Testament calls us to a higher attitude toward humans enemies, to love them. But we can still express indignation toward our spiritual enemies, and there those examples of appeals for righteous vindication remain helpful. I simply redirect them toward Devil and his minions, and they inspire me to know that God eventually will get justice and avenge his people. Copping a vindictive attitude toward the Devil and evil is not a sin.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee said of certain Psalms they were "human sentiment." Initially, I think he used this expression on verses like "Lord, avenge me of my enemies."

Comparing this to the Lord Jesus who "opened not His mouth," it seemed to Lee that the Psalmist was venting "human sentiment," rather than being the voice of God. Then, as time progressed, with Lee's construct of "Life-Study" and "finding Christ" in the scriptures, he began to diminish both James and numerous Psalms. This was his "Crystalization" phase of ministry.

So Lee found cognitive dissonance between "Lord, avenge me of my enemies" and "Jesus" with "Love your enemies?"

He's certainly not the first to "discover" this cognitive dissonance between, actually, the Old Testament and the New Testament. This goes back to the early Gnostics. And it goes back to Marcion (c.85 – c.160), who completely dismissed the OT because of such cognitive dissonance.

I bring up the possible pagan sources for some of the Psalms for this reason. I contend that at least the Psalms that have pagan sources is not likely inspired of God. Unless, like the pagan Melchizedek (Genesis 14), God can inspire thru pagans. Which I admit is a possibility.

But still, it is hard for us to deal with the cognitive dissonance we find between Jesus and some of the OT. Most of us just gloss over it, and dismiss it in our mind.

Lee did it openly.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

But still, it is hard for us to deal with the cognitive dissonance we find between Jesus and some of the OT.

And I would suggest that means we don't really understand the OT, or we don't really understand Jesus, or both. As I said, Jesus affirmed the OT. Doesn't that put a chink in the idea of tossing it like wise old Marcion did?

In other words, keep digging. But don't think we are wise enough to know which parts to throw out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And I would suggest that means we don't really understand the OT, or we don't really understand Jesus, or both. As I said, Jesus affirmed the OT. Doesn't that put a chink in the idea of tossing it like wise old Marcion did?

In other words, keep digging. But don't think we are wise enough to know which parts to throw out.

Good point bro Igzy. So we shouldn't trust that Lee could know which parts to throw out. After all, Lee was just the minister of the age. What did he know?

[Cal]

Harold, You would probably be interested in reading this interview with U2's Bono.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/bono-on-jesus/

It's all good and I recommend it to everyone. Here's a part relevant to this thread.

Bono: My understanding of the Scriptures has been made simple by the person of Christ. Christ teaches that God is love. What does that mean? What it means for me: a study of the life of Christ. Love here describes itself as a child born in straw poverty, the most vulnerable situation of all, without honor. I don’t let my religious world get too complicated. I just kind of go: Well, I think I know what God is. God is love, and as much as I respond [sighs] in allowing myself to be transformed by that love and acting in that love, that’s my religion. Where things get complicated for me, is when I try to live this love. Now that’s not so easy.

Michka: What about the God of the Old Testament? He wasn’t so “peace and love”?

Bono: There’s nothing hippie about my picture of Christ. The Gospels paint a picture of a very demanding, sometimes divisive love, but love it is. I accept the Old Testament as more of an action movie: blood, car chases, evacuations, a lot of special effects, seas dividing, mass murder, adultery. The children of God are running amok, wayward. Maybe that’s why they’re so relatable. But the way we would see it, those of us who are trying to figure out our Christian conundrum, is that the God of the Old Testament is like the journey from stern father to friend. When you’re a child, you need clear directions and some strict rules. But with Christ, we have access in a one-to-one relationship, for, as in the Old Testament, it was more one of worship and awe, a vertical relationship. The New Testament, on the other hand, we look across at a Jesus who looks familiar, horizontal. The combination is what makes the Cross.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

But when was the last time you bashed a baby against the stones?

James 2:10 For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws
( I realize I'm quoting from an unpopular book)

I've never bashed a baby's head, should I feel better? Should you?

But Lord....I can't be THAT bad. I've never bashed a baby's head against the stones and those other guys have.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

James 2:10 For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws
( I realize I'm quoting from an unpopular book)

I've never bashed a baby's head, should I feel better? Should you?

But Lord....I can't be THAT bad. I've never bashed a baby's head against the stones and those other guys have.

Glad you were light hearted about it bro ABrotherinFaith.

And ... I have a president that's killing babies with drones ... so I guess I am guilty ... by proxy.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance

Awareness,
I'm with Igzy on this one. Don't you think that the cognitive dissonance you're fond of pointing out is on our side, has to be on our side, instead of within the text. God is not dissonance. God is peace and not confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). His righteousness, His Justice is higher than ours, just as His love far far exceeds love as we understand it.
In this case I think cognitive dissonance is just fancy speak for misunderstanding God's character.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

And ... I have a president that's killing babies with drones ... so I guess I am guilty ... by proxy.

I've got the same President. I didn't vote for him though so technically...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right. But when pressed I'm sure he would say they were still inspired. It seems he had a view of levels of inspiration.

To me the somewhat negative Psalms represent the feelings of the psalmists toward their enemies. Clearly the New Testament calls us to a higher attitude toward humans enemies, to love them. But we can still express indignation toward our spiritual enemies, and there those examples of appeals for righteous vindication remain helpful. I simply redirect them toward Devil and his minions, and they inspire me to know that God eventually will get justice and avenge his people. Copping a vindictive attitude toward the Devil and evil is not a sin.

Cop an attitude!?!

Haven't heard that since I left the "hood" in '75.

When I heard "rube" I found that so funny, cuz I got a niece in HS with her "smart" phone who calls us all a "noob" -- "Uncle Ohio you're such a noob!"

.

OK, back on topic!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Glad you were light hearted about it bro ABrotherinFaith.

And ... I have a president that's killing babies with drones ... so I guess I am guilty ... by proxy.

No you're not guilty of anything.

[OBW]

I was reading through some of the more recent posts and keep noting a kind of dissonance when thinking through the controversial texts (such as the Psa 137 lines) with the thread title of "The Psalms are the word of Christ."

I see zeek and awareness floundering with the harshness of thoughts and events as recorded in scripture. I can declare that it is really just a metaphor for something spiritual. But at some level that might not always be true. There is vengeance . . . and some still to come. It does not always fit our "enlightened" thoughts on morality.

For me, this all comes down to the tendency to make everything about each and every word be infinitely important. "The Psalms as the word of Christ," or "God is love," or "vengeance is mine." We had this kind of discussion back in the thread on Job. Each of these statements, if absolute in the most extreme way of understanding, creates a bipolar god. He is absolutely love. Yet he is absolutely righteous and just. And he exacts vengeance — absolutely.

Each of these views demands that the one view rule absolutely. God is love, therefore he cannot exact vengeance. In the thread on Job, someone said something like "Job called out for the God of mercy (or justice) but got the God of power (or something else)" as if we are really dealing with a service center full of gods to deal with certain issues. One for mercy. One for justice. One for healing, etc.

So then we say "The Psalms are the word of Christ." What do we mean by that? Do we mean that every word written is a declaration by Christ as if spoken while walking around Judea and Samaria during his earthly ministry? Of course not. It is a record of God, who He is, and his interaction with his people. His people are often a mess, or in dire circumstances and that is reflected in what they write.

If we take the Psalms as mostly a record of the prayer and praise life of Israel (or at least certain ones of them) then the words, emotions, etc., captured are those of the writers, not God (or often not of God). In that sense, Psalms are the word of Israel about God. But the parts written and collected together as Psalms are also revealing concerning the nature of God (just, loving, forgiving, guiding, etc.) and of the ways that He has interacted with Israel. That is the "Word of God." And as such, it is the "Word of Christ," or, more accurately, it is Christ, because Christ is the Word of God.

But that is different from saying it is words "spoken by God." If we think that "God-breathed" means that he stood by with a megaphone so that someone would hear him and they then wrote them down, we don't understand "God-breathed." Or "the word of God." God did not say "Have mercy on me, Oh God, according to your steadfast love." That was David. But the prayer, and the expectation of response is a true statement about God. As such, it is the word of God. And its content is inspired by God. It is the fact of a loving and forgiving God that caused David to cry out in repentance.

Parsing verses does not answer the questions. That is the legacy of our modern view of scripture. "There's a verse for that." God answers the questions and the needs . . . and not always with a verse. Sometimes with nothing more substantial than a sense of peace. Or unexplained comfort during hardship.

And the revelation of such things in scripture is "the word of God," or "the word of Christ" even though God did not literal speak the thing recorded.

How do you know the difference? If God actually said it, there is a different consideration for its meaning than if someone else said it. Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself." I probably cannot declare that to have no ambiguity, but surely not much. It is what God directly said. But "happy is he who takes your children and dashes them against a rock" has some kind of meaning, even if not literal.

As long as we are wandering around in the "what about this word" kind of thinking, I think we are simply lost. But I believe that the premise of the thread was to counter Lee's declaration that most of the Psalms could have essentially been omitted. They really were not of "scripture" quality. God's breath was not in them in any way. And I agree that Lee was wrong.

I am encouraged that our real enemy will be defeated. Even his offspring will be terminated so that there is no Hatfield-McCoy kind of continuing battle. I want those "children" to be dashed against "the Rock."

Napalm and carry on.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Lee found cognitive dissonance between "Lord, avenge me of my enemies" and "Jesus" with "Love your enemies?"

He's certainly not the first to "discover" this cognitive dissonance between, actually, the Old Testament and the New Testament. This goes back to the early Gnostics. And it goes back to Marcion (c.85 – c.160), who completely dismissed the OT because of such cognitive dissonance.

I bring up the possible pagan sources for some of the Psalms for this reason. I contend that at least the Psalms that have pagan sources is not likely inspired of God. Unless, like the pagan Melchizedek (Genesis 14), God can inspire thru pagans. Which I admit is a possibility.

But still, it is hard for us to deal with the cognitive dissonance we find between Jesus and some of the OT. Most of us just gloss over it, and dismiss it in our mind.

Lee did it openly.

Talk about cognitive dissonance! Poof. You just blew my mind. How can there be "cognitive dissonance between Jesus who said of God that He "loved His enemies" and the God of the OT?

Matt
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Glad you were light hearted about it bro ABrotherinFaith.

And ... I have a president that's killing babies with drones ... so I guess I am guilty ... by proxy.

Good point, we all have seen the pictures of wailing men and women holding up small children killed in these bombs paid for with our tax dollars. I imagine many of these people have the same sentiment

137:8 O daughter of Babylon (the great Satan), who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

If that were their attitude then it would appear that the God they worship is no different from the God we worship. Except that in the revelation of the God we worship He first "reconciled us who were enemies" by sending His own Son to die on the cross for us. Yes there will be a righteous judgement, but first there is a wonderful Savior who proves that this righteous God "so loved the world" and that He does not desire that any would perish but rather that we would have eternal life.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

So then we say "The Psalms are the word of Christ." What do we mean by that? Do we mean that every word written is a declaration by Christ as if spoken while walking around Judea and Samaria during his earthly ministry? Of course not. It is a record of God, who He is, and his interaction with his people. His people are often a mess, or in dire circumstances and that is reflected in what they write.

If we take the Psalms as mostly a record of the prayer and praise life of Israel (or at least certain ones of them) then the words, emotions, etc., captured are those of the writers, not God (or often not of God). In that sense, Psalms are the word of Israel about God. But the parts written and collected together as Psalms are also revealing concerning the nature of God (just, loving, forgiving, guiding, etc.) and of the ways that He has interacted with Israel. That is the "Word of God." And as such, it is the "Word of Christ," or, more accurately, it is Christ, because Christ is the Word of God.

I am encouraged that our real enemy will be defeated. Even his offspring will be terminated so that there is no Hatfield-McCoy kind of continuing battle. I want those "children" to be dashed against "the Rock."

[awareness]

Yes Igzy, I did enjoy that. Thanks much ... great find ...

H

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold, You would probably be interested in reading this interview with U2's Bono.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/bono-on-jesus/

It's all good and I recommend it to everyone. Here's a part relevant to this thread.

Bono: My understanding of the Scriptures has been made simple by the person of Christ. Christ teaches that God is love. What does that mean? What it means for me: a study of the life of Christ. Love here describes itself as a child born in straw poverty, the most vulnerable situation of all, without honor. I don’t let my religious world get too complicated. I just kind of go: Well, I think I know what God is. God is love, and as much as I respond [sighs] in allowing myself to be transformed by that love and acting in that love, that’s my religion. Where things get complicated for me, is when I try to live this love. Now that’s not so easy.

Michka: What about the God of the Old Testament? He wasn’t so “peace and love”?

Bono: There’s nothing hippie about my picture of Christ. The Gospels paint a picture of a very demanding, sometimes divisive love, but love it is. I accept the Old Testament as more of an action movie: blood, car chases, evacuations, a lot of special effects, seas dividing, mass murder, adultery. The children of God are running amok, wayward. Maybe that’s why they’re so relatable. But the way we would see it, those of us who are trying to figure out our Christian conundrum, is that the God of the Old Testament is like the journey from stern father to friend. When you’re a child, you need clear directions and some strict rules. But with Christ, we have access in a one-to-one relationship, for, as in the Old Testament, it was more one of worship and awe, a vertical relationship. The New Testament, on the other hand, we look across at a Jesus who looks familiar, horizontal. The combination is what makes the Cross.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness
... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Awareness,
I'm with Igzy on this one. Don't you think that the cognitive dissonance you're fond of pointing out is on our side, has to be on our side, instead of within the text. God is not dissonance. God is peace and not confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). His righteousness, His Justice is higher than ours, just as His love far far exceeds love as we understand it.
In this case I think cognitive dissonance is just fancy speak for misunderstanding God's character.

Hey bro ABrother, I admit I'm not all that smart (after all I fell for the local church).

But I do realize ya'll would be much happier if I only pointed how the Psalms is the word of Jesus.

And I certainly agree that I'm not smart enough to figure how Jesus in the NT says love your enemies, and says in Psalms 18:37 "I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed."

And how Jesus in the NT says suffer the children to come unto me, and Jesus says in Psalms, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

I admit that it may be my failing that I find cognitive dissonance upon encountering these seemingly contradictions.

And that I short-circuit to the point of timing out and system shut down.

So I react to and dismiss these contradictions like Lee did. I conclude that something non-Jesus was slipped into the Psalms.

And there. Cognitive Dissonance is gone. My mind is at peace.

And you and others are free to find your own methods or interpretations to resolve any cognitive dissonance you may have, between parts of the Psalms and Jesus in the NT, if any.

Just not thinking about it is another way. But that's my way. Sorry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey bro ABrother, I admit I'm not all that smart (after all I fell for the local church).

But I do realize ya'll would be much happier if I only pointed how the Psalms is the word of Jesus.

Bro awareness, it seems you need to have a little perfection in your life in order to reduce levels of cognitive dissonance. See ... now you even got me saying that.

For example, I have become somewhat content with my LC experience, choosing not to forget all the good that came with the bad. I realize that no church is perfect, and they all got issues, as you say "His fan club." But has not God allowed or even planned for all the ingredients that cause this cognitive dissonance? Once He got involved with His creatures all sorts of contradictions surfaced. It seems for you, life would be so much better if God would have just written the Book Himself, and sent you a copy directly, bypassing all the failings of His Fan Club.

I'm thinking that life was more simpler for you before you learned how much cognitive dissonance exists in life. Blame it all on God if you will, because He has charted this course. Call us naive or whatever, but most of us Christians are a lot more peaceful in life just trusting that the Bible is His word, and not having all the answers.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I certainly agree that I'm not smart enough to figure how Jesus in the NT says love your enemies, and says in Psalms 18:37 "I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed."
And how Jesus in the NT says suffer the children to come unto me, and Jesus says in Psalms, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

I think what you're missing here, what you call cognitive dissonance, is that these seemingly contradictory characteristics of God's divine nature cannot be reconciled by us. Cognitive dissonance is a shortcoming of man's mind. I admit, there are things in the Bible that I do not (CANNOT) understand; there are things that seem horrible to me (Psalm 137:9), but I realize that my problem with them is precisely that, my problem. It isn't God's lack, His not constructing things well enough or whatever. His wisdom is more profound that what we have to work with.

Of course you're smart enough to recognize the seeming disparity in the verses you've quoted. Most people are. People who want to dismiss God's word use such verses to do so because of such seeming disparity.
As Christians, however, we need take those parts of the Word that are difficult in faith. That's not the same as ignoring them. That's just recognizing that God is not contradictory no matter how it seems.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I think what you're missing here, what you call cognitive dissonance, is that these seemingly contradictory characteristics of God's divine nature cannot be reconciled by us. Cognitive dissonance is a shortcoming of man's mind. I admit, there are things in the Bible that I do not (CANNOT) understand; there are things that seem horrible to me (Psalm 137:9), but I realize that my problem with them is precisely that, my problem. It isn't God's lack, His not constructing things well enough or whatever. His wisdom is more profound that what we have to work with.

Of course you're smart enough to recognize the seeming disparity in the verses you've quoted. Most people are. People who want to dismiss God's word use such verses to do so because of such seeming disparity.
As Christians, however, we need take those parts of the Word that are difficult in faith. That's not the same as ignoring them. That's just recognizing that God is not contradictory no matter how it seems.

Or maybe our premise that, The Psalms are the word of Jesus, is wrong. There's always that possibility, that the Psalms are just songs ; a sort of Jewish hymnal.

And faith can sometimes just be a way to live in denial. Not saying that's what you're doing. I can't know such things.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or maybe our premise that, The Psalms are the word of Jesus, is wrong. There's always that possibility, that the Psalms are just songs ; a sort of Jewish hymnal.

And faith can sometimes just be a way to live in denial. Not saying that's what you're doing. I can't know such things.

I count 55 passages from the Psalms that are quoted in the New Testament, and many of these passages are quoted in multiple places. Every gospel quotes them, Acts quotes it, Paul quotes them in multiple epistles, Hebrews quotes them, and Peter and John quote them. I don't think the fact that Awareness has trouble with one verse in one Psalm is much basis to come to the conclusion that these Psalms are not revelation of Jesus.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I do realize ya'll would be much happier if I only pointed how the Psalms is the word of Jesus.

... I'm not smart enough to figure how Jesus in the NT says love your enemies, and says in Psalms 18:37 "I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed."

I admit that it may be my failing that I find cognitive dissonance upon encountering these seemingly contradictions.

So I react to and dismiss these contradictions like Lee did. I conclude that something non-Jesus was slipped into the Psalms.

Also, David did not behave in a very much like Jesus when he threw the rock at Goliath, did he? Wouldn’t it have been much more Christ-like if David had turned the other cheek?

One way around this conundrum – dissonance, so-called – is by way of analogy. “Now, the things which are seen (David, Goliath, a slingshot) are not real, but the things which are not seen (spiritual forces) are real” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Also, David did not behave in a very much like Jesus when he threw the rock at Goliath, did he? Wouldn’t it have been much more Christ-like if David had turned the other cheek?

One way around this conundrum – dissonance, so-called – is by way of analogy. “Now, the things which are seen (David, Goliath, a slingshot) are not real, but the things which are not seen (spiritual forces) are real” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

Hey bro Aron, I'm down with this. I've done this, and am handy with it still today. I can see things in a spiritual way. That's one of the ways I look at things.

But it's not the only way. I prefer every way available as a means to look at things. And I weigh them against each other.

And yes we can, spiritualize the Psalms, and say they are the words of Jesus.

But that doesn't make it so. It's just, as someone said out here, a hippie way of looking at it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or maybe our premise that, The Psalms are the word of Jesus, is wrong. There's always that possibility, that the Psalms are just songs ; a sort of Jewish hymnal.

And faith can sometimes just be a way to live in denial. Not saying that's what you're doing. I can't know such things.

Right, cuz if they were the words of Jesus, wouldn't they be red?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, cuz if they were the words of Jesus, wouldn't they be red?

You're right. The Psalms is not a red letter book.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I can see things in a spiritual way. That's one of the ways I look at things.

But it's not the only way.

For the record, I didn't suggest that allegory was the only way to look at things. But it does deal with the cognitive dissonance part. And I prefer allegory to dismissing the scriptural text as "unchristian" and therefore either irrelevant or mistaken.

And I think that I have good company in allegorizing the unseen spiritual realm behind the physical OT stories, in that we can see this with both Paul and the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews (who of course may also have been Paul). Not to mention extensive allegorizations by "church fathers" who followed immediately behind, such as Origen of Alexandria.

So I don't feel that I am too far out on a limb here. But at the same time I can accept that certain independent thinkers such as yourself may not be very attracted to these allegories. As I mentioned in my posts, these interpretations are more intimate and personal ("this is what the text reveals to me"), and are thus somewhat provisional and shouldn't be argued over.

There are plenty of "blank spots" and "grey areas" in scripture where we may strongly feel the LORD speaking things to us in His Christ and of His Christ. But we shouldn't insist that these speakings must now hold in all the churches. And if we don't get any speaking, a la WL in the bulk of the Psalms, we also shouldn't try to discourage others from seeing Christ revealed there. What I argued was that WL was the one being "natural" when he imposed his "fallen concepts" on the text, and he thereby robbed the LC saints of experiencing the speaking Son.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're right. The Psalms is not a red letter book.

Not to drag the issue too far afield, but the whole "red letter" idea runs into problems elsewhere, as well. In the book of Revelation, Christ speaks (red letter) to John through the angel, but at some point the speaking is no longer Christ but the angel: "Don't worship me; I am your fellow servant". This is after the angel says, "I Jesus have sent my angel to tell you this & that". See e.g Revelation 19:9,10, and 22:6-20. The speaking is clearly "God", but the speaker is merely a messenger.

And in the Psalms the problem is so knotty as to be insurmountable, I think. We have clear "words of Christ" - "My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?" You have God speaking to the psalmist about Christ; You have the psalmist marveling to God about His Christ; you have etc, etc.

So by giving this thread the title "The Psalms are the word of Christ" I didn't mean to imply that in a red letter Bible the whole book would be in red. Just that the book seems to have a lot more "words of Christ" than WL told us. The master allegorizer WL simply folded up his tent and quit when he hit the Psalms. "Move along, folks; nothing to see here". And thousands of LC sheep moved along, cuz WL said so. Red letters, indeed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, cuz if they were the words of Jesus, wouldn't they be red?

Silly rabbit, they are red when Jesus quotes them in the Gospels.

[awareness]

Good responses bro Aron ... thanks ...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Silly rabbit, they are red when Jesus quotes them in the Gospels.

Here's a list. Are there more?

1. Ps 8.2 > Mt 21.16
2. Ps 110.1 > Mt 22.44
3. Ps 118.26 > Mt 23.39
4. Ps 82.6 > John 10.34
5. Ps 41.9 > John 13.18
6. Ps 35.19, 69.4 > John 15.25

Silly Psalmsist. He should have known to get his red ink out ...

But isn't this thread considering all of Psalms are red letter?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's a list. Are there more?

1. Ps 8.2 > Mt 21.16
2. Ps 110.1 > Mt 22.44
3. Ps 118.26 > Mt 23.39
4. Ps 82.6 > John 10.34
5. Ps 41.9 > John 13.18
6. Ps 35.19, 69.4 > John 15.25

There are so many more.

Nearly the whole of Psalm 22 could have been written by Jesus on the cross, but I'm sure the naysayer will nitpick a verse like v.6, "But I am a worm, and no man," to "prove" it is not the red-letter "words of Jesus."

John 19.28 says, "I thirst," but Psalm 22.15 goes even further to say, "My tongue clings to my jaw." Here the Lord expresses some of the agony He endured, which could never have been known even by eye-witnesses recorded in the Gospels.

Some of Psalms were quoted in the Gospels as indisputable and undeniable proof of divine authorship. For example, John 20.36 declares "not one of His bone shall be broken," to fulfill the prophecy in Psalms 34.20. Considering the ordeal Jesus passed through before and during His crucifixion, this was an impossible feat.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are so many more.

Nearly the whole of Psalm 22 could have been written by Jesus on the cross, but I'm sure the naysayer will nitpick a verse like v.6, "But I am a worm, and no man," to "prove" it is not the red-letter "words of Jesus."

John 19.28 says, "I thirst," but Psalm 22.15 goes even further to say, "My tongue clings to my jaw." Here the Lord expresses some of the agony He endured, which could never have been known even by eye-witnesses recorded in the Gospels.

Some of Psalms were quoted in the Gospels as indisputable and undeniable proof of divine authorship. For example, John 20.36 declares "not one of His bone shall be broken," to fulfill the prophecy in Psalms 34.20. Considering the ordeal Jesus passed through before and during His crucifixion, this was an impossible feat.

Hey bro Ohio ... so does that make all the words in Psalms red letter?

Are we starting out with the premise that all the Psalms are word of Jesus?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey bro Ohio ... so does that make all the words in Psalms red letter?

Are we starting out with the premise that all the Psalms are word of Jesus?

Why don't we start out to make a list of all Psalms that are:

1. Quoted word for word
2. Directly referred to
3. Prophecies fulfilled in the Gospels

Then we can also give an asterisk to Psalms that we think are alluded to.

I would also like to agree before doing this that any Psalm that meets the first 3 criteria cannot be considered "natural" or "man's thought" etc.

If we agree to this then it seems to me to be a valuable exercise because it allows us to focus in on Psalms that have no NT reference.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's a list. Are there more?

1. Ps 8.2 > Mt 21.16
2. Ps 110.1 > Mt 22.44
3. Ps 118.26 > Mt 23.39
4. Ps 82.6 > John 10.34
5. Ps 41.9 > John 13.18
6. Ps 35.19, 69.4 > John 15.25

Silly Palmist. He should have known to get his red ink out ...

But isn't this thread considering all of Psalms are red letter?

What is a Palmist?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some of Psalms were quoted in the Gospels as indisputable and undeniable proof of divine authorship. For example, John 20.36 declares "not one of His bone shall be broken," to fulfill the prophecy in Psalms 34.20. Considering the ordeal Jesus passed through before and during His crucifixion, this was an impossible feat.

I found Psalm 34, and WL's take on it, to be indicative of his approach. He acknowledged the useage of Psalm 34:20 in John chapter 20, and thus its "divine revelation" of the coming Christ. But he panned the rest of chapter 34 as natural. Why? Because, he says, David used guile to save himself from Abimilech, so God clearly didn't save him, as the Psalm proclaims.

Now, WL can argue this, and get a bunch of people to agree with him, but that doesn't mean this is so. In fact, I find it borderline schizophrenic (the argument, if not the arguee) to pluck one verse out of context and say, "divinely revelatory", while simultaneously discarding the all rest as "natural."

Look at 1 Samuel 17:37, where David tells Saul, regarding Goliath: "The LORD who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine." Now, how does the "armchair warrior" WL tell David whether or not God can and does save him, and from whom? By using his own fallen human logic?

I veer toward the opposite tack (probably nearly as indefensible as WL, I know). If the disciples looked in the text of Psalm 34 and saw "revelation", and nowhere do they say "Only this one verse, and none other", then we should eagerly examine the ENTIRE text for revelation. If John could find revelation, why not I? Don't I have the same Spirit? If the author of Hebrews could hold up the OT and say, "We see Jesus" (2:9), what is stopping me from also receiving revelation of Christ as I consider the rest of the text? If Peter could use his logic and say in Acts chapter 2 that Psalm 16:9-11 could not apply to David (whose flesh did see corruption, after all), but rather Jesus the Nazarene, then why can't the rest of us use our logic and see Jesus Christ in other parts of Psalm 16, and elsewhere?

Now, does my interpretation, whether it be divinely inspired or logically derived, mean the text is "red letter"? Of course not. But it it fun? You betcha. You get to "Enjoy Christ" in spades. And "out of the local church life", even.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What is a Palmist?

A typo silly ... I'll edit that ... thanks ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's a list. Are there more?


1. Ps 8.2 > Mt 21.16
2. Ps 110.1 > Mt 22.44
3. Ps 118.26 > Mt 23.39
4. Ps 82.6 > John 10.34
5. Ps 41.9 > John 13.18
6. Ps 35.19, 69.4 > John 15.25

Silly Psalmsist. He should have known to get his red ink out ...

But isn't this thread considering all of Psalms are red letter?

Here is my list

Matt 4:6 -- Psa 91:11-12
Matt 5:5 -- Psa 37:11
Matt 7:23 -- Psa 6:8
Matt 13:35 -- Psa 78:2
Matt 21:9 -- Psa 118:26
Matt 21:16 -- Psa 8:2
Matt 21:42 Psa 118:22-23
Matt 22:44 110:1
Matt 23:38 69:25
Matt 23:39 118:26
Matt 25:41 6:8
Matt 26:24 22:1-31
Matt 26:60 35:11
Matt 27:35 22:18
Matt 27:43 22:7-9
Matt 27:46 22:1

(Mark quotes and refers to the same psalms so I'll ignore that)

Luke
1:32 132:11
4:10-11 91:11-12
23:46 31:5

(I tried to skip those that were similar to quotes in Matthew)

John
2:17 69:9
6:31 78:24
7:42 89:4
7:42 132:11
9:31 82:6
10:34 82:6
12:34 89:30, 89:37
12:34 110:4
13:18 41:9
15:25 69:4
15:25 109:3
15:25 35:19
17:12 41:10
17:12 109:8,17
19:24 22:19
19:28 69:21
19:36 34:20
20:9 16:10
20:17 22:22

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey bro Ohio ... so does that make all the words in Psalms red letter?

Are we starting out with the premise that all the Psalms are word of Jesus?

Paul said it best in 2 Timothy 3.16, "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Jesus spoke to the disciples in Luke 24.27, "And beginning from Moses and from all the Prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Paul said it best in 2 Timothy 3.16, "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Jesus spoke to the disciples in Luke 24.27, "And beginning from Moses and from all the Prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."

So the whole Bible is red letter?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I veer toward the opposite tack (probably nearly as indefensible as WL, I know). If the disciples looked in the text of Psalm 34 and saw "revelation", and nowhere do they say "Only this one verse, and none other", then we should eagerly examine the ENTIRE text for revelation. If John could find revelation, why not I? Don't I have the same Spirit? If the author of Hebrews could hold up the OT and say, "We see Jesus" (2:9), what is stopping me from also receiving revelation of Christ as I consider the rest of the text? If Peter could use his logic and say in Acts chapter 2 that Psalm 16:9-11 could not apply to David (whose flesh did see corruption, after all), but rather Jesus the Nazarene, then why can't the rest of us use our logic and see Jesus Christ in other parts of Psalm 16, and elsewhere?

Now, does my interpretation, whether it be divinely inspired or logically derived, mean the text is "red letter"? Of course not. But it it fun? You betcha. You get to "Enjoy Christ" in spades. And "out of the local church life", even.

I say "go for it."

What gives any man, save for the Son of Man, the right to pass on to us their "official interpretation" of the Scripture. That's what the Blendeds declared after publishing their green books, as if God had restricted His speaking to the mouths of Nee and Lee throughout the 20th century.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So the whole Bible is red letter?

John 1.1,14 according to awareness:

In the beginning was the red-letter Word, and the red-letter Word was with God, and the red-letter Word was God, and the red-letter Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from a father, full of grace and reality.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So the whole Bible is red letter?

I am with Igzy on this, it is much more interesting to see how to reconcile those odd verses that create cognitive dissonance.

However, I do support your attempt to prove that there is a verse in the OT that demonstrates that the God of the OT is different from the NT.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

John 1.1,14 according to awareness:

In the beginning was the red-letter Word, and the red-letter Word was with God, and the red-letter Word was God, and the red-letter Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from a father, full of grace and reality.

LOL ... good one bro.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Silly Psalmist. He should have known to get his red ink out ...

But isn't this thread considering all of Psalms are red letter?

Not really. Rather, it is that Psalms, like the rest of scripture, reveals God/Christ in the midst of the fractured life after man's fall.

The whole of each passage reveals something about God. Surely the red-letter parts reveal God because he said them directly. But so do the rest. The words may include statements about other things, including evil, the heathen, etc., but when placed in its context, the whole reveals God.

Surely Satan's rebellion does not reveal God. But His response to it does. And his response is context-less without the story of the rebellion.

Funny. It's a little like my rants about ignoring grace, mercy, love, righteousness, etc., and just saying "it is just Christ." Saying Christ is righteousness without some evidence of actual righteousness makes the statement pointless. Saying Christ is grace without evidence of receiving some actual grace makes the statement pointless.

Saying Christ will take care of the widow and orphan without his hands and feet (us) actually doing it makes the statement hollow. And it makes the claim of care into a lie. I would rather not be among those who make the word of God into a lie.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

LOL ... good one bro.

We know Jesus is the word of God. We know the Bible is the word of God.

Yet ... we cannot say Jesus is the Bible, or the Bible is Jesus.

John said, "and the word was God," but we never hear "the scripture was God," rather it says "all scripture is God-breathed."

Jesus word to the Jews in John 5.39-40 is helpful, "you search the scriptures, because in them you think that you have eternal life, and it is these that testify concerning me, but you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life."

Unless we come to Him, even His words are not His word.

Does that make sense?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We know Jesus is the word of God. We know the Bible is the word of God.

Yet ... we cannot say Jesus is the Bible, or the Bible is Jesus.

John said, "and the word was God," but we never hear "the scripture was God," rather it says "all scripture is God-breathed."

Jesus word to the Jews in John 5.39-40 is helpful, "you search the scriptures, because in them you think that you have eternal life, and it is these that testify concerning me, but you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life."

Unless we come to Him, even His words are not His word.

Does that make sense?

Yes. And you know, of course, that when it was written that all scripture is God breathed that there wasn't a New Testament, so no NT books were included at that time.

[UntoHim]

Actually Harold you're wrong. 2nd Timothy was written towards the very end of Paul's life and ministry, and by this time most (if not all) of his letters (epistles) were to be considered as God's Word (scripture). The Apostle Paul told the Colossians that his ministry was to "complete the Word of God" (some translations use "fulfill", and this is a very rich Greek word which I don't have time to expound upon now, but "complete" expresses the notion in English well enough) Additionally, there are strong indications that Peter considered Paul's writings as scripture. Whether or not Peter's epistles were considered as scripture during his lifetime is debatable, but one could make a strong argument that they could very well have been considered as scripture as well. By the time of 2nd Timothy there is also evidence that much of the Gospel narrative (which of course includes the teachings, speaking and prayers of the Lord Jesus) was in circulation among many of the churches, and certainly these were to be considered scripture.

The bottom line is that when Paul wrote "all scripture is God breathed" he most probably had in mind at the very least his epistles to the various churches and most probably Peter and John's epistles as well. You can throw in much of the Gospel narrative too. This is to say nothing of the fact that the learned and wise men who assembled the canon certainly considered all the approved writings as God's Word - Scripture.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

As I said, Witness Lee got bothered by the ministries in God's word which sprang up in the "local churches" by singing the Psalms. Several gifted musicians started doing things in the Word which the saints loved, and picked up on. This was a movement "in the churches" which hadn't been sanctioned and directed by Lee the Oracle and Apostle of the age, so it was squelched. People were passing around music cassettes which didn't have "Living Stream Ministry" on them. Lee wanted full control.

Now, what is the consequence of this attempt at man to direct the move of God on the earth? The Spirit was frustrated. The word was closed. The light was turned off.

The fruit of this was evident, a year ago, when I looked at their music catalog. When I looked at their various merchandise being sold, among music there were no psalms. They once had them for sale (i.e. the 1970s, 1980s), but now they were gone. Those gifted and anointed saints were silenced, and evidence of their ministry had disappeared. One could purchase hymns, footnotes set to music, and outlines, and some verses. But no psalms.

And the top of the page selling this stuff quoted the verse with Paul's admonition to sing psalms! Too ironic. This is what happens when the lights turn off.

Interesting stuff aron. I arranged guitar accompaniment for Psalm 126 when the music service group of the Church in Fort Lauderdale set the psalm to music. "When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream." Louis Diaz composed most of the melody. Our version of the psalm was sung widely among the churches in the US at one time. But then it seemed to disappear. Do you think it was suppressed because WL discouraged psalm singing?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Interesting stuff aron. I arranged guitar accompaniment for Psalm 126 when the music service group of the Church in Fort Lauderdale set the psalm to music. "When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream." Our version of the psalm was sung widely among the churches in the US at one time. But then it seemed to disappear. Do you think it was suppressed because WL discouraged psalm singing?

I sang it.

WL first encouraged turning the word into songs at the Ephesians training where the chapter on dating tells us to sing the word of God.

However, this was wildly successful with CD's of the entire books of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians put to music and sung. I think WL felt that the success rivaled and threatened His own lock on the ministry, hence it must be fleshly.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Harold you're wrong. 2nd Timothy was written towards the very end of Paul's life and ministry, and by this time most (if not all) of his letters (epistles) were to be considered as God's Word (scripture). The Apostle Paul told the Colossians that his ministry was to "complete the Word of God" (some translations use "fulfill", and this is a very rich Greek word which I don't have time to expound upon now, but "complete" expresses the notion in English well enough) Additionally, there are strong indications that Peter considered Paul's writings as scripture. Whether or not Peter's epistles were considered as scripture during his lifetime is debatable, but one could make a strong argument that they could very well have been considered as scripture as well. By the time of 2nd Timothy there is also evidence that much of the Gospel narrative (which of course includes the teachings, speaking and prayers of the Lord Jesus) was in circulation among many of the churches, and certainly these were to be considered scripture.

The bottom line is that when Paul wrote "all scripture is God breathed" he most probably had in mind at the very least his epistles to the various churches and most probably Peter and John's epistles as well. You can throw in much of the Gospel narrative too. This is to say nothing of the fact that the learned and wise men who assembled the canon certainly considered all the approved writings as God's Word - Scripture.

Don't know your sources but, Paul died in c. 67. Gospels c. 70-90.

But you might be right. Some scholars don't accept that Paul wrote I & II Timothy and Titus ; that they were written near the end of the 1st century, by someone claiming to be Paul ... a common practice back then.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

... Our version of the psalm [126] was sung widely among the churches in the US at one time. But then it seemed to disappear. Do you think it was suppressed because WL discouraged psalm singing?

Somewhat. As ZNP notes, WL initially encouraged "scripture singing", especially from the "heart of the divine revelation" (Eph/Gal/Col/Phil) more than suppressing the singing of psalms. But he did do that, too, occasionally making fun of both the repetitive phraseology of the psalms ("For His mercy endureth forever") as well as indicating that the psalms weren't "revelatory" like Paul's epistles. To WL, Paul was "high" and psalms were "low". Naturally, we all followed WL to Paul and the "high peaks."

But I suspect that there were other issues, as well. As I noted earlier, Paul in his "high peaks" encouraged saints to sing the psalms, calling them "the word of Christ" and saying that by doing so this word of Christ would dwell in us richly! The LSM web even site has a page with this verse (Colossians 3:16) as a banner, and underneath they sell NT verses in song, as well as "training outline" songs and "banner songs", but no psalms are available.

Why? I believe there are two issues. First, they didn't control the copyrights to all the music and you know that with LSM it is all about control. Second, a lot of the melodies were not even composed by saints "on the local ground", but were composed in "Babylon"! Shocking! Now, you and I know that there was no spirit, and no light out there, so what were the LC saints doing singing music which came from Christianity?!?

Maybe all of this gave WL the heebie-jeebies and so he declared the psalms to be "low" and not worth his time & effort, and simply moved on. This is from a guy who spent message after message showing "Christ" emerging from the boards of the ark!

On a related note, I recently ran across some non-LSM psalm & scripture music tapes from the late '60s and early '70s. I recognized a lot of the songs, especially on their first efforts, from my time in the LCs.

Here are some saints from New Zealand:

http://www.davidanddalegarratt.com/

And some saints from Texas:

http://www.thenewcreationsingers.com/history.html

I'm sure there were others as well. So here you have a guy (WL) with control issues, and the "local church people" are singing, and enjoying, God's word outside of his domain (sorry, "ministry") and this was probably threatening. The ministries of outsiders were entering the local church life!

Did something like this happen? I don't know. Does it make sense? To me, yes it does.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't know your sources but, Paul died in c. 67. Gospels c. 70-90.

But you might be right. Some scholars don't accept that Paul wrote I & II Timothy and Titus ; that they were written near the end of the 1st century, by someone claiming to be Paul ... a common practice back then.

Now Harold, that's not like to you just skim over my post and ignore the main points. Did you per chance miss out on your afternoon Dr. Pepper?

Look, unlike you my sources don't include frauds like Bart Ehrman and other yahoos like him. My sources are the same ones who have been tried, true and tested over hundreds of years. Yes, you will find SOME "scholars" who claim that the majority of the New Testament was written decades after the death of all the apostles. Heck, there are some "scholars" who claim that the spinning wheel in Ezekiel was alien flying saucer! Get the picture, my man?

The New Testament canon, as we know it now, at least in a very large measure, was being circulated among Christian churches by the middle of the 2nd century. There were teachers/scholars alive during that era that were only a few generations removed from the scripture writing apostles. They knew with great certainty that the writings being circulated were indeed from the original authors, and were very accurate. Through the blood, sweat and tears of many great men and women of God, and by the mercy and grace of God Himself, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and the Book of Revelation have been preserved for us and are indeed "God breathed" scripture.

So no controversy over the ending of Mark, no fretting and stewing over the Johannine Comma and no "gottcha" about whether Judas hung himself or his guts spilled out changes one of the major facts related to us in the New Testament. The major facts and figures as related to us in the New Testament are there for us to believe or not believe. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son". And for the purposes of this forum this is an undisputed fact. If you or anyone else wants to dispute that this or any other of the major NT themes were put in writing by the inspiration of God then you are on the wrong forum.

[zeek]

aron--Thank you for your detailed reply and the links. We were kept in the dark about what our leaders were doing most of the time when I was in the LRC so we may never know.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't know your sources but, Paul died in c. 67. Gospels c. 70-90.

But you might be right. Some scholars don't accept that Paul wrote I & II Timothy and Titus ; that they were written near the end of the 1st century, by someone claiming to be Paul ... a common practice back then.

Synoptic gospels were written before Paul's and Peter's death. John's gospel and epistles were much later.

Hey ... there is a "scholar" out there to discredit everything of God and His word. If you want a billion reasons to believe, you will find them. If you want one reason not to believe, you will find it too.

But to claim the 3 pastorals were not written by Paul is a serious charge. You have presented no proof. And I have seen none. Why are you purposely teasing the moderator? You know that the canon of scripture is not open for debate here. That has been repeatedly discussed. Yet you decide to thumb your nose to the forum owner. I find that extremely disrespectful.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

aron-- We were kept in the dark about what our leaders were doing most of the time when I was in the LRC so we may never know.

I was amazed when I listened to one of the albums that Dave and Dale Garratt put out: of the 14 songs on the 1970 album "Thou Art Worthy" I remember singing 10 them in the local churches. "His Name is as ointment poured forth" from Song of Songs; "Therefore with joy" from Isaiah 12; "Thou art worthy" from Revelation 4:11; "This is my rest forever" from Psalm 132; "The law of the Lord is perfect" from Psalm 19; "Thy lovingkindness is better than life" from Psalm 63. Etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture_in_Song

Now, who wrote all these songs? Maybe some of them were composed in the LCs, I don't know. But surely much of the composing, singing, recording, disseminating, and enjoying was happening outside "The Ministry"... need I say more?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You know that the canon of scripture is not open for debate here. That has been repeatedly discussed. Yet you decide to thumb your nose to the forum owner. I find that extremely disrespectful.

Whoops, slipped up again. Forgot, I must stop thinking on this forum.

So, whatever y'all say. Unto him is right. What am I doing out here? I must be crazy. I just can't buy into unprovable premises.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Whoops, slipped up again. Forgot, I must stop thinking on this forum.

So, whatever y'all say. Unto him is right. What am I doing out here? I must be crazy. I just can't buy into unprovable premises.

Maybe if you pray read the Psalms it will help you get back into your spirit and out of your mind.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Whoops, slipped up again. Forgot, I must stop thinking on this forum.

So, whatever y'all say. Unto him is right. What am I doing out here? I must be crazy. I just can't buy into unprovable premises.

Stop thinking? It has nothing to do with thinking. It's all about doubting. James says, "he who doubts is like the surge of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind."

It's me that can't buy into those unprovable premises by German high critics. It's seems you have bought into too many already. But that's why we got a free will, right?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Stop thinking? It has nothing to do with thinking. It's all about doubting. James says, "he who doubts is like the surge of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind."

It's me that can't buy into those unprovable premises by German high critics. It's seems you have bought into too many already. But that's why we got a free will, right?

You're kind bro Ohio. Thanks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're kind bro Ohio. Thanks.

You know I love you bro. It just burns me up to witness the damage Witness inflicted upon the faith of God's children. I have feared the same for many loved ones. There's always the danger that our faith gets tossed out with the Lee's trash.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Whoops, slipped up again. Forgot, I must stop thinking on this forum.

So, whatever y'all say. Unto him is right. What am I doing out here? I must be crazy. I just can't buy into unprovable premises.

Harold if you consider the Bible full of "unprovable premises" then it's going to be a very rough road for you on most Christian based forums. Once again (I sound like a broken record I know) you must know that there are many forums out there where people who believe as you do are on equal footing as those of us who have faith that the the Bible - ALL of the Bible - is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. This is one of the main "premises" here on LCD and this is not going to change. I believe this, Igzy believes this and the vast majority of the forum members believe this as well. Once again, you're welcome to stay and dialog but you have to color within the lines or you're constantly going to find yourself in "timeout"

While you consider what I'm saying, maybe you could consider a couple of verses, for they both have great bearing on the issues you have here on the forum. Knowledge is NOT faith, and faith is NOT knowledge - otherwise it would be called "The Christian Knowledge" and not "The Christian Faith"!

Also we don't have to wait for heaven or the afterlife to be blessed by God - we only HAVE TO BELIEVE. Believing brings blessing in this life - right here, right now. This is a promise directly from the mouth of the Son of God so you can take it to the bank my friend. And believing is not the suspension of logic or of reason (no you do NOT need to "get out of your mind" to believe).


Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen Hebrews 11:1

Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:29

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You know I love you bro. It just burns me up to witness the damage Witness inflicted upon the faith of God's children. I have feared the same for many loved ones. There's always the danger that our faith gets tossed out with the Lee's trash.

Basically bro Ohio I was disappointed in Christianity before the local church. Then I jumped into the LC, gave it my all, and was disappointed again.

Since then I've questioned everything, even God.

I've been told more than once that I was damaged by the local church.

Maybe so ... Life has been far from perfect since then, but the blessings haven't stop either.

And I have no sense that God is angry with me for questioning the Bible, or the Canon. Quite the opposite, I think He's angry when people replace His guidance with that of the Bible ; idolizing it.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I have no sense that God is angry with me for questioning the Bible, or the Canon. Quite the opposite, I think He's angry when people replace His guidance with that of the Bible ; idolizing it.

Apart from the Bible, how do you know God? How do you know His guidance apart from the Bible? Your whole idea, your whole sense of what" God's guidance" is comes from the Bible. God gave us His word through which we know Him.

What do you mean by idolizing it? Do you think people here are doing that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Basically bro Ohio I was disappointed in Christianity before the local church.

Me too. 12 years steeped in Catholicism.

Originally Posted by awareness

Then I jumped into the LC, gave it my all, and was disappointed again.

Me too. 30 years. Migrated twice. Got it from both Cleveland and Anaheim. You have no idea what horror stories I can tell.

Originally Posted by awareness

Since then I've questioned everything, even God.

I have questioned God many times. Disagreed with the way things have gone. Sometimes my heart gets hard and cold. But I never gave up my faith in Him, or my love for Him. Because He loves me, and never gave up on me.

Originally Posted by awareness

I've been told more than once that I was damaged by the local church.

More than once!?! I heard that for 30 years. My cousin, whom I went to school with, turned on me. He said, "I'm an honest guy, and I'm going to tell everyone that you are in a mind-bending cult." And he did.

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe so ... Life has been far from perfect since then, but the blessings haven't stop either.

See ... that's what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by awareness

And I have no sense that God is angry with me for questioning the Bible, or the Canon. Quite the opposite, I think He's angry when people replace His guidance with that of the Bible; idolizing it.

And how in the world can you know His guidance without His word? There is a world of difference between loving His word and idolizing it, but from where you are standing, how can you tell the difference? Without His word, all you are left with is your imagination.

[awareness]

Hey bro ABinF, thanks for your reply.

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Apart from the Bible, how do you know God? How do you know His guidance apart from the Bible? Your whole idea, your whole sense of what" God's guidance" is comes from the Bible.

Yes, the Bible tells the story of Abraham, who received the word of God without any Bible whatsoever.

What do you mean by idolizing it? Do you think people here are doing that?

How could I ever know such things? Only God knows.

I'm being told that out here I can't question the Bible or the Canon. Yet all my studies reveal that fallible men were involved in both. And I've learned you can't trust men.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey bro ABinF, thanks for your reply.


Yes, the Bible tells the story of Abraham, who received the word of God without any Bible whatsoever.


How could I ever know such things? Only God knows.

I'm being told that out here I can't question the Bible or the Canon. Yet all my studies reveal that fallible men were involved in both. And I've learned you can't trust men.

I think Bible inerrancy may implicitly be one of the "items of the faith" noted in the mission statement. What you're doing is like getting drunk in a Baptist Church.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think Bible inerrancy may implicitly be one of the "items of the faith" noted in the mission statement. What you're doing is like getting drunk in a Baptist Church.

Yeah. And we don't talk about the pink elephant in the room.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, the Bible tells the story of Abraham, who received the word of God without any Bible whatsoever.

History tells us that they had a strong oral tradition passed down from the beginning of time. According to chronology, Abraham had a 3rd hand account of creation via Adam, Methuselah and Shem. Moses, who wrote the Pentateuch, had a 6th hand account.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah. And we don't talk about the pink elephant in the room.

Right. Get him a room and let him sleep it off.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, the Bible tells the story of Abraham, who received the word of God without any Bible whatsoever.

Are you being serious?

You wouldn't know that if it weren't in the Bible.
God's speaking to us, those who have believed after the God spoke to and was recorded by those in the Bible, comes via His recorded word, at least that is the base of His speaking. It could come through others who know His word and share it with us, but the Bible is still the source. Of course there are things that He guides you through that are not explicitly in the Bible, but knowing God means going to His word. Ohio is right, apart from the Bible you're left with your imagination.

[james73]

Originally Posted by Ohio

History tells us that they had a strong oral tradition passed down from the beginning of time. According to chronology, Abraham had a 3rd hand account of creation via Adam, Methuselah and Shem. Moses, who wrote the Pentateuch, had a 6th hand account.

Well, that depends on whose "history" you are talking about - Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" discusses the theory of four different authors for the Pentateuch, which, she claims, was finalised in 5BC. Without any other particular evidence, it's as valid a claim as some of the claims here for Moses writing it (and would actually account better for the vastly different styles and names for God used in the early books of the OT).

This isn't the point, for me. If you say God wrote it, I'm happy with that. I respect that view. I would even submit to that view myself, burn my Karen Armstrong collection using Harry Potter Vol 1 for kindling, BUT for one thing. This view has become poison. It is used to ram Christianity down people's throats, to divide, to sell. I won't accept it as my personal creed because to do so is like joining a gang - and the next step is to go earn your stripes. The next step is to say "This is the holy word of God...you can ONLY know God through this book".

And to me, that is unacceptable. "We can only know God through the bible" is a very closed-minded and violent approach - the Pharisees come straight to mind. Sure, Jesus used the scriptures to defeat the devil in the wilderness. This shows the scriptures must have a central place in our lives. 2 Timothy 3:16 puts this as well as anyone.

But at the same time, we can never ever say, with Jesus as our honest guide, that God only reaches us through the scripture? Someone here said "without the bible, you only have your imagination" - well, I don't agree on the language, I think we could have a big discussion elsewhere on the terminology of imagination, soul, spirit, mind, but in essence, yes, ALL we have is our spirits, souls, minds. If we think God can't reach that essence of us without writing a book..... then to me that's a very limited, impotent god, nothing like the God, the Father, the Almighty of the Nicene Creed.

I am not rejecting the bible. It is clearly God-inspired, without even falling back on the circular argument of "the bible says it is God-inspired". But God didn't inspire those authors by writing a book for them, but by speaking directly to them, as He speaks to us every second of the day (if we would only listen). I believe, for example, God also inspired Karen Armstrong in her introduction on Genesis, which has some beautiful concepts of how the conflicting creation accounts reveal a God which can never be understood on human terms. I don't have to say she is "right" to enjoy this idea. I don't have to say "you can only know God through Karen Armstrong"...

It's a mystery, folks, and ignorance is holy. The devil loves it when people think they have the answers, because then they start behaving oddly, leaving the church to set up exclusive ministries, investing in motorhome manufacturers....

I'll leave it with one of my favourite verses, from Ephesians, which is about the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles under Christ.

"He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him, we both have access to the Father by One Spirit". Ephesians 2:17.

Stay happy

[aron]

Originally Posted by james73

I am not rejecting the bible. It is clearly God-inspired... But God didn't inspire those authors by writing a book for them, but by speaking directly to them, as He speaks to us every second of the day (if we would only listen).

I think also of Cornelius the Roman soldier. The angel told him, "Your prayers and gifts have come up as a memorial before God." (Acts 10:4). It's probably noteworthy that God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ to a "righteous gentile", which we may think cannot possibly exist.

Of course, the angel didn't say, "Your prayers and gifts are sufficient; you don't need the truth." No, he told him to send for Simon Peter in Joppa, and to listen to what Peter had to say. But this man's righteous living before God, apart from cognitive knowledge about Jesus Christ, played a rather significant role in the narrative.

It's a mystery, folks, and ignorance is holy. The devil loves it when people think they have the answers, because then they start behaving oddly...

I agree with "it's a mystery", and "the devil loves it when people think they have the answers", but the "ignorance is holy" part I would change. I'd rather say that acknowledging ignorance is part of our path toward (God's) holiness. Maybe that is what you mean, but your phrasing might lead to something like, "Let us sin, that grace may abound".

[aron]

Psalm 15 asks, "Oh LORD, who may abide with You, and dwell there on your holy mountain? He who walks upright, lives rightly, and speaks truth from his heart." (vv 1,2). WL said that this is merely David's concept, and that Psalm 16 reveals to us that only Christ can fulfill God's desire.

Talk about Cognitive Dissonance! So then, why isn't Psalm 15 about Jesus Christ? I don't get it.

The footnotes to Psalm 16 say that it reveals "Christ in His human living", aka Jesus the Nazarene. So why doesn't Psalm 15 also reveal "Christ in His human living"? No, sorry; Psalm 15 is "natural" and only reveals David's "concepts". Huh?

Again, I refer back to Hebrews 2:9. Its author quotes the Psalms (among other OT texts) and says, "we see Jesus". What stops us from "seeing Jesus" in Psalm 15? I really cannot follow WL's logic here. Maybe we are just supposed to trust his revelation, over our own revelation, logic, and clear examples from NT scriptural exegesis. I really don't know what else to follow, to stay with him here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My cousin, whom I went to school with, turned on me. He said, "I'm an honest guy, and I'm going to tell everyone that you are in a mind-bending cult." And he did.

I got the same kind of speaking from family and friends. And, looking back, maybe they had a point.

But God is good. It was arguably a step up from slamming keg beer and vomiting on the living room carpet.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Maybe if you pray read the Psalms it will help you get back into your spirit and out of your mind.

Amen. Or even sing them! Or, as WL suggested about NT verses, declare them to your cat or dog. Shout them to the heavens. Mumble them under your breath as you wait for the train.

Do you think WL tried "exercising his regenerated human spirit" over the words of the Psalms before rejecting them as "natural"? Or was his mind already controlled by his concepts? I warrant that if he'd actually wrestled with the text as Jacob wrestled with the angel, WL would have at some point fallen to the ground with tears in his eyes, exclaiming, "It's the Lord!" as Peter cried out at the end of John's gospel.

I really don't begrudge him from seeing only the words of a natural, fallen psalmist, there in the text of the Psalms. But how many others did WL shut out, after himself being unwilling to enter (Matt. 23:13)?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by james73

And to me, that is unacceptable. "We can only know God through the bible" is a very closed-minded and violent approach - the Pharisees come straight to mind. Sure, Jesus used the scriptures to defeat the devil in the wilderness. This shows the scriptures must have a central place in our lives. 2 Timothy 3:16 puts this as well as anyone.

But at the same time, we can never ever say, with Jesus as our honest guide, that God only reaches us through the scripture? Someone here said "without the bible, you only have your imagination" - well, I don't agree on the language ...

The religions of the world have their sacred books, but what God do they have? Without the Bible, how can we even know that God became man, and that Jesus died for us and rose again.

Not sure what you were thinking, but how this be a "very closed-minded and violent approach." Citing the Pharisees, or even the Catholics of the dark ages, does nothing to support this point. On numerous occasions, Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees, that they loved their traditions and not God's word, and asked them often "have you never read?" I would suggest the opposite is true -- that without the Bible as God's word, mankind is left with a "very closed-minded and violent approach." Pharisees and Papal Catholics have proven that. They might have had sacred books on their shelves, but they did not have God's word.

I never said that "God only reaches us through the scripture," since John tells us that we have an anointing which teaches us all things.

But once we start dismissing verses and even whole books, like the pastorals, because some "scholar" deemed them "questionable," where do we stop? There is no end to this line of reasoning. Then we are left without God's word. But that's not so bad. Lots of people in history were without God's word. History books are filled with their atrocities. We would have lots of company.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Psalm 15 asks, "Oh LORD, who may abide with You, and dwell there on your holy mountain? He who walks upright, lives rightly, and speaks truth from his heart." (vv 1,2). WL said that this is merely David's concept, and that Psalm 16 reveals to us that only Christ can fulfill God's desire.

Talk about Cognitive Dissonance! So then, why isn't Psalm 15 about Jesus Christ? I don't get it.

The footnotes to Psalm 16 say that it reveals "Christ in His human living", aka Jesus the Nazarene. So why doesn't Psalm 15 also reveal "Christ in His human living"? No, sorry; Psalm 15 is "natural" and only reveals David's "concepts". Huh?

Again, I refer back to Hebrews 2:9. Its author quotes the Psalms (among other OT texts) and says, "we see Jesus". What stops us from "seeing Jesus" in Psalm 15? I really cannot follow WL's logic here. Maybe we are just supposed to trust his revelation, over our own revelation, logic, and clear examples from NT scriptural exegesis. I really don't know what else to follow, to stay with him here.

I think the logic is simple, if you don't walk uprightly, live rightly and speak truth from your heart it is unlikely that you will teach that doing so is a prerequisite to dwelling in the Lord's holy mountain. People that don't speak truth from their heart do not tell others that their actions have disqualified them.

This is not equivalent to being sinless. For example, repentance is to "speak truth from your heart" it is also to walk uprightly. Confessing and repenting are part of "Living rightly".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Do you think WL tried "exercising his regenerated human spirit" over the words of the Psalms before rejecting them as "natural"? Or was his mind already controlled by his concepts?

In the early days, there was a strong promotion of the Psalms. One of our favorite verses came from Ephesians 5.18-19, "and do not be drunk with wine, but be filled in Spirit, speaking to one another in Psalms, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord."

I have often said that one of the driving forces behind the proponents o the KJV is the body of songs which accompany it, especially in the Psalms. It's hard to sing the same beloved songs to another translation. Which is why I say there is no "correct and perfect" translation -- all are good -- except for a few gross distortions, like the watchtower one.

I believe that the biggest reason for the deterioration in Lee's ministry was his unrighteous mistreatment of other believers, both within and without the Recovery. Others have commented about the noticeable decline in the anointing he once enjoyed. In its place, Lee latched onto exclusive and esoteric teachings which propped him up for his minions. His period of "crystalization" ministry was fraught with this. He diminished the Psalms, he promoted "make man god," he denigrated "locality," and he promoted the "one work," to name a few.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I got the same kind of speaking from family and friends. And, looking back, maybe they had a point.

But God is good. It was arguably a step up from slamming keg beer and vomiting on the living room carpet.

I, however, tried to make it to the bathroom.

Couple comments though ...

The attacks on me personally blasphemed the mighty work of the Spirit in my life. It was, at first, undeniably Jesus who changed me, but eventually all the positive became attributed to the devil.

Secondly, the attacks were all misinformed, being instigated by spiritual jealousy. They came in the form of modalism and eastern philosophy, such as chanting, which were ridiculous. Had the facts of our history been made public, more of us would have listened.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Psalm 15 asks, "Oh LORD, who may abide with You, and dwell there on your holy mountain? He who walks upright, lives rightly, and speaks truth from his heart." (vv 1,2). WL said that this is merely David's concept, and that Psalm 16 reveals to us that only Christ can fulfill God's desire.

Talk about Cognitive Dissonance! So then, why isn't Psalm 15 about Jesus Christ? I don't get it.

The footnotes to Psalm 16 say that it reveals "Christ in His human living", aka Jesus the Nazarene. So why doesn't Psalm 15 also reveal "Christ in His human living"? No, sorry; Psalm 15 is "natural" and only reveals David's "concepts". Huh?

Again, I refer back to Hebrews 2:9. Its author quotes the Psalms (among other OT texts) and says, "we see Jesus". What stops us from "seeing Jesus" in Psalm 15? I really cannot follow WL's logic here. Maybe we are just supposed to trust his revelation, over our own revelation, logic, and clear examples from NT scriptural exegesis. I really don't know what else to follow, to stay with him here.

WL seems to mean that Psalm 15 advocates that by one's own moral behavior one can attain entry into the presence of God which he disputes on the basis of the gospel of salvation by grace.

I don't really think that Lee's teaching on this the significant problem that some here do. There are ways to reconcile Lee's understanding Psalms without undermining the principle of inerrancy.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the early days, there was a strong promotion of the Psalms. One of our favorite verses came from Ephesians 5.18-19, "and do not be drunk with wine, but be filled in Spirit, speaking to one another in Psalms, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord."

And the fact that the wording of this passage in Ephesians closely parallels that in Colossians 3, where Paul said to "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" really emphasizes how deep the practice of singing the Psalms was with him and the saints in the churches. I find it ironic that the "NT revelation" of Christ is largely based on the saints' revelations of Christ in what we call the OT, and yet many of us nearly exclusively looked to the NT for revelation of Christ, and downplaying the "history" and "poetry" and "wisdom" of the OT. It took me years as a Christian, after studiously avoiding the OT as without merit, to begin to try and look at the older texts the way that the NT believers might have considered them. Because they certainly were considering them, as Paul's citation above indicates.

That's what really bothered me about WL's approach. He said "Go instead to the NT revelations of Christ", and what is Paul repeatedly writing in the NT? Sing the Psalms!

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have often said that one of the driving forces behind the proponents o the KJV is the body of songs which accompany it, especially in the Psalms. It's hard to sing the same beloved songs to another translation. Which is why I say there is no "correct and perfect" translation -- all are good -- except for a few gross distortions, like the watchtower one.

The body of songs from the KJV, with its distinct terminology, is part of our "goodly heritage" and continues to bless. When the LSM switched to their own translation, they lost a lot of good songs. One of the many "One Publication" losses. I am with you on allowing variations in translation to highlight aspects of the text. One of current current favorites in contemporary Psalm music is based on the NIV, which I had heretofore considered "dry as dust". Suddenly I was getting "living water" from the NIV. Surprise, surprise.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe that the biggest reason for the deterioration in Lee's ministry was his unrighteous mistreatment of other believers, both within and without the Recovery. Others have commented about the noticeable decline in the anointing he once enjoyed. In its place, Lee latched onto exclusive and esoteric teachings which propped him up for his minions. His period of "crystallization" ministry was fraught with this. He diminished the Psalms, he promoted "make man god," he denigrated "locality," and he promoted the "one work," to name a few.

It's hard to know where the denigration of God's word fits into the decline; whether it was causal or was a symptom/effect of some other issue (mistreating believers, desire for power/security/money, etc).

Actually I don't think WL & Co did a "bad" job with the RecV translation & footnotes per se; the problem was that it was sold as being the apex of 2,000 years of Bible scholarship. So if you looked in the RecV for light and WL didn't get any light, then that's it: no light.

[james73]

Originally Posted by OBW

But it is not so easy. While there are unambiguous statements, it is not all so clear. That means we have to analyze and interpret. And if we get competing interpretations (which has happened over and over) then who is right.

"Who is right?" is irrelevant. If you're up in court, you think you are right, and the other side thinks they are right. The judge, in a perfect world, has not made any pre-judgement on the case, and, despite all his legal training and knowledge, is ignorant of the verdict.

It's a meditation on "the sound of one hand clapping" to try to grasp this moment of ignorance and keep it alive without seeking relief, but to me this is the key to treasuring the bible. It's how I can believe evolution and creation at the same time, it's why Psalm 137 is a comfort not a horror.

Alas, human communities love courtrooms and decisions - a landmark ruling, a Christian creed, an affirmation, these are the gavel falling and we humans love the finality of the clapperboard sound. Perhaps a good meditation would not be "the sound of one hand clapping" but "the sound of a gavel banging against nothing".

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm comfortable that enough people reading together and letting the Spirit speak to them will discover the truth in scripture. And I'm comfortable with some varieties in interpretation that do not stand in opposition to the underlying premises of the scripture.

Yes, this is so true - it's about the Spirit, it's about the moment, it's about reading the bible together without prejudice. Doctrine can douse the fire of the spirit- what I find poor in the LC is, when people come to read the bible together, they don't let the spirit speak to them, it's the footnotes and the Life Study doing all the talking.

I go to a local "Men's Ministry" bible study on Thursday nights, and it's a slow, comically awkward affair compared the slick "Amens!" and fancy-sounding phrases tripping off the tongues of my Friday night LC group. The men in the group, including myself, are slow to share, go off on all sorts of tangents and bring up suddenly-remembered passages that are probably totally irrelevant to the study at hand.... but there are many genuine "aha" moments. I never saw an "aha" moment at the LC group. For example I may go tomorrow night and share the beauty I found again in Psalm 137 after the discussions here, and within four seconds, someone will say "I think the Life Study of Ephesians (which we are reading at the mo) says something about this..." and then the whole discussion becomes robotic "speak'n'spell with Witness Lee" and the Spirit sits back rolling his or her eyes.

[aron]

Carried over from the "Inerrancy of the Bible" thread

Originally Posted by aron

How did Jesus dwell there before the Father's throne, continually? How was, and is, a Man able to stand there and intercede for us? How does He sit at His right hand? How do, in fact, "all the angels of God worship Him?" These mystical scenes in the bible are our roadmap home. They literally show us the Spirit. The four gospels show us the effect of the Spirit, but the "secret of the secret place" shows us the Spirit.

For me, the Bible's central fact and its greatest mystery is that it shows a Man on earth who is simultaneously one with his Heavenly Father. I do not expect to plumb this fully during my sojourn on earth. The Bible is our roadmap home, because it shows us the Son. He himself is our way, and he is clearly revealed before us.

I used to read the Bible and say, "I know that already; I know that." Familiarity bred a "been there, done that" attitude. Very slowly I began to realize that I have hardly started on my journey. The Bible is literally an open book before us, waiting for us to enter. The Word truly is living, and operative, and it wants to live and operate within us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And the fact that the wording of this passage in Ephesians closely parallels that in Colossians 3, where Paul said to "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" really emphasizes how deep the practice of singing the Psalms was with him and the saints in the churches. I find it ironic that the "NT revelation" of Christ is largely based on the saints' revelations of Christ in what we call the OT, and yet many of us nearly exclusively looked to the NT for revelation of Christ, and downplaying the "history" and "poetry" and "wisdom" of the OT. It took me years as a Christian, after studiously avoiding the OT as without merit, to begin to try and look at the older texts the way that the NT believers might have considered them. Because they certainly were considering them, as Paul's citation above indicates.

In our post-LC journey we connected with the local Church of Christ congregation. Great group of believers who really love the scriptures. Their founding father, however, based on his research, decided that the early church never had musical accompaniment. For a guy like me, who can't tell a chord from a rope, worshiping in song was becoming painful. Why should we be muzzled by what some 19th century teacher said?

Paul's exhortations in Ephesians and Colossians shows how much the Psalms were a part of their daily living. "Making melody in your heart to the Lord," shows how Paul brought the Psalms to the Gentile world. This exhortation says much about Paul's ministry in their gatherings. With the Psalms came the lyrics and the melody. Paul taught them to sing to the Lord in the spirit. That singing together in worship then invaded their private lives too. "Hymns and spiritual songs" shows that the Psalms were a springboard to develop contemporary music in the Gentile assemblies.

As you said, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" opens the doors wide open. This verse is relational and interpersonal, not corporate. Paul connected the indwelling word of Christ to our relationship with our "neighbors." Their fellowship and encouragement with one another came in the form of song. For the Gentile churches with Paul, their "connection" to the scriptures was via song, whereas the Judaizers attempted to connect them through ordinance.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Their fellowship and encouragement with one another came in the form of song. For the Gentile churches with Paul, their "connection" to the scriptures was via song...

Given that Paul repeated this encouragement twice (Eph. 5 & Col. 3), this seems quite possible. Paul encouraged singing as a way to "enter in" to the mystery, where they were seated in the heavenlies with Christ Jesus.

My issue with WL and the Psalms is this: the Bible reveals Jesus, and Jesus shows us our Heavenly Father. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews had heard of Jesus from those who were eyewitnesses (2:3), quotes the OT extensively and says "we see Jesus"(2:9).

What prevents us from also entering in, and seeing Jesus? Should the injunction of someone who doesn't see Jesus in the OT text overturn our own experience? I would say, only if that person's imposition of meaning upon the text (i.e. their interpretation) is considered more "inerrant" than the plain words of the Scripture themselves. To paraphrase Joshua, "As for me and my house, that ain't gonna fly."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

My issue with WL and the Psalms is this: the Bible shows us Jesus, and Jesus shows us our Heavenly Father. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews had heard of Jesus from those who were eyewitnesses(2:3), and then quotes the OT extensively and says "we see Jesus"(2:9). (S)he sees Jesus clearly revealed there in the text of Scripture.

Regardless of how LSM spins this, their ministry endeavors to place a layer between the hearers and Jesus, the word of God. They called this intermediary "layer" the "interpreted word." The proof of this, for me at least, came during the recent quarantine, when the "authoritative" source at LSM to decide all discussions was no longer the scripture, but the teachings of Lee and Nee. These teachings were used to place a wedge between Cleveland and Anaheim.

This was no different from the "church of Christ" in my last post, which had successfully used the teachings of their founder to drive a wedge between those who used instruments and those who do not. What exposed that system to me was Paul's exhortation in Eph. and Col. regarding the Psalms. When reading the Psalms, many actually instruct us which instruments to use.

The ministry of the book of Hebrews, however, connected the writer, the reader, the eyewitnesses, the OT, and Jesus together, which then became the New Testament. The author of Hebrews has the goal of mining the OT scripture to "see Jesus," and then bringing the readers into the same "seeing." Witness Lee, to be fair, also attempted this, especially in the early days. Later on, however, he and the Blendeds only had this practice in name only.

Their real goal was to bring you to themselves. Paul knew this danger existed, and warned us of it with many tears in Acts 20.29-31, but most of our leaders were not "watchful," rather they promoted the exaltation of Lee and his ministry mostly for their own selfish gains. Lee's exclusive teachings, like the ones that dismiss many of the Psalms, were in the Apostle Paul's mind "perverse." Paul told us that the reason for these "perverse" or distorted teachings was simply to elevate that minister in order that the saints would flock to him rather than to the Savior.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This was no different from the "church of Christ"... which had successfully used the teachings of their founder to drive a wedge between those who used instruments and those who do not. What exposed that system to me was Paul's exhortation in Eph. and Col. regarding the Psalms. When reading the Psalms, many actually instruct us which instruments to use..

And nowhere in Paul's letters or in the church fathers was use of instruments an issue, that I am aware of. All that came much later when somebody claimed new light, which superseded all previous Christian teachings, practices, and traditions. Sound familiar?

Originally Posted by Ohio

The ministry of the book of Hebrews, however, connected the writer, the reader, the eyewitnesses, the OT, and Jesus together, which then became the New Testament. The author of Hebrews has the goal of mining the OT scripture to "see Jesus," and then bringing the readers into the same "seeing." Witness Lee, to be fair, also attempted this, especially in the early days.

The problem WL & Co eventually had with this was that it might lead to people "seeing Jesus" outside the ministry's speaking. So they decided that only "the oracle" could see Jesus, and that the rest of the "mooing cows" could only see Jesus through the ministry. The spirit of wisdom and revelation that Paul prayed for in Ephesians 1:17 got reduced to "seeing" that WL was God's oracle and MOTA.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

And nowhere in Paul's letters or in the church fathers was use of instruments an issue, that I am aware of. All that came much later when somebody claimed new light, which superseded all previous Christian teachings, practices, and traditions. Sound familiar?

Yes it does. Not using instruments is an attempt to "Recover" the early church ways and practices; that they say was the purity way of the proper church, before the Roman Catholic church corrupted it. They call it "The Restoration." Which is just another name for "The Recovery." (Christian cults, or cults in general, have to have a way of making themselves unique from all others. And the claim of "recovering", or "restoring," back to "the pure days" is a common motif.)

That's because using no instruments was a discovery in the New Testament, like that of, and on par with, the discovery of one church one city.

There is no evidence in the NT, they say, that they used instruments in the original early church, in their Christian worship, back in those pure days of the church of Christ.

And they point out that the historical record shows that the use of instruments, in Christian worship, came along in the 6th century (or there abouts) ... which corrupted the purity of the original worship service, of the original church of Christ ; use of instruments, to them, was, corruption brought in by the Roman Catholic church.

And hard-line Church of Christer's now believe that using musical instruments in Christian worship service results in going to hell. And that includes those worshiping in the local churches.

And the Church of Christ has something else in common with Lee's local church cult. They believe that each church of Christ is autonomous. However, they have their doctrine center, school, and publishing center, at "The Memphis School of Preaching." So they end up being "centralized," just like Lee's local churches.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

And the Church of Christ has something else in common with Lee's local church cult. They believe that each church of Christ is autonomous. However, they have their doctrine center, school, and publishing center, at "The Memphis School of Preaching." So they end up being "centralized," just like Lee's local churches.

They usually cite Paul's request "that there would be order in the church", or "that you all would speak the same thing". That is a nice cover for centralized control. Ironic, in that Paul actually argued against centralization.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

They usually cite Paul's request "that there would be order in the church", or "that you all would speak the same thing". That is a nice cover for centralized control. Ironic, in that Paul actually argued against centralization.

That's interesting, another brother, elsewhere, says that Paul is responsible for the Roman Catholic church. So just where does Paul speak against centralization? Please, can you show me where you gather this?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

There is no evidence in the NT, they say, that they used instruments in the original early church, in their Christian worship, back in those pure days of the church of Christ.

Yes, there is evidence. The evidence lies in Paul's exhortation to use the Psalms. The Psalms can never be regarded as purely poems to read, or songs to sing a cappella, since the Psalms themselves instruct us in using instruments.

As aron said, the N.T. never had an issue with instruments.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

just where does Paul speak against centralization? Please, can you show me where you gather this?

In references like "...when some came from James" and "...those who were reputed to be pillars of the church" I gather that Paul wasn't ready to kowtow to people who seemed (at least to him) to be high and mighty within the various ekklesia.

And as Ohio also noted in the tendencies of some observant believers to use "ordinances" as a unifying factor, that (to me) tends toward centralized, command-and-control organizational set-ups. I see Paul's response as, "Am I not also free?"

Much later, I think, others used Paul as their de facto "center of control", i.e. the "ministry of the age". But at his own time I would argue that Jerusalem was the de facto center, and Paul struggled against this, at least somewhat.

Just my view.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Much later, I think, others used Paul as their de facto "center of control", i.e. the "ministry of the age". But at his own time I would argue that Jerusalem was the de facto center, and Paul struggled against this, at least somewhat.

I suppose it's good that the church in Jerusalem was dispersed in c. 38. James, as the brother Jesus, carried a lot of authority, and was the standard at this stage of the early church.

And it was Judeo-Christian.

So if the church in Jerusalem hadn't been dispersed Christianity would likely look different today.

[aron]

I noticed an interesting phrase in Psalm 56, verses 12 and 13.

12 I am under vows to you, my God;
I will present my thank offerings to you.
13 For you have delivered me from death
and my feet from stumbling,
that I may walk before God
in the light of life.

The “thank offerings presented to my God” is reminiscent of Psalm 22:22. “I will sing praises to my God in the midst of the congregation”. There are also a number of echoes, as in Psalm 26:12; 35:18; 40:9,10; 68:26; 75:9; 102:21; 107:32; and 109:30. The idea of praising God for His helps is common in the Psalms.

But look at the context. “For You have delivered me from death and my feet from stumbling”. This was the age of close-in warfare. David went into battle, and killed we don’t know how many men. “Saul killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands” was probably hyperbole (1 Sam 18:7), but nonetheless we may without difficulty imagine a life in which death itself, and the open grave, and the darkness of Sheol were continually a hair’s breadth away. Each of the “ten thousands” whom David slew was trying to kill him, often in concert, and they were usually big, tough, skilled, and heavily armed men.

Now, how does this relate to Jesus Christ? As Peter said in Acts 2, “You will not abandon me to the realm of the dead”, quoting Psalm 16. Again, this is recurrent, even stock phraseology in the Psalms, and for good reason, as I earlier referenced in the common experience of danger for the warrior such as David. My point is that Jesus left the Father and entered “the realm of the dead”, which is the world. Satan rules here, with death and Hades as his co-workers. Jesus was continually pressed in on all sides by death, like David in the midst of the Philistines, yet death never conquered him.

Now, we come to the point of this essay. “That I may walk before God, in the light of life”. When I read this, I thought, “Where did I hear this before?” and suddenly it came to me: John chapter 1! John wrote of Jesus, “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men”! Jesus, “before Abraham was” (8:58), dwelt in the light of the Father’s life. On earth, as a man, he dwelt in his Father's “light of life” continually. Then, having “walked” successfully in his “tour of duty” on earth, he was raised to the light of eternal glory. See e.g. 1 Peter 1:21 "And you have placed your faith and hope in God because he raised Christ from the dead and gave him great glory." (NLT)

My point is that there is a fractal, recursive nature to this theme. Jesus had Property A in heaven, he brought Property A to earth, both using it to endure and hoping in its future full manifestation, and thus was raised to experience Property A eternally, and to serve as a beacon to all who fear God and hope for eternal life “When those who fear You rejoice when they see me” (Psalm 119:74). I would argue that it is very, very helpful, if not necessary, to see Jesus, and to rejoice.

How can we rejoice, if we do not see him?

To be continued.

[aron]

I feel that there is a something in David’s experience of Psalm 56 that anticipates Jesus Christ. And I would like to use part of Psalm 27 to highlight this common theme.

Here are some verses from Psalm 27:

11 Teach me your way, LORD;
lead me in a straight path
because of my oppressors.
12 Do not turn me over to the desire of my foes,
for false witnesses rise up against me,
spouting malicious accusations.
13 I remain confident of this:
I will see the goodness of the LORD
in the land of the living.

27:11 has a “straight path” versus “oppressors” who lie in wait. “Narrow is the path of salvation” indeed! Then verse 12 has foes and false witnesses rising up. In addition to physical violence, treachery is common in the Psalms: the betrayal of Saul, or of Absalom, and so many more! The Philistines are sufficient to end a man’s life (e.g. heading of Psalm 56: “When the Philistines seized him in Gath”), much more being “wounded in the house of my friends” (Zech 13:6)! The “false witnesses accusing” occurs to Jesus numerous times in the gospels, especially in the trial scenes: see Matt 26:59 and Mark 14:56.

Now look at Psalm 27:13: “I will see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living.” Again, you have Jesus, coming from the Father, living in “the land of death”, and anticipating his return to the “land of the living.” I know that “light” is not specifically mentioned here, but “darkness” and “death” are near-synonymous parallels, as are “light” and “life”, so I believe it is understood.

Jesus in eternity has Property A, comes to earth, where there is none, displays and even personifies Property A, and eventually returns, Property A intact, to the kingdom of Property A. This kingdom is “the land of the living”. David’s continuous experience of violent warfare is a picture par excellence of his seed Jesus.

Even David knew this. Samuel had promised him that the seed of his loins would possess the eternal kingdom. See Peter’s remarks in Acts 2:30 for example. David was both consciously and unconsciously anticipating the One who was coming. “The one who is coming after me, is greater than me, because he was before me.” (John 1:30)

That is why David in spirit called him Lord, saying, “The LORD said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I put all your enemies under your feet.” (Psalm 110:1, cf Matt 22:44). Jesus was the light of the world (John 8:12), and told his disciples to walk in the light (John 12:35).

So what does the ministry of the age, in its RecV, have to say about Psalm 56? “In this Psalm David trusted in God and enjoyed God in His delivering him from death and stumbling (1-4, 8-13). At the same time, he asked God to cast down his enemies (vv. 5-7).” That’s all Psalm 56 gets: no more.

Casting down his enemies?!? How about "I beheld Satan fall like lightning from heaven"? Or, "The ruler of this world is coming, and in me he has nothing"? Or, "For this reason Jesus Christ came to earth, that he might destroy the works of the devil"?
I would argue that perhaps Jesus the seed of David was simultaneously "enjoying the Father" and fulfilling "Bring my enemies before me and slay them" (Luke 19:27). And so also we in turn: "Do not rejoice that demons are subject to you; rather rejoice that your names are written in the heavens." (Luke 10:20). The battle is raging; praise the Lord and pass the ammo.

[aron]

I could have placed something other than Psalm 27:13 -- "I will see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living" alongside of Psalm 56:13 -- "that I may walk before God in the light of life". A better companion text might have been Psalm 36:9 -- "For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light." The natural pairing of "life" and "light" goes all the way back to Genesis chapter 1. I am not systematic in my study; I just was "enjoying" both of those psalms recently and it seemed that both psalms suggested similar themes: in both I could see the Light coming into the darkness, being opposed, surrounded and oppressed, but ultimately the Light overcomes. Both psalms conclude with the Light returning triumphantly home to its Source.

Well, what's the issue here? Well, for one thing, how can the RecV present itself as the "consummation of 2,000 years of Bible study", and yet so studiously ignore textual themes which were probably self-evident to OT and NT readers, much less to contemporary scholarship?

Secondly, if WL doesn't have an issue with the prophet Samuel hacking king Agag to bits with a sword (1 Sam 15:33), why use David's "unchristian" sentiments to dismiss the bulk of the Psalms? The Israelites were clearly told not to accommodate or compromise with the dwellers of Canaan (e.g. Deuteronomy 7:1,2), but when WL saw David not accommodating the Philistines he judged David's writings as "natural" and "fallen". I suspect that WL was using this as an excuse to ignore the text; he simply didn't want to be bothered. Why? I don't know. Strange, when the character David is clearly such a "type" of the coming Messianic king.

Third, how could anyone sit through this? Abraham slaughtering the kings in Genesis 14:7 was okay (Hebrews 7:1 even cites Melchizedek's blessing of Abraham afterward), but David slaughtering Philistines is not? How could anyone sit through this kind of a "training" and not feel some warning lights flashing? "Disconnect! - disconnect! - disconnect!" How could thousands of otherwise intelligent "trainees" actually sit through this stuff?

Originally Posted by james73

Copernicus didn't disprove anything, he simply proposed a new theory based on new observational data... Galileo's observations were not trying to disprove anything either, he was driven by curiosity and ability to see what is out there...

Why is this important to inerrancy? Because as I understand it, we don't have all available data yet, as far as the bible goes. We haven't yet seen Jupiter's moons.

I don't think we can "prove" or "disprove" whether Psalm 56:13 -- "that I may walk before God in the light of life" -- which David hoped and struggled (violently) for -- is connected to, for example, 1 John's presentation of our "...handling the word of life" and "...walking in the light" (1:1,7), but WL's treatment of the Psalms seems quite "geocentric" and not "heliocentric". The evidence simply doesn't support it. The only thing that I see holding WL's thesis together is a "revelation" that he is God's oracle, and whatever he says is right, even when he's wrong. In other words, our spirit of wisdom and revelation here only says, "WL is inerrant".

Regarding the "Christian meaning" of the texts, as james73 said, "we don't have all available data yet". I am still struggling to see "Jupiter's moons" here in the Psalms. I don't presume the vision of the age.

I guess my point is, we'll never know for sure that the bible is inerrant until the very end.

We likewise don't "know for sure" what Psalm 56 or 27 or 35 might be telling us as Christians today. And we don't need to "prove" that some verse of the Psalms shows some aspect of Jesus Christ. Certainly many of them seem suggestive of NT themes. But what was Paul praying for a spirit of wisdom and revelation for, anyway? Just for our reading of his epistle to the Ephesians?

It certainly would take quite a lot of faith for me, at this point, to see WL's study of the Psalms as substantially revelatory.

[aron]

Context is obviously one way that we draw meaning. We look at the surrounding text to understand what a word or phrase means. But another tool is etymology: the study of the history of a word or phrase as it has been used. We want to understand what something meant within the society of those who used it.

I was thinking of this with the phrase to "drop a dime". If I spoke that phrase to a group of teen-agers today, probably most of them would pick it up from context: "If you see something going on, please, drop a dime. Don't be silent." They will understand that I am asking them to report suspicious or criminal activity. They may not remember that a long time ago, before cell phones, there were these things called payphones. And even longer ago (1960s), when money was worth something, you could drop a dime in a payphone and call a police investigator if you had information.

As a biblical example, when Jesus brought up the gates of Hades not prevailing against his ekklesia (Matthew 16:18), his listeners would be informed by the rich associations of "the gates of Hades" in their contemporary usage. But it might not mean as much 20 centuries later. I remember WL teaching that it just meant that "Satan would oppose the church". That was it. Maybe one of the blendeds has expanded the topic, but the Life Study/RecV is pretty bare.

So when I see Psalm 56:13 "that I may walk before God in the light of life", I am interested in what it meant to the early Christians. What did Clement of Alexandria think, or his pupil Origen? Or Theodoret? Or Cassiodorus? Some of these men were only a few generations removed from the apostles. Clement was born ca. AD 150, and (rightly) made a big deal that some of his teachers were trained by those who'd heard the disciples.

This, my friends, is closer to "the teaching and fellowship of the apostles" than merely what WL's logic told him, perhaps with a few references to Kittel and Alford and Schofield.

I don't know the answers to these question of "what did the early church think?", but I'm not presuming to possess the ministry of the age. I do know that the RecV doesn't even have a cross reference to Psalm 56:13, much less a footnote. But today, for example, I am reading 1 John 1:7 "if we walk in the light" with different eyes, after considering Psalm 56. Now my "context" is not just the NT, but the OT as well, which is what the NT writers and readers did, to find shared meaning in their communication. There was a shared understanding among them; we need to labor to bring that shared meaning back.

Lastly, I do note that Clement in his writings on 1 John 1:5 ("God is light") says that "Light moreover signifies, either the precepts of the Law, or faith, or doctrine." And later Clement connects the idea of "walking in the light" to 1 John 2:3's "we keep his commandments". I don't think that in 2013 we should simply wave away the psalmist's declaration that he would keep the commands of God. In his notes on the Psalms WL repeatedly said, "Nobody can keep God's commands"; if so, then why is this phrase being repeated in the NT, in the "age of grace"? And what does it mean "to walk before God in the light of life"?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Lastly, I do note that Clement in his writings on 1 John 1:5 ("God is light") says that "Light moreover signifies, either the precepts of the Law, or faith, or doctrine." And later Clement connects the idea of "walking in the light" to 1 John 2:3's "we keep his commandments". I don't think that in 2013 we should simply wave away the psalmist's declaration that he would keep the commands of God. In his notes on the Psalms WL repeatedly said, "Nobody can keep God's commands"; if so, then why is this phrase being repeated in the NT, in the "age of grace"? And what does it mean "to walk before God in the light of life"?

While I have made many dives into various errors of both Lee and Nee, it is this one example that stands as one of the most insidious errors (in my opinion).

Lee liked to complain about all the things that he (and supposedly we) knew that the rest of Christianity generally did not know. (And we have a great thread on that topic.) But so much of the time, the emphasis of his teachings is just like in aron's example, effectively excising much of the meat of the teachings of Jesus, and even of Lee's favorite, Paul. Lee liked to declare that only the LRC had the "full gospel." But I would suggest that, to the contrary, Lee gutted the gospel and left the group with only a partial gospel. One that celebrates spirituality and demeans obedience. That makes unrighteous into righteous by acts of outward spirituality, yet the leaves the unrighteousness intact and unrepented with no intention of ever taking action on it.

Matthew 5, Lee's so-called Kingdom's Constitution, condemns him when it states:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven . . .

Lee liked to claim that Jesus' work on the cross is that accomplishment. But I note that everything being accomplished is linked to the disappearance of heaven and earth. While I do not disagree with the notion that Satan was defeated on the cross, it is probably better to understand that as a declaration that the event that set it in motion was prior to the final act.

This is a common view of history. We do not simply state that the defeat of Germany was the act of ordering a cease-fire and the signing of a treaty. It is understood as one or more sequences of events that turned the tide of the war. In my example, there may be many specifics that led to that result. Some would point to the entrance of America in the the war. Some to specific Allied victories. Others to tactical blunders on the part of the German command. But at a point, there began a march toward defeat. Oh, there were surely times when it seemed that they were on the upswing. But the end was essentially certain.

In the same way, the death and resurrection of Jesus set in motion the end of Satan. But, in time, the defeat is not complete until he is cast away eternally. So the accomplishment is not fulfilled until then.

So the law and the demand for righteousness remains. Jesus demanded of us righteousness and justice. He demanded love for our fellow man that equaled our love for ourselves.

So, as the Psalmists say in so many ways, we need to meditate on the righteous commandments of the law. Dwell on them day and night. Abide by them.

Even in the era of grace.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

the death and resurrection of Jesus set in motion the end of Satan. But, in time, the defeat is not complete until he is cast away eternally. So the accomplishment is not fulfilled until then..

The defeat of Satan is accomplished, but the "fall of Satan" is recursive; it happened before Adam and Eve's fall from grace (Isa. 14:12, etc), and it happened when Jesus sent out the seventy-two in his name in Luke 10, (see e.g. v. 18), and it will surely happen in Revelation 12. I suspect that it happens every time we obey the speaking of the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by OBW

So the law and the demand for righteousness remains. Jesus demanded of us righteousness and justice. He demanded love for our fellow man that equaled our love for ourselves...

And arguably "every Christian knows" the commands of Jesus. Love each other, keep yourself unspotted from the world, forgive one another, and repent when you yourself fail.

Originally Posted by OBW

So, as the Psalmists say in so many ways, we need to meditate on the righteous commandments of the law. Dwell on them day and night. Abide by them.

Even in the era of grace.

In my very limited experience of "mediating on the righteous commands of the law" I see both my miserable failure and the thrill of Jesus the Nazarene stepping in for not only me but all of us. His life and work pleased the Father; he obeyed to the full, and now we can see him and be emboldened to follow.

Have I done a very good job at it? I don't know. Really my meditations on a phrase in Psalm 56:13 means nothing if I don't obey. If I don't walk before God in the light of life as I faintly see Jesus going before, then my comments display yet another know-it-all hypocrite. If I don't live it, then I don't "know" Psalm 56 at all, or any of it.

So I struggle, and try. At its core the command is very simple. See Jesus going before us, and follow him. Hear his voice, and by faith obey.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

The defeat of Satan is accomplished . . . .

We say that. And in the manner that I described, it is true. From the perspective of eternity, it is true. In fact from that perspective it has always been true.

But does that statement mean all is accomplished just because it is according to eternity? Or is the temporal accomplishing of all only realized when the events of time play out?

This was what I believe to be one of Lee's errors. He pushed eternity into the realm of time and declared the requirements of time — righteousness, justice (in short, God's righteous law) — to be ended because in eternity it was true.

We should boldly declare that Satan was defeated on the cross. From eternity, that was the event that ended his reign. But in time, it is the key to the march toward his defeat.

Before the battle begins we can correctly declare that it already belongs to the Lord. But the final battle has not begun (in at least one respect). So we cannot declare to be free of the righteous requirement of the law. It is not yet ended (in time). The requirement of endless sacrifices has been abolished. But we are still called to righteousness. But we are expected to walk according to the Spirit, not just according to the statements of law.

So you are right to say that just meditating on the law is not the end-all to accomplishing it. But it is intended to be accomplished, not avoided. There is now a new and better way.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

you are right to say that just meditating on the law is not the end-all to accomplishing it. But it is intended to be accomplished, not avoided. There is now a new and better way.

Psalm 56:12 I am under vows to you, my God;
I will present my thank offerings to you.
13 For you have delivered me from death
and my feet from stumbling,
that I may walk before God
in the light of life.

I was singing Psalm 56, and the melodic refrain induced repetition of verse 13... my consciousness shifted, and focused... my mind went blank and the light flooded my heart and I could “see Jesus” walking in the light of life before the Father God in heaven. “And when again He brings the firstborn Son into the inhabited earth..."

And 'the eyes of my heart' superimposed that with Psalm 27:13; about David [Christ] seeing the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living. I had also been lingering musically on this line.

Psalm 27:11 Teach me your way, LORD;
lead me in a straight path
because of my oppressors.
12 Do not turn me over to the desire of my foes,
for false witnesses rise up against me,
spouting malicious accusations.
13 I remain confident of this:
I will see the goodness of the LORD
in the land of the living.

I was not trying to “do” anything, just getting "enjoying", or getting “dispensed”. But eventually, when I stop singing, what to do? Ignore this word, or live it? Except that “It is now no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me…” This is perhaps Paul's point in Colossians 3 about "the word of Christ dwelling in you richly". But the obedience is still there. Christ always obeys the Father (John 8:29).

Secondly, and important: WL said that Christ was the "universality and centrality" of God’s will, move, administration, household, kingdom, economy, and so forth. This I agree with. BUT, WL said that this universal and central Christ was only seen in Psalm 2 and not in either Psalm 1 or Psalm 3. I strongly disagree; Christ may be found there, as well. Same thing with the rest of the book of Psalms: WL said no Christ found in either Psalms 4,5,6, or 7; only to be found in Psalm 8, etc, etc.

Now, I have not spent time on Psalms 4-7, but I suspect that maybe, just maybe, Christ is there, partly veiled, looking through the lattice like the Beloved in Song of Songs 2:9. As Ohio said, the OT scripture is waiting to be "mined" for Christ just as the NT is. Clearly the NT writers and readers were mining it. Why shouldn't we? Shouldn't we "eagerly examine the Scriptures daily" like the noble Bereans?

In conclusion: no, “dispensing” isn’t the end-all and be-all. But conversely, how can we obey if we don’t see Jesus going before us (Heb. 6:2)? How can the dead rise if they don’t hear his voice (John 5:28)?

I close by again quoting OBW.

... it is intended to be accomplished, not avoided. There is now a new and better way.

Yes, there is now a new and better way. Amen; come Lord Jesus.

[aron]

I was interested in the current thread on tongue-speaking, but wanted to comment here because I see wider relevance. As OBW said, the scriptural basis for tongue-speaking does seem less than compelling. But there were two practices of "ecstatic utterances" that we had in the LCs, which I remember well, and which arguably mirror the tongue-speaking phenomena. They were:

1. Pray-reading.
2. Singing/shouting over and over again the same verses or phrases from the hymns.

In both cases the ordinary (praying, speaking, singing) became emotionally laden. It was a way to "get out of your mind", i.e. have an overwhelming emotional experience which "shut down" the typical brain activity. This was seen to be "spiritual". I find this, along with the peer pressure to participate, and the pride of attainment, and the "in-group membership" payoff to be similar to my (admittedly limited) experience with tongue-speaking in the charismatic/AOGs.

Originally Posted by james73

I learned to "speak in tongues" just to satisfy my own curiosity that it was nothing but a physical ability and, essentially a misguided power play by the church....at ICA in Hong Kong, an AOG church, I was at the Alpha course "Away Weekend" and there had been a lot of talk about tongues. It was a mark of pride, a sign of "spiritual maturity"

I agree that it can be seen as "a misguided power play by the church". Can you imagine meeting in the LCs for any length of time and NOT pray-reading, complete with special phraseology, modulated syllables, shouting and fist pumping? I doubt it. You would at best be an "associate" and not a "full" local church member.

The practices are a mark of being "in", not in spirit but in the group.

Originally Posted by james73

One girl in particular convinced me there was something wrong with this - because she WANTED it, so bad! She was almost crying at dinner, she said "why didn't God give me this gift?" And the slightly superior church lady was at her side, "there there, we all have different gifts [but mine is better than yours]."

I found it was something quite easy to learn to do, one of those little tricks like learning to whistle or blow bubble gum, that you always feel faintly foolish practicing alone but the payoffs when back in company are huge... no big deal, take away the spiritual mulch, I did it pretty well in about two minutes. It's quite fun, quite novel - and if I'd been surrounded by people in awe and praising the Lord I am sure I would have found it a spiritual experience..... but I think if everybody knew how easy it was, the myth would dissolve and nobody would bother doing it.

Certainly pray-reading in groups was easy to get into. You were given the rules ("Oh Lord Jesus, amen, hallelujah") and expected to enter in. Also the repetitive singing with shouting/declaring. In my church we would sing, then stand together in sections and either sing or declare different stanzas... the social payoff for collective arm-waving and shouting in the LC group was certainly huge.

Originally Posted by james73

I am sure there are genuine cases, but I also think it's become a thing, a power play, an attraction or amusement ride to give the kids or newcomers something to aim at. Not far off the spiritual maturity games played by LSM, come to think of it.

Yes; very similar. It is a power play - not spiritual power, but group power.

Originally Posted by james73

A Linguistic Analysis of Glossolalia by Michael Motley... there was significant language structure within "tongues" speaking, not related to speakers' own language and likely not coming from traditionally understood cognitive centres... an interesting finding and adds credence to those who would say it is from the Holy Spirit. Certainly according to those findings tongue speaking is not "made up" and is coming from somewhere deeper than the brain which controls normal language/speech.

Also, pray-reading, shouting, and singing repetitiously, loudly, and emotionally also access the brain at a deeper level than the normal language patterns. Think about your experience pray-reading, or shouting parts of hymns out loud after singing. Yet, is there not also a "significant language structure" of these supposedly spiritual experiences?

I will write how I see this related to my discussion of Psalms, in another post.

[aron]

I would like to approach ecstatic experiences from a personal level, from what I have "seen and heard" outside the LCs. And I want to relate this to my Psalms discussion because I see the psalmists' personal experiences, related in written scripture, and the subsequent public/group rehearsals -- "in the midst of the assembly I will sing hymns of praise" -- to be exemplars of the personal/group "ecstatic experiences" that

1. tongue-speaking
2. pray-reading and
3. sing/shouting hymns repetitiously

all aim for.

These practices all try to "go higher" or "go deeper" than the usual human communicative strategies; to "tap into the divine", as it were.

From my "coming closer" to the Psalms, and, from that experience, re-engaging again the words of the prophets, the law, and the NT, I can say that the Bible itself is a very emotionally-charged set of writings. "God loved us so much that He sent His only-begotten Son." Consider what is suggested by "so much"... that there is "so much" love in this gospel of Jesus Christ, right? Likewise, when we disobey, that there is "so much grief" to the Holy Spirit, and when one sinner repents, that there is "so much rejoicing" by the angels in heaven?

We often miss the emotionally-charged "so much" parts (of course I'm generalizing, but I'm trying to encapsulate my limited experience) in our traditional strategy of silently reading. Thus we feel the incentive to shout and fist-pump and repetitively chant, to "...get out of your mind and get your spirit in gear." In other words to go deeper. And this experience is easily driven or co-opted by the group "power play" dynamic.

My response is this: if we could see how much "spirit and life" was right there in the text, we'd not need so many noisy histrionics. If we scented the phenomenally rich spiritual landscape beckoning us in these words of scripture, we wouldn't so easily write them off, like WL did, as "fallen" and "natural". My view of "praise the Lord" may indeed be shallow and natural, but the praises of the angels and cherubim are certainly not! How can you say that the psalm-writer was not echoing something heavenly? How can you say how many spiritual levels may be right in front of you, staring you in the face?

When you begin to sense this, not just the Psalms but the whole Bible begins to suggest an "overwhelming emotional experience". The capacity of our emotions to contain the divine emotions expressed through the writings of the prophets and apostles and psalmists is like a shot glass underneath Niagara Falls: we might get some, even feel "soaked", but shouldn't presume to have caught it. These are truly "words of Spirit and life", and this Spirit is truly "given without measure". Then we can see David dancing before the ark; then we see the family of Jesus saying, "Someone restrain him; he is crazy" (Mark 3:21); and we see Festus interrupting Paul, "You are mad..." (Acts 26:24)

"...where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears."

The reality of God's love and power and righteousness and holiness have been there, presented before us, and plainly, all along. But we felt that we required "crutches" of our practice to touch it. When we are no longer little children we will no longer need crutches; we simply know it is true and real and good and we enter in. That may occasionally (or even often) involve shouting, praying, or tongue-speaking, but it certainly will not need them. In the long run they are "in part"; they are superfluous. And as Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 13, they will indeed pass away.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not smart enough to figure how Jesus in the NT says love your enemies, and says in Psalms 18:37 "I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed."

And how Jesus in the NT says suffer the children to come unto me, and Jesus says in Psalms, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

... I find cognitive dissonance upon encountering these seemingly contradictions.

... So I... dismiss these contradictions like Lee did. I conclude that something non-Jesus was slipped into the Psalms.

I remembered awareness' comments the other day, while reading Revelations 2:23, about the evil prophetess Jezebel in the Thyatiran church, that "I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."

Wow! Striking children dead!?! How very not Jesus-like!

Again, one of the ways commonly used by Christians to deal with these seeming contradictions is to identify different levels of meaning, or different dimensions of spiritual reality.

Just because something doesn't read "spiritual" to you, doesn't mean it isn't spiritual. And if you do happen to read something "of Christ" into the text, don't think you have likewise exhausted all its possibilities.

Looking back, WL's teachings had some utility, the way "See Spot run" was new and exciting in first grade. I was advancing, learning to see meaning from these combinations of letters and words. But I certainly hadn't exhausted their possibilities.

And I don't say this as one who has "laid hold", but rather, as one who has recently realized that he wasn't supposed to stay in first grade forever. Second grade, and beyond, awaited.

Remember that WL's "dismissing these contradictions" led to him dismissing the scriptures.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Remember that WL's "dismissing these contradictions" led to him dismissing the Scriptures.

All of WL's pray-reading, and all of his calling, didn't keep him from treating these scriptures in a light and superficial way at best, and from bulldozing them away at worst.

We should be wary lest our ecstatic experiences lead us away from reliance upon the Word. We may begin to trust our "feelings", our "sensual responses", more than the words of Scripture themselves. And if the mental constructs which are built upon these sensations are challenged, we may be tempted to dismiss the very Word itself.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

All of WL's pray-reading, and all of his calling, didn't keep him from treating these scriptures in a light and superficial way at best, and from bulldozing them away at worst.

We should be wary lest our ecstatic experiences lead us away from reliance upon the Word. We may begin to trust our "feelings", our "sensual responses", more than the words of Scripture themselves. And if the mental constructs which are built upon these sensations are challenged, we may be tempted to dismiss the very Word itself.

Hi Aron,
I was not in the LC when Lee began to trash the Psalms. From skimming through this thread, that is my perception of what Lee did. Why more people didn't just walk out of the LC when he did this, proves to me people preferred to "amen" him than amen the Word of God.

That said, I do not understand anything about this post. I have read the Psalms several times. I love the Psalms. They draw me so close to the Lord. They are so comforting. Don't they comfort you?

If you don't mind can you explain your comments?

[countmeworthy]

I read posts 269 - latest. The one difference between the tongu e speaking people I know is some of them feel / believe they get revelation from God. About what? They don't say! They also believe it edifys oneself...cause that what the Bible says.

They also believe Satan cannot understand the prayer language of tongues.

And regarding "enemies" being killed in the OT...including children....often times those enemies are demons. For example in Daniel 7 (I think), he prayed for 21 days. When Gabriel finally shows up, he tells him the Prince of Persia tried to stop him and he had to recruit Michael to help him.

This Prince was not human. Remember we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against the PRINCapalities and powers of the AIR, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places. The prince of Persia (Iran) was one of those principalities of the air.

Remember also that in Genesis 6 fallen angels married pagan women and their offspring were hybrids..nephelim or giants, which is the real reason God desired to destroy the earth. Giants some how continued to roam after the flood because the 10 spies saw themselves as grasshoppers and Goliath and his brothers were giants. They were "bad seed".

Blessings,

Carol G

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

If you don't mind can you explain your comments?

Of course; let me try to recap my argument on this thread.

Paul twice (Eph. 5 & Col. 3) encourages the saints to sing the Psalms, likening them to "being filled richly with the word of Christ" and also "being filled in Spirit". (Of course, Paul didn't say exclusively to sing the Psalms, but I never said that, either.)

The fact that Paul repeats his encouragement in separate epistles is significant. Two is the number of witness. Once might be an anomaly; twice signals a trend, a confirmation.

Secondly, the Psalms were obviously an "engine of revelation", to both the gospel and epistle writers of the NT, for presenting aspects of God's Christ, who is Jesus our Lord. A lot of the aspects of Jesus' life and especially his mystical union with the Father in heaven are revealed there.

Thirdly, I didn't see anywhere that Christ or his disciples or subsequent "church fathers" of the first centuries discouraged any of the Psalms as somehow lacking in revelation for Christians. So what basis did WL have? Was he really "continuing steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles" by discriminating against so much Scripture as non-revelatory? What precedent for this do we see in either within the NT text or in church history?

I noted that WL discouraged Psalm-singing among the saints, and secondly that the RecV barely covers them. And the RecV coverage is largely dismissive, calling them "natural" and "fallen concepts", versus "divine revelation". A cursory investigation of the first 35 Psalms led me to estimate that over 75% of the material was either ignored or put down. Many verses lack even the basic cross-references, much less footnotes.

Even in places where WL was forced to acknowledge the "divine revelation", i.e. "not one of his bone will be broken" in Psalm 34, he dismissed the entire surrounding text as irrelevant. So I argued that he pretty much only acknowledged as much "Christ" in the Psalms as he absolutely had to.

And I noted the disparity between this kind of treatment the Psalms versus his studies elsewhere in the OT, where he spent message after message after message gleaning "spiritual" details of the Christ from the text.

Lastly, I noted the irony that WL encouraged the LC saints to focus on the "high peak" NT revelations versus wasting time on the Psalms, when the "heart of the divine revelation" (Eph/Gal/Col/Phil) twice encouraged the saints to sing the Psalms!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

If you don't mind can you explain your comments?

I'll add to this.

WL did his Life-Study of the Bible, and then went back to certain books to do a "crystalization" study. It was mostly during this time that WL began to berate the book of James, and much of the Psalms. James supposedly was lacking in the divine revelation, and hence contained little of God's New Testament economy. It is interesting to note that many of the verses most critical of WL and LSM found in the book of James.

Lee's study of Psalms was equally critical. Besides those scriptures in Psalms, commonly known to be prophetic of Christ, e.g. Psalm 22, he relegated much of them to the trash heap of "human sentiment." Supposedly the bulk of the Psalms, especially e.g. those which spoke of "avenging my enemies," were denigrated to a lesser status because they lacked Christ, they lacked the divine inspiration, and they lacked revelation.

To a typical LC adherent, these books of James and most of the Psalms have less value than the teachings of Lee himself. Witness Lee often boasted that every page of his books was filled with the heavenly speaking, and every single book had some fresh new revelation from God.

As time progressed, Witness Lee's view of himself and his ministry grew to megalomaniacal proportions.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To a typical LC adherent, these books of James and most of the Psalms have less value than the teachings of Lee himself. Witness Lee often boasted that every page of his books was filled with the heavenly speaking, and every single book had some fresh new revelation from God.

As time progressed, Witness Lee's view of himself and his ministry grew to megalomaniacal proportions.

That's why I felt that the whole charismatic/ecstatic aspect of the LCs (shouting, waving arms, repetition) ultimately pushed aside the Scripture. The "good feeling" from "exercising" in a meeting held more value to the LC saints than the word of God itself.

Ultimately, repetitive chanting and declarations of LC phraseology in hymns, outlines, footnotes became our "peak spiritual experience" and everything else was viewed as either supporting, or was set aside as unprofitable.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

That's why I felt that the whole charismatic/ecstatic aspect of the LCs (shouting, waving arms, repetition) ultimately pushed aside the Scripture. The "good feeling" from "exercising" in a meeting held more value to the LC saints than the word of God itself.

Ultimately, repetitive chanting and declarations of LC phraseology in hymns, outlines, footnotes became our "peak spiritual experience" and everything else was viewed as either supporting, or was set aside as unprofitable.

I agree. the real test of the LC or any ministry hoopla is when you leave the meetings and go back to paying bills only to discover you have more bills Or someone criticizes you for not washing dishes etc... what about coming down with something awful.

You know what? That is when the psalms have comforted me and lifted me up.

The psalms taught me how to Praise without shouting or punching my fist in the air. They taught me how to worship the Lord, how to give Thanks, how to bless, how to pray and how to repent.

Long live the Psalms!!!

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

Of course; let me try to recap my argument on this thread.

Paul twice (Eph. 5 & Col. 3) encourages the saints to sing the Psalms, likening them to "being filled richly with the word of Christ" and also "being filled in Spirit". (Of course, Paul didn't say exclusively to sing the Psalms, but I never said that, either.)

The fact that Paul repeats his encouragement in separate epistles is significant. Two is the number of witness. Once might be an anomaly; twice signals a trend, a confirmation.

Secondly, the Psalms were obviously an "engine of revelation", to both the gospel and epistle writers of the NT, for presenting aspects of God's Christ, who is Jesus our Lord. A lot of the aspects of Jesus' life and especially his mystical union with the Father in heaven are revealed there.

Thirdly, I didn't see anywhere that Christ or his disciples or subsequent "church fathers" of the first centuries discouraged any of the Psalms as somehow lacking in revelation for Christians. So what basis did WL have? Was he really "continuing steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles" by discriminating against so much Scripture as non-revelatory? What precedent for this do we see in either within the NT text or in church history?

I noted that WL discouraged Psalm-singing among the saints, and secondly that the RecV barely covers them. And the RecV coverage is largely dismissive, calling them "natural" and "fallen concepts", versus "divine revelation". A cursory investigation of the first 35 Psalms led me to estimate that over 75% of the material was either ignored or put down. Many verses lack even the basic cross-references, much less footnotes.

Even in places where WL was forced to acknowledge the "divine revelation", i.e. "not one of his bone will be broken" in Psalm 34, he dismissed the entire surrounding text as irrelevant. So I argued that he pretty much only acknowledged as much "Christ" in the Psalms as he absolutely had to.

And I noted the disparity between this kind of treatment the Psalms versus his studies elsewhere in the OT, where he spent message after message after message gleaning "spiritual" details of the Christ from the text.

Lastly, I noted the irony that WL encouraged the LC saints to focus on the "high peak" NT revelations versus wasting time on the Psalms, when the "heart of the divine revelation" (Eph/Gal/Col/Phil) twice encouraged the saints to sing the Psalms!

Thanks Aron...
Shame on WL for discouraging the saints from reading the Psalms and James. Maybe Lee did not like James saying be 'doers of the WORD (Jesus) and not hearers only'????

Perhaps he would have liked it better if it said be doers of Lee and listen to him. He is the oracle on the earth...just like Joseph Smith was. uh-huh.

If the LC doesn't stop adulating LEE and to a lesser extent Nee, they are going to be just like the Mormons who adulate Joseph Smith and they are going to be in big trouble before the LORD.

Hope some LC people reading and not posting are getting it!


Carol

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'll add to this.

WL did his Life-Study of the Bible, and then went back to certain books to do a "crystalization" study. It was mostly during this time that WL began to berate the book of James, and much of the Psalms. James supposedly was lacking in the divine revelation, and hence contained little of God's New Testament economy. It is interesting to note that many of the verses most critical of WL and LSM found in the book of James.

As I wrote in my response to Aron...Lee didn't want his flock to be doers of the WORD eh?

Here are some other scriptures from James that probably rubbed Lee the wrong way:

If you need Wisdom, ask our generous God, and He will give it to you. He will not rebuke you for asking. But when you ask him, be sure that your faith is in God alone.

Don’t be misled, my dear brothers and sisters. Whatever is good and perfect comes down to us from God our Father, who created all the lights in the heavens. He never changes or casts a shifting shadow. He chose to give birth to us by giving us His True Word (Jesus) . And we, out of all creation, became His prized possession

According to these scriptures, we are instructed to go to God Himself for Wisdom...and are advised not to be misled. Do you suppose Lee didn't want people to get Wisdom from their Creator? Do you think Lee wanted to mislead people? Hmmm... No wonder he didn't like the book of James!

Lee's study of Psalms was equally critical. Besides those scriptures in Psalms, commonly known to be prophetic of Christ, e.g. Psalm 22, he relegated much of them to the trash heap of "human sentiment." Supposedly the bulk of the Psalms, especially e.g. those which spoke of "avenging my enemies," were denigrated to a lesser status because they lacked Christ, they lacked the divine inspiration, and they lacked revelation.

Does Lee's flock still believe Psalms and James are of a lesser status?

Seems to me, he lacked Christ and lacked divine inspiration and revelation from the Throne.

To a typical LC adherent, these books of James and most of the Psalms have less value than the teachings of Lee himself. Witness Lee often boasted that every page of his books was filled with the heavenly speaking, and every single book had some fresh new revelation from God.

In my last year there, I recalled hearing a lot about this heavenly speaking. Fortunately, I equated the WORD as being the Heavenly Speaking.

Little by little however, I became sickened by the 'heavenly speaking' because it was not coming from God.

As time progressed, Witness Lee's view of himself and his ministry grew to megalomaniacal proportions

"megalonmanical"....resembles Lebron James personality.

I only hope those who have very disillusioned, discouraged and hurt by the LC will realize Jesus is the Same--Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow...the Healer of our souls, Who restores our health and heals our wounds. Our Creator truly does love us! He just wants us to Love Him back, listen and obey His leading, His guidance through His Spirit and His Anointed Word.

Thanks all,
Blessings and Joy to everyone.

Carol Garza

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Does Lee's flock still believe Psalms and James are of a lesser status?

Evidently.

Yesterday I was in Psalm 30, and came across the line, "When you hid your face from me, then I was ashamed" (v.7), and I remembered how Christ bore our shame on the cross, and the Father turned away from him. He who did not know sin was made sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21). Tears came to my eyes. (And see Isa. 53:3-5, Heb. 12:2, Psa. 22, Matt. 27:46).

In the RecV, this doesn't get considered. No footnote, no cross-reference.

Does all this make me somehow superior to WL & Co? Not at all; obedience is what matters. These verses have to impact one's daily living. The faithful doers of the word are not merely hearers only. But I still come back to this: how can you be a doer of the Word when your "oracle" tells you to ignore it?

Conversely, can I "prove" that Psalm 30:7 is equivalent to the other scriptures cited above? No; nor can I say that WL was "incorrect" in not pointing out this phrase in the RecV.

But this is the word of God; it has the power to radically transform one's life, and probably 75 to 85 percent of the word of God in the RecV Psalms was set aside as of no value.

Seems to me, he lacked Christ and lacked divine inspiration and revelation from the Throne.

That was my conclusion: WL said the word lacked divine revelation, when it was WL himself that lacked revelation.

Again, this doesn't mean that I myself have "laid hold" of the divine revelation. It means that if I do want to lay hold, I'd better not follow WL.

In my last year there, I recalled hearing a lot about this heavenly speaking. Fortunately, I equated the WORD as being the Heavenly Speaking.

Little by little however, I became sickened by the 'heavenly speaking' because it was not coming from God.

It seems to be a classic case of "lifting oneself up", or "being puffed up". Eventually the ministry of WL tried to subsume everything else. The "servant" tried to take the focus away from "the master". And the "interpreted word" tried to push aside the WORD itself.

[countmeworthy]

I just read the book of James. Although I do not know if it was James Zebeddee who wrote it or Jesus' brother James...(for we know Mary who concieved Jesus by the Holy Spirit, had children by Joseph her husband,) I found it once again, filled with Words of WISDOM.

It reminded me very much of Proverbs.

I found it filled with Truth and very good Counsel!

For the record, I have heard of other factions of Christian organizations who don't like the book of James either.

But by the opening lines, I think this James was a close buddy of Paul's because he is addressing his letter to the 12 scattered tribes of Jewish believers. And Paul, who I think wrote Hebrews is also addressing the Jewish believers in Christ.

Blessings all,

Carol Garza

[Ohio]

Philip Schaaf had some wonderful observations about Luke's Gospel that I thought appropriate to share here ...

7. It is the gospel of poetry. We mean the poetry of religion, the poetry of worship, the poetry of prayer and thanksgiving, a poetry resting not on fiction, but on facts and eternal truth. In such poetry there is more truth than in every-day prose. The whole book is full of dramatic vivacity and interest. It begins and ends with thanksgiving and praise. The first two chapters are overflowing with festive joy and gladness; they are a paradise of fragrant flowers, and the air is resonant with the sweet melodies of Hebrew psalmody and Christian hymnody.

The Salute of Elizabeth ("Ave Maria"), the "Magnificat" of Mary, the "Benedictus" of Zacharias, the "Gloria in Excelsis" of the Angels, the "Nunc Dimittis" of Simeon, sound from generation to generation in every tongue, and are a perpetual inspiration for new hymns of praise to the glory of Christ.

No wonder that the third Gospel has been pronounced, from a purely literary and humanitarian standpoint, to be the most beautiful book ever written."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Philip Schaaf had some wonderful observations about Luke's Gospel:

The whole book is full of dramatic vivacity and interest. It begins and ends with thanksgiving and praise. The first two chapters are overflowing with festive joy and gladness

There is a scene in Luke's chapter 2 about angels appearing to the shepherds at night in the fields. At one point it says,

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

There are times while in the Psalms, that I feel the praises I am reading are very close to those of the angels, that what is being said on earth may actually mirror the praises heard among 'the multitude of the heavenly host'. The wording is often very simple, and even archaic, but with increasing exposure I begin to apprehend, like Paul did, what is its transcendent breadth, length, depth and height.

And WL panned it because it didn't display "God's NT economy". On the contrary, it may display for us the clearest framework of God's economy, both in source, in exercise, and in fulfillment (i.e. 'consummation').

I do remember, sitting there passively while WL mocked the local church saints for praising God in the Psalms. Oh Lord, have mercy on us all and forgive us, because we did not know what we were doing! Lord, make us willing to pay the price and buy from You some eyesalve.

[aron]

I would like to try to sum up my objections to WL's Recovery Version Psalms with two points.

First, he deliberately seems unwilling to see Christ. Inexplicable for a man whose ministry in the OT centered on revealing the typified Christ.

I will give a couple of representative examples. I believe that I could go on for nearly all 150 chapters if I wanted to.

Psalms chapters 15 and 16 - Psalm 15:2 footnote says, "According to vv. 2-5, David's concept was that the man who is perfect according to the law may dwell with God for His heart's desire and good pleasure. Thus, v. 5 says that he who does the good things of the law will not be shaken forever. However, Psalm 16 reveals that only Christ can satisfy God's desire and fulfill His good pleasure."

So why doesn't WL just see Jesus (cf Heb. 2:7) there in Psalm 15? It's like he's wading into the text trying to pick a fight with the author. Did Peter use this approach in Acts 2:24-31, telling the Israelites about David's fallen concepts? No, Peter said that David "...was a prophet" (v. 30) and "saw what was to come" (v. 31) in his coming seed.

If WL generously allows Peter to present us with the Christian approach to Psalm 16, why ignore it in Psalm 15 and elsewhere?

Or look at Psalm 18. The footnote in verse 20 says, "In vv. 20-28 David considered his righteousness, perfection, faithfulness, cleanness, and purity as the cause of God's saving him, and he considered God's salvation a recompense to him. This is a wrong concept."

WL doesn't even mention that David's seed Jesus of Nazareth is the true "righteous one". God made Him who knew no sin to be sin to be sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus (2 Cor 5:21).

Christ earned God's favor by His right standing. He never was shaken (Psa 15:5). Peter didn't waste his time by pointing out David's imperfections, which obviously existed; instead he told the assembled Israelites,

"32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’

36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

Why can't we also see "this Jesus" in the Psalms, as Peter did?

[aron]

I will raise my second objection to WL's Recovery Version Psalms. WL continually takes the Psalmist to task for fighting with his enemies, and not blessing them as Christ taught us to do. This to me is absurd. So why didn't WL also censure the prophet Samuel for hacking king Agag to bits? Because Agag typified the flesh? Why not criticize Joshua for laying waste the Canaanite cities with the edge of the sword, so that not a man nor beast survived? Et cetera, ad infinitum?

Or, for that matter, why not censure Jesus' "unchristian" parables about going to war (e.g. Luke 14:31,32)? Or John for writing that there was war in heaven (Revelation 12:7)? Why weren't all those angels in heaven blessing one another?

I think to give the Psalmist a different measuring stick than you give elsewhere is absurd. WL's treasured "economy" metric was threatened here in the Psalms so he abandoned the text, and on the flimsiest of pretexts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

There are times while in the Psalms, that I feel the praises I am reading are very close to those of the angels, that what is being said on earth may actually mirror the praises heard among 'the multitude of the heavenly host'. The wording is often very simple, and even archaic, but with increasing exposure I begin to apprehend, like Paul did, what is its transcendent breadth, length, depth and height.

And WL panned it because it didn't display "God's NT economy". On the contrary, it may display for us the clearest framework of God's economy, both in source, in exercise, and in fulfillment (i.e. 'consummation').

I remember so many times listening to Lee, either live or by video, provide these long run-on sentences replete with flowery descriptions of God's New Testament Economy "consummating in the New Jerusalem." Now I am reminded of Paul's words to the Corinthians, "And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember so many times listening to Lee, either live or by video, provide these long run-on sentences replete with flowery descriptions of God's New Testament Economy "consummating in the New Jerusalem." Now I am reminded of Paul's words to the Corinthians, "And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

The "blendeds" used to delight themselves in repeating those long flowery phrases, verbatim if possible, before stopping to catch their breath.

Even Jesus would not have made it up to Lee's standard.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The "blendeds" used to delight themselves in repeating those long flowery phrases, verbatim if possible, before stopping to catch their breath.

This became the de facto standard of spirituality in all the LSM LC's. The young FTT trainees would emulate this to the praises of all the trainers.

Two sad consequences of such spiritual nonsense --

Young people would return to their sending churches, especially in the Midwest, steeped in Lee-ology, and could not assimilate into some normal Christian life back home. FTT administrators would never reconsider the value of their practices, so to protect the program, they had to heap condemnations on the LC's.

Older more mature saints were made to feel vastly inferior in their Christian service since they had little opportunity to practice and regurgitate these long flowery Lee-isms.

[aron]

Deuteronomy 7:1,2 "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."

Recovery Version Footnote 7:2 "According to the divine thought, the nations in the land of Canaan had to be exterminated because they were devilish and mingled with demons."

Deuteronomy 20:16,17 "...in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you."

RecV footnote references Deut 7:2.

Joshua 6:21 "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city with the edge of the sword: both men and women, young and old, and oxen and sheep and donkeys."

RecV cross references Deut 7:2.

1 Samuel 15:7-9 7 "Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed."

RecV footnote in 15:9 "Saul and the people's sparing the best of the things that should have been utterly destroyed portrays the fact that, experientially, we treasure the good aspects of our flesh, our natural life, and do not wish to destroy them... we must hate every aspect of the flesh and be absolute in destroying the flesh."

---

Psalm 35:1 "Contend, LORD, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me."

RecV footnote: "In the New Testament economy, a spiritual person would never ask God to fight against his enemies as David asked in this psalm."

Psalm 135:19 "If only you, God, would slay the wicked! Away from me, you who are bloodthirsty!"

RecV footnote: "This describes the psalmist's hatred and loathing of the wickedness of the wicked according to the principle of good and evil."

So why did Jesus tell Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!"? Wasn't that according to the wrong principle? Shouldn't Jesus have been blessing Peter, according to the eternal economy of God as revealed in the New Testament?

And shouldn't Samuel been blessing Agag and the Amalekites? And shouldn't Joshua have been praying for blessings to the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, instead of attacking them with swords and burning their cities?

How come everyone else gets a free pass, but the psalmist supposedly has the "wrong concept"?

[aron]

Psalm 18:18,19 (NIV) says:

18 They confronted me in the day of my disaster,
but the Lord was my support.
19 He brought me out into a spacious place;
he rescued me because he delighted in me.

I find it curious that WL & Co couldn't see fit to even notice these words. Folks, can't we possibly see Jesus here?

Verse 19 says that "he rescued me because he delighted in me." Compare, for instance, to:

Matt 3:17 (Aramaic) "And behold a voice from Heaven that said, 'This is my Son, The Beloved, in whom I am delighted.'”

And Matt 17:5 (Aramaic) "And while he was speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them and a voice came from the cloud, which said, 'This is my Son, The Beloved, in whom I delight; hear him.'”

Isn't it possible, when reading the words of Scripture, that we read them as though they were the word of Christ (Col 3:16)? Would you rather see the Father's delight, or WL's natural concepts about David's natural concepts?

Paul also equates this word of Christ dwelling in us richly to being "filled in Spirit" (Eph 5:18,19) by singing and speaking these words to each other, and to His Father and our Father. In the midst of our singing and speaking and praising and praying the Lord Spirit Himself promises to inhabit our praises and carry them to the Father (Psa 22:22, 26:12; Heb 2:12; cf Heb 4:14). What spirit do you supposed filled the editorial section of the Living Stream Ministry as they judged these words as merely of fallen men and of scarce spiritual value for nourishing the flock? They either denigrated them or ignored them. Where's the food, here?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

What spirit do you supposed filled the editorial section of the Living Stream Ministry as they judged these words as merely of fallen men and of scarce spiritual value for nourishing the flock?

In retrospect, I often feel that I likewise am filled with the "wrong spirit" as I post my comments. Once I happened upon an ecumencial christian website from a city in England where a number of local churchers from that city were posting the "rich ministry" exerpts from WL & WN, and when I (politely, so I thought) questioned the thinking of their "oracle" they replied that I was dark, shallow, and vain.

Perhaps they were right; perhaps I am vituperative and small-minded. Perhaps my remarks, even if having some substance, are unchristian in spirit.

Okay: let me try again.

Isn't there at least the possibility that when the poet David said, "God saved me because he delights in me" that he was prefiguring in some way the coming Messiah, Christ Jesus our Lord? And don't you think there is some possibility that if we see this shining One that we ourselves will get transferred, and also live (cf Num 21:8,9)? Don't we also want our Father to delight in us?

The way to the Father to believe into Jesus Christ. The Bible is about Jesus, first and foremost. This website is about Jesus Christ, not WL or his henchmen or some bitter, disaffected former local churchers.

And given the encouragements of Hebrews to "see Jesus" (2:9) and Paul's repeated exhortations pointing us to experience and enjoy His salvation in the OT text and Peter's similar words of exhortation in Acts 2 (and elsewhere) and the numerous citations in the gospels, shouldn't we be eagerly wrestling with the text to mine the Christ waiting there? The canon may be closed but God's Word is unfolding, and giving life (Psa 119:130) and the Word is a speaking Spirit, given without measure (Jo 3:34).

There. Hopefully that wasn't as bitter and vituperative as the previous post.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

In retrospect, I often feel that I likewise am filled with the "wrong spirit" as I post my comments. Once I happened upon an ecumencial christian website from a city in England where a number of local churchers from that city were posting the "rich ministry" exerpts from WL & WN, and when I (politely, so I thought) questioned the thinking of their "oracle" they replied that I was dark, shallow, and vain.

Perhaps they were right; perhaps I am vituperative and small-minded. Perhaps my remarks, even if having some substance, are unchristian in spirit.

Okay: let me try again.

Isn't there at least the possibility that when the poet David said, "God saved me because he delights in me" that he was prefiguring in some way the coming Messiah, Christ Jesus our Lord? And don't you think there is some possibility that if we see this shining One that we ourselves will get transferred, and also live (cf Num 21:8,9)? Don't we also want our Father to delight in us?

The way to the Father to believe into Jesus Christ. The Bible is about Jesus, first and foremost. This website is about Jesus Christ, not WL or his henchmen or some bitter, disaffected former local churchers.

And given the encouragements of Hebrews to "see Jesus" (2:9) and Paul's repeated exhortations pointing us to experience and enjoy His salvation in the OT text and Peter's similar words of exhortation in Acts 2 (and elsewhere) and the numerous citations in the gospels, shouldn't we be eagerly wrestling with the text to mine the Christ waiting there? The canon may be closed but God's Word is unfolding, and giving life (Psa 119:130) and the Word is a speaking Spirit, given without measure (Jo 3:34).

There. Hopefully that wasn't as bitter and vituperative as the previous post.

I have not been able to read all the posts lately but read & felt compelled to add my .02 worth.

First off
.shame on the LCrs for calling you shallow, dark and vain. So many people have made their leaders their "god". As you pointed out, Aron, JESUS ought to be our focus. For whatever it's worth, I would not have questioned the thinking of their oracle but rather splashed them with Fresh Living Water.

It is only when people are tired of venerating their oracle, that I would slowly and carefully share the truth about their leader.

I /we ought to give them Hope. Jesus is not only the Word of Life, the Bread of Life, the Water of Life, He is the embodiment of Love. God is LOVE. I sometimes think we forget this Truth. We get caught up with our knowledge and insight and are quick to share what we know, forgetting we need to dispense what we know with Love.

Blessings all,

Carol Garza

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

...shame on the LCrs for calling you shallow, dark and vain... I would not have questioned the thinking of their oracle but rather splashed them with Fresh Living Water.

Well, it was good medicine for me. It helped me to realize that not everyone thought I was such a swell guy. And even more, it made me realize that yes, words can hurt. So maybe, just maybe, my words were also hurtful to others, and I should try to tone down my rhetoric.

. Jesus is not only the Word of Life, the Bread of Life, the Water of Life, He is the embodiment of Love. God is LOVE. I sometimes think we forget this Truth.

Yes. Like the political candidates are told over and over by their advisors: "Stay on the message." Our message is Jesus Christ, not some doctrine to wrangle and accuse each other over.

God loved us so much that He sent His Only Begotten Son (Jo 3:16); should we not also love one another? I have to remind myself of this again and again. If the other person doesn't "feel the love" then my message is vain.

I know in a lot of WL's Psalms footnotes I didn't feel the love, but rather dry and empty rhetoric. I should not likewise get snared into dispensing the tree of knowledge.

[aron]

Psalm 18(NIV)

For the director of music. Of David the servant of the Lord. He sang to the Lord the words of this song when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul. He said:

1 I love you, Lord, my strength.

2 The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer;
my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge,
my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

3 I called to the Lord, who is worthy of praise,
and I have been saved from my enemies.
4 The cords of death entangled me;
the torrents of destruction overwhelmed me.
5 The cords of the grave coiled around me;
the snares of death confronted me.

6 In my distress I called to the Lord;
I cried to my God for help.
From his temple he heard my voice;
my cry came before him, into his ears.
7 The earth trembled and quaked,
and the foundations of the mountains shook;
they trembled because he was angry.
8 Smoke rose from his nostrils;
consuming fire came from his mouth,
burning coals blazed out of it.
9 He parted the heavens and came down;
dark clouds were under his feet.
10 He mounted the cherubim and flew;
he soared on the wings of the wind.
11 He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him—
the dark rain clouds of the sky.
12 Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced,
with hailstones and bolts of lightning.
13 The Lord thundered from heaven;
the voice of the Most High resounded.
14 He shot his arrows and scattered the enemy,
with great bolts of lightning he routed them.
15 The valleys of the sea were exposed
and the foundations of the earth laid bare
at your rebuke, Lord,
at the blast of breath from your nostrils.

16 He reached down from on high and took hold of me;
he drew me out of deep waters.
17 He rescued me from my powerful enemy,
from my foes, who were too strong for me.
18 They confronted me in the day of my disaster,
but the Lord was my support.
19 He brought me out into a spacious place;
he rescued me because he delighted in me.

20 The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.
21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord;
I am not guilty of turning from my God.
22 All his laws are before me;
I have not turned away from his decrees.
23 I have been blameless before him
and have kept myself from sin.
24 The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

25 To the faithful you show yourself faithful,
to the blameless you show yourself blameless,
26 to the pure you show yourself pure,
but to the devious you show yourself shrewd.
27 You save the humble
but bring low those whose eyes are haughty.
28 You, Lord, keep my lamp burning;
my God turns my darkness into light.
29 With your help I can advance against a troop;
with my God I can scale a wall.

30 As for God, his way is perfect:
The Lord’s word is flawless;
he shields all who take refuge in him.
31 For who is God besides the Lord?
And who is the Rock except our God?
32 It is God who arms me with strength
and keeps my way secure.
33 He makes my feet like the feet of a deer;
he causes me to stand on the heights.
34 He trains my hands for battle;
my arms can bend a bow of bronze.
35 You make your saving help my shield,
and your right hand sustains me;
your help has made me great.
36 You provide a broad path for my feet,
so that my ankles do not give way.

37 I pursued my enemies and overtook them;
I did not turn back till they were destroyed.
38 I crushed them so that they could not rise;
they fell beneath my feet.
39 You armed me with strength for battle;
you humbled my adversaries before me.
40 You made my enemies turn their backs in flight,
and I destroyed my foes.
41 They cried for help, but there was no one to save them—
to the Lord, but he did not answer.
42 I beat them as fine as windblown dust;
I trampled them like mud in the streets.
43 You have delivered me from the attacks of the people;
you have made me the head of nations.
People I did not know now serve me,
44 foreigners cower before me;
as soon as they hear of me, they obey me.
45 They all lose heart;
they come trembling from their strongholds.

46 The Lord lives! Praise be to my Rock!
Exalted be God my Savior!
47 He is the God who avenges me,
who subdues nations under me,
48 who saves me from my enemies.
You exalted me above my foes;
from a violent man you rescued me.
49 Therefore I will praise you, Lord, among the nations;
I will sing the praises of your name.

50 He gives his king great victories;
he shows unfailing love to his anointed,
to David and to his descendants forever.

I don't have my RecV copy in front of me so I'm going by memory here: I don't think WL paid much attention to Psalm 18 except to point out that David was wrong in vv 21-24 because salvation is of God's mercy and not our righteousness, and that David was wrong in 37-45 to fight with people and wish them harm; the christian ideal is to love your enemies and bless them.

Other than that I think WL pretty much passed on this poem, but I find it remarkable. First, verse 1 -- "I love you, Lord" -- what is the greatest commandment? To love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and strength. So this strongly indicates the coming Messiah, and probably frames the whole subsequent narrative.

Verse 2 is an unequivocal statement of faith. "I believe that neither life nor death, nor things present nor to come, nor things in heaven or on earth or under the earth, is able to separate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." As Jesus himself said, "Upon this rock I will build My church."

Then vv 3-5. Trial, beatings, threats, mocking, crucifixion, death. The grave. The darkness of the pit; "...the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns". I think verses 4 and 5 are equal to any writing anywhere. I think Dante, Shakespeare, and Dostoyevsky would all fall silent with respect.

Then follows an intense and vivid section (vv 6-15), full of details. Look, for example at the shaking of the earth in v 7, which may allude to the events in Matt 27:50-54. All this climaxes in vv 16-19. "He brought me out into a spacious place/he rescued me because he delighted in me".

How could we ignore such a depiction of resurrection and ascension? Acts 1:10 says the disciples were looking intently up into heaven when Jesus ascended, while what they sought was already recorded in the book! "all the days ordained for me were written in your book, before one of them came to be." ~Psa 139:16

Now we come to a part that bothered WL: verses 20 and 24 both say "The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me." Now, if you see Jesus of Nazareth speaking here you won't be so bothered, nor so quarrelsome with the poet. As Peter put it so well in Acts 2, David was a prophet who foreknew who was following after him. "He who is coming after me is greater than me, because he was before me."

Lastly, look at the admonition in vv 25-27, which is repeated in the messages given by Jesus. As you do unto others, God will do unto you. If you lift yourself up God will set you down, and if you humble yourself God will raise you up. Indeed, "I am coming, and my reward is to each one according to his works" (Rev 22:12; cf Prov 24:12).

There is obviously much more. As WL said, "I could give a conference on this one verse." I never read his Psalms Life Study but from these footnotes I suspect that he didn't see much of value in Psalm 18. Nor did I until a fortnight ago. Then I started singing...

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

Well, it was good medicine for me. It helped me to realize that not everyone thought I was such a swell guy. And even more, it made me realize that yes, words can hurt. So maybe, just maybe, my words were also hurtful to others, and I should try to tone down my rhetoric.


Yes. Like the political candidates are told over and over by their advisors: "Stay on the message." Our message is Jesus Christ, not some doctrine to wrangle and accuse each other over.

God loved us so much that He sent His Only Begotten Son (Jo 3:16); should we not also love one another? I have to remind myself of this again and again. If the other person doesn't "feel the love" then my message is vain.

I know in a lot of WL's Psalms footnotes I didn't feel the love, but rather dry and empty rhetoric. I should not likewise get snared into dispensing the tree of knowledge.

Life in Christ is a journey and a learning process. When we see the "Light" our zealousness, passion and excitement to share to others what we have seen, what we have been taught by the Spirit of Christ, these things sometimes gets the best of us. We want them to get on board, to leave the old behind, to drink from the Fountain of Living Water again... BUT...most people past the age of 35 (?) get comfortable and set in their ways. It takes the Holy Spirit of God to shake them up...to wake us all up.

Boy...have I learned that the hard way and have taken my lumps in the head.

Thankfully, God covers our mistakes and He makes all things new.

Blessings to all,
Carol G

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Life in Christ is a journey and a learning process. ... BUT...most people past the age of 35 (?) get comfortable and set in their ways. It takes the Holy Spirit of God to shake them up...to wake us all up.

Sister Carol,

It is good to get older. It took Moses 80 years to wake up and hear God's voice. But one day, there it was.

A few concluding words on Psalm 18. First, it was a reprint of the poem in chapter 22 of the historical narrative of 2 Samuel. It seems that many scholars don't think that David actually wrote all of the psalms ascribed to him; many psalms simply say, "of David", which could mean "about David" or "regarding David" or "in the manner of David". One commentary I read basically mocked the idea that David could have written Psalm 57 while hiding in a cave, for example. They say that the various introductory inscriptions arguably could have been inserted years or even centuries later.

But it's pretty hard to say that David didn't write Psalm 18, and that he didn't sing the words to God as the heading states. In fact, given that it is the representative sample in the historical book 2 Samuel, it could be held up as a template for David's poetic writing. Remember Peter's quote in Acts 2, that David was saying, in effect, "You will not let me rot here in the grave" and that this was fulfilled in his heir the Christ.

My point is that Psalm 18 presents a theme which is ubiquitous in David's poems, of an oppressed righteous man, crushed under persecution, threat and mortal danger, yet whom God will not abandon. Again, David is merely the type, and Jesus the fulfillment. What David seems to miss is that this suffering servant of God will not only be redeemed because of his clean hands (Psa 18:19,20), but His righteous suffering will redeem all of Israel, even all of humanity.

BUT... it is actually implied (to me) in the accompanying narrative of battle: the champion of Israel, David the son of Jesse, goes forth and slays the seemingly undefeatable giant of Gath, and all of the army of the Philistines runs away in fear and shock. David was such a warrior that an entire army would fall back before him: "Who wants to fight David? Not me! You fight him!" So through one man's heroics a people was saved.

Likewise, John 11 says,

49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

Lastly, Psalm 18 contains another theme I've noticed, that of burial in water. Why David was fascinated with drowning I don't know, but he used the motifs often. "I was at the bottom of the sea; seaweed wrapped around my head" (Jonah 2:5). David may have been fascinated with the Jonah prayer (I assume Jonah preceded the Psalms?).

I haven't done a systematic survey of the Psalms but I notice that drowning under a flood (cf Noah?) is a common theme; notable because David was neither sailor nor fisherman. Here the theme emerges in verses 4 and 16: "torrents of destruction" and "he drew me out of deep waters". And notice how Psalm 18:15 "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare" compares to Jonah 2:6 as well: "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever". It is as if David was "buried" under enemies, yet his prayer still rose to God.

As mentioned earlier, I'd just begun considering this psalm; I claim no experience nor expertise. Merely a few remarks made in passing.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

It is good to get older. It took Moses 80 years to wake up and hear God's voice. But one day, there it was.

"If only I knew back in the day what I know today" It is! ...if we are abiding in Christ, learning from our experiences and His Word, walking in S/spirit. We are supposed to grow wiser. I hope I am. I hope we all are. I do know most people in the world and most religious people I know have not changed. That is why we are called to be Light to the world. That their eyes, ears and hearts may be opened to the Love of Christ and His Ways.

it is actually implied (to me) in the accompanying narrative of battle: the champion of Israel, David the son of Jesse, goes forth and slays the seemingly undefeatable giant of Gath, and all of the army of the Philistines runs away in fear and shock. David was such a warrior that an entire army would fall back before him: "Who wants to fight David? Not me! You fight him!" So through one man's heroics a people was saved...........


As mentioned earlier, I'd just begun considering this psalm; I claim no experience nor expertise. Merely a few remarks made in passing.

In the last few years, I have been learning to connect the OT with the NT. Psalms while comforting and encouraging is very prophetic and also points to the last days of the church age, the days we are living in.

Not to move off topic, I am simply making an observation.. Most likely in the 7 yr Trib especially the latter half, the type of giants found in Genesis 6 and the type David fought called the Nephelim will emerge. (Why do we suppose there is so much horrific scientific experimentation in cloning and weird breeding.)

The point is...Lee had tunnel vision. All he saw was "God's economy in the LC. He wanted to 'clone' the church to his vision. When we learn to look at the Scriptures through God's Eyes, He removes the veil.

Carry on. :-)

Blessings,

Carol G

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

...Lee had tunnel vision. All he saw was "God's economy in the LC. He wanted to 'clone' the church to his vision.

For quite a few years after leaving the local churches, I was still a ministry drone, because I pretty much saw everything through Lee's tunnel vision. Even if I was no longer participating, it remained in my mind as the "ministry of the age."

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

When we learn to look at the Scriptures through God's Eyes, He removes the veil.

As long as I felt that I had scaled the high peaks of Zion, then God didn't have much to say to me. However, once I began to realize that I was veiled, blinded... only then did God begin speaking to me in His Word.

I am still blind, at least largely. But God is speaking... "The Word is nigh thee, in thy heart and in thy mouth..."

[aron]

Psalm 18 contains another theme I've noticed, that of burial in water. Why David was fascinated with drowning I don't know, but he used the motifs often. "I was at the bottom of the sea; seaweed wrapped around my head" (Jonah 2:5). David may have been fascinated with the Jonah prayer (I assume Jonah preceded the Psalms?).

Here is another example of the water burial theme:

Psalm 42:7 Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me.

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.

It seems either Jonah saw himself living out the psalmist's vision, or vice versa. And the image of being buried in deep waters appears fairly often in the Psalms for some reason.

Thus we can see two textual witnesses of Jesus' experience within the earth. "Just as Jonah was 3 days and nights in the belly of the whale, so shall be the Son of Man three days and nights in the heart of the earth."

Arguably those are the three most important days in history. So to have a kind of corroborated record, even if it's in impressionistic poetry, should be of some interest.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

all your waves and breakers swept over me.

It seems either Jonah saw himself living out the psalmist's vision, or vice versa.

I admit to knowing nothing of etymology. The phrase repeated in both Psalm 42 and Jonah 2 might have been coincidental; it might have been a stock phrase which was used often in Semitic conversation.

Also, the Psalms had a long formative period. The oldest psalm might date from Moses or even earlier, with the last one being completed some time after the exile. So you had centuries of opportunities for these writings to be modified. Therefore guessing who borrowed from whom, if at all, is probably a wasted exercise for an amateur such as myself.

Originally Posted by aron

And the image of being buried in deep waters appears fairly often in the Psalms for some reason.

Again, the operative phrase here is "for some reason." It may be for no reason; it may be for reasons known only to God. And there may be more pervasive and important themes in the Psalms than sinking into the watery depths.

But the imagery is evocative, and given Jesus' own self-identification with the Jonah theme it is worth noting. My ignorant speculations are not really that important. What has been important for me was to point out that the cavalier way in which WL treated the Psalms was grossly inadequate. If my own musings have at least hinted at the riches here, that is good enough.

[james73]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is another example of the water burial theme:

Psalm 42:7 Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me.

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.

It seems either Jonah saw himself living out the psalmist's vision, or vice versa. And the image of being buried in deep waters appears fairly often in the Psalms for some reason.

Hi Aron, it's all good stuff, here's a comment not on Psalm 18, but on the water theme....

I was just reading John Shelby Spong on the origin of the miracles on the NT... well it's a long story, but he points to Psalm 77 as being a likely source of the story of Jesus walking on water. Spong's theory, take it or leave it, is that the NT writers had absolutely no way to discuss the experience of Jesus in normal human language so they borrowed heavily from the only "God language" they knew, the scriptures, in particular the psalms. I guess in some ways that's different topic from what Aron is talking about, that the psalms point to Jesus in a prophetic way- I feel either way it's still pretty powerful to see Jesus in Psalm 77:19 like this: especially after all the "burial at sea" here is one who walks through the sea unscathed...

Psalm 77:19 Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not seen.

[aron]

Originally Posted by james73

...either way it's still pretty powerful to see Jesus in Psalm 77:19 like this: especially after all the "burial at sea" here is one who walks through the sea unscathed...

I don't remember looking at Psalm 77, but I will now. That is a pretty evocative verse. "Your path led through the sea" makes me think of Moses and the Israelites in the Red Sea. I had not thought about that as an inspirational source for the poet to draw on. But in hindsight it seems obvious.

Because the poetic language is often not specific as to time, place, and person, we can interpret with it as we wish. Contemporary Christian consensus as to its meaning might not easily emerge. That's why I like to look at the NT examples of scriptural interpretation: why I keep coming back to Peter using Psalm 16 in his Pentecost speech, for example. It gives us an interpretational template. And the writer of Hebrews likewise. How did these people approach the text? What did they draw out of it, and why?

When I look at Psalm 77:19, I feel that God is speaking to us. It is wonderful! Somehow, Christ is being revealed, and is revealing His Father and our Father. My mind cannot comprehend but my heart is burning. The scriptures are opening.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't remember looking at Psalm 77, but I will now. That is a pretty evocative verse. "Your path led through the sea" makes me think of Moses and the Israelites in the Red Sea. I had not thought about that as an inspirational source for the poet to draw on. But in hindsight it seems obvious.

Psalm 77:10 Then I thought, “To this I will appeal:
the years when the Most High stretched out his right hand.
11 I will remember the deeds of the Lord;
yes, I will remember your miracles of long ago.
12 I will consider all your works
and meditate on all your mighty deeds.”

13 Your ways, God, are holy.
What god is as great as our God?
14 You are the God who performs miracles;
you display your power among the peoples.
15 With your mighty arm you redeemed your people,
the descendants of Jacob and Joseph.

16 The waters saw you, God,
the waters saw you and writhed;
the very depths were convulsed.
17 The clouds poured down water,
the heavens resounded with thunder;
your arrows flashed back and forth.
18 Your thunder was heard in the whirlwind,
your lightning lit up the world;
the earth trembled and quaked.
19 Your path led through the sea,
your way through the mighty waters,
though your footprints were not seen.

20 You led your people like a flock
by the hand of Moses and Aaron.

It stands to reason that the afflicted poet would look back, as he did in verses 10-12, and remember the helps from God long ago. And this would prominently include the Exodus miracles, explicitly referenced in verses 15 and 20.

Just like Abraham was the proverbial father of promise, so Moses could be seen as the figure pointing to miraculous deliverance. Surely God's earlier work would be remembered and held up as a present appeal in distress.

Earlier I noted the theme of the righteous man suffering and being delivered by God in the Psalms. Of course this theme is not limited to psalmic literature, but is found often in the OT. But for us it's prominent because David's life was full of violent struggle, often against incredible circumstances, including betrayal by former comrades, and in his struggles "we see Jesus", who was seen as the coming royal seed of David, the promised deliverer. David's victories pointed to Christ's victory over death, which became the salvation for all who were under the curse of death. Therefore, these poetic songs, told in great detail, especially inner detail ("I love You, LORD" -- Psa 18:1), become referent points to our Father.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

the poetic language is often not specific ... Christian consensus as to its meaning might not easily emerge. That's why I like to look at the NT examples of scriptural interpretation: why I keep coming back to Peter using Psalm 16 in his Pentecost speech, for example. It gives us an interpretational template...

Let me put it another way. Peter had spent three incredible years with Jesus the Nazarene; then He was gone. Now they all tried to make sense of it, and to relay the meaning of their experiences to others who were presently incomprehensible.

Thus, the appeal to scripture. How many times in the Gospels do we see "as it was written" or "so that the scripture might be fulfilled"? This is why Peter, attempting to explain the outpoured Spirit to the incredulous throng, referenced Psalms 16 and 110. God had poured out His Holy Spirit, and this Spirit allowed men like Peter to look into scripture and see Jesus. The Spirit allowed men to see Jesus as fulfillment of scriptural type, and the same scripture allowed them to show others “the promised Holy Spirit... which you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33).

It seems to me that WL’s method was different. He was coming from a post-Protestant, post-Bretheren historical viewpoint, and what Peter had thought of his experiences with Christ was not as valuable to WL as God's current speaking "oracle". A hermeneutical template was being created, and the thoughts of Peter and James, who had actually met with Jesus, were not as important to WL's understanding scripture as the new template had become. Where Peter and James (for example) could not be lined up with current exegesis, they were either ignored or pushed aside.

As was much in the OT; for example, since Psalm 34:20, “not one of His bones should be broken” had been cited in the gospel account it was allowed to be valid revelation, while the rest of the psalm, speaking of the same righteous person (!) was dismissed as vain. The current “recovered” interpretation was allowed to over-ride both OT and NT scriptures.

Even Jesus’ gospel “oikonomia” (translated e.g. as “stewardship” in Luke 16) was downplayed, in favor of Paul's epistolary oikonomia, which to WL seemed to entail a lot of shouting of biblically-themed words, which shouting would eventually make us God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. Jesus’ food – “to do the will of My Father” – wasn’t stressed too much. In fact obedience might even be a stumbling if we took it too seriously!

Eventually, years after leaving all of this, I began to ask myself what it might have been like to be David, there in a cave, in a rocky crag, in a battle. The more I felt David’s emotional core, his "spirit", come through his writing, the more I could also feel the heart of Jesus Christ, David's Son of promise. And likewise, the more I pursued John and Peter and James’ subjective experiences (their Christ) as expressed in the text, the more I could make sense of my own experiences. I could see Jesus as they saw him, and as they saw Him in the scriptures which they all knew so well.

And yes, that certainly includes Paul as well. But Paul’s ministry certainly didn’t render anyone else’s null and void, valued only as a touchstone to “the apostle of the age”. If that was the case, why was John ministering from Patmos, years after Paul had exited the scene? No, the scriptures were bigger than Paul, bigger than John or Peter or James. Only Jesus could fill them all.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Even Jesus’ gospel “oikonomia” (“stewardship” in Luke 16) was downplayed, in favor of Paul's epistolary oikonomia, which to WL seemed to entail a lot of shouting of biblically-themed words... Jesus’ declared food (Jo 4:34) – “to do the will of My Father” – wasn’t stressed too much...

Now, my practice of singing the Psalms might not guarantee me a seat at the table anymore than the local church way of chanting - sorry, PSRP'ing - conference banners, outlines and verses from HWFMR messages.

But I will say a couple of things for my approach. First, it was recommended enthusiastically and repeatedly by WL's vaunted "apostle of the age", Paul, who likened it to "being filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5) and "letting the word of Christ dwell in us richly" (Col 3). That looks like a pretty good start on God's New Testament economy right there.

(And I don't see Paul or anyone else suggesting that only a few "revelatory" psalms were worth our time and that the bulk - or any, for that matter - were mixed, natural, or fallen.)

Second, I notice that singing these scriptures connects me to the NT in ways that I might not otherwise have (If you get a good melody it tends to make you linger, and muse).

For example, Psalm 3 "I lay me down and slept/I awaked, for the LORD sustained me(KJV)" brings me to

Jesus: "I have the power to lay my life down and take it back up again"

etc

etc

And one of the things found frequently in the Psalms is obedience to and reverence for God's word. WL seemed to agree with the latter, but said the former was humanly impossible; thus he downplayed or dismissed sections on righteousness and obedience. I ask, what kind of reverence is that? He was forgetting about Jesus the Nazarene.

Psalm 119:89 "Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens" arrives as

Gabriel, to Mary: "No word from God will ever fail" (Luke 1:33, NIV), and becomes incarnated as

Jesus' "I came to do My Father's will" (John 6:38), and as

Heb 10:9[ref Psa 40:7,8]) "I come to do Thy will"' and as

Heb 5:5-10 ""So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He said to Him, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee'; just as He says in another passage, 'Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.' In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek."

The piety and obedience of Jesus Christ "in the days of his flesh" was prefigured in rich detail in the musical petitions and exultations of the admittedly imperfect psalmists. Their declarations may well have been vain from our NT Christian perspective, except that we believe these words provided a framework for the coming Christ, who later inhabited them. The NT itself, and church fathers also, repeatedly suggested this to us.

WL held that the "loud crying and tears" of the psalmists could not produce salvation, but I say that their cries (Psa 6:6, 42:3, 69:3, etc) presaged those of the coming Christ. And Jesus Christ in the days of his flesh was crying not merely on His behalf, but on our own as well. And now this same Spirit of the Son indwells in us richly, and continues to petition, and to sing praises to the Father in the midst of the assembly. Thus it is truly "no longer I, but Christ living in me", who is being expressed in the local assembly, and now is an earthly analog of the High Priest in heaven, just as once Jesus in the days of his flesh fully inhabited His Father's Word.

As I mentioned, singing the Psalms does not automatically equate to obedience, but "who can obey, except that he has first heard His voice"?

"So faith comes from hearing, that is, hearing the Good News about Christ." Rom 10:17 NLT

[aron]

Prophetic words versus natural words.

In Acts chapter 2, Peter in explaining the resurrection of Jesus to the incredulous Jews said that David, being a prophet, foreknew through the Holy Spirit the one who was following him, and who would fulfill his words. WL allowed this, somewhat, and followed suit. However, WL did a curious thing: he said that much of David's writing was "natural", and "fallen". Now, to me, that is a very serious charge, to say that the words of scripture are the concepts of fallen men versus the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What precedent do we have for marking out God's word thus?

Jesus taught, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." If we determine that some of these words have not, in fact, proceeded out of the mouth of God but rather through the imaginations of sinful and fallen men, that's pretty serious and we should be sure we are on solid ground. Because we are either saying either that man does not live on every word of God, but just on some of them (and which ones, pray tell?), or we are saying that only some of the holy scripture is from God, and that some of the Bible is actually fallen man superimposing his "concepts" into the divine record.

"All scripture is God-breathed", or just some of it?

When Peter said, "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You" and Jesus replied, "Get behind Me, Satan", we can be pretty clear that Peter's "Not so, Lord" didn't come from the Father in heaven. Or when Job's wife told him to "curse God and die" after he'd been repeatedly stricken, that statement also probably wasn't inspired by the Holy Ghost. Probably Job's wife is speaking from her "fallen concepts". The context indicates that she is being "natural" at that point.

What I am saying is that if a section or passage is in fact not from God, either the surrounding text or some trusted commentator should tell us pretty clearly. But if we are taking the word of a self-proclaimed "apostle" (WL), who uses one narrow interpretation of one apostles (Paul) to set up an ideational construct which he then goes back into the OT (and even the NT!) text two thousand years later to declare that some of it is in fact not revelatory of Christ, but rather fallen men's concepts, we should be wary. Especially when you have a text like Psalms, with over 2,400 verses, the vast bulk of whom are consequently either ignored or rejected as non-revelatory by WL.

I think that what WL did is rather serious and it would be interesting to see if someone could dredge up support for his stance other than the fact that he said it's so. In other words, who is being prophetic here, and who is being natural? David, or WL?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I think that what WL did is rather serious and it would be interesting to [find] support for his stance... who is being prophetic here, and who is being natural: David, or WL?

The Bible reveals Jesus Christ. Peter said in Acts 2 that David's Psalms (16:8-11 and 110:1) were prophetic words echoing God's promise, that David's seed, the coming Messiah, would inherit glory (v.30,31). So when the psalmist, for example, wrote "God will help me", might we not be out of line in seeing reference to God raising Jesus and giving Him glory? Now, if not directly quoted in the NT, we don't want to overstretch, but at least we may still consider "this Jesus" (v. 32).

Instead, WL used another apostle (Paul), writing "Do not teach anything contrary to God's oikonomia, which is in faith" to overturn this Jesus. Now WL says God didn't help David, but David helped himself. And WL says David wasn't qualified to write about the "righteous man" suffering, because David was a sinner. And so forth. The suffering and faithful Jesus, clearly present in the NT account, is simply not considered.

So I would like to know, is WL overturning 2,000 years of Christian teaching to satisfy his "God's economy" metric? Or is there some precedent for his doing this? Because what he is doing to the Bible as God's word is serious.

As I said, the Bible reveals God's plan for us in the person of His Son Jesus Christ. To say that some scripture doesn't reveal this Jesus, but merely the fallen, natural concepts of a writer, should give us pause. Even if David thought that "his promised descendant" on the throne (v.30) was his immediate heir Solomon, that doesn't make the writing less revelatory of Jesus Christ.

So: 1) is WL really "continuing steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles" here, and if so, how; and 2) if not, how could he hypnotize and mesmerize so many of us that none questioned such a teaching, which bulldozed God's word in this manner?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Prophetic words versus natural words.

"All scripture is God-breathed", or just some of it?

Well, when Peter said, "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You" and Jesus said, "Get behind Me, Satan", we can be pretty clear that "Not so, Lord" was not given to Peter from the Father. Or when Job's wife told him to "curse God and die" after he'd been stricken with multitudes of woes, that statement also probably wasn't inspired by the Holy Ghost. Probably Job's wife is speaking from her "fallen concepts." She is being "natural" at that point.

In his 2nd letter to Timothy, his last writing before his martyrdom, Paul said that "All scripture is God-breathed." I personally think that Paul wrote this specifically to address one of the many contentious topics of their day. Paul made it perfectly clear when he said "all." Then he went on to say that "all" scripture was "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The misinformed might look at Peter's outburst, "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You," and say that this could never be "God-breathed." But look at how much we can learn from Peter blunder. For centuries, Bible readers have been instructed by this short exchange. I wonder how many times the children of God have been stopped by the indwelling Spirit while minding "the things of man, and not the things of God?" Who are we to say which words of scripture are inspired by God and which words are merely fallen human sentiment?

After my regeneration, one of the first verses to become alive to me was I Cor 2.14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Witness Lee, in his latter years of "crystalization-study," looked at many Psalms and the book of James as did a "natural man." He claimed these books were "short of the divine revelation," considering them a kind of "foolishness," and beneath his own self-imposed standard of "God's Economy." Actually he just could not "know them" because they were "spiritually discerned." As many have posted in the past, the writings of Psalms and James were more needed in the Recovery than perhaps any other book of the Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

how could WL mesmerize so many of us that none dared question such a teaching, which bulldozed God's word in this manner?

Perhaps many actually did question WL; those questions were variously referred to as "storms", "quarantines", "turmoils", and "rebellions". So people were indeed 'voting with their feet'.

And there may have been a stronger correlation than we realize, between WL treating the Word in such a cavalier manner, and he and his movement treating those saints so roughly, who couldn't fully submit.

Originally Posted by aron

Peter had spent three incredible years with Jesus... then they all tried to make sense of it, and to relay the meaning of their experiences to others who were presently incomprehensible.

Thus, the appeal to scripture... why Peter, attempting to explain the outpoured Spirit to the incredulous throng, referenced Psalms 16 and 110. God had poured out His Holy Spirit, and this Spirit allowed men like Peter to look into scripture and see Jesus. The Spirit allowed men to see Jesus as fulfillment of scriptural type, and the same scripture allowed them to show others “the promised Holy Spirit... which you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33).

When we prayerfully consider God's word, even weeping like Mary at the empty tomb, the promised Paraclete will come alongside and help us see "this Jesus". The Spirit comes through the word of God, and this Spirit in this word reveals this Jesus.

So, conversely, what happens when we dismiss God's word as of none effect, as merely the vain imagination of fallen men, and unequal to our own concepts? We risk the loss of the promised Spirit, and the frantic human organization-building efforts that follow that loss are exposed as such by the bedlam (lack of peace, harmony, and brotherly love) that accompanies the efforts.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

When we prayerfully consider God's word, even weeping like Mary at the empty tomb, the Paraclete comes alongside and helps us see "this Jesus". The Spirit comes through the word of God. And this Spirit reveals to us this Jesus.

Once I was singing Psalm 3, "I lay me down and slept/I awaked, for the LORD sustained me", and I began to weep uncontrollably. It just happened; the melody was engaging and I sang the song periodically, and at some point while singing a presence simply caused me to sob as tears streamed down my face.

At that moment, I could hear Jesus saying, "I have the power to lay My life down, and the power to raise it up again." Now, WL may have given messages on John 10:17,18. But at that moment Jesus' words unfolded to me through OT type. Through the oppressed and suffering David I could hear the voice of Jesus. Like Paul described it in Col 3:16 - as 'the word of Christ' - a word now indwelling me more richly, the unfolding of which brings life (Psa 119:130).

Now, my point is, before dismissing the Psalms as irrelevant, did WL sing? Did he pray? Did he weep? If he had, he might not have been so dismissive of the "righteous man" described therein. WL first might have considered that Jesus was not only righteous, but whose "one righteous act" on the cross opened the way; and we Christian are accounted as righteous in our faith in that His work(Gal 3:6, Rom 4:3).

But I doubt WL had time to consider all this. He had a ministry to run. Plus, the saints had already gotten there first, and were singing psalms with relish, and -- gasp -- some of the melodies came from dreaded Christianity! So WL needed to cut that short. He therefore rejected the Word, and consequently also he denied the Spirit that came alongside that Word. And the organizational turmoil that followed his ministry should not surprise; it's probably related.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Once I was singing ... and at some point was singing and was overcome by a presence that caused me to begin to sob as tears poured down my face.

At that moment, I could "hear" Jesus ....

As previously noted, crying in the Bible doesn't guarantee a reward at the finish line. And it doesn't mean one's experience is more valid than someone who isn't crying. But I note that the weeping and lingering Mary saw the angels, and Peter and John merely saw the empty tomb, and then left. WL did us all a disservice by telling us, "move along, move along; nothing to see here." That was not for him to say - did he weep there, lingering, before he told us the tomb(psalm) was empty, and there was nothing to see?

Obviously my posts have not opened up the Psalms, either. I simply related, for example, an impression from Psalm 3. But my experience tells me there may be more, and not only there but also in Psalms 4,5,6,7,9,10,11, etc. And I'm glad to have been extricated from the thinking injected by WL: what I had thought was a "high peak" vision was the equivalent of viewing Peter's empty tomb. It might be factually correct at some level, and may satisfy the 'expert' theologians with its orthodox appearance, but it wasn't going to lead me to experience what God has intended. I guess that's why God gave us the scriptures, anyway; as they say, "Accept no substitute".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And I'm glad to have been extricated from the thinking injected by WL: what I had thought was a "high peak" vision was the equivalent of viewing Peter's empty tomb. It might be factually correct at some level, and may satisfy the 'expert' theologians with its orthodox appearance, but it wasn't going to lead me to experience what God has intended. I guess that's why God gave us the scriptures, anyway; as they say, "Accept no substitute".

Living Stream Ministry has now canonized the words of their founder Watchman Nee on their websites and on the granite boulder in front of their skyscraper in downtown Taipei ...

"The Bible is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the pure Word of the Bible even if men oppose; but if it is not the Word of the Bible, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

Great words which all true believers would espouse. Who would dare to reject it? It may be their slogan etched in granite, or even this year's training banner, but funny thing is, believers are constantly leaving the Recovery in order to keep it. Watchman Nee wrote this in 1925, but today's Recovery has changed "slightly" ...

"The ministry of Witness Lee is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the ministry of Witness Lee even if men oppose; but if it is not the ministry of Witness Lee, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

How else would their members allow Lee to basically trash the book of James and most of the Psalms as being deficient in the divine revelation, while substituting his own high peak theology about man becoming God?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Living Stream Ministry has now canonized the words of their founder Watchman Nee on their websites and on the granite boulder in front of their skyscraper in downtown Taipei ..."The Bible is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the pure Word of the Bible even if men oppose; but if it is not the Word of the Bible, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

Interesting phrase: "the pure Word of the Bible..." If they think it is so pure, why denigrate it so, characterizing it as "fallen", "natural", and merely the "concepts" of unrighteous men? What is even more puzzling is WL's admitting as divinely revelatory those portions quoted in the NT, yet even denuding the surrounding text of Christ! See Psalm 34's "Not one of His bones will be broken", and WL's unpleasant and dismissive commentary on the rest of the psalm, as an example. There are, unfortunately, many examples.

The value of the "pure Word of the Bible" is that it reveals Christ Himself to us; Christ who the Way home to our Father in heaven, who is Truth personified to us, who is the very Life itself. Take Christ out of the Bible and what do we have left? They may indeed keep "...the Word of the Bible" but WL's ministry has rendered it dead letters.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting phrase: "the pure Word of the Bible..." If they think it is so pure, why denigrate it so, characterizing it as "fallen", "natural", and merely the "concepts" of unrighteous men? What is even more puzzling is WL's admitting as divinely revelatory those portions quoted in the NT, yet even denuding the surrounding text of Christ! See Psalm 34's "Not one of His bones will be broken", and WL's unpleasant and dismissive commentary on the rest of the psalm, for one example. There are, unfortunately, many more examples.

The value of the "pure Word of the Bible" is that it reveals Christ Himself to us; Christ who the Way home to the Father, who is Truth personified, who is the very Life to us. Take Christ out of the Bible and what do you have left? They may have retained "...the Word of the Bible" but WL's ministry has rendered it into dead letters.

It is our heavenly Father's God-breathed, wise counsel that surrounds the "pure Word of the Bible," which reveals Christ, His Son, with all the worst of fallen man and even David, a man after God's own heart, with all of his own "human sentiment."

Ironically, one like me is still able, at times, to read the ministry of Witmess Lee, with all of his own fallen natural sentiments, and still find the "pure Word of the Bible," which Christ Himself.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"The ministry of Witness Lee is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the ministry of Witness Lee even if men oppose; but if it is not the ministry of Witness Lee, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

How else would their members allow Lee to basically trash the book of James and most of the Psalms as being deficient in the divine revelation, while substituting his own high peak theology about man becoming God?

I missed your point initially, but then it hit me: what chapter and verse in the "pure Word of God" tells of "man becoming God, in life and nature but not in the Godhead"?

And for that matter, which chapter and verse in "the pure Word of God" tells us that David was being importune when writing that God saved him from death in Psalm 34? I have seen multiple NT accounts saying that he was acting as a prophet and foretelling the resurrection of Christ, his coming heir according to the flesh. But I don't recall which verses in the "pure Word of God" show that David's declarations were "in vain", being "natural", "fallen concepts" and so forth. I would certainly like to see those.

And if you simply want to cover everything with some blanket statement like - "there is none righteous; no, not one [even David]", then we have a little problem. Because, as Jesus said, "These things were written concerning Me". These things were not written concerning David or Abraham or some other flawed character. The reality of the Word is Christ. Your logic in vetting the "pure" OT text in this way leads us to the conclusion that even the Christ is not righteous, or that there simply is no Christ. I don't think we want to go there.

(or, for that matter, why judge yourself by a different standard and tell everyone how "pure" and "faithful" and "high" your own witness is and has been, if everybody is actually so irredeemably flawed as you say?)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"The Bible is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the pure Word of the Bible even if men oppose; but if it is not the Word of the Bible, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

Great words which all true believers would espouse. Who would dare to reject it? It may be their slogan etched in granite, or even this year's training banner, but funny thing is, believers are constantly leaving the Recovery in order to keep it. Watchman Nee wrote this in 1925, but today's Recovery has changed "slightly" ...

"The ministry of Witness Lee is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the ministry of Witness Lee even if men oppose; but if it is not the ministry of Witness Lee, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

Care to differ anyone? Suppose as a locality you want to set aside the ministry publications and set aside the RcV footnotes for the the pure Word of the Bible. What would the reaction be? I for one believes it will define the local church as either a Bible-based church or a ministry church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Care to differ anyone? Suppose as a locality you want to set aside the ministry publications and set aside the RcV footnotes for the the pure Word of the Bible. What would the reaction be? I for one believes it will define the local church as either a Bible-based church or a ministry church.

Terry, I have mentioned this before that I have a family member in the South East USA who told me point blank that "coming back to the pure word of God" was a tactic of the enemy used by those who rebelled against Witness Lee. Which just proved to me how they only pay lip-service to Watchman Nee's famous quote, and have indeed replaced the "pure word of God" with the ministry of Witness Lee.

To be honest, after his so-called resumption back into the ministry in 1948, neither did Watchman Nee pay attention to his own saying. Where in the pure word of God are the saints instructed to "hand over all they are and have" to the workers to build their new meeting hall? Otherwise they could have no part of Nee's ministry. Talk about being greedy of filthy lucre!

[aron]

Speaking of "the pure Word of God" contrasted to something like "man becoming God in life and nature", I freely admit that I also engage in what might charitably be called 'speculative theology'. In other words, I connect the dots of scripture according to my own logic (and taste), and construct a meta-narrative overlay in which other scriptures are fit to make what is to me a compelling view.

I speculate and hypothesize because it interests me, engages me, explains a lot of scripture and human history (and celestial history!) to me, and it sometimes even informs my daily behaviors in meaningful ways. But when I am engaging in more-or-less novel propositions that cover "blank spots" in scripture, and do not have much traction in the church, I am aware of that fact. I remain at heart a 'fundamentalist' and don't pretend that I can subvert the scripture, or render it of none or little effect. On the contrary, unless it makes the gospel narrative come alive to me then it really has no value at all. If "becoming God" makes you excited, go for it. But if all you have is your logic and Athanasius' quote, don't assume that all Christianity should soon come rushing to your side, or that those who don't are "dark", "poor", and so forth.

Likewise, church history shows that a lot of 'speculative theology' by the Church Fathers got suppressed in later centuries by the 'Orthodox movement', for good or ill. Also, extra-canonical writings like the book of Enoch, quoted in the NT (by Jude the brother of Jesus) and probably alluded to by Jesus Himself (the Gates of Hades, or the unbridgeable chasm between the "good" and "suffering" parts of the underworld) was probably written a few centuries before Christ largely to "fill the gaps" in the whole "fall of the angels" story in Genesis 6 and elsewhere. And as speculative and novel "revelatory" writing it was (probably deliberately) disappeared from circulation among the Christian church until a European traveler discovered it in Abyssinia in the 19th century. So when I read it I don't assume it is the "pure Word of God", but it still clearly has a place in the dialog.

But again the $64.00 question: what scripture has the Book of Enoch or one of the Church Fathers caused us to characterize as "fallen", or of little account? No; rather they have illumined it in many ways. So if WL's (or anyone's) speculative theology causes us to overturn, disregard, or minimize the importance of what has been recorded in scripture we should turn away from that instead. Because scripture is about Christ, and we do not want different (and new) writings to present us a different (and new) Christ, however it may tickle our present fancy.

I suppose I have overstated my case, but that seems to be my habit, doesn't it? In any event such a point seems rather necessary to make.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

If "becoming God" makes you excited, go for it. But if all you have is your logic and Athanasius' quote, don't assume that all Christianity should soon come rushing to your side, or that those who don't are "dark", "poor", and so forth.

Actually, you don't have logic or a quote. You only have excitement.

And excitement is a feeling.

And feelings do not change the fact that your are still not God — or even becoming Him.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

I speculate and hypothesize because it interests me, engages me, explains a lot of scripture and human history (and celestial history!) to me, and it sometimes even informs my daily behaviors in meaningful ways. But when I am engaging in more-or-less novel propositions that cover "blank spots" in scripture, and do not have much traction in the church, I am aware of that fact. I remain at heart a 'fundamentalist' and don't pretend that I can subvert the scripture, or render it of none or little effect. On the contrary, unless it makes the gospel narrative come alive to me then it really has no value at all.

This describes me as well. I think God makes some of us curious for a reason. The problem comes in when we start majoring in our speculation or thinking that, as the LC has, that there is some hidden, crucial message in the Bible that everyone else has missed.

This "hidden message" view is what drives LC exclusivity and its cart-before-the-horse, tail-wagging-the-dog error.

The central lane of the NT and the Bible was spoken by Jesus, and it is (drum roll please) Love God, love people. If you love people, he said, you fulfill the law and the prophets. If you fail at that, take heart, God send his Son to die for us so that he might empower us by His Holy Spirit to fulfill his purpose, which is to love God and love people.

The rest is detail. Interesting and often helpful detail I can testify, but detail still. There is no hidden message. Jesus told us plainly what the purpose is. Don't get caught in the trap of complicating it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The central lane of the NT and the Bible was spoken by Jesus, and it is [to] Love God, love people.

Agreed. And if undue devotion to "the church", "the ministry", "the apostle", "the body", "the move of the Lord", or "the up-to-date speaking" has caused your love for your neighbor to lessen, then it's time to re-consider your focus.

The rest is detail. Interesting and often helpful detail I can testify, but detail still. There is no hidden message.

And, likewise, if you seek power in the details of the "ministry", the "oracle", etc instead of in God's Word, again I would counsel a re-appraisal of your focus.

As Igzy says, at its core it is very simple. God loves us, and sent His Son. This redemptive love reaches us in the gospel narrative of Jesus the Nazarene. And the power to return home to our Father in heaven is given us by the transforming love of His Holy Spirit. It is all quite clearly revealed in the Bible.

And the deeper you get into the details of the Bible, the further you get into this redeeming and transforming love. If instead you get further away as you push into the details, then you are going in the wrong direction; the details have led you away from the simplicity of Christ, not further into it.

[OBW]

I like this recent line of reasoning. There is so much that is just details. But not the core. And it is fairly clear that many of the details are not entirely important for our daily living if we have managed to get the core down correctly.

In other words, if you truly love God and your neighbor, you are not likely to need a correcting word from someone like Paul. You don't need to have someone provide a dissertation on the flesh v the spirit (parts of Romans).

For example, in the last couple of years someone suggested that it is probably unimportant whether you understand or even have a concept concerning things like substitutionary atonement. Whether you think you understand it, or even know that it exists, it is what it is. What I do or don't think about it is really unimportant unless in erroneous thinking I am teaching people in such a way that they are being directed away from the core of their faith (such as having no care for neighbor — unless they are "good material," whatever that is).

And then we come here to discuss a group whose entire mission is muddling in details while missing the core. A group that has redefined the core as a collection of unique and peculiar details that few agree upon while belittling the true core.

I think that their being exclusive is probably a good thing. I really don't think I want to be easily grouped in with a sect like that.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I like this recent line of reasoning. There is so much that is just details. But not the core. And it is fairly clear that many of the details are not entirely important for our daily living if we have managed to get the core down correctly.

In other words, if you truly love God and your neighbor, you are not likely to need a correcting word from someone like Paul. You don't need to have someone provide a dissertation on the flesh v the spirit (parts of Romans).

There are possibly two related aspects here. One might be what OBW called "this recent line of reasoning", in which we see that becoming overly focused on details can distract us from the simple (but spiritually deep) core message of God's love for us all, reaching us in His Son Christ Jesus. For example, if the "high peak teachings" have caused us to care more for "the feeling in the Body" than for loving our neighbor, then I argue that we have been misled.

Secondly, and related, is my original point regarding our attention to God's Holy Word. Perhaps our teachings have led us to conclude that some scriptures are actually untrustworthy as a divinely inspired record, but rather are the opinions of fallen men. And what if a section of scripture that our teachings have little regard for, like the Psalms, is heavily cited in the NT as revealing Christ, with no countervailing NT 'warning' telling us to avoid its supposedly 'natural' parts? Again I would argue that our teachings have led us astray.

Psalm 119 says "The unfolding of your words emits light"; if, for example, Psalm 3 unfolds before me, with "I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the LORD sustained me" shining light onto gospel verses like "I have the power to lay My life down, and the power to raise it up again", then what teaching should cause me to ignore that light? What teaching could cause me to disregard the scriptures thus?

And I don't think it's coincidental that the same teaching, encouraging our disrespect for the Word, also trained us to disregard our fellows. Because the motive power that caused Jesus to lay His life down was divinely revealed as God's love toward us: "There is no greater love than this, than should a man lay down his life for his friends." Our unalloyed attention to and appreciation for God's Word should result in an increasing love towards our neighbors, and any teaching that distracts us from such a path should be called out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

There are possibly two related aspects here. One might be what OBW called "this recent line of reasoning", in which we see that becoming overly focused on details can distract us from the simple (but spiritually deep) core message of God's love for us all, reaching us in His Son Christ Jesus. For example, the "high peak teachings" may have caused us to care more for "the feeling in the Body" than for loving our neighbor. If so, I argue that we have been misled.

Secondly, and related, is our attention to God's Holy Word. Perhaps our teachings have led us to conclude that some scriptures are actually untrustworthy as a divinely inspired record, but rather are the opinions of fallen men. And suppose one of these sections of OT scripture of which we have such little regard, Psalms, happens to be most prominently cited in the NT as revealing Christ, with no countervailing NT "warning" telling us to stay away from its 'natural' parts? Then again I would argue that our teachings have led us astray.

Psalm 119 says "The unfolding of your words emits light"; if Psalm 3 unfolds before me, with "I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the LORD sustained me" emitting light onto NT verses like "I have the power to lay My life down, and the power to raise it up again", then what teaching should cause me to ignore that light? What teaching could cause me to disregard scripture thus?

And I don't think it's coincidental that the same teaching, causing our disregard for the Word also taught us to disregard our fellows. Because the motive power that caused Jesus to lay His life down was indeed allied with God's love toward us. "There is no greater love than this, than should a man lay down his life for his friends." Our appreciation for, and attention to God's Word should only be matched by our love toward our neighbor. Any teaching which distracts us from such a path should be called out for what it is.

aron, this has to be one of your best posts ever.

What was called "high peak teaching" did more to destroy the essential life and love in the body of Christ than perhaps any other. It was not just the puffing up that occurred in the Recovery with saints claiming to be "baby Gods," but it was the disguised deception which surgically separated us from the Father's love while under a fog of Lee's anesthesia, and the reconnection with himself and his ministry. How could we know the Father's far-reaching love in our lives, when the only "safe" love we were entitled to was "love" for Lee and his ministry?

The "feeling of the body" thus had nothing to do with considering how my wife feels about my decisions, or what burdens are weighing on the brothers around me. Forget about that! Only Anaheim, with its deputy authorities, can possibly know what "the body is feeling." It's no wonder that I have heard over the years several frustrated sisters, including my own wife, venting out, "then why don't you marry the brothers!" The unwritten mandate in the recovery was always -- never to love the ones around you more than the brothers in Cleveland and Anaheim. Or was that Anaheim and then Cleveland?

How could we in the Recovery have let Psalms and the book of James fall into such notoriety? Perhaps because James did more to expose the workings at LSM than other books? Witness Lee heralded himself as the consummate MOTA effectively persuading us: "it has by now (and by me) all been recovered!" If every scripture has been properly "interpreted" by Lee, then how dare we come to the word directly to find something new from God? If only Lee's interpretation can be validated, then how can you trust yourself to read Psalms 3 or 119 without "proper oversight?"

Yes, I am being facetious here, with a dose of sarcasm, but the more I consider what really transpired in the Recovery, the more it reminds me of my childhood education under the tutelage of nuns and priests.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If every scripture has been properly "interpreted" by Lee, then how dare we come to the word directly to find something new from God? If only Lee's interpretation can be validated, then how can you trust yourself to read Psalms 3 or 119 without "proper oversight?"

I was reading part of John Myer's "A future and a hope" recently and he made the point that he wasn't trying to argue with Lee's 'true believers', but rather was writing to those who suddenly (or slowly) found themselves outside the LSM fold. What next? Religious Babylon? Or worldly Egypt? Was there anything else? We had been taught that divine blessing didn't exist apart from "the recovery", but suddenly the question wasn't hypothetical anymore: it was real, and urgent. So John Myer was writing toward people with such a dilemma, and telling them of what he had found.

Likewise, I am not trying to convince a Living Streamer that WL erred in his judgment of the Psalms. But what I am arguing is that a born again, Spirit-led Christian believer can "see Jesus" in scripture, a la Heb 2:9, even if WL tells them there's nothing there. God's saving love and resurrection power in His Son Jesus Christ may shine forth from Psalm 3, for example, even if WL taught that nothing worthwhile existed there.

WL saying "there's no light" in the Psalms might have been like Peter and John at Joseph of Arimathea's tomb: well-meaning disciples in a hurry to get on to the next thing, and blinded by their concepts. So if you feel somewhat lost, and empty, and you hear within a teaching telling you not to linger, there's nothing here for you, don't obey; rather tell it, "I shall not be moved". Abide there in the Word where you find yourself, and watch and pray (and sing!) and wait for the guiding voice of the Great Shepherd. The scriptures have been breathed out by our Father in heaven, and are indeed words of Spirit and life. And this breathed-out Word, as the promised Spirit, will indeed be 'a lamp unto thy feet', and this 'Word of Christ' will 'inhabit you richly', and will indeed guide you home into all the reality destined for you.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's no wonder that I have heard over the years several frustrated sisters, including my own wife, venting out, "then why don't you marry the brothers!"

There you go Ohio. So much emphasis of "being one with the brothers". In my mind teaching to be partial. All the while brothers know the brothers better than they know their own wives. I do believe many sisters have felt their marriage with their husband is secondary to the ministry.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Truth

I don't think Watchman Nee's early publications on Christ and life are invalid just because he fell into sin (his later publications are questionable). We are all sinners. ... Nee was far from perfect as portrayed by Lee...

We made the mistake of thinking we were covered by some supernaturally gifted and anointed Christians, and that if we would only be "one" with them then God would have the "ground" in us to bring us fully into His glory.

Then, when the inevitable sin and failure rear their ugly heads, we were told that we should "cover the brothers" and not expose the darkness. This protects the church, the Body and Bride of Christ, whom Christ loved and gave Himself up for. Right? Even though WN and WL were sinners like us, we needed to revere them as leaders because God has invested them with "authority" and we had to treat them as "acting Gods". So even when such leaders sin we have to act as if they don't sin. Then, we will all be "covered".

This is the argument as I understand it. It fails, for me, for two reasons. First is that nobody in the assembly should be lifted up, with 'special' rules that apply only to them. That is courting abuse, and disaster. We are all fallen creatures living here in the flesh, on the earth which 'lies under the evil one'. If Jesus didn't lift Himself up, while in the flesh, then what supposed servant of Jesus should do so? None, that I can see. So if WN's "ground of the church" leads to an "acting Gods" theology, it is thereby shown to be in error.

Secondly, and related, is that WL used the argument of sin to dismiss the very writings of scripture, saying that since David sinned (Bathsheba, etc), he was disqualified to write of obedience to God's will, and of righteousness, and so forth. Therefore the vast body of David's work (the Psalms) could be dismissed out of hand and left unexamined. Why? Because David sinned, and therefore his writings were disqualified. But WN (and WL, by extension) were not held to the same standard.

What does this lead us to? The very writings which portray Christ in type and shadow and figure are ignored, or argued away, while we all revere the logical constructions of a preacher as if they are "fresh bread from heaven". And then we all congratulate ourselves as if we have somehow found the inside track, the narrow path, leading us home to our Father. I could hardly disagree more.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Secondly, and related, is that WL used the argument of sin to dismiss the very writings of scripture, saying that since David sinned (Bathsheba, etc), he was disqualified to write of obedience to God's will, and of righteousness, and so forth. Therefore the vast body of David's work (the Psalms) could be dismissed out of hand and left unexamined. Why? Because David sinned, and therefore his writings were disqualified. But WN (and WL, by extension) were not held to the same standard.

Is that true?

Not that I heard every message by Lee, but I never heard that Lee disqualified David due to his sin. If so, lots of believers will be a little upset if we yanked Psalm 51 out of their Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

WL used the argument of sin to dismiss the very writings of scripture, saying that since David sinned (Bathsheba, etc), he was disqualified to write of obedience to God's will, and of righteousness...

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is that true?

Not that I heard every message by Lee, but I never heard that Lee disqualified David due to his sin.

RecV Psalm 1:1 footnote "The Psalms were written according to two kinds of concepts: the human concept of the holy writers and the divine concept of God...

Psalm 1:2 footnote "In the book of Psalms, as in the entire Bible, there are two lines: the line of the tree of life, the line of life, and the line of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the line of death...

Psalm 3:1, 4:1, and 4:4 footnotes decry David's "self-righteousness according to his human concept and for his personal interest", noting his failure in having Uriah murdered and taking his wife Bathsheba.

Psalm 9:3 footnote says "David's concept... is based on the principle of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Nothing in these psalms [9-14] is related to God's economy, to God's interest, to God's kingdom, or to God's plan. Everything is concerning David's personal benefit, personal interest, personal safety, and personal peace. The NT believers... should not take David here as a model."

And so forth. What interests me here is the NT account contrasting with WL's teaching: for example Peter, in referencing the Psalms when he spoke to the crowd in Acts 2, didn't chastise David for his selfishness and self-seeking but rather said that David was a prophet predicting his promised seed who was to follow.

So when David said "You will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay", Peter didn't say that David is being selfish, nor hypocritical in appearing 'faithful'; rather David's psalm is indicating the coming faithful Holy seed who will fulfill his prophecy.

Somehow this option never occured to WL when going through the Psalms, even though the pattern of interpretation was laid out repeatedly in the NT. Instead WL focused on the fact that David was a sinful failure and a hypocrite, and often was writing according to his self-righteous, fleshly concepts.

But the Bible is not about David's concepts: it is about Jesus Christ. Yes, David failed; so did Abraham, and Jacob, Peter and John, Martin Luther, WN and all the rest of us. But in the midst of OUR failure the Bible reveals Jesus Christ our Savior, coming and pleasing the Father, and in His faithful obedience opening the door of salvation to us all, we who believe into Him and follow and obey Him. This is whom we testify; not David.

Yes, salvation comes even to David. Remember that David saw Jesus in spirit, declaring, "The LORD [the Father] said to my lord [Jesus the coming Christ] come and sit at my right hand until I put all your enemies at your feet." Peter, and Jesus, among other NT sources (Paul, the epistle to the Hebrews, etc) said that David knew of the promised seed who was coming after him, and whose kingdom would not fail.

I think that to get stuck on David's failures, and dismiss the bulk of his writings unless forced to acknowledge them by NT citations, is to miss the point of the story. The Psalms are not about David's sin nor his fallen concepts. The Psalms were written concerning Christ. WL disagrees and says they don't offer us a spiritual model. I say these writings point to Christ. Like the writer put it in Hebrews 2:9: we can read the scripture and then "we see Jesus."

[aron]

RecV Psalm 32:11 footnote "In the beginning of this psalm David confessed his sins (vv. 1-5), but at the end he justified himself as righteous and upright in heart. In reality, apart from Christ no on is righteous and upright in heart (Rom 3:10; Jer. 17:9). David's writing here is of a person who tried to keep the law apart from Christ"

No, David's writing here is not of a person who tried to keep the law apart from Christ. David's writing is of Christ Himself; as Paul says, David's writing is "the word of Christ", indwelling us richly. In the Psalms we see Jesus Christ portrayed before us; Jesus Christ as the one who was upright in heart. Jesus was fully justified by His Father, and the hope of the Christian is to be justified by faith in Him. Why doesn't this thought ever occur to WL?

The scriptures are ultimately not about David, or Moses, or someone else. They are fulfilled by Jesus, in whom the Father delighted. So when David wrote that God "rescued me, for He took delight in me" (Psa 18:19b) WL tried to mock his declarations, saying that David was a sinner. WL asked, how could God delight in a sinner?

RecV Psalm 18:20 footnote "In vv. 20-28 David considered his righteousness, perfection, faithfulness, cleanness, and purity as the cause of God's saving him, and he considered God's salvation a recompense to him. This is a wrong concept"

No, WL is the one with the wrong concept. Instead, consider the righteousness of Christ; consider in these very scriptures (vv. 20-28) the perfection of Christ: His faithfulness, cleanness, and purity as the cause of God's saving Him, and God's salvation as a recompense to Him (Christ).

If you look for King David in scriptures you will end up in frustration, ennui and despair. If you look away to Jesus you will live. I counsel the second choice, not the first. Why this second option never occurred to our supposed Bible expert WL is a mystery to me. The pattern was clearly established in the NT. The precedent was there before him.

[Ohio]

Psalm 3:1, 4:1, and 4:4 footnotes decry David's "self-righteousness according to his human concept and for his personal interest", noting his failure in having Uriah murdered and taking his wife Bathsheba.

Psalm 9:3 footnote says "David's concept... is based on the principle of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Nothing in these psalms [9-14] is related to God's economy, to God's interest, to God's kingdom, or to God's plan. Everything is concerning David's personal benefit, personal interest, personal safety, and personal peace. The NT believers... should not take David here as a model."

Only Witness Lee could see these faults in King David, and for that matter, he could see these same faults in every other servant of God. He was just merciless when it came to the failings of the rest of the body of Christ.

I have found it far too hypocritical for my liking, once I discovered how Lee cared only for his own personal benefit, personal interest, personal safety, and personal peace whenever other godly men were forced to point out his own failures at LSM. David, on the contrary, had a genuine repentance, and willingly accepted God's discipline for his failures.

Originally Posted by aron

Somehow this option never occurred to WL when going through the Psalms, even though the pattern of interpretation was laid out repeatedly in the NT. Instead WL focused on the fact that David was a sinful failure and a hypocrite, and often was writing according to his self-righteous, fleshly concepts.

I do remember W. Lee pointing out David's failure in apparently citing his own self-righteousness. Funny thing about self-righteousness -- it is so easily visible in others, but never in ourselves. David, of course, was also vindictive and self-righteous when the prophet of God told him a story of what some man did, but how he changed once the prophet pointed out "you are that man!"

Witness Lee, however, killed all the prophets God sent to him, branding them all rebellious, conspiratorial lepers requiring a life-time quarantine. Even when they pointed out blatant criminal activity in his ministry, he was not going to admit it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look for King David in scriptures you will end up in frustration, ennui and despair. If you look away to Jesus you will live. I counsel the second choice, not the first. Why this second option never occurred to our supposed Bible expert WL is a mystery to me. The pattern was clearly established in the NT. The precedent was there before him.

Where you get these words from? The O'Reilly Factor?

[M-W] ennui: a lack of spirit, enthusiasm, or interest

Great choice! Great post!

I appreciate your writing.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have found it far too hypocritical for my liking, once I discovered how Lee cared only for his own personal benefit, personal interest, personal safety, and personal peace whenever other godly men were forced to point out his own failures at LSM.

How convenient it is always due to someone else's shortcomings to explain turmoils. It was never Lee's failure to act, "the office" aka Phillip Lee, or the co-workers promoting "the office".

[aron]

God's word is living; we all know this. I propose that we shouldn't come to God's word and pick through it according to our pre-existing concepts. If we do so, we risk looking like Zechariah in Luke chapter 1, trying to argue with the angel Gabriel. Or Peter, remonstrating with Jesus: "Lord, this should never happen to you!"

If God wants to reveal His Son to us in the writings of David, so be it. Yes, David sinned. So did Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Or do we pretend to receive Isaiah and Jeremiah's writings because they were such good men? No; instead we know that God was pleased to reveal something of His beloved Son, through such humble vessels.

I know that anyone who has carefully read my posts will see that I occasionally question what I read in scriptures, and will try to "quibble" with what seem to me to be "natural concepts" of the writer(s). For example, I've pointed out that possibly the aged apostle John had some less than sanguinary views of Paul's organizational efforts, based on John's writings in his epistles and his "Revelation". The details are irrelevant here, but let's just say that John's silence speaks quite a lot to me, as do his repeated admonitions to "repent".

But do I reject the bulk of Paul's ministry as "natural" because I have some reservations with his organizational style? Please. John warned us not to add to God's word, nor to remove any. God has spoken - deal with it. If you don't get something, don't pretend that it has no value. You just don't get it, that's all. Who knows- maybe tomorrow the light will shine and you will get taken somewhere very special.

I believe there are layers and layers of reality in God's word. Let's not kid ourselves and think that we have laid hold of something, just because we've seen a few rudiments. The Spirit clearly wants to "lead you into all the reality". Don't tell the Spirit where you can and can't go. The Spirit can take you really deep, if you let go, and follow, and if you obey and abide. God's word can give you life, if you let it. God's word is living; it is not a dead insect to pin to your favorite conceptual cork board.

[Ohio]

Paul admonishes us in Ephesians 5 to ...

"be filled with the Spirit speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord"

The Septuagint was translated hundreds of years before Christ. Six scholars from each tribe in Israel were brought to Alexandria, a cultural and scholarly center, to make all the great Hebrew writings accessible to the entire Greek speaking world. We know that Jesus Himself endorsed this translation by often quoting from it, rather than from the Hebrew. The N.T. writers did likewise.

My question is whether the songs (i.e. Psalms, etc.) were also set to meter when they were translated. Did the original musical accompaniment also get included? On the night Jesus was betrayed, when they sang a hymn (Mt.26.30), did they sing that in Hebrew or Greek? When Paul says "make melody with your heart to the Lord," is that the same melody as the Psalmist wrote?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My question is whether the songs (i.e. Psalms, etc.) were also set to meter when they were translated [into Greek]. Did the original musical accompaniment also get included? On the night Jesus was betrayed, when they sang a hymn (Mt.26.30), did they sing that in Hebrew or Greek? When Paul says "make melody with your heart to the Lord," is that the same melody as the Psalmist wrote?

I would think that the surviving Hebrew musical score would have retained the Hebrew words (there are scriptures [Ezra?] showing the original melodies surviving the Babylonian captivity, and I assume they continued after that).

If you look at the Psalms, there are a number of stylistic cues that the words were arranged to fit a melodic structure. There is repetition of phrases, just as we have stanza/chorus arrangements in modern songs (including hymns). And there seems to be a truly ancient rule in which the melody provides structure and controls or at least affects the word choice. How much was that the case with the original Hebrew music?

Now the big question is: did this also occur in the Septuagint? Did the Greek get translated to fit the Hebrew (temple) melodies? Or (less likely) did they try to put new melodies into place? I personally doubt that either case is true. But I don't know. I've never considered this question before.

Anyway, I would surmise that in Jesus Christ's time they sang them in Hebrew, and spoke them in Greek. But that merely is a guess. A very interesting question, though.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I would think that the surviving Hebrew musical score would have retained the Hebrew words (there are scriptures [Ezra?] showing the original melodies surviving the Babylonian captivity, and I assume they continued after that).

If you look at the Psalms, there are a number of stylistic cues that the words were arranged to fit a melodic structure. There is repetition of phrases, just as we have stanza/chorus arrangements in modern songs (including hymns). And there seems to be a truly ancient rule in which the melody provides structure and controls or at least affects the word choice. How much was that the case with the original Hebrew music?

Now the big question is: did this also occur in the Septuagint? Did the Greek get translated to fit the Hebrew (temple) melodies? Or (less likely) did they try to put new melodies into place? I personally doubt that either case is true. But I don't know. I've never considered this question before.

Anyway, I would surmise that in Jesus Christ's time they sang them in Hebrew, and spoke them in Greek. But that merely is a guess. A very interesting question, though.

It is more than claimed that Jesus and his disciple spoke Aramaic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus.

The production of the Greek Septuagint was a product of the Hellenization of Judea. They were all Hellenized in the first century; Jesus, the disciples, the Jews, Paul, and the gospel writers. That's why they used the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic Text.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Did the Greek get translated to fit the Hebrew (temple) melodies? Or (less likely) did they try to put new melodies into place?

I think it's sovereign of God that the original Hebrew music is lost, and we are also quoting the Bible in English, and in multiple variants at that. I have heard the same texts done in various melodies (folk, pop, etc), and in various translations (KJV, ESV, NIV) and it is amazing the different aspects of the same writing come out in the different musical versions. I have heard some Psalms and I had to stop and ask, "Is this the same one that I already know?"

On a related note, in the local churches I once told a brother about a version of Song of Songs that I was really getting into. "I already have that whole book set to music", he said. That is the arrogance of the LSM scheme. They continually say "I am rich and have need of nothing", even as they deny they are Laodicean. They think that if they have something, it's complete. And if Lee didn't say it, or promote it, then it doesn't exist. They are disinterested in going deeper. They feel that it's impossible for anyone to go beyond where they currently are.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My question is whether the songs (i.e. Psalms, etc.) were also set to meter when they were translated. Did the original musical accompaniment also get included? On the night Jesus was betrayed, when they sang a hymn (Mt.26.30), did they sing that in Hebrew or Greek? When Paul says "make melody with your heart to the Lord," is that the same melody as the Psalmist wrote?

Interesting question.

And another. In the encounter with Peter over his love, followed by the three different ways of saying to feed the sheep, did Jesus speak the Greek words that we get it from, or was that a translation from Aramaic (that is said to not be so full of similar words with such minute differences in meaning) that was embellished to show something of the way each was said that was clearly not just a simple repetition? Was it John's (inspired) impression of what was going on, but not obvious in the words actually spoken? I don't know (and am not sure I care). But I do believe in the inspiration of scripture, so I take it as it is.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

In the encounter with Peter over his love, followed by the three different ways of saying to feed the sheep, did Jesus speak the Greek words that we get it from, or was that a translation from Aramaic ... that was embellished to show something of the way each was said that was clearly not just a simple repetition? Was it John's (inspired) impression of what was going on, but not obvious in the words actually spoken?

I think that John's writings perhaps contained double or even triple meanings. Just as Jesus taught before the crowds and then spoke privately to the disciples, so did the apostle John have a "public" side and a "private" side. That's why, for me, his "Revelation" was long inscrutable. Burning hailstones, frogs, mice, dragons, whatever. I'd bail after a few chapters. And the fourth gospel is likewise probably full of nuances, to be caught by the faithful, who sit patiently at his feet, but missed by the casual passer-by.

WL was interpreting the Bible in a very particular way (we all do, but we can become aware, and make our bias less hidden). The post-Reformation objective was to become less like the RCC, that great, nightmarish Harlot from which we (Luther and his followers) had been ejected. Therefore Luther "discovered grace" and "faith" in the text! Not works! Hallelujah! The Brethren made further "discoveries", as did Nee and then Lee. All to move us further away from the RCC, so we hoped.

My point is that we all subjectively approach the text. We seek answers, meaning to our life, to our situation, to our unanswered questions, to our dilemmas. Nee and Lee were no different. The problem is that they convinced us that: a) their meanings were universal; and b) none could go on from them as they had from the Brethren/Protestants/RCC. We've seen how thousands of their well-intentioned disciples attempted to carry that out their "vision", and to what end.

Now, on to OBW's post. Instead of 'What should this mean to us, as we attempt to get exit our own personal Egypt/Babylon', we might instead ask, 'What might this have meant to John? What meaning(s) did he intend to convey here to his intended audience(s)?'

I know WL made lip service to this idea, but it has been shown on this forum (somewhere) that he was simply recycling 19th century Sunday School lessons in his material. He had a quota to produce, and copping others' hermeneutic material and selling it as "fresh bread" was the convenient and efficient way.

Another objection might be that there's no way to know the true context of the writing. We only have the "plain words" in front of us. True, but we have interpretive assets not available in centuries past, and we might avail ourselves of them. They are often located in WL's disdained "cemeteries", where people with actual training and skills can do quite a lot with the "plain words" of scripture, if you'd be willing to humble yourself and listen, and if you'd display a shred of curiosity instead of a self-sated "We have already arrived" attitude.

And ironically, some of great scholarship was done in the centuries just after that of the apostles. There, intelligent and able men (I think of Origen and Clement of Alexandria, to name two obvious ones) had access to oral, 'private' traditions of the apostles, to early writings subsequently lost over the centuries, and to more contemporary usages of the language.

So if you look at some modern scholarly work on "What did Origen/Clement/Church Father 'x' say about what John wrote in Chapter 21 of his gospel" you can find some pretty interesting stuff.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

That is the arrogance of the LSM scheme. They continually say "I am rich and have need of nothing", even as they deny they are Laodicean. They think that if they have something, it's complete. And if Lee didn't say it, or promote it, then it doesn't exist. They are disinterested in going deeper. They feel that it's impossible for anyone to go beyond where they currently are.

True. It's shrouded in the concept "we alone are unique. We have all the riches and Christianity has nothing".
Remove the delusional concept of being unique, you'll see the LSM/LC is part of Christianity and there's nothing special to set them apart other than just another sect (see Exclusive Brethren).
Sure the wordsmiths try to be creative to give the lllusion of the LSM/LC being set apart, but it's just clever rephrasing.
True, LSM may be rich via revenue and property, but they do need something. For starters they do need to know humility and grace which is transparently lacking.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Another objection might be that there's no way to know the true context of the writing. We only have the "plain words" in front of us. True, but we have interpretive assets not available in centuries past, and we might avail ourselves of them. They are often located in WL's disdained "cemeteries", where people with actual training and skills can do quite a lot with the "plain words" of scripture, if you'd be willing to humble yourself and listen, and if you'd display a shred of curiosity instead of a self-sated "We have already arrived" attitude.

I am definitely a fan of the studied theologian, working in conjunction with an entire school of theology, in concert and discussion with other schools of theology, as they pour over pages of both modern and ancient manuscripts. Despite the flaws in virtually every group, they are lead by men and women who are well-versed in the sound teachings of the "fathers" who are more accurately those who were there with Christ or learned directly from them.

And speaking of the flaws that every one of us has, I am slowly becoming convinced that the flaws that we mostly look at and talk about are the least important things about us. Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, believer's baptism v baptism of the whole household, Arminianism v Calvinism (btw: Calvin didn't believe what is taught as Calvinism), charismatic v cessationist, communion every Sunday/month/quarter, immersion v sprinkling, "just call on the Lord" v a catechism, sign-on-the-dotted-line salvation v a process of hearing, coming to understand, then to belief, all without any "sinner's prayer."

The list goes on and on.

The real problem is not the differences. We can live with virtually all of them. It is the insistence by some that their differences are so special that failure to agree is almost like not believing. It is the open refusal to participate with those whose thoughts are different.

Christianity is no just shaking hands over the fence. They are joining forces. It may be small in some quarters, but it is a growing thing. We realize that we do not have it figured out. While we may chose to do most of our worship with those who think (mostly) like we do, we are not despising the others.

And then there are the LRCs on the fringes. The groups that think the others just aren't there. There is less division between the Baptists and Methodists than there is between the LRC and virtually anyone else.

And they do it in the name of oneness.

That is what is so utterly despicable to me about the whole thing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am definitely a fan of the studied theologian, working in conjunction with an entire school of theology, in concert and discussion with other schools of theology, as they pour over pages of both modern and ancient manuscripts. Despite the flaws in virtually every group, they are lead by men and women who are well-versed in the sound teachings of the "fathers" who are more accurately those who were there with Christ or learned directly from them.

Imagine my shock when I realized this was the case; I'd been thoroughly pickled in WL's brine and hadn't imagined that anyone had anything interesting or informative to say. To find out that there are strings of "healthy teachings" stretching back through time to the beginning of it all was mind-blowing. It was like stepping into the sunlight after an extended cave-dwelling episode, and rubbing one's eyes in the overwhelming light.

[aron]

Psalm 23:1-3. "The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Now, who is speaking here? Who is "he" and who is "me"? Lee said that "he" is Jesus, who is Jehovah incarnated (John 1:1,14), and who is our Shepherd (John 10:11,14). So who is "me" speaking here? Lee says, the christian believer, following Jesus.

Good, huh? No -- I contend that this misses the incarnation. Even Lee taught this: incarnation, inclusion, intensification. So in Psalm 23 (supposedly) Jesus was crucified (Psalm 22) and now is resurrected and ascended, in the heavens, shepherding us, as the indwelling life-giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45b). However, I respond that unless you first see the incarnated Jesus being shepherded by His Father, how can you, an incarnated sinner, be shepherded yourself? But Lee had his hermeneutic working, and ignored this.

Jesus said, "Everything I do is from the Father". Can we not see this, and be shepherded by the Lamb? Sheep shepherd one another by leading. The lead sheep goes to the place of food, water, and rest. The other sheep recognize this and follow. The Roman Centurion recognized that Jesus was a man under authority. Jesus was obedient. The Father's revealed will, clearly stated by the law and prophets and psalmists (see His statement in Luke 24) gave Him the power to function. When you saw Jesus move, speak, act, it was the Father moving, speaking, acting.

It seems to me that this was missed by Lee. And I contend that perhaps in Psalm 23, the Word of Christ, "he" is the Father, and "me" is Jesus Christ. When we see this, we repent of being stubborn, willful goats, we turn and confess Jesus as the Lamb of God, we are forgiven and born anew, we begin to take this word as our life (John 6:63), this word begins to indwell us richly (Col 3:16) in the Psalms (and other texts, of course) and eventually we may sense that "it is not I, but Christ in me" who is now functioning. Now the word indwelling us truly is a lamp unto our feet! The incarnated Word, Jesus Christ, who truly incarnated all the declarations of the God-seeking Psalmists and prophets; now His guiding example shines before us and indwells our consciousness.

Now, how is this "not I, but Christ" different from the "feeling" of the inner life folks? Number 1, it is based on Jesus' sinful life, not the our illusion of our own, and number 2 it is based on the word declaring this Jesus to us, and not our subjective sensations.

If you miss this simple thing that the word is speaking to us, which has been referenced repeatedly "in diverse manners and ways" (Heb 1:1) in the NT, then all your subjective feelings are in vain. And if you think your feelings are covered by the subjective explications of your self-styled apostle then you are doubly deceived. Your covering is just cobwebs. It is not real; do not trust in it. Whether you have 2 layers of cobwebs covering you or just one, it doesn't matter. It won't stand. Only the experiences of Jesus Christ the Nazarene will stand. Accept no substitutes.

[OBW]

Interesting thought. And it might make a decent sermon to make a particular point.

But I don't think this is what was written.

While the Lord, or Jehova, was consistently God in the OT, it is important to realize that God was thought of and spoken of in that context as One. Not just as unified. But as singular. While there are hints of the truth of the Trinity, going all the way back to "let us make man in our image," God was not written of as being a shepherd to himself.

And in the NT, as the multifaceted God is better unveiled, the Lord is almost always Jesus, the Christ.

It might be interesting to think on Jesus as even more like us that we have formerly thought — even he needs a shepherd — yet the parables would suggest that this is taking it a little too far.

And I don't see shepherds as being made by being first shepherded themselves. That is a decent way to put it in terms of the gifted ones perfecting the rest of us. But it is not really a good metaphor for it because those who shepherd were not once sheep. They are of different stuff and are trained to shepherd.

I realize that there is an aspect of truth in the idea. But I would not go so far as to insist that Jesus is the one being shepherded by the Father. No. This is written by a man realizing his need for a strong but loving hand guiding him through life. From highs to lows. Providing pasture and sheltering from hard times. (Note, that is not keeping the hard times from happening — just no need to fear the times.)

Even when we realize that so much is a revelation of God, and that Christ can be taught from nearly every passage, we need some sense of restraint in turning everything into an absolute picture of simply Christ. Instead, must is revealed about the nature of Christ and of God. Here he is the good shepherd.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

In Psalm 23, the famous "The LORD is my shepherd" psalm... we have 3 possible [NT, or Christian] readings.

1. Jehovah shepherds (guides, leads, cares for) the righteous man, personified in this case by David, the now-grown shepherd boy.

2. Jehovah shepherds the Son of David, the human, righteous Messiah, who we Christians believe was Jesus the Nazarene. In His human life, led always by His Father in heaven, Jesus fulfilled and fully completed David's type in the Psalms.

3. Jesus is Jehovah (John 8:24) shepherding the christian flock (John 10:11).

Lee presented us with the third interpretation. Surely that is not incorrect. But Lee ignored the second reading (please note that these interpretations are not mutually exclusive -- seeing one doesn't preclude another). Somehow in Psalm 23 Lee simply could not see Jesus the righteous Son of David, the fully obedient Son of God. He could only see Jesus/Jehovah shepherding Lee. My point is that you don't get to experience the third without the second. The incarnation is fully expressed in Psalm 23.

In spite of Lee's talk of "the humanity of Jesus" I cannot find the humanity of Jesus in his review of Psalm 23.

To some extent, reading number 1 is true. If David had not sought out God with all his heart, then he would not have been successful to the extent he did, in subduing his foes and uniting Israel. But David of course was not perfect. So his ability to live in the reality of his declaration was only partial.

For option number 2, we perhaps see Jesus as the Lamb of God. Fully obedient, fully submissive. Heb 10:7,9 quote Psalm 40 and say "I (Jesus) have come to do Your (the Father's) will". The Father's will are the rod and staff of Jesus. They guide and comfort Him; doing the will of the Father is Jesus' food, His "green pasture" (Psa 23:2; cf John 4:34).

John 14:24 "Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me." Jesus says that His words were actually not His but came from His Father in heaven. And as much as Jesus was obedient to and shepherded by the Holy Father in heaven, in both His words and good works, so His example of obedience becomes our guide home. As we see the obedient Son, we repent of being self-willed, obstinate "goats", and we follow the Lamb. We allow His words to abide in us, we keep them and the Paraclete comes to guide and teach. The chief Sheep thus becomes the chief Shepherd. Peter's epistle touched on this in saying that the elders should not shepherd by compulsion but by being examples. Peter knew that this is what Jesus had done, and publicly acknowledged that the flock leaders should discipline themselves to Jesus' path, and also become obedient examples to the newer and weaker ones.

Certainly option 3 is also true from the Christian perspective. I argue that it's best fulfilled by appreciating and applying option 2. But my question is: why would we deliberately miss the incarnation? In Psalm 23, the obedient Jesus "in the days of his flesh" (Heb 5:7) is simply passed by in WL's teaching.

Of course I also have "fallen concepts" which I read onto the Bible's text. I miss stuff, and a lot of what I think I "get" I don't fully live; thus I'm a "hearer" and not a "doer" and my ideas are vain. So if I try to judge the blindness of WL I merely prove my own.

But still, I'll make this point: our speaking to one another should lead us to "see Jesus", ESPECIALLY the one made "a little lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9), in the sacred text. The NT and OT constantly reference each other, and together they constitute a seamless narrative of divine reality manifest in the Word of God, made flesh. This is the way home, the way to "glory and honor" - see the obedient Son and follow Him. Any Bible teacher who glosses over this has little value for us. And WL, inexplicably panning David's declarations of fealty as vanity, and regarding his words as merely those of the soulish, fallen Adamic race, and ignoring in them the clear image of the coming Son of David, totally missed the boat here. Again and again the expositors in the NT held up the OT text and said that it pointed to the incarnate Christ, Jesus the Nazarene. If you look at his expositions of the Psalms, WL agreed with this only to the extent he was forced to by the explicit NT examples; otherwise he rejected it.

What can I say? How could I, or any seeking Christian in good conscience, follow this kind of teaching?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

It might be interesting to think on Jesus as even more like us that we have formerly thought — even he needs a shepherd — yet the parables would suggest that this is taking it a little too far.

And I don't see shepherds as being made by being first shepherded themselves... those who shepherd were not once sheep. They are of different stuff and are trained to shepherd.

The Father is the husbandman, Jesus is the vine. The Father is the Shepherd, Jesus is the submissive Lamb of God. I think that to miss Jesus "in the days of his flesh" is to miss our way out of the fall.

We were constituted flesh, removed from our Holy Father due to disobedience, so He who loved us took upon Himself blood and flesh and came here to save. We see the obedient, cooperative Lamb of God in great detail in the Psalms, and Psalm 23 is not an exception, but is rather an exemplar.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

The Father is the husbandman, Jesus is the vine. The Father is the Shepherd, Jesus is the submissive Lamb of God. I think that to miss Jesus "in the days of his flesh" is to miss our way out of the fall.

We were constituted flesh, removed from our Holy Father due to disobedience, so He who loved us took upon Himself blood and flesh and came here to save. We see the obedient, cooperative Lamb of God in great detail in the Psalms, and Psalm 23 is not an exception, but is rather an exemplar.

Despite the apparent similarities, I thing that this is mixing metaphors — at least a little. The Father is the Shepherd. But the Lamb of God is not a metaphor of one needing a shepherd, but of the one being sacrificed for sin. We too often try to milk every metaphor, type, and picture for all we can say about it, but it is often going way beyond the point that is being made.

God is the husbandman and Jesus is the vine. True. But the actions of the husbandman are not relative to the vine (Jesus) but to the branches (the believers). That is the extent of the writing and use of this metaphor. It does not make the Husbandman (God) into one who prunes the core of the vine (Jesus). That is not there.

Stopping these metaphors at the thing actually said does not cause us to "miss our way out of the fall." Taking them to a place that the words do not take them creates what? A sense of awe for something that isn't there? I think that Paul acually said in one place (1 Cor 4, I think) that some go beyond what is written. This was not a compliment. Making more out of a metaphor is not necessarily a good thing, even if you think you are encouraged by it. There might be a question as to what it is you are being encouraged toward.

As for Psalm 23, I think that you are trying too hard to make all the things in the revelation be about Christ and about God. But it is also about the relationship and interaction of God with his people. This is a prime example. We learn about God as the good shepherd through the eyes of the man who is shepherded. That man is not Jesus. He is not the Son. He is a man — David. I think that missing this is to miss the meaning of this Psalm. To make it into something else is to create a novel teaching that is going too far (where no man has gone before). And most of the time, going where no one has gone before is not a positive thing.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by OBW

Despite the apparent similarities, I thing that this is mixing metaphors — at least a little. The Father is the Shepherd. But the Lamb of God is not a metaphor of one needing a shepherd, but of the one being sacrificed for sin. We too often try to milk every metaphor, type, and picture for all we can say about it, but it is often going way beyond the point that is being made.

I agree with your last sentence. It´s one of the things that I quickly tired of and caused me to stop reading the hwfmr.

In Hebrews 5:8 we see that, Even though Jesus was God's Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.

In some sense, perhaps not the strictest one, but in some way Jesus as a man, as the Lamb of God needed to learn something. I don´t think it´s too far of a stretch to see in this a kind of shepherding. How is it that He learned if not by some kind of shepherding?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Stopping these metaphors at the thing actually said does not cause us to "miss our way out of the fall." .... Making more out of a metaphor is not necessarily a good thing, even if you think you are encouraged by it. There might be a question as to what it is you are being encouraged toward.

Jesus told a parable about two sons, in Matt. 21. One rebelled, initially, and then repented. One said he'd obey the Father and did not. Jesus asked, which one did the will of the Father? The first, was the answer. But I say there actually was another son. One who said, "I will do Your will, O God," and who did it. That one, of course, is Jesus Christ.

Now, does the parable say that explicitly? Obviously, no. But am I wrong in saying that Jesus was the unique obedient Son? No. Should I mix my metaphors, my imagery, here? Possibly not. I see your point. Certainly I shouldn't try to define objective truth with novel configurations.

But you do see the tension here in the Psalms? WL said that the psalmist made a declaration of obedience and cooperation with the divine will, and at least to some extent was not successful. That opens the door to our seeing Jesus, in the days of His flesh. WL said that the psalm was not completely fulfilled by the writer, and thus was relegated to some kind of "second tier" of the sacred word. The text was, in his words, "natural."

Instead, I see Peter's speech in Acts 2 showing us the reconciliation of the tension created by a declaration of victory, with the ultimate failure ("corruption") of the declaring psalmist. Sin and death ultimately won, but only until the day of Jesus Christ. Then the psalm was fulfilled.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for Psalm 23... We learn about God as the good shepherd through the eyes of the man who is shepherded. That man is not Jesus. He is not the Son. He is a man — David. I think that missing this is to miss the meaning of this Psalm. To make it into something else is to create a novel teaching that is going too far (where no man has gone before). And most of the time, going where no one has gone before is not a positive thing.

Point well taken. There is a danger of "looking beyond" the psalmist's experience to our own idea. Peter's revelation, to some extent, did this in Acts 2. But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else has 'carte blanche' to do likewise. Thank you for supplying a cautionary word. It is entirely too easy to become delighted with one's own ideas. We know of certain self-styled "seers of the divine revelation" who might have profited by being reined in somewhat by their peers.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

In Hebrews 5:8 we see that, Even though Jesus was God's Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.

In some sense, perhaps not the strictest one, but in some way Jesus as a man, as the Lamb of God needed to learn something.

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

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

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

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

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

[awareness]

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

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

And I think our bro aron has a Christ eye.

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

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

And I think our bro aron has a Christ eye.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

That is somewhat like looking at one of those Rorschach ink blots and saying, "I see a tree. No wait, an eagle."

And an evil eye will see evil where a Christ-eye sees Christ ... perchance ... to make my point.

Originally Posted by aron

3. Jesus mentioned that David was in spirit, writing of the Christ who was to come. (Luke 22:34)

Verse check please, or explanation please:

Luk 22:34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

5. Paul equated the Psalms to "the word of Christ", in Colossians 3:16.

Verse check please, or explanation please:

Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Originally Posted by aron

thank you awareness for your kind words of support.

What could be more harmless than seeing Christ in the Psalms?

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Verse check please, or explanation please:

Luk 22:34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

Sorry, Matthew chapter 22

41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: 42 "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David." 43 He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying,…

Question: was David in the Spirit only in those phrases quoted by the NT authors? If WL had his way that is what you would think. Nearly all the rest of it, he averred, was "fallen concepts" "natural" and without any revelation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

While the Lord, or Jehova, was consistently God in the OT, it is important to realize that God was thought of and spoken of in that context as One... While there are hints of the truth of the Trinity, going all the way back to "let us make man in our image," God was not written of as being a shepherd to himself.

If Jehova cannot be a shepherd to himself, then how can Jehova say to himself, "Jehova said to my Lord, sit here at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool"? How can Jehova tell himself to sit at his own right hand?

And going back to the "Lamb of God" motif, what constitutes being spotless and without blemish? I would say, sinlessness. And what is sin? Disobeying God's will. Jesus left heaven but never left God's will. So his spotlessness as an atoning sacrifice was built on his completely obedient actions while in the flesh. Jesus was in the likeness of the flesh of sin, but never in the consequence of the flesh, never in the act of sin (i.e. rebellion) itself. Everyone else dies spotted by sin. Jesus died spotless. He obeyed to the end, the death of the cross.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

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

Of course, there is some rational parallel to be made in all of those. And even to preach such from the "pulpit." But to take such things as the basis for pushing new and novel theologies as Lee did is the problem.

And when I was giving you some grief, it was not entirely to throw cold water on you. It was to put the kind of observation that you made have a little less of the kind of certainty that you seemed to want to give it. To say that the things Christ suffered could be a little like being a sheep under the care of a shepherd might be a little of a stretch, but might make a decent object lesson. But finding it as a thing definitely to be maintained as a point of teaching, or as a source of teaching about the aspects and nature of God, rather than as a soft observation of trying to parallel the life of the human sheep to aspects of the life of Christ, seems problematic. The point was never that the comparison is ridiculous, but that it is contextually, and even comparatively a bit of a stretch, therefore one of those things that could make a decent sermon, but could also send the hearer away wondering where it was that the wheels fell off.

[aron]

Psalm 1 says: "Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night."

Psalm 23 says: "1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3 he refreshes my soul.
He guides me along the right paths
for his name’s sake.
4 Even though I walk
through the darkest valley,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me."

So Psalm 1 is "natural" because the "way of the sinners" is rejected by the psalmist. And we know that everyone is a sinner, right? So this is impossible. Can't be done. Vain imagination of fallen men. So says the Lee Bible study.

Then in Psalm 23 the writer is supposedly being shepherded by God, and led along the "right paths." And that is held up as a revelation from God. So let's get this straight, here: Lee said that avoiding the paths of wickedness in Psalm 1 is deluded, but going on the right paths in Psalm 23 is being shepherded by God? Someone is disconnected, here; Lee says it is the psalmist, but I think maybe it's the contrary. I think maybe it's the Bible expositor who is disconnected, in this case, and teaching according to "fallen concepts".

[awareness]

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way,
before his works of old.

I was set up from everlasting,
from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

When there were no depths, I was brought forth;
when there were no fountains abounding with water.

When he established the heavens,
I was there,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
then I was by him, as a master workman,
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing always before him,
rejoicing in his habitable earth;
and my delights were with the sons of men.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I came out of the mouth of the most High,
and covered the earth as a cloud.

I dwelt in high places,
and my throne is in a cloudy pillar.

I alone encompassed the circuit of heaven,
and walked in the bottom of the deep.

I had power over the waves of the sea,
and over all the earth, and over every
people and nation.
-----------------------------------------------------------
He created me from the beginning before the world,
and I shall never fail.

In the holy tabernacle I served before him;
and so was I established in Sion.

Likewise in the beloved city he gave me rest,
and in Jerusalem was my power.

I was exalted like a cedar in Libanus,
and as a cypress tree upon the mountains of Hermon.

I was exalted like a palm tree in En-gaddi,
and as a rose plant in Jericho,
as a fair olive tree in a pleasant field,
and grew up as a plane tree by the water.

I gave a sweet smell like cinnamon and aspalathus,
and I yielded a pleasant odour like the best myrrh . . .

As the turpentine tree I stretched out my branches,
and my branches are the branches of honour and grace.

As the vine brought I forth pleasant savour,
and my flowers are the fruit of honour and riches.

I am the mother of fair love, and fear,
and knowledge, and holy hope: I therefore,
being eternal, am given to all my children
which are chosen of him.

Take a guess. Source? Who is it speaking of?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee's system was derived from that [Asian] culture, and to some degree reflected that culture. But since he assured us it was "heavenly", we took it.

The quote above approaches what I'm discussing, and I want to continue this by considering a small portion of scripture. I've been writing about Lee's treatment of the Psalms; probably 3/4 of them are either ignored by him without comment, or rejected as "natural" and "fallen".

I'll cite one passage and make my argument.

Psalm 1 1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.

Look at verse 3 "...a tree planted by streams of water... yields its fruit in season... its leaf does not wither". Does that perhaps suggest the vision seen in Revelation 22:2?

"...On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations."

We probably can't definitively say whether this passage referenced Psalm 1 in any way, but in my memory Lee categorically rejected Psalm 1 simply because it had the word "law", and we post-Reformation Christians all know that salvation is of grace, not law! So the whole chapter, like much of the book, was simply dismissed out of hand. No attempt was made to discern any deeper, spiritual meaning. No consideration of whether Christ to some degree fulfilled the psalmist's vision. Nope; the text was "fallen", and nothing but "natural concepts".

Now, my point is this: whether Psalm 1 is related to Revelation 22 I probably can't 'prove' in some objective sense; but we saw Lee build a system where, if he didn't consider something, then we didn't consider it. We didn't have the freedom to think, to speak, to consider, and to reason in scripture with one another. It was, "Big Brother says 'X', therefore reality is 'X'".

If Lee shut the door on a portion of the Bible, then we weren't allowed to open it, and look, and consider. I say that this is wrong. I say that if the Spirit leads me to consider something in the Bible, I am going to consider it. And if the Spirit leads me to talk about something I see in the Bible, I am going to discuss it. And if that system rejects my desire to talk about Christ in such passages of the Bible, then I will reject that system.

I really don't know why Lee dismissed the Psalms. Perhaps because through them "degraded Christianity" was supplying the Local Church saints with fresh musical enjoyment, and this threatened his "local ground" hegemony. Lee therefore told us the Psalms were "low", in contrast to the "high revelation" of Paul in the NT.* And Lee said that David's visions were mostly vain, despite contrary evidence supplied by the NT writers. Nonetheless, in the Local Church system we knew that if Lee rejected something, then we must reject it. So we therefore rejected the bulk of Psalms because God's present oracle had told us to. We had to follow God's present oracle, in an absolute and unquestioning way, because we were convinced that this was necessary for us to be God's "heavenly army" that would take over the earth.

I don't know if this is making any sense, but looking back, that's what I see. It was a miracle that one day I walked away! I was immersed in a culture in which "the church life" was held as "a better way" (I remember a line from the song, 'We love the church life' - "it may be with us you've found a better way"), yet after years of such strong conditioning I still walked out... I do thank God for His mercy.

Lee built a system in which, if he rejected a possible OT connection to a NT revelation of Christ, then we also had to. If we openly considered any scriptural meaning apart from Lee's directives, and persisted in so doing, then we would be considered a threat to the orderly functioning of his "church life" and we would be removed (as Terry put it euphemistically, "steps were taken"). To me that is the orderliness of a museum, or a graveyard. It may indeed be orderly, and well-regulated, but it is also quite dead.

*And yet in Colossians and Ephesians Paul urged his readers to sing the Psalms!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I really don't know why Lee dismissed the Psalms.

aron, another determining factor in Lee's theology was his roots with the Plymouth Brethren in England. The exclusive Brethren were obsessed with "finding Christ" in the Old Testament, to the point they would totally miss the obvious lessons in the narrative. This was, of course, not a Chinese cultural matter.

If Lee and his helpers could not "find Christ" in the old exclusive Brethren writings, whether in types, shadows, figures, prophecies, or quotes, then, especially in the books of Psalms, Lee would dismiss them as "natural sentiment" or some such thing.

Searching for Christ in the OT is obviously a rewarding and enriching study, but obsessing over this method to the extent that vast portions of scripture are summarily dismissed is beyond the pale of the normal Christian faith. In this regard, Lee attempted to lead the whole of the Recovery "where no man has gone before."

[awareness]

Boy Aron in post #362 you said it all. I'm speechless. I think we can rest your case.

And like UntoHim queried, is it "Nuff said?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Boy Aron in post #362 you said it all... I think we can rest your case.

Thank you for politely encouraging me to stop writing!

But I do appreciate your kind reception to my ideas, and have been grateful that there's a place where we can think out loud.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Thank you for politely encouraging me to stop writing!

Yeah, what am I thinking? I love your writings. That would be cheating myself. Please don't.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

in my memory Lee categorically rejected Psalm 1 simply because it had the word "law", and we post-Reformation Christians all know that salvation is of grace, not law! So the whole chapter, like much of the book, was simply dismissed out of hand. No attempt was made to discern any deeper, spiritual meaning. No consideration of whether Christ to some degree fulfilled the psalmist's vision. Nope; the text was "fallen", and nothing but "natural concepts".

We can say that Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 are a related pair, introducing the whole book that follows. Psalm 1 shows the two paths: the path of the wicked leads to destruction, and the path of the righteous leads to life everlasting. Then Psalm 2 shows us "My king, whom I have installed on My holy mountain." In unveiling God's obedient, reigning Son, Psalm 2 is the full expression of Psalm 1. God's ordained path of righteousness in Psalm 1 is not vain to us, but rather we see it fulfilled in the reigning Son of God in Psalm 2. We fail, but we are told to "kiss the Son", who does not fail. Marvelous! What a blessing!

But Witness Lee shaved Psalm 1 off from Psalm 2, and in so doing he exposed himself. We Christians believe that we know the reigning Son in Psalm 2; likewise we can surmise something of the "blessed man" in Psalm 1. And this man, who meditates on the word both day and night, and is utterly obedient, even to the death of the cross, is perhaps none other than the Word of God Himself. And we are told in scripture that when we believe into him, and obey his commands, we ourselves become heirs of the promised blessing.

It is probably not coincidental that John 14-17 repeatedly has Jesus speaking about the word, his commands, our obedience, and the coming Spirit. To me these are all of apace. The story in John 21 on shepherding is the coda; the speaking on the final night is the complete ministry.

"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 angel Gabriel told Mary, "No word from God will ever fail." Psalm 1 is a word spoken from God through a prophet, who is borne by the Holy Spirit. Yes we failed; I have read Romans 2 and 3. I understand. But Jesus did not fail, but overcame. On this victory arguably rests our hope, and our faith. No human, earthly ministry should cause us to turn our attention away from Jesus Christ.

[aron]

Here is a quote from a website of a brother who used to meet in the LCM:

Brother Witness Lee said that one of the requirements for the Lord to come back is a great revival in which many saints live the life of the God-man Jesus. (Rev. 19:7)

Where do we see the God-man living in the Bible? In the gospels there is the perfect model, the life of Jesus, impossible to imitate. In the epistles we see a little of the life of Paul, the apostle, but we all are not apostles. I especially love Acts 27, where we see Paul as a prisoner on a shipwreck-bound ship. Here Paul is not a great apostle, but a normal Christian, bringing everyone on the ship before the Lord and practically caring for them. We can be the same at our jobs and in our neighborhoods.

The most details of the God-man living through imperfect men is in the Psalms. The more I enjoy the Psalms, the more I see the Lord's life on earth was one with the Psalms.

http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalms.htm

The Lord Jesus lived out the Father's word: "As in heaven, so on earth". The details are often seen right there in the Psalms. But Lee missed this. The saints were singing, and the Spirit was moving, and Lee got scared and ran away. He tried to chase us away, by publicly shaming the psalm-singers, but really he revealed that he was running away. The light was getting too intense and he wasn't comfortable; this wasn't part of the Watchman Nee model! So his denigrating the Psalms was his fleeing from the face of God.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Thanks very much for reading my website, Aron.
I still meet with the local church in Detroit. We have not been affiliated with LSM since around 2007. We have fellowship with the other non-LSM LC's in the Great Lakes area, especially in Michigan.

In my Bible reading for today (I am following Robert Murray M'Cheyne's Bible reading schedule, which has me read in 1 year: OT, 2xNT, 2xPsalms.), I read Mary's praise to the Lord in Luke 1:46-55. How could she have been so eloquent? She must have been constituted with the Psalms, probably by singing and enjoying them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Mary's praise to the Lord in Luke 1:46-55. How could she have been so eloquent? She must have been constituted with the Psalms, probably by singing and enjoying them.

Your phrase "being constituted with the Psalms" is equivalent to Paul's "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" in Col 3:16 (they were urged to allow this rich indwelling by singing Psalms), also paralleling Paul's "Christ dwelling in your hearts" in Eph 3:17, and his "Christ in you the hope of glory" in Col 1:27.

Not to mention the companion verse "being filled in Spirit" by singing Psalms (Eph 5:18) akin to "the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead indwelling your mortal bodies and giving you life" in Rom 8:10,11.

All this "Spirit filling you" and "Christ indwelling you" sounds like WL's "God's economy", or a good part of it. Why couldn't WL grok this? What's so complicated about simply being filled up with the word of Christ? Sing, yo - don't analyze so much!

Reminds me of the LC parable back in the day: "Hunky and Dory in the land of food". WL talked about being filled with the word of Christ, while actually avoiding the very words that Paul referenced. (And I don't claim to be filled myself, or to have a "rich indwelling"... but at least I'm learning, slowly, slowly.)

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

Your phrase "being constituted with the Psalms" is equivalent to Paul's "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" in Col 3:16 (they were urged to allow this rich indwelling by singing Psalms), also paralleling Paul's "Christ dwelling in your hearts" in Eph 3:17, and his "Christ in you the hope of glory" in Col 1:27.

Not to mention the companion verse "being filled in Spirit" by singing Psalms (Eph 5:18) akin to "the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead indwelling your mortal bodies and giving you life" in Rom 8:10,11.

Wow! That's great. I had not put that together.

Originally Posted by aron

All this "Spirit filling you" and "Christ indwelling you" sounds like WL's "God's economy", or a good part of it. Why couldn't WL grok this? What's so complicated about simply being filled up with the word of Christ? Sing, yo - don't analyze so much!

I think WL got it, but then lost it. I think the problem was that the LC quickly got to a place where no one could correct WL. Everyone needs correction.

Originally Posted by aron

Reminds me of the LC parable back in the day: "Hunky and Dory in the land of food". WL talked about being filled with the word of Christ, while actually avoiding the very words that Paul referenced. (And I don't claim to be filled myself, or to have a "rich indwelling"... but at least I'm learning, slowly, slowly.)

At first WL meant to be filled with the actual Word. Then his writings became "better than" the Word. It is better to be filled with the "interpreted word" or the "digested word" rather than the pure word.
The Hunky Dory parable helped us to enjoy the word. It eventually led to problems because we didn't go on from there. There was this unwritten concept that we should just eat the Word but not try to do any of it unless the leadership said to.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

At first WL meant to be filled with the actual Word. Then his writings became "better than" the Word. It is better to be filled with the "interpreted word" or the "digested word" rather than the pure word.

I honestly think that Lee considered everything he taught to be from the actual Word. From the beginning to the end. But as we have begun to see in other discussions, both Nee and Lee incorrectly understood what the Word was teaching. They passed on their culture as the best Christian living. And they bought into some of the most divisive teachings of prior generations as teachings of unity.

I am convinced that Lee believed what he taught. And that he was blinded by his bias and culture to seeing the true teachings of the Word. This is seen most evidently in the idea that the Christian is not to do anything but just let life do it for you. This is not taught anywhere. But Lee taught it because his own experience was that he couldn't recon himself dead (for example).

Why did he despise the book of James so much? Probably because it pierced through his lack of growth in character. So spirituality had to become a substitute for character and righteousness.

He made a big deal of the Sermon on the Mount as being the Kingdom's Constitution, yet how much of his teaching in other places refused the idea of hungering and thirsting for righteousness and instead hungering and thirsting for dispensing so that one day righteousness would just happen without thinking about it. If that is the way it actually works, you don't have to think about it, much less hunger and thirst for it.

And I am becoming more and more convinced that even Nee's writings are polluted with somewhat less obvious substitutions. Nee may never have taken the positions that Lee did, but he still had a skewed vision of the Word of God. It is never more evident than when reading Authority and Submission (Spiritual Authority). His obvious mishandling of the Word of God in the opening chapter opened the doorway for him to create a false overlay for the rest of the book — the idea that authority and submission are some overarching principle to understand everything else by. But the verses he uses in the first chapter do not mention authority. So Nee retranslates power into authority. Not an A = B fact. Not even an A = B, and B = C, therefore A = C fact. Instead a replacement because he said it was so. But it is not. Yet we bought it.

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

The Hunky Dory parable helped us to enjoy the word. It eventually led to problems because we didn't go on from there. There was this unwritten concept that we should just eat the Word but not try to do any of it unless the leadership said to.

This little parable was cute. The whole of it created the impression that the Word of God was not to be considered, pondered, reasoned with, or learned, but just absorbed by eating. And eating was declared not to be learning about it, or studying it, but simply chewing on it.

I do not know when that was first published in The Stream, but if the time I saw it was the original, it was no earlier than late 72 if not early 73. And the mode of "eating" was never more obvious than the times of morning watch when verses were seldom read more than once, then chopped into one to three word fragments and "eaten" by repeating those little bits, punctuated with "Oh Lord," "amen," "hallelujah," or other similarly short phrase that is not part of the verse until you have spent sufficient time turning a meaningful sentence into a few paragraphs of unintelligible pureed soup.

You can say that the ingredients and nutrients are there and that it therefore represents "eating" the Word of God. But that is true only if the metaphor of eating the Word is meant to be milked for every possible similarity to eating that you can find. If it meant that the collection of words into sentences and paragraphs and whole discourses of thought are of no real consequence and the random slicing and dicing and rearranging and repeating of them with other words interspersed is of benefit to us, then what was actually written was really not important.

And using any collection of random words should be able to achieve the same result.

Unfortunately, that is sometimes what Lee thought. Maybe not because he didn't like what it actually said, but because he was blinded by what he wanted it to say, and therefore did not take due care for what it actually said.

And when your only solid base of truth — the Word — has been obliterated into puree, how do we ever really understand what it is that the Word is speaking to us? Or it is accepted as really meaning whatever Lee said? We were convinced that considering the words as words in phrases, sentences, and paragraphs was anathema to the correct understanding of it all, so we did not challenge anyone's rendition of anything. Or rather we only challenged everyone except Lee. For Lee, it was time to shout "hallelujah" rather than actually read it and ask "where did you get that?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

At first WL meant to be filled with the actual Word. Then his writings became "better than" the Word. It is better to be filled with the "interpreted word" or the "digested word" rather than the pure word... There was this unwritten concept that we should just eat the Word but not try to do any of it unless the leadership said to.

Eventually the "interpreted word" was able to tell us what of the "pure word" was profitable. In the beginning of this thread, I noted that of the first 21 Psalms, maybe 3 of them were held to display God's Christ in some form. (Ps 2,8,16) The rest were at best taking up space. At worst, WL charged them with misleading the reader! As if pleasing God were impossible, and a waste of effort!

Um, sorry, but no... you see, there's this guy, you may have heard of Him, named Jesus. God said, "This is my Beloved Son, in whom I delight". God delighted in His Incarnate Son. Look at Psalm 18 -- "He (the Father) rescued Me (Jesus) because He (the Father) delighted in Me (Jesus)." But to WL, Psalm 18 was just David the vain boaster.

And OUR righteousness is to believe into Jesus the Righteous. But what if your "interpreted word" tells you not to see Jesus, but to either see David (being vain), or the NT believer who is now approved before God? There is a big hole in the middle. Without the incarnated Word the whole thing falls apart, to me. And WL gutted it, effectively, of this vision. I find it inexplicable. Unless he was self-deluded, and threatened by any "revelation" which might arise independently from him, and draw attention away from his ministry.

So you'd get these rather large stretches that passed without comment, save for a reproving note or two from "the oracle". No footnote, no cross-reference, nothing.

And this was now the interpretive standard in the LC. If WL passed over it, how dare any from the rank-and-file find Christ there! So the "interpreted word" effectively shut the door on the "pure word". And Paul's encouragement to let the Word of Christ dwell in us richly (via Psalms, notably) got turned on its head: we were either to focus on the "pure word" of Paul's epistles, or the "interpreted word" of Lee. In either case the foundational understanding that Paul and the NT writers had held, from the OT, was erased.

Of course there were other areas, Bretheren-style, where WL teased visions of "Christ" out of every type and shadow the OT offered him. But if he didn't want to find Christ, then his readers/followers were shut off. Because you didn't want to be "independent" and see something "the oracle" didn't see.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

This little parable was cute. The whole of it created the impression that the Word of God was not to be considered, pondered, reasoned with, or learned, but just absorbed by eating. And eating was declared not to be learning about it, or studying it, but simply chewing on it.

I do not know when that was first published in The Stream, but if the time I saw it was the original, it was no earlier than late 72 if not early 73. And the mode of "eating" was never more obvious than the times of morning watch when verses were seldom read more than once, then chopped into one to three word fragments and "eaten" by repeating those little bits, punctuated with "Oh Lord," "amen," "hallelujah," or other similarly short phrase that is not part of the verse until you have spent sufficient time turning a meaningful sentence into a few paragraphs of unintelligible pureed soup.

You can say that the ingredients and nutrients are there and that it therefore represents "eating" the Word of God. But that is true only if the metaphor of eating the Word is meant to be milked for every possible similarity to eating that you can find. If it meant that the collection of words into sentences and paragraphs and whole discourses of thought are of no real consequence and the random slicing and dicing and rearranging and repeating of them with other words interspersed is of benefit to us, then what was actually written was really not important.

And using any collection of random words should be able to achieve the same result.

Unfortunately, that is sometimes what Lee thought. Maybe not because he didn't like what it actually said, but because he was blinded by what he wanted it to say, and therefore did not take due care for what it actually said.

And when your only solid base of truth — the Word — has been obliterated into puree, how do we ever really understand what it is that the Word is speaking to us? Or it is accepted as really meaning whatever Lee said? We were convinced that considering the words as words in phrases, sentences, and paragraphs was anathema to the correct understanding of it all, so we did not challenge anyone's rendition of anything. Or rather we only challenged everyone except Lee. For Lee, it was time to shout "hallelujah" rather than actually read it and ask "where did you get that?"

Just for the sake of argument, suppose that the minister of God's word told the flock to "meditate on the word day and night" via any means they wanted. They could pray, declare, give speeches, sing songs, shout, speak it to one another, make outlines and bullet points. They could murmur, yell, read silently, whatever. Methodology was flexible. Okay, fine- at some point, hopefully, the written word might be accompanied by the Holy Spirit of God who inspired those very words. And then Christ will thereby make His home in your hearts (I am assuming behaviors which at least attempt to line up with said words).

But now my argument is this. Suppose the flock leader then said, "But only do this to odd-numbered verses... ignore the even-numbered verses because they are irrelevant". Or, "Only do this with books of the Bible beginning with the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, and M, P, and T. All other books ignore."

You'd be like, "Huh?" That's nonsensical. Yet look at WL going through the Bible with his "God's economy" template and effectively that is what he did. He arbitrarily gave us some texts which were "profitable" and others that were "unprofitable." To me, it's a bizarre interpretive scheme nowhere indicated by the numerous citations in the NT.

And yet because the LC culture dictated that we be "one" with "God's present oracle" we essentially did just that: paying attention to what we were told to look at, and ignoring the rest. In the case of the Psalms it was a lot: according to WL only 3 of the first 21 were "profitable", and this ratio pretty much continued throughout the book.

That's why I noted the Hunky Dory parable. We were told to "be filled with the Triune God", and then told, essentially arbitrarily, what was God's word to fill us, and what was to be ignored. And what was to be ignored was not just a few disputed verses somewhere. It was vast sections of text. Completely contrary to the reception of said text in the NT itself. And yet we were reminded, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Every word? Or just some of them?

[OBW]

aron.

Yes, no matter how we might find some methods acceptable or questionable as part of a vast array of ways to consider the Word of God, if that was all that was dictated, then there is nothing inherently wrong with the dictate.

But if there is a mandate do only do certain things on portions and then to ignore the other portions, then there is a problem. That is the problem that you have been speaking on so diligently in this thread.

But when we take the metaphorical edict of Hunky and Dory in the Land of Food as the all-encompassing edict about what methods are acceptable (on all or even just defined portions of the text) we have added yet one more problem to the mix. Now we not only have eliminated portions of the text from consideration, but we have effectively eliminated all methods of "meditation" but one. The parable which provides the metaphor takes eating and makes it in opposition to all other methods of considering the scripture. Studying is not allowed. Meditating on the words is not allowed. Analyzing the words is not allowed. Only something that is defined as "eating" is allowed and that has been defined as not studying, analyzing, and meditating is not allowed. Only something that is determined to be eating. And pray-reading was just about the only version of eating that was considered valid.

Why do I say this? Because the story told of people who were starving, but were studying the meaning, contents, etc. of cooked chicken legs. you don't study chicken legs. "You don't meditate on them. You don't analyze them. You eat them." (Probably not the precise words of the story, but a decent paraphrase.) And therefore all of the commands in scripture that spoke of meditation, contemplation, coming together to reason, reading the word (which has examples in the scripture and they just read it, not pray-read it), are dismissed because in one place Jesus said to eat the word. And in a place in the OT it said "thy words were found and I did eat them." No consideration for what the metaphorical implications of eating the word could be. Just a simplistic dismissal of all other ways to take in and consider the scripture.

Jesus did not say to not study the scripture. He simply noted that it pointed to Him and they were missing it. He never said to not read and meditate on the words. And when he said to eat the words, or even to eat his flesh, it is almost a ridiculous form of metaphorical cannibalism to declare that this has nothing to do with the actual activities of reading, studying, meditating, reasoning, etc.

So not only are we dumping whole sections of the word as a waste of space (per Lee), but we are also dismissing what it actually says, teaches, and even commands in favor of a kind of nearly meaningless activity that is exciting because it is self-reinforced by the participants who are convinced that God really wants this gibberish nonsense rather than rational understanding of his Word.

It is almost like having tongues without interpretation. And when it comes to tongues in the meeting, Paul declared that he would rather have 5 words of intelligence than 10,000 words in tongues. And that is just about all you can say about the intelligibility of a session of pray-reading LCM style.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

But when we take the metaphorical edict of Hunky and Dory in the Land of Food as the all-encompassing edict about what methods are acceptable (on all or even just defined portions of the text) we have added yet one more problem to the mix. ... we have effectively eliminated all methods of "meditation" but one. The parable which provides the metaphor takes eating and makes it in opposition to all other methods of considering the scripture. Studying is not allowed. Meditating on the words is not allowed. Analyzing the words is not allowed. Only something that is defined as "eating" is allowed and that has been defined as not studying, analyzing, and meditating is not allowed. Only something that is determined to be eating. And pray-reading was just about the only version of eating that was considered valid...

The "Oh Lord... 'today'..... yes, Lord.... 'today'..... amen, Jesus... 'today'..... Hallelujah, 'today' " method of "eating the Word" is certainly stilted. Arguably, most methods, left to themselves, can become unbalanced. Repeating, singing, declaring, shouting, murmuring... even reading and studying can become merely a mental exercise, lacking reality.

In both your critique of the fixation of one method to the exclusion of others, and mine of declaring which passages are "edible", there's a common thread, of a narrow, exclusivist group which takes the "leadings" of one person as the equivalent of God's speaking from the throne.

The result, well... I won't bore you.

Here is an account of a current "praise and worship" leader of his experiences during the Jesus Movement in the 1965-75 time period. The WL account of "the history of the church and the local churches" would ignore this. Especially that there were others out there "enjoying Christ" during the so-called glory years of Elden Hall and the migrations.

Wayne Drain was born in 1951 in a small town in the foothills of the majestic Ozark Mountains located in a bend of the Arkansas River aptly called Ozark, Arkansas. Wayne has Scottish and Cherokee blood in his veins. His father was a labourer in a small truck company. Said Wayne, "We were pretty poor, but I didn't know that. I had a great Mom and Dad that loved each other and she loved the Lord. My whole family was quite musical, I had an aunt that was on the Grand Old Opry and had an uncle: I don't know if you've ever heard the names Jean Shepard and Cowboy Copas but they were somehow kin to my family. My dad's sister, Aunt Marie, was being prepped for the Grand Old Opry then she got married and backed out of it. So they'd always had this desire for some of us to be involved in music. But there were only two kinds of music, you know, country and western. . . I've got three brothers, and they're all younger than me, all musical: drummers, guitar players. At our family gatherings after dinner we would all gather round and my grandpa would take out his banjo and one uncle would play a mandolin, another uncle played a guitar and we would all just play. That's what we'd do all afternoon. I'd sit and watch. So it was quite musical, growing up. I had a good childhood, I played sports and I was all about wanting to be a baseball player until an Ed Sullivan show: I'm walking through the house and the Beatles come on and I think 'that's it - that's what I want to do right there.'"

With some high school buddies Wayne formed a band, the Stingrays. Like the British beat groups they copied, The Stingrays' repertoire was dominated by twangy guitar renditions of black R&B standards. The Stingrays with 14 year old Wayne singing lead played around their immediate area and even got to make a record, cutting a rudimentary version of Eddie Floyd's R&B hit "Knock On Wood". Wayne laughingly commented, "It was a hit in our town: of course I was in charge of the Top 10 radio countdown every day, so I'm sure there was a little bit of help there."

With styles of rock changing The Stingrays evolved by 1968 into The High Tide. Continued Wayne, "I remember thinking, 'I've got a better chance of making it at music than I do at sports', although I had an athletic scholarship offer. And so as I went along music became much, much more important to me and we got a lot of immediate feedback, which is good for teenagers. And you got the girls. I mean that was always an exciting by-product of being a musician."

Wayne recounted how he became a Christian. "I was raised in a very fundamental Pentecostal church, and it was a church that believed there was no assurance of your salvation unless you spoke in tongues and I could never do that. I tried from the time I was five, and I finally gave up at 15. I just thought it was not going to happen. So actually I went to church to please my parents until I was about 14 and then I rebelled and just thought, 'Well if I'm not going to get to Heaven I might as well live the other way.' And that's sort of what I did for a while. But then there was a sweeping move of the Spirit going across our country when I was a senior in high school. I went to a little Methodist lay-witness mission with a bunch of my friends: we started getting together and just talking about 'is the Bible real, is Jesus real.' So I started getting interested again, but very cautious.

"I was at a beer bust for a fraternity, where a bunch of guys get together to pledge a fraternity and start drinking a whole lot of beer and either start getting into fights or talking about their Moms or something. This one guy, he came in and he didn't bring any beer, he brought some milk: he had a gallon of milk. I thought, 'What is this about?' He was the president of the student centre of the university I was going to and ended being my big brother in the fraternity. He started trying to witness to me that night. I saw it coming a mile away and I said, 'I've done all that, I've tried all that, it won't work for me'. He heard my story and he said something very profound. He said, 'You don't have to speak in tongues to be saved.' No one had ever said that to me. And so two days later I knelt beside my bed and I said, 'Lord, if you're real, show me.' I had a real experience with the Lord that I'll never forget. Not long after that I was filled with the Spirit."

The High Tide band didn't last beyond high school. Explained Wayne, "We were graduating in 1970 and were going to different universities. I went to a university about 75 miles away from my home and I got into another band there called Summerfield. That band was sort of a soul rock band. It was the era of Chicago, Blood, Sweat And Tears, Edgar Winter, people like that who had horns in their bands. We had a great horn section. We started off in college when I was 18 and I got a job being their lead singer. We travelled around southern parts of the United States, and colleges. It was a really good band and we had written some songs and everything looked like it was going to be a successful venture. We were having some money people approach us about doing an album and things like that. Then one night we were playing a gig at a bar in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and I was looking around, looking at the people in my little group, in my entourage. It was people that I did not want to be around anymore. One guy was practicing witchcraft, somebody else was a strong drug addict and I thought, 'I don't know if this is what I want to do'.

"So I'm having that question, I'm driving home that night by myself and this conversation starts happening in my head. It went, 'This is going to be good, you're about to get everything you ever wanted, you know, the money, the girls, the music, the albums, all that stuff', and I'm going, 'Yeah, and getting up for it again'. Then that voice went a little too far. It said, 'But you'll have to forget this Jesus stuff.' I kind of knew that probably was not God. . . I pulled the van over and I just stood beside the road on that stretch of highway and I said, 'Lord, show me what to do'. The the Lord spoke. He said, 'Trust me and follow me.' Two weeks later we played the last gig that we had on the current contract. I quit the band and within a month the Jesus Movement hit the university."

The revival amongst tens of thousands of American young people known as the Jesus Movement had begun in California but was making a profound impact across many American states. Wayne, who had recently married his teenage sweetheart June, was swept along by the exciting move of the Holy Spirit. "There was the revival happening out in Kentucky. There were some things going on up in Chicago. The Jesus Movement was all up and down the West Coast. Everyone wants to take credit of where it started. But these kids, they were very nomadic, everyone was hitch-hiking everywhere and going from festival to festival. So these kids that got saved, they just started going to colleges and high schools all over the nation, they just spread out. We had a group of kids get involved with Campus Crusade and they came to our town and started witnessing on campus, playing their guitars. We started gathering together to hear what they had to say and a revival swept across our campus: college professors getting saved, students, jocks, band people, military people, everyone was getting saved. It was just a wave of the Spirit going across the nation."

Actually I find the guy's music kind of simplistic. The whole P&W thing doesn't do it for me. But to go back to OBW's point, who am I to say what is THE method for approaching God?!? Who am I to measure the validity of someone's worship style?

I will say that I feel cautious of any approach that says, "Get out of your mind", and tries to get you in a froth. That goes to much of the Charismatic, P&W, and the LC church. I don't like people that scream in your face continually. I think they prey on the weak and unstable. But at least Wayne Drain didn't say, "This is THE way for Christians to worship God."

[OBW]

Several years ago now, for the first Sunday of advent the sermon was titled "Advent Starts With the Blues" or something like that. Israel in a less egregious captivity, but still in bondage, longing for the coming of the Messiah. And upon the birth, light shone. But it was into a dark place.

Sometimes it is probably good to consider that we still live much of each day in a dark place no matter how much we try to remain always praying or whichever description of staying connected you like best. Those who claim otherwise are lying and need to repent just as much as me.

The Psalms are the Word of Christ when we are in a dark place. They are his help to us to recognize our dark places and repent. To cry out to God for his mercy. All of those poor experiences of man are just what we need to recognize that the Christian life is not from success to success, but from frailty to frailty. It includes "forgive us our trespasses" in every prayer.

Or it should.

We may not like the forms of the older liturgies, but we need to join them in declaring "Lord have mercy . . . Christ have mercy" because we always need mercy.

The man who mocked the Psalms will now be mocked with his own words.

"His mercy endureth forever, and ever, and ever, and ever . . . ."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

We may not like the forms of the older liturgies, but we need to join them in declaring "Lord have mercy . . . Christ have mercy" because we always need mercy.

Interesting to me how the "older forms" actually contain within them the seeds of newness. If we disregard them as old, and therefore passe, and hold up some supposedly superior "new and improved" alternative format, we risk ourselves becoming old. I recently began to appreciate how rigid I have been... if there's any "form" it's to remain open to the speaking Spirit, who's never old. And which speaking Spirit may come to us in many forms and guises. Those who say that their latest format presents God's up-to-date move, and is therefore the de facto standard, will themselves be old before the words leave their mouths. Likewise, when WL began to use his interpretive template to disregard the Word as unprofitable he revealed his template as itself passing away.

But there is form: the form, the basis, of God's speaking, is the Bible. Not just parts of it. And the Bible reveals to us Jesus Christ, who is God's Son and who reveals to us the Way home to the Eternal Father. Not via God's economy or the ground of the church, but via faith in Jesus Christ Himself. There is no metric whereby we can slice and dice the Bible away to a more convenient, compact or "crystallized" narrative. Paul never suggested this. And Paul's encouragement toward "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" was pretty open: no methodology presented, and no restrictions, except to have grace in our hearts toward God.

Now, I may look at Psalm 18 and see, "He rescued me because he delighted in me" (v.19) and may "hear the Spirit" revealing Jesus Christ. Others may not. Though the NT invites us to look into the OT and see Christ, in what manner we look, and see Him, may vary. And we may use drums and speaker cabinets and Les Paul guitars. Or we may chant in Latin. Or we may chant in Latin, with Les Paul guitars. And yet it's not the "wild west" with "each person for themselves" but rather the freedom of the Spirit. Paul asked us, "Am I not free?" And did Paul then tell James and John and Peter to "get in line" and be subservient, as the basis of some "one accord"? No, they also were free. We are free. It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand fast therefore and do not be enchained again with the yoke of slavery.

We may initially think that some superior forms and formats are preferred vehicles for the HS, but too quickly they become yokes of slavery. Entanglements.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting to me how the "older forms" actually contain within them the seeds of newness. If we disregard them as old, and therefore passe, and hold forth what we say is the superior "new and improved" alternative, we risk ourselves becoming old. I only recently saw this.

There was a time when the "old" testimonies of our salvation were told, retold, and rehearsed in the LC meetings. Telling them helped to keep our love fresh for the Lord and remember what marvelous things He had done in our life, kind of like an old married couple who could still remember their courtship and wedding day. God told Israel to keep the Passover as an eternal memorial for this exact same reason. Our story of salvation was like writing a personal "psalm" of our own trials and love towards God.

Then the latest "move of the Lord" came from "on high," which was btw located in Anaheim on Ball Road. It was announced to the LC's that all of these testimonies were like the old "sea stories," and that they would now have to come to an end. That was a sad day for me because I learned so much, and was always so encouraged to hear how the Lord was working in one another's lives. I never thought that these testimonies got "old."

But, since Lee was our leader, who were we to protest this "new way." Besides, since we were not adequately "constituted with the truth," we were so easily fooled by the likes of Max Rapoport and company, or so the MOTA told us. So our way became "old," and we started something "new." And we continued to repeat that cycle until the day I finally left. And with every "new" way, the LC's spiraled downward into deadness, pride, and exclusivity, only to hear Lee continue to inform us it was all our fault.

Thus the LC practice of "prophesying" was born, or shall I say stillborn.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then the latest "move of the Lord" came from "on high," which was btw located in Anaheim on Ball Road. It was announced to the LC's that all of these testimonies were like the old "sea stories," and that they would now have to come to an end...

Thus the LC practice of "prophesying" was born, or shall I say stillborn.

Reminds me of the movie "The Killing Fields". The Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia in 1975, and announced a new government program: "It is the Year Zero". History itself no longer existed, and reality would henceforth be determined at Headquarters.

I'm all for a strong central government, but folks let's not get too carried away here!

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

We are free. It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.

We may initially think that some superior forms and formats are preferred vehicles for the HS, but too quickly they become yokes of slavery. Entanglements.

I had an interesting conversation this week with the "worship leader" after a church service. The guy was obviously very skilled, but he was doing a kind of simplistic melodic structure, kind of repetitious. Later I went up to him and said, "Obviously you are a skilled player, and I love your style, which is very inventive (he had a 'jazzy' style; very fluid and nimble and you could tell he was having fun). But that song was rather rudimetary. Are you purposely 'dumbing down' your music for the assembly?"

I felt that he was afraid to really play up to his skill level. Like he had to do the lowest-common-denominator thing for the church service. Many Praise & Worship groups really bore me.

He said, "No, I took my time, and worked hard on that arrangement. Both the words and the song structure were very carefully chosen. But thank you for your input."

Later I felt convicted -- like, who was I to tell him how to arrange his song? That experience really helped me. I can "like" or "not like" an arrangement (and believe me, there's a lot I don't like), but that doesn't mean that anyone else's relationship with the Holy Spirit of God is of some inferior quality. Everyone has their own approach -- who am I to dictate what is "better" or "closer to the heart of God"? As long as someone approaches God respectfully who can tell them what's the proper "joyful noise"?

Wow -- I really felt free after that. I'm free! Hallelujah! If God wants to tell a musician to compose differently, then certainly God is able to. I can be free to follow the voice within. We all will stand before the Lord. What a release that was. Incredible!

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

I had an interesting conversation this week with the "worship leader" after a church service. The guy was obviously very skilled, but he was doing a kind of simplistic melodic structure, kind of repetitious. Later I went up to him and said, "Obviously you are a skilled player, and I love your style, which is very inventive (he had a 'jazzy' style; very fluid and nimble and you could tell he was having fun). But that song was rather rudimetary. Are you purposely 'dumbing down' your music for the assembly?"

I felt that he was afraid to really play up to his skill level. Like he had to do the lowest-common-denominator thing for the church service. Many Praise & Worship groups really bore me.

He said, "No, I took my time, and worked hard on that arrangement. Both the words and the song structure were very carefully chosen. But thank you for your input."

Later I felt convicted -- like, who was I to tell him how to arrange his song? That experience really helped me. I can "like" or "not like" an arrangement (and believe me, there's a lot I don't like), but that doesn't mean that anyone else's relationship with the Holy Spirit of God is of some inferior quality. Everyone has their own approach -- who am I to dictate what is "better" or "closer to the heart of God"? As long as someone approaches God respectfully who can tell them what's the proper "joyful noise"?

Wow -- I really felt free after that. I'm free! Hallelujah! If God wants to tell a musician to compose differently, then certainly God is able to. I can be free to follow the voice within. We all will stand before the Lord. What a release that was. Incredible!

Hi bro Aron. Do you think you offended him?

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Hi bro Aron. Do you think you offended him?

No, we had a great conversation. I don't know what the Lord showed him, but I really saw something by the end.

At the beginning I thought I could explain to him the difference between good and mediocre music, or between good and excellent music. By the end I realized, Hey, if that's the best he can do, that is fine. If he has peace then so do I.

And he really seemed to appreciate that I cared enough to talk to him about his music. I think we both got blessed by the conversation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

No, we had a great conversation. I don't know what the Lord showed him, but I really saw something by the end.

At the beginning I thought I could explain to him the difference between good and mediocre music...

This musician was clearly technically conversant with his instrument, and he had a very vibrant and playful style. But he was playing nursery-rhyme level music for "the masses" at church, and the words were likewise simplistic. They were derived from the Bible, but oversimplified, and repetitious: they kept repeating the same words over and over again. I felt that the Bible references he used had more material available, and that he had the "chops" to incorporate it and make the song more interesting (and profitable for the congregation). So I respectfully told him. I wanted him to push the proverbial envelope a little more. But eventually I realized that what he was doing was valid in its own right. That gave me such great peace just to "let go". I'm not the director here.

There is a great verse from Paul about "receiving one another, just as God received you in Christ Jesus." You know, Jesus loved us, and gave Himself up for us. And God loved us and sent His Son. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Shouldn't we receive one another similarly, in love, not in judgment?

A lot of Christian music out there I'm not too keen on. Musically it is not very interesting, or it is rhythmically jarring and makes me agitated. The lyrics likewise I don't find very compelling - usually emotionally-based, non-scriptural, "me-centered" and shallow. But that's okay!!! Really, it's all good! Just love one another. Let God deal with the "worship styles" issue. Just love one another, and receive one another. Don't just receive the people that play music that I approve of.

What a release it was to let go of judgment! God is in charge, not me. I'm the sinner here - I'm not the king on a throne, pronouncing judgment on everyone and everything. Be at peace and let God be God.

[aron]

Paul wrote to Timothy, "Don't get distracted by old wives tales, myths, genealogies, and fables. Instead, pay attention to God's economy which is in faith." Our Christian faith is that we couldn't please God our Father, and reconcile ourselves while yet in sin, to Him who is Holy and righteous and pure. We were fallen, lost, and cut off from God. But God in His mercy, sent His Son. You know the details, I won't bore you.

This is our faith: Jesus the Son of God, come to bring us back to the Father's house. So what is "God's economy" in faith? Interestingly, Paul also told the saints, in faith, to sing "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" which would allow Christ to dwell in them richly, and which would fill them with the Spirit. According to Paul, God wants to dispense the word of Christ into us via music. Very interesting.

Now, the psalms are repeatedly mentioned in this process, by Paul. The readers of Paul's epistles had music already available, and the words were known. And the words pointed to Christ, or at least to God. So Paul encouraged them to get into it. Be filled with Spirit. Let Christ come, and make His home in your hearts.

But WL flipped this: he said to focus instead on the words of Paul. WL said, read Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and this will constitute you proper God-men. WL said, this is God's economy! But Paul didn't say that, did he? Now, he did tell the Colossians to read his epistle to the Laodiceans, and vice versa. But those epistles pointed people back to the OT scripture! Yet WL said much of the OT scripture was too low, and we should focus instead on Paul, who was the "high peak". WL said that the psalms were typically natural, and fallen, presenting is with human concepts instead of divine revelation... then why did Paul repeatedly urge his readers to sing them? Who is presenting us with the fable here? Who's giving us the myth, here?

WL told us to "masticate the processed and consummated Triune God, and become God in life and nature, and build up the Body of Christ to consummate the New Jerusalem". Okay, fine, but why ignore and even downplay Paul's encouragement in so doing, and pretend that your alternative approach is the true "divine economy"? Did Paul not know what he was writing? Was Paul so ignorant that you have to modify his writings so? Do you have some new revelation to overturn that of Paul? Pray tell us.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... if you want to start going around saying that some of the scriptures are of no avail, in revealing Jesus Christ to us, you'd better bring some big guns with you. Because if the only thing you are basing this assertion on is your own logic, or your so-called revelation, you are not going to get very far with the discriminating Christian public.

Christ is the Word of God, incarnated to us and for us and now (at least somewhat) in us. His faith in the Father, his sent Spirit, his very person, and all his work, become the rock upon which we boldly stand - "He (Christ) trusted in Him (the Father); let Him (the Father) save Him (Christ) now" (Matt 27:43; Psa 22:8). If you dismiss this revealed Word as merely a contrivance of fallen human imagination you risk the prophecy: "Anyone who falls upon this stone will be broken to pieces". (Matt 21:44) I saw WL trash the Psalms, and it was like watching his ministry implode in front of me.

Regarding this, I recently considered a section of Psalm 18, thinking about WL's presentation of scripture.

25To the faithful you show yourself faithful,

to the blameless you show yourself blameless,

26to the pure you show yourself pure,

but to the devious you show yourself shrewd.

You know, WL calling God's word "low", and "natural" and "fallen" may actually show something of his own ministry. If this is what God revealed to WL, then this is what God revealed to us about WL's ministry: that it was low, natural, and fallen. Merely human concepts, as WL put it nicely.

Now, if I come to Psalm 18, or Psalm 3, and get a "revelation of Christ" where WL saw only David's vain imagination, does that mean that I'm somehow elevated beyond, to the heavenly realms? Of course not: "Blessed is he who keeps the word, not merely those who mouth it". Consideration without transformed behavior is just dreaming. Illusory.

But how can you keep what you do not see? And how can you see when your so-called minister says there's nothing to see? And what kind of a ministry is it, that tells you that a portion of the word of God is apart from "God's eternal economy", only there as a sort of placeholder, in between the "revelatory" parts? What kind of a ministry is that? That is cutting straight the word? I think not. I think, rather, that the one who said the word was "low" needs to go back and have another look. As WL's own apologists urge us to prayerfully consider WL's word, perhaps they need to go back and prayerfully reconsider the word. Maybe those calling the word of God "low" need to go back and prayerfully reconsider, until the breadth and height and depth reveals itself to them.

At least somewhat; I can't claim to have laid hold, either. But what little I've seen indicates that the height and breadth and depth of the word is immeasurably beyond what it was portrayed to us by WL, this supposed minister of the word, the supposed oracle of God for the present age. I think I've seen that much, anyway. The journey must continue.

[OBW]

And this was a gifted minister of the Word that dismissed this much of the Psalms, seeing nothing noteworthy? And mocking so much of it as just being "your mercy endureth forever, and ever, and ever . . . ."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

And this was a gifted minister of the Word that dismissed this much of the Psalms, seeing nothing noteworthy? And mocking so much of it as just being "your mercy endureth forever, and ever, and ever . . . ."

To the low, God reveals His word as low. To the fallen, God reveals His word as fallen. To those burdened by their natural concepts, God reveals His word as the natural concepts of others. To those teaching vanity, God reveals his words as vain. And so on.

And we thought WL was somebody great, in God's kingdom? What an inanity. Jesus taught us that if you want to be great, be the least. This LC system we were in, the Big Boss was so great that he could tell us what verses were profitable and what could be safely ignored! Is that the kind of greatness we were seeking after?

This was a human system, cultural, organizational, and ideational. Whether and how much it was colored by its Asian roots, it was a system of the Gentiles.

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.

26 "It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant…

The Maximum Brother's "carte blanche" authority to interpret scripture ultimately became, in the LC system, the authority to over-ride scripture. To say what was of God, and what was of man.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

To the low, God reveals His word as low. To the fallen, God reveals His word as fallen. To those burdened by their natural concepts, God reveals His word as the natural concepts of others. To those teaching vanity, God reveals his words as vain. And so on.

I'm not tracking with you here. Where does this come from? I'm not sure whether you are mocking Lee's revelation as being what he gets for not really seeking after God, or that we get the revelation we deserve.

But from my perspective, most of those revelations that you are talking about do not seem to be the revelation of (by) God, but the imagination of man concerning God (and called revelation). In other words, God is not revealing himself as vain. But the vain see God as if he is the kind of vanity they are.

I do not think that God reveals his words as the natural concepts of man. But natural man perceives them in that manner because that is what he is — natural. And since some of the words of God, coming past Lee in the train of vanquished foes was such a stench in his (Lee's) nostrils, it would seem that he was not really one of those who saw God in it, but those who saw death in it. Says something about the god he believed in.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not tracking with you here. Where does this come from?

I was continuing my meditation on Psalm 18, which I'd done in post #386. Here is a more substantial quote, with the salient parts bolded.

20 The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.
21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord;
I am not guilty of turning from my God.
22 All his laws are before me;
I have not turned away from his decrees.
23 I have been blameless before him
and have kept myself from sin.
24 The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

25 To the faithful you show yourself faithful,
to the blameless you show yourself blameless,
26 to the pure you show yourself pure,
but to the devious you show yourself shrewd.
27 You save the humble
but bring low those whose eyes are haughty.
28 You, Lord, keep my lamp burning;
my God turns my darkness into light.
29 With your help I can advance against a troop[e];
with my God I can scale a wall.

30 As for God, his way is perfect:
The Lord’s word is flawless;
he shields all who take refuge in him.

God is perfect in all His ways. His word is pure, converting the soul. His testimony is righteous (etc etc - see e.g. Psalm 19). But it says, "to the devious God shows himself as shrewd." So if you are pure, God's word is pure. But if you are corrupted, God's word is corrupted (fallen, low, etc). On a superficial level, WL was right. David was a mortal sinner. David was colored by concepts. We all are. But how does the NT deal with this? Did Peter lambast the failure of David to rise from the dead? In Psalm 16, David said that he wouldn't see corruption, and in Acts 2 Peter said that David was a prophet, and knew that God had promised him a Seed that would endure forever. In the gospels Jesus said the same thing: "David was in spirit, and he was writing about Me".

But WL instead of taking this route, essentially indicted the Psalmists for being low, and fallen, and struggling with their "natural concepts". Did Paul ever indicate this? Did Jesus, or Peter? So I am wondering if maybe God is using this word to expose WL as being himself burdened by natural concepts.

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not think that God reveals his words as the natural concepts of man. But natural man perceives them in that manner because that is what he is — natural. And since some of the words of God, coming past Lee in the train of vanquished foes was such a stench in his (Lee's) nostrils, it would seem that he was not really one of those who saw God in it, but those who saw death in it. Says something about the god he believed in.

I don't think we are thinking or writing fundamentally different things. I just used the poetic language of the psalmist to say it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

But WL instead of taking this route, essentially indicted the Psalmists for being low, and fallen, and struggling with their "natural concepts". Did Paul ever indicate this? Did Jesus, or Peter? So I am wondering if maybe God is using this word to expose WL as being himself burdened by natural concepts.

I don't think we are thinking or writing fundamentally different things. I just used the poetic language of the psalmist to say it.

I understand what you are saying. And it does follow the type of poetry of the psalm in question. But that psalm only talks that way concerning those who are: righteous, blameless, faithful, pure, clean, humble, etc.

Those who are haughty are brought low. So God does not reveal his words as haughty to those who are haughty. He brings them low. He opposes what they are rather than responding in kind.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Those who are haughty are brought low. So God does not reveal his words as haughty to those who are haughty. He brings them low. He opposes what they are rather than responding in kind.

Well I am biased by the KJV translation (I grew up on it). Actually it seems to be kind of interesting to translate this section, so let's do a word study:

New International Version
to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the devious you show yourself shrewd.

New Living Translation
To the pure you show yourself pure, but to the wicked you show yourself hostile.

English Standard Version
with the purified you deal purely, and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous.

New American Standard Bible
With the pure You show Yourself pure, And with the perverted You show Yourself astute.

King James Bible
With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself unsavoury.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
with the pure You prove Yourself pure, but with the crooked You prove Yourself shrewd.

International Standard Version
In the company of the pure you demonstrate your purity. In the company of the perverted you will appear to be perverse.

NET Bible
You prove to be reliable to one who is blameless, but you prove to be deceptive to one who is perverse.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
with pure people you are pure. [In dealing] with devious people you are clever.

Jubilee Bible 2000
With the pure thou art pure, and with the perverse thou art an adversary.

King James 2000 Bible
With the pure you will show yourself pure; and with the devious you will show yourself shrewd.

American King James Version
With the pure you will show yourself pure; and with the fraudulent you will show yourself unsavory.

American Standard Version
With the pure thou wilt show thyself pure; And with the perverse thou wilt show thyself froward.

Douay-Rheims Bible
With the elect thou wilt be elect: and with the perverse thou wilt be perverted.

Darby Bible Translation
With the pure thou dost shew thyself pure; And with the perverse thou dost shew thyself contrary.

English Revised Version
With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the perverse thou wilt shew thyself froward.

Webster's Bible Translation
With the pure thou wilt show thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt contend.

World English Bible
With the pure you will show yourself pure. With the crooked you will show yourself shrewd.

Young's Literal Translation
With the pure Thou shewest Thyself pure, And with the perverse Thou shewest Thyself a wrestler.

It seems to match the NT adage, "if you forgive you'll be forgiven, but if you don't forgive it won't be forgiven you." Or, "If you don't show mercy, no mercy will be shown you." Of course God is merciful - but if you don't give it you don't get it. What you do is what you get.

The first part is easy: with the pure God shows Himself as He is. "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God." God is holy, and we are to be holy, as God is. But what if we're perverted? God will suddenly reveal something different to us. Not that God is perverted, or that we can make God perverted. But the sudden torment of our path will reveal the torment that was hidden within.

If we come to a large and heavily-cited section of scripture and declare it to be essentially dead letters, what does that show about our interpretative style? Perhaps God is using the Bible to reveal the heart of the interpreter. If the Bible expositor says that the Bible has degraded sections, or is partly fallen and natural writings, then I say that arguably the interpreter's ministry has degraded parts. And these are being revealed to all, by God.

But my poetic license probably didn't carry too well. Probably some of my writing that I think the point is clear, many people go, "Huh? I don't get it". Thanks for pointing out how easy it is to mis-read my ideas.

[aron]

Let me try again: When God showed WL that there were significant sections of scripture which were deficient of revelation, and simply the vain imagination of fallen men, then God was showing us, through this, that there were significant sections of WL's ministry which were deficient of revelation, and simply his vain imagination.

But maybe that is completely unrelated to that verse in Psalm 18. It certainly seemed relevant, to me.

[Ohio]

New International Version
to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the devious you show yourself shrewd.

King James Bible
With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself unsavoury.

Originally Posted by aron

The first part is easy: with the pure God shows Himself as He is. "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God." God is holy, and we are to be holy, as God is. But what if we're perverted? God will suddenly reveal something different to us. Not that God is perverted, or that we can make God perverted. But the sudden torment of our path will reveal the torment that was hidden within.

I have seen many examples of this in the "alternative views" section of the forum. The point is simple -- if you see problems with God, then the real problem is your own heart.

This verse helps me to understand people.

I'll have to remember this verse in Psalms 18.25

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The point is simple -- if you see problems with God, then the real problem is your own heart.

This verse helps me to understand people.

And the solution is arguably also simple. The ekklesia. The assembly. The gathered church. Fellowship.

When we come together and somebody begins to manifest a spirit that is driving them off the reservation, the collective enterprise leans toward them in prayer, in exhortation, in correction (if done very, very carefully!) and, especially, in example. The wandering star sees the others fixed in the firmament and is encouraged to resume their rightful place.

In the assembly of WL, the sole purpose of the assembly was to "amen" whatever he spoke. So if his "alternative views" got too extreme, and some of the faint-hearted slipped out the back door, there were always a few die-hards around who's mantra was that WL was always right. Even when he said the scriptures were wrong (fallen, degraded, vain, dark, etc). So we took the so-called revelation of the so-called apostle over the plain words of scriptures.

Contrast this to the reception of the scriptures in the NT writings. (see my next post).

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Contrast this to the reception of the scriptures in the NT writings...

Look at the reception of scripture in Acts 13 by Paul.

14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.

17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it.

18 And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness.

19 And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot.

20 And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.

21 And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.

22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave their testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.

26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.

29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

30 But God raised him from the dead:

31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.

32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

There are 5 OT scriptures used in this chapter, and I want to focus on the 3 linked together in verses 33, 34, and 35, which I bolded. Paul used Psalm 2, Isaiah 55, and Psalm 16. Now, David was a sinner. An adulterer, a murderer, and a proud man whose pride got him, and Israel, in trouble. Yet where do we see cautionary words to take only certain verses as indicative of God's favor, promise, and blessing, while panning others as merely products of David's vain imagination? No -- rather, usage continually suggests that there's further blessing if the reader would peruse the source text. There's an open invitation to dig further. To me it's quite obviously understood by the usage.

Look at verses 36 and 37. David died and was buried, and his grave remains with us today. But God fulfilled this word in his Son. To me, this is exactly the argument Peter used in Acts 2; Paul also used it here. The "vanity" of David was not the focus of Peter or Paul, but rather the fulfillment in David's promised seed. But WL seemed stumbled, instead, by the vanity of David. Because of what? God's economy? Both Peter and Paul in their scriptural exegeses had no problems looking beyond the "corruption" of David and seeing the incorrupt One who followed. Why did WL's interpretive scheme fail him here?

... if you see problems with God, then the real problem is your own heart..

WL didn't see problems with God, as much as he had problems with God's word. The psalmist wrote, "You [God] have rescued me" and WL said, "No, God didn't rescue him. David rescued himself." O really? Where is our precedent for this interpretation? See WL's footnotes in Psalm 34, for example. David had told Saul, "The God who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the bear will rescue me from this uncircumcised Philistine." So, David violated God's salvation by throwing a stone at Goliath? Who saved David, his sling, or God? Clearly scripture repeatedly shows David's trust, and God subsequently saving and protecting David. But WL overturned this because... I don't know... "God's eternal economy"? The "sure mercies of David" got by-passed because David was... a sinner? I don't know. When Paul and Barnabas told them to "continue in the grace of God" in Acts 13:45, what grace was that, pray tell?

If the ekklesia had functioned as it should, this hash that WL made of the scriptures would have been challenged, I'm pretty sure of that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If the ekklesia had functioned as it should, this hash that WL made of the scriptures would have been challenged, I'm pretty sure of that.

Actually the ekklesia did function as it should; it merely resulted in quarantines, storms, rebellions, and the like.

[aron]

Back to the initial post on this thread:

Originally Posted by aron

I'd like to make my case using a few verses from the first Psalm.

1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.

WL wrote that this is the concept of David, and since David sinned (he numbered Israel in his pride and 70,000 died; he had sex with a married woman [Bathsheba] etc) then he was not this hypothetical "righteous man" from Psalm 1. True, but my point is that this was fulfilled by Jesus the Nazarene. Remember Peter's testimony in Acts, where he said that David's declaration that God would not allow him to see corruption was fulfilled by Jesus?

Acts 2:29-32 “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."

David's declaration in the Psalms was not fulfilled by him, but by his descendant Jesus the Nazarene. Similarly, Psalms chapter 1 is not fulfilled by David but by Jesus the Nazarene, and only by Jesus the Nazarene. It is, in one sense, a shallow statement of a well meaning, God-fearing but ultimately fallable human being. But Psalm 1 also paints a picture of the coming Christ.

In all the declarations of the "God-fearing, law-abiding righteous man" throughout the chapters of the Psalms, we see picture after picture of Jesus. Jesus didn't overturn the law; he fulfilled it, and raised it to its true spiritual source (e.g. love, holiness, righteousness).

There's a medieval fable called "Belling the cat". There was a cat, wreaking havoc on the mouse population, and one day the mice convened a meeting to figure out what to do. They were stymied until one bright fellow proposed that they hang a bell on the neck of the cat, so that when he approached they'd hear the bell tinkling and escape.

What a good idea! Everybody liked it. Then somebody asked, "Who's gonna put the bell on the cat?" Suddenly the meeting changed its tone, and everybody got nervous and looked around. Nobody wanted to step forward. They realized that nobody could do it.

The OT is full of pious declarations of fealty, obedience, faith, trust, and hope. "I come do do Thy will, behold in the scroll of the Book it is written concerning me". And, arguably, all those declarations of cooperation with the Divine will were merely vain sentiments. "Behold there is not one good; no, not one. They all are corrupted. All are like sheep who have gone astray." With such thoughts, WL dismissed the words of Psalm 1, and much of the book, except where NT usage required him to "see Christ". My argument is that the central point of the Bible, if there's any central point, is that there is One who is good, One who fulfilled the promises of the prophet, even though the prophet himself (Acts 2:30) may have been destined for corruption, and it's by faith in this One that all may be saved. And how can we believe, lest we hear the good news? If we dismiss the word of God as merely a contrivance of the fallen human imagination, what a loss!

Now back to my last post:

Originally Posted by aron

Look at [Acts 13] verses 36 and 37. "David died and was buried, and his grave remains with us today. But God fulfilled this word by raising up His Son." To me, this is exactly the argument Peter used in Acts 2; Paul also used it here. The "vanity" of David was not the focus of Peter or Paul, but rather the fulfillment in David's promised seed. But WL seemed stumbled, instead, by the vanity of David... Both Peter and Paul in their scriptural exegeses had no problems looking beyond the "corruption" of the writer and seeing the incorruptible One who followed him...

Jesus is the One who belled the cat. Every other 'mouse' who stepped forward got eaten by the 'cat', the flesh of sin. But Jesus Himself put on the flesh of sin and came to save us all. In all the declarations of the pious psalmists, as elsewhere in scriptures, we see the framework for the coming One who fulfilled these declarations to the last iota. WL tried to say that the framework itself was vanity, useful only to contrast with the grace to come. He looked at the framework and only saw either the shallow "natural concepts" of the well-meaning but fallen psalmist, or occasionally, he saw the NT believer "enjoying the grace of Christ". But even that, he did without having first seen Christ.

This line of argument has been rough on WL, I know; I should be humble, and grateful to God for showing me something different. Instead I seem to take delight in proving how superior my ideas are to those of someone else, who isn't here to defend them. For that unpleasantness (and I'm sure it's unpleasant to some) I apologize. Exegetical chest-thumping really shouldn't be our sport of choice. But I was bothered by something that seemed so basic, so important, and done so wrongly. How many have been convinced to look away from this part of God's word, thinking there's no profit therein? If there is any profit to it, we've hardly scraped the surface here, and I know that my living (i.e. experiential realization) is worse; but at least now we're free to re-examine the scriptures, and consider.

And if we go too far astray the ekklesia offers a hand: as OBW replied, for example, the Psalms are perhaps better referred to as the "word of God" than the "word of Christ". This has not been the promotion of new doctrine, merely the idea that we're free to examine the text and find revelation, and enjoy the fatness of the Father's house, with its rivers of pleasure (see e.g. Psa 36:8). The so-called "seer of the age" tried to close the book on us. But the book is open.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

With such thoughts, WL dismissed the words of Psalm 1, and much of the book, except where NT usage required him to "see Christ". My argument is that the central point of the Bible, if there's any central point, is that there is One who is good, One who fulfilled the promises of the prophet, even though the prophet himself (Acts 2:30) may have been destined for corruption, and it's by faith in this One that all may be saved. And how can we believe, lest we hear the good news? If we dismiss the word of God as merely a contrivance of the fallen human imagination, what a loss!

Even in my earliest LC days, there was a dismissal of Psalms and Proverbs. Lee would tell us how Psalms suits us shallow Americans, who would add the Psalms to their pocket translations of the N.T. Proverbs, however, was more fitting to the Chinese, having grown up on Confucius. Thus Lee mistreated both books, gems of wonderful worship and wisdom, substituting his own hymns and so-called words of wisdom.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Even in my earliest LC days, there was a dismissal of Psalms and Proverbs. Lee would tell us how Psalms suits us shallow Americans, who would add the Psalms to their pocket translations of the N.T. Proverbs, however, was more fitting to the Chinese, having grown up on Confucius. Thus Lee mistreated both books, gems of wonderful worship and wisdom, substituting his own hymns and so-called words of wisdom.

People may indeed be shallow; but are the scriptures shallow?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

People may indeed be shallow; but are the scriptures shallow?

Interesting how in that one short sentence, "Psalms suits us shallow Americans," Lee insults both the scriptures and our nation.

[aron]

WL would look at the Psalms and typically see the well-meaning but "natural" psalmist declaring God's goodness and mercy. Occasionally WL look at the scripture would see the typified NT believer "enjoying Christ" there. And to some extent he was right: obviously God's goodness and mercy have reached us through His Sent Son, Jesus the Christ, of which God has furnished proof by raising Him from the dead and making Him Lord of all.

So neither of those views is on its face incorrect. Both can be seen. There once was a psalmist, obviously partly flawed, and holding "concepts", and today there are NT believers in Jesus Christ, enjoying God's grace. But where O where is the incarnated Christ? The "missing link" between the well-meaning psalmist and the NT believer enjoying grace is the incarnated, suffering, struggling, praying, hoping, fighting, and ultimately overcoming and victorious Jesus Christ. To what extent did the psalmist typify this? From the reception of the Psalms in the NT, quite a bit.

Now, it's possible to lean too far, and "see Christ" in every word. But it's also possible to lean too far the other way, and only "see Christ" where NT usage dictates, and pretty much pan everything else as "natural" and "fallen". Which is what I argue that WL typically did.

Let me give an example. "Get behind me, all you workers of unrighteousness, for I must obey my God". Two variants of this I've seen, in Psalm 6 and Psalm 119. Now we also see this in the NT, for example with Jesus' rebuke of Peter, with the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, and with the Narrow Gate of Luke 13 (see v. 27). That iconic image of the warm and fuzzy Jesus cuddling a lamb has another side, and if you disobey God you get it. No warm and fuzzy.

To see this is get a more detailed, balanced picture. We see Jesus, and we believe, and are saved. But WL didn't want us to see this. He wanted us to see the Processed and Consummated Triune God and God's New Testament Economy and the Body of Christ becoming the New Jerusalem. This interpretive lens controlled what WL saw, and what we saw through him. I believe that this view was deficient.

WL looked at the text and either saw the corrupted psalmist or the "normal church life" of the NT. He didn't see Jesus. But the Bible is arguably about Jesus. Our salvation is seeing Jesus, not seeing the normal church, so-called. The Bible shows us Jesus, and Jesus shows us the way home to the Father. And yes the way home includes gathering in the name of Jesus and receiving one another. But our focus should always be on Jesus. Not on any thing else. WN seems to have given WL a focus on the "church life" as the way home, and while WL there got a vision of "God's economy", and when it came time for WL to be the "seer of the age" and the "oracle of God" for the LC he just couldn't see Jesus. Probably he just had too much on his mind.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

WL cared a lot about God's Word. He spent his life studying it, and teaching it. I would say that Lee loved God's Word, but he got turned away from his first love by the meta-narrative which he constructed out of God's Word. The meta-narrative was his "merchandise" with which he caught and made merchandise of the saints.

So when the Word of God conflicted with his interpretation then he was forced to dismiss the Word as of no value, except "to show us what not to be", even though the Word itself never indicated this nor have any subsequent christian writers that I am aware of, from the apostles to the Church Fathers and on. Lee's proprietary "economy" superseded all, even the Christ revealed in the Word.

Our Christian faith centers on one thing and that is the person of Jesus Christ. By faith we received a vision of Jesus Christ, and through this faith we repented and attempted to re-align ourselves with God's will. In this context, the Bible is crucial because it reveals to us Jesus Christ, who is God's will personified. The Bible doesn't reveal any useful history or philosophy or "ground of the church" or move or activity or organization apart from "this Jesus" (Acts 2:32).

With that view I propose a working definition of apostles and prophets: a prophet is one who by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit spoke about Jesus Christ. I'm thinking specifically of Acts 2:30.

"But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne."

Jesus confirmed this in His speaking in Matthew 22:43

He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,..."

Subsequently, an apostle is one who reveals that the prophet was writing about Jesus Christ. Peter's speech in Acts 2 is my exemplar. For a second witness, or example, see Paul in the synagogue in Antioch, speaking in Acts 13:16-41, especially vv. 32-35. There are ignorant people looking for salvation, and there are the scriptures, and the apostle comes to bridge the gap. The apostles stood in between the prophecy and the lost, and declared "this Jesus." Everyone else, teachers, evangelists and shepherds work upon the basis of the apostle's revelation of Jesus Christ. Everything and everyone should arguably support the testimony of the apostles, pointing to the Christ revealed in Scripture.

But what did WL, the supposed apostle of the age, do? When confronted with the scripture saying, "He (the Father) rescued Me (Jesus) because He (the Father) delighted in Me (Jesus)" WL said, "No he didn't. God didn't delight in David because David was a sinner. David rescued himself."

What kind of an apostle is this? What kind of vision is this? Would Peter "get in line" behind this? I highly doubt it. WL threw down the gauntlet, saying that Peter had a shallow view, in quoting the Psalms, but how do you know that the "many long days" of OT prophecy wasn't the kingdom that endures forever? Nope, said WL, that's just vain men with their selfish, low concepts, and Peter lacked vision to understand this.

It's possible that Peter would "get in line" behind this kind of talk, but I really doubt it. I don't think any serious Bible student should take this kind of teaching at face value. It is simply too presumptuous; it makes judgments entirely at variance with the NT pattern of scriptural reception.

[aron]

Did Paul ever indicate that his vision was high, while Peter's or James' was low? Did he suggest that Peter should "get in line" behind him or anyone else? Did Peter ever indicate that people should get in line behind Paul, and that Paul now had primacy? The case Paul recounted in Galatians 2, where "some came from James", indicates James' influence, not Paul's. Paul resisted James' influence, but didn't assert his own.

Did Paul ever indicate that only some of the OT scriptures were profitable to mine for revelation of Christ, while others were revealing only the fallen natures of the writers? Where, in all his recommendations of scripture, are his accompanying dis-recommendations? If not, why or how should we infer this? If we do so, then are our own judgments become superior to the scriptures, to Paul, and to Peter, and to the writer of Hebrews?

Why didn't John, in his Revelation, indicate the primacy of an apostle? Who was the apostle of the age, after Paul had gone? Was this office somehow irrelevant to John, who with his brother James had requested the right and left hands of Jesus in the kingdom? I would say, hardly. So where is the apostle of the age indicated, in John's apocalypse? No where, that is where. The apostle isn't even indicated; it is the prophet pointing to Christ. So what happened to the apostle of the age? The closest I can see in the apocalypse is the "two witnesses" account. But that is hardly "God's man of the hour". There are two of them.

WL would stress that "the whole view of scripture" indicates this narrative, or that. But I don't see his narrative emerging from the whole view of scripture at all. I think he's superimposing it upon scripture, and subsequently for his narrative to stand, and retain coherence, you have to ignore a lot of scripture.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

Did Paul ever indicate that his vision was high, while Peter's or James' was low? Did he suggest that Peter should "get in line" behind him or anyone else? Did Peter ever indicate that people should get in line behind Paul, and that Paul now had primacy? The case Paul recounted in Galatians 2, where "some came from James", indicates James' influence, not Paul's. Paul resisted James' influence, but didn't assert his own.

Did Paul ever indicate that only some of the OT scriptures were profitable to mine for revelation of Christ, while others were revealing only the fallen natures of the writers? Where, in all his recommendations of scripture, are his accompanying dis-recommendations? If not, why or how should we infer this? If we do so, then are our own judgments become superior to the scriptures, to Paul, and to Peter, and to the writer of Hebrews?

Why didn't John, in his Revelation, indicate the primacy of an apostle? Who was the apostle of the age, after Paul had gone? Was this office somehow irrelevant to John, who with his brother James had requested the right and left hands of Jesus in the kingdom? I would say, hardly. So where is the apostle of the age indicated, in John's apocalypse? No where, that is where. The apostle isn't even indicated; it is the prophet pointing to Christ. So what happened to the apostle of the age? The closest I can see in the apocalypse is the "two witnesses" account. But that is hardly "God's man of the hour". There are two of them.

WL would stress that "the whole view of scripture" indicates this narrative, or that. But I don't see his narrative emerging from the whole view of scripture at all. I think he's superimposing it upon scripture, and subsequently for his narrative to stand, and retain coherence, you have to ignore a lot of scripture.

Right-on bro Aron. Your post brought to mind that Paul referred to so-called "super apostles" who must have thought pretty highly of themselves and their teaching to try to bring the gentile believers under the law.

2 Corinthians 11:5 I don’t think that those “super apostles” are any better than I am.

2 Corinthians 12:11 I have been talking like a fool, but you made me do it. You people are the ones who should say good things about me. I am worth nothing, but those “super apostles” are not worth any more than I am!
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
Copyright © 2006 by World Bible Translation Center

Nothing can exceed the cummulative revalation given to Paul. If Jesus didn't say it, and if Paul didn't say it, and if Peter, John and James didn't say it, then who in heaven's name is WL to say it? Maybe a super-apostle wanting to build a following?

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Nothing can exceed the cumulative revelation given to Paul. If Jesus didn't say it, and if Paul didn't say it, and if Peter, John and James didn't say it, then who in heaven's name is WL to say it? Maybe a super-apostle wanting to build a following?

Did Jesus say, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by some of the words proceeding out of the mouth of God"? No; by ALL the words proceeding out... all scripture is profitable, not just some of it.

Did Peter give a speech in Acts 2 about David's "natural concepts" when David wrote that God wouldn't let his flesh see corruption? Did Peter say, "That natural David, always focused on the flesh" ...?

Or was there a deeper level? I say yes - Peter was looking deeper, beyond the mere surface. But later, when Peter alluded to deeper spiritual things, in quoting Psalm 34, WL said that the Psalmist was being soulish, and Peter lacked vision to recognize this! So WL dissed both the prophet and the apostle! And he, our "super-apostle", resolutely refused to "see Jesus" in spite of clear and repeated NT precedence. If ever I saw an "open door" it was here, and WL refused to go in. And he tried keeping us away, too.

Advising and Teaching Others to Fear God and Take Refuge in Him

Psalm 34:7-22 show us David’s advising and teaching others to fear God and take refuge in Him. In verse 8 David said, ‘‘Blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him.’’ However, when David disguised himself in front of that king, he did not take refuge in Jehovah but in his ‘‘mask,’’ in his disguising himself. In verse 11 David said, ‘‘Come, children; hear me. / I will teach you the fear of Jehovah.’’ Do we want David to teach us to disguise ourselves, to put on a mask? This shows that on the one hand, we may trust in the Lord; on the other hand, we may put on a mask to deliver ourselves. Eventually, who saved us----the Lord or our mask?

1. The Goodness of Fearing God and Taking Refuge in Him In Psalm 34 David spoke of the goodness of fearing God and taking refuge in Him (vv. 7-10, 17-22). Verse 10 says, ‘‘The young lions hunger and starve, / But those who seek Jehovah will not lack any good thing.’’ People may quote these verses for their personal benefit but eventually end up lacking the material things they desire. Second Corinthians tells us that Paul passed through much suffering and deprivation, even to the extent that he was lacking food and clothing (11:27).

2. The Way to Fear God In Psalm 34 David spoke of the way to fear God (vv. 11-16; 1 Pet. 3:10-12). Verses 12-16 say, ‘‘Who is the man who desires life, / Who loves having days in order to see good? / Guard your tongue from evil, / And your lips from speaking deceit. / Turn away from evil and do good; / Seek peace and pursue it. / The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the righteous, / And His ears, toward their cry. / The face of Jehovah is against those who do evil, / To cut off the memory of them from the earth.’’ These verses were quoted by Peter in 1 Peter 3:10-12, but Paul did not quote such a word. Paul’s vision of the New Testament economy was clearer than that of all the other apostles.

When David asked, ‘‘Who is the man who desires life, / Who loves having days in order to see good?’’ he was not talking about the eternal life but about the physical life. David was a great saint in the Old Testament, and Peter was one of the great apostles in the New Testament, but I do not believe that what David said here is spiritual. Even among us, who dares ask the Lord to give him long days that he may enjoy many good things?

David said that if we love having days in order to see good, we should guard our tongue from evil and our lips from speaking deceit. But who has ever succeeded in guarding his tongue from evil? What David spoke here was according to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Verse 15 says, ‘‘The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the righteous, / And His ears, toward their cry.’’ But who is righteous on this earth? Paul said that not one is righteous (Rom. 3:10), and Isaiah said that our righteousnesses are like filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). If we depend upon our righteousness to enjoy God’s eyes and ears being set toward us, we will enjoy nothing, because we have no righteousness of our own.

Then, when Psalm 34:20 was quoted by John in the fourth Gospel, WL was compelled to acknowledge the "revelation of Christ".

Concerning the righteous man, David said, ‘‘He keeps all his bones; / Not one of them is broken’’ (v. 20). This is a verse concerning Christ because David was a type of the suffering Christ. When Christ was on the cross, the soldiers did not break His legs when they saw that He had already died (John 19:33). John said, ‘‘These things happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘No bone of His shall be broken’ ’’ (v. 36).

Other than that, he basically had nothing good to say. To me this seems nothing short of schizophrenia ("failure to recognize what is real"). The eyes of Jehovah were arguably on His Son, Jesus, who was righteous (v 15). Everything in the NT that I can see, i.e. WL's vaunted "whole view of scripture" consistently points to this kind of interpretive theme. But he was incapable of even entertaining the idea. What drew him so far afield? What caused his eyes to venture so far away from Jesus Christ? And where was the "life" in this Life Study?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Right-on bro Aron. Your post brought to mind that Paul referred to so-called "super apostles" who must have thought pretty highly of themselves and their teaching to try to bring the gentile believers under the law.

2 Corinthians 11:5 I don’t think that those “super apostles” are any better than I am.

2 Corinthians 12:11 I have been talking like a fool, but you made me do it. You people are the ones who should say good things about me. I am worth nothing, but those “super apostles” are not worth any more than I am!
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
Copyright © 2006 by World Bible Translation Center

Nothing can exceed the cummulative revalation given to Paul. If Jesus didn't say it, and if Paul didn't say it, and if Peter, John and James didn't say it, then who in heaven's name is WL to say it? Maybe a super-apostle wanting to build a following?

For Paul to visit the LC's today (and in those early days we would talk about which church he would send his letters to in each city), he would surely refer to their leaders as "Super Blendeds."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And he, our "super-apostle", resolutely refused to "see Jesus" in spite of clear and repeated NT precedence.

Everything in the NT that I can see, i.e. WL's vaunted "whole view of scripture" consistently points to this kind of interpretive theme. But he was incapable of even entertaining the idea. What drew him so far afield? What caused his eyes to venture so far away from Jesus Christ? And where was the "life" in this Life Study?

In Lee's obsession to differ from all of Christianity, he could not "see Jesus" while struggling to "find Christ as life."

What drew him so far afield? It must be pride and her sisters, arrogance, exclusivism, and elitism.

[aron]

Romans 15:3 For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” 4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

Paul quotes Psalm 69, then uses that to make a general point about scripture. "Everything written in the past was to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in Scriptures and the encouragement they give us, we would have hope". According to Paul, we see in OT scripture the endurance of Christ, who bore insults on behalf of God, and this vision teaches us, encourages us, and give us hope.

But where does Paul write something like, "The promises of faithfulness, endurance, and obedience in Scriptures were vain, because all men are sinners"? I don't see this kind of reception by Paul, or anywhere in the NT. So what gave WL the temerity to put forth such a platform? And please note that this was not a small side issue. In Psalm 1 WL demarcates the existence of "natural" OT scripture, and proceeds to gut the Psalms. The large majority of them are either called "natural" or are ignored.

The only thing that I can think of is that WL's status as "today's oracle" gave him the boldness to depart from the NT's use of Psalms so radically. He could go where none had gone, because he was a receptacle of the revelation of God. Even when this so-called revelation was to tell us that Scripture itself lacked revelation. Perhaps I am just talking myself into a corner here, but the more I look at what WL did, the less I like it. First, there is nothing to support it but his own suppositions, and second he's saying that some Scriptures, rather than teaching us and encouraging us, are rather showing us the vanity of the human endeavour? In other words, "My teachings are not vain, but revelatory; however the teachings in the Bible are often vain human concepts."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

But where does Paul write something like, "The promises of faithfulness, endurance, and obedience in Scriptures were vain, because all men are sinners"? I don't see this kind of reception by Paul, or anywhere in the NT. So what gave WL the temerity to put forth such a platform? And please note that this was not a small side issue. In Psalm 1 WL demarcates the existence of "natural" OT scripture, and proceeds to gut the Psalms. The large majority of them are either called "natural" or are ignored.

The only thing that I can think of is that WL's status as "today's oracle" gave him the boldness to depart from the NT's use of Psalms so radically. He could go where none had gone, because he was a receptacle of the revelation of God. Even when this so-called revelation was to tell us that Scripture itself lacked revelation.

This is surely a major part of his delusion. But too often we think that he only came to this conclusion starting somewhere in the mid-late 70s. Or in the mid-late 80s. Or in the 90s.

I submit that he fully believed in the teaching and position of "today's oracle" and what we came to know of as the MOTA all the way back to Nee's teaching of these things in the late 40s. And once Nee was imprisoned and Lee had fled to Taiwan, he began to act as if he was exactly that - the in challengeable, Oracle of God in our midst.

(And the fact that the other disciples of Nee, like Kwang (sp?), say nothing about Lee is that despite the fact that they are not submitting to Lee, they are under the hold of two things — a culture of reverence for those who are your elders, and a teaching that created "the one.")

Oh, we did not see that at first in the US. He had to build us up to that teaching. It took some time. But for every teaching that we consider positive that we learned from Lee, there was a worm in it because it was part of the system he used to capture us to be the believers in the MOTA.

(I will also submit that Lee might have been waiting to take full command on the title until it was clear that Nee had died.)

This is the problem with Lee. It is a system that used truth to carry water for lies. And every time that we who think we know the difference comment positively on what we got from the LRC (no matter how true it is to make those comments) we reinforce the lies that tag along for the ride. And it is those who have not seen through the lies who are harmed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is the problem with Lee. It is a system that used truth to carry water for lies.

That's a good way of putting it. Someone should make that their signature.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's a good way of putting it. Someone should make that their signature.

I'll let someone else do it. But it is a good idea.

And I wish that I could claim authorship on the quote. I read the jist of it in a book on logic a few years back. It was obviously not talking about Lee, but it fits quite well.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

The Hunky Dory parable helped us to enjoy the word. It eventually led to problems because we didn't go on from there. There was this unwritten concept that we should just eat the Word but not try to do any of it unless the leadership said to.

Right. We should pray-read Paul's epistles, including the parts where he encouraged us to sing Psalms, remember the poor, etc. But if leadership isn't actually recommending that we do any of it, we'd better not take initiative. Yep, it's all Hunky Dory in LC-land: we can pray-read it, then we can ignore it.

[aron]

Here is WL talking about Psalm 34:

In Psalm 34 David spoke of the way to fear God (vv. 11-16; 1 Pet. 3:10-12). Verses 12-16 say, ‘‘Who is the man who desires life, / Who loves having days in order to see good? / Guard your tongue from evil, / And your lips from speaking deceit. / Turn away from evil and do good; / Seek peace and pursue it. / The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the righteous, / And His ears, toward their cry. / The face of Jehovah is against those who do evil, / To cut off the memory of them from the earth.’’ These verses were quoted by Peter in 1 Peter 3:10-12, but Paul did not quote such a word. Paul’s vision of the New Testament economy was clearer than that of all the other apostles.

When David asked, ‘‘Who is the man who desires life, / Who loves having days in order to see good?’’ he was not talking about the eternal life but about the physical life. David was a great saint in the Old Testament, and Peter was one of the great apostles in the New Testament, but I do not believe that what David said here is spiritual. Even among us, who dares ask the Lord to give him long days that he may enjoy many good things?

David said that if we love having days in order to see good, we should guard our tongue from evil and our lips from speaking deceit. But who has ever succeeded in guarding his tongue from evil? What David spoke here was according to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Verse 15 says, ‘‘The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the righteous, / And His ears, toward their cry.’’ But who is righteous on this earth? Paul said that not one is righteous (Rom. 3:10), and Isaiah said that our righteousnesses are like filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). If we depend upon our righteousness to enjoy God’s eyes and ears being set toward us, we will enjoy nothing, because we have no righteousness of our own.

Now here is Psalm 91 (NIV):

14 “Because he loves me,” says the Lord, “I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
15 He will call on me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will deliver him and honor him.
16 With long life I will satisfy him
and show him my salvation.”

Now is this vain writing? Or is Psalm 91 possibly revelatory of Christ? It's quoted in the gospel (Luke 4:10), by Jesus' adversary, as pertaining to Him (Jesus). Was the devil mistaken, or did he use the true revelation to attempt to try Jesus, and pry Him loose from the Father? So, then: what is the 'long life' promised in Psalm 91? Is it merely soulish, and natural, or revelatory of Jesus Christ? Isn't there a possible spiritual view here? Why dismiss the possibility out of hand, as WL apparently did, with Psalm 34, saying "David is not being spiritual"? And conversely, if Psalm 91 is in fact revealing something of Christ, then why isn't Psalm 34, and 18, etc? Why use different interpretive schemes for Psalms used in the NT versus Psalm sections that weren't quoted by the NT? What NT writer said, "Only these cited Psalms are useful, and no more"? Strange, really; I just can't see it. Do LSM apologists believe that if I read these commentaries prayerfully, I will somehow get it? The more I look at it, the less I get it.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is WL talking about Psalm 34:


Now here is Psalm 91 (NIV):



Now is this vain writing? Or is Psalm 91 possibly revelatory of Christ? It's quoted in the gospel (Luke 4:10), by Jesus' adversary, as pertaining to Him (Jesus). Was the devil mistaken, or did he use the true revelation to attempt to try Jesus, and pry Him loose from the Father? So, then: what is the 'long life' promised in Psalm 91? Is it merely soulish, and natural, or revelatory of Jesus Christ? Isn't there a possible spiritual view here? Why dismiss the possibility out of hand, as WL apparently did, with Psalm 34, saying "David is not being spiritual"? And conversely, if Psalm 91 is in fact revealing something of Christ, then why isn't Psalm 34, and 18, etc? Why use different interpretive schemes for Psalms used in the NT versus Psalm sections that weren't quoted by the NT? What NT writer said, "Only these cited Psalms are useful, and no more"? Strange, really; I just can't see it. Do LSM apologists believe that if I read these commentaries prayerfully, I will somehow get it? The more I look at it, the less I get it.

Ps 91 seems to be about eternal life. Ps 34 from the context, and from the way Peter quoted it, seems to be this life. There is nothing "low" about that. True spirituality is down to earth. This was a big lack in WL's teaching, especially after 1984. Titus Chu said, There is no such thing as "low" truth or "high" truth. That helped me. In the Bible there is just "truth", no "truths" or "a truth".

[HERn]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Ps 91 seems to be about eternal life. Ps 34 from the context, and from the way Peter quoted it, seems to be this life. There is nothing "low" about that. True spirituality is down to earth. This was a big lack in WL's teaching, especially after 1984. Titus Chu said, There is no such thing as "low" truth or "high" truth. That helped me. In the Bible there is just "truth", no "truths" or "a truth".

And there are not two gospels either! How can anyone have the gall to call the Lord of All's sacrificial death a low gospel? I don't think Paul ever made such an inference.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Ps 91 seems to be about eternal life. Ps 34 from the context, and from the way Peter quoted it, seems to be this life.

I understand your point about context, but Psalm 91 is arguably about this life, as well: "He'll give His angels charge concerning you, lest you strike your foot against a stone." The stones in Psalm 91 are found in this life, just like the unbroken bones in Psalm 34 are in this life. Yet there's an unseen, eternal world behind the visible (see e.g. 2 Cor 4:18). We all know this. There are various levels of reality to be perceived in scripture, which levels WL seemed determined to ignore, in examining the Psalms. At times he had to strain to ignore them! It's puzzling that a merchandiser of the word, with an opportunity to generate life study messages ("I could give a conference on this one verse!" he'd tell us) just dismissed the whole thing out of hand. In his entire Psalm 34 exegesis he said that the Psalmist was selfish, thinking about his own well-being on earth, and suddenly in verse 20 the psalmist a "squirrel!" moment and perceived the coming Christ: "Not one of His bones will be broken." Then, according to WL, the psalmist immediately went back to "fallen" and "natural" concepts. And that's it - no shadows, no types, no signs. Nothing spiritual to be discerned. No hidden treasure.

For example, in Psalm 91:16, the RecV cross-references "long life" back to Psalm 21:4, which promises the psalmist "length of days, forever and ever". Psalm 21 was also panned by WL as "natural". Yet there, his RecV has a cross-reference to Revelation 11:15, where it says of Jesus, "his kingdom will be forever and ever." This theme of course runs through the scripture prophecies, from Daniel to Isaiah. Here's the angel speaking to Mary in Luke 1:30-33:

But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

Yet WL said there's no connection with the "many long days" promised to King David in Psalm 34; that, he said, was merely human concepts, natural and vain. To which I paraphrase 2 Samuel 22:27: "To the pure You show yourself pure, but to the shallow You show yourself shallow."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

I understand your point about context. Yet Psalm 91 is arguably about this life, as well: "He will give His angels charge concerning you, lest you strike your foot against a stone." The stones in Psalm 91 are found in this life, just like the bones that would not be broken in Psalm 34 are in this life. Yet there is an unseen, eternal world behind the visible (see e.g. 2 Cor 4:18). This is a Christian truism. So there are various levels of reality to be perceived in scripture. Which levels WL essentially chose to ignore, in examining the Psalms. And at times he had to strain to ignore them. Why? Puzzling.

Something really strange about WL's Psalm 34 exegesis is that he's saying that the Psalmist is selfish, thinking about his own well-being on earth, and suddenly in verse 20 has a "squirrel!" moment when he perceives Christ. "Not one of His bones will be broken." Then the psalmist immediately goes back to "fallen" and "natural" concepts. And that's it - no shadows, no types, no signs. Nothing spiritual.

In Psalm 91:16, the RecV has a cross-reference for the "long life", back to Psalm 21:4, which promises "length of days, forever and ever", which Psalm was also panned by WL as "natural". Yet there WL's RecV has a cross-reference to Revelation 11:15, of "his kingdom will be forever and ever." Which theme of course is throughout the scripture prophecies, from Daniel to Isaiah. And here is the angel speaking to Mary in Luke 1:30-33

. . . .

Yet WL said there's no connection with the "many long days" promised to King David in Psalm 34. Okay... hmm...

Maybe the real analysis is that both ways of looking at it are at least partly flawed.

Lee considers so much of Psalm 34 to be just human selfishness with fallen and natural concepts. The alternative you propose is that it is all so spiritual and lofty. Maybe the reality is that the seeking of God in any way by fallen, natural man is exactly what God wants. He does not want worshipers with no acts, and does not want acts with no worship. But the revelation of God's interaction with David, a flawed man, reveals his mercy, grace, love, etc.

David's poor prayer may be just that, poor. But poor is not bad. The poor in spirit are blessed. Lee would rewrite Matthew 5 to say that cursed are the poor in spirit for they should be written out of the canon of scripture. Yet while there are surely types and examples to be found all over the OT, everything is not a goldmine of hidden treasures. A poor prayer is the honest approach to God from a low place. Those who say they are never in a low place are liars. And those who find remarkable, rich metaphors and types in virtually every passage are seeking more than Christ.

I fully respect and agree with the view that Christ is all over the scripture. But the way He is there is not always in the minutia, but in the broad picture. It is in the character of people who have been humbled before God and are seeking to do His will. Surely there are some items of foreshadowing that are important to the Jews. Many of those were intentionally included so that when Jesus came, the preponderance of fulfilment of those things should make those with open eyes see their Messiah. But was that so we would go digging to find them all ourselves, or to shepherd them to Christ?

I am not saying that they are not real or noteworthy. But what is our calling in this life? To appreciate the intricacy with which the scripture has interwoven so many hidden gems all over the place? Or to live in unity as we love God and love others? To practice the righteousness of God while refraining from forcing that righteousness on others in a less-than-loving way. I am not talking about ignoring prayer or gathering for worship. But the bulk of our living is in the everyday.

And the everyday is just as spiritual as the gathering and the prayer. Otherwise we are failures at following and living. While everyone was to pray, note that the calls to meet we significantly less than any of us practice. It was not weekly. Rest was weekly. Gathering for meeting was only a few times a year. I am not suggesting that we need to meet less. Rather that we need a different perspective on what it is to worship and serve. And a different perspective on the purpose of the meeting. The Christian life is mostly not in meetings, prayer, or Bible study. Even collectively they are less than half our waking hours. And while se do need "recharging," none of those things "live the Christian life." That mostly happens the rest of the time. And it is in very common, poor things.

I know that I have gone a little astray from your purpose in this thread. But it was to setup a different view of things. At times, I think that it seems you are as desperate to find lots of deep spirituality in the Psalms as Lee was to dismiss them as not even the Word of God. Reality seems to be that Psalms are mostly a prayer book. And they are often about real life and not "spiritual" things (in a secular is not spiritual world). And that is what got recorded. Yes, there are some special prophecies hidden here and there. But mostly we see real men praying to and praising a real God.

Yes, countering Lee's "they are not all really the Word of God" position is important. But the correction is not necessarily to "they are all full of deep metaphorical and typological meaning." Instead, much of them are full of the real problems of real people praying to God, and real praises of real people for real appreciation of God. It seems that if we cannot come to a real appreciation of that, it would seem that trying to dig for the hidden nuggets is to miss the first importance. Like looking for a gold medal without running the race. Or getting a degree without attending the classes and doing the homework.

In our case, there is a crown of righteousness laid up. But it comes as the result of living this life, not just having great appreciation for more aspects of God, or ignoring this life and pining for the next. Those who are truly disciples — those who believe and follow (obey) — will know the truth, not those who dig through the scriptures for it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

At times, I think that it seems you are as desperate to find lots of deep spirituality in the Psalms as Lee was to dismiss them as not even the Word of God. ... Those who are truly disciples — those who believe and follow (obey) — will know the truth, not those who dig through the scriptures for it.

Thanks for those correctives. They're necessary; otherwise one might become "little Jack Horner" sitting in the corner, where instead of pulling out plums from a Christmas pie, one is extracting "visions of Christ" from the Bible. But what Christ is it, absent the actual life that is lived?

Excellent points, and received with gratitude.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Thanks for those correctives. They're necessary; otherwise one might become "little Jack Horner" sitting in the corner, where instead of pulling out plums from a Christmas pie, one is extracting "visions of Christ" from the Bible. But what Christ is it, absent the actual life that is lived?

Excellent points, and received with gratitude.

Don't take my words too literally. Despite my tendency to think that we often over-spiritualize things, if someone doesn't at least think about things that way, we will miss what really is there. So carry on.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Don't take my words too literally. Despite my tendency to think that we often over-spiritualize things, if someone doesn't at least think about things that way, we will miss what really is there. So carry on.

As far as I'm concerned if bro Aron sees Christ in every verse in the Psalms more power to him ... even if I can't see 'em.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

As far as I'm concerned if bro Aron sees Christ in every verse in the Psalms more power to him ... even if I can't see 'em.

Well OBW is right: doesn't matter how much "Christ" you pull out of the text. Of itself, it means nothing. Words without actions. At the same time, acting without seeing Jesus going before is difficult at best. He isn't called the "Captain" for nothing. But OBW was presenting the necessary corollary to my "seeing Jesus in the text". It needed to be put out there.

Anyway, I just told God that I wanted to see. So I began to see. (Emphasis on 'began'). Then, when WL said there was nothing to see in the text I got a little miffed. But it's important not to become obsessed, and over-compensate for someone else's perceived lack. That's not our calling. Not why we're here.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Anyway, I just told God that I wanted to see. So I began to see. (Emphasis on 'began'). Then, when WL said there was nothing to see in the text I got a little miffed. But it's important not to become obsessed, and over-compensate for someone else's perceived lack. That's not our calling. Not why we're here.

And there is much to see.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that it is not that there is not the very spiritual to be seen, but rather that we ignore what seems common. But the bulk is common. It is exactly what Lee saw. His problem is that he has no appreciation for the common because it is not lofty enough. And despite his claim of having all the riches, he was also missing the riches that were there. So he missed both. He was not only blind to the Christ to be found, but to the spiritual value of the common that he DID find.

In other words, he did not have a spiritual view of the Bible. Just a skewed view of spirituality.

And that is one of the serious flaws of the inner-life camp of Christianity. They tend to ignore everything that is not our inner-life landscape. They emphasize the secular-spiritual divide rather than diminish it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

The more I think about it, the more I realize that it is not that there is not the very spiritual to be seen, but rather that we ignore what seems common. But the bulk is common. It is exactly what Lee saw. His problem is that he has no appreciation for the common because it is not lofty enough...

I think that's what I alluded to when I wrote, "To the pure God shows Himself as pure, but to the shallow God shows Himself as shallow." God is not common, nor shallow, nor is His word, but if you have a shallow (arbitrarily simplistic) hermeneutical template you might end up making that claim. You might even give messages and sell books, making that claim. But I think it says more about your theology than about the word.

Originally Posted by OBW

And despite his claim of having all the riches, he was also missing the riches that were there. So he missed both.

Yes, suddenly in the Psalms the "allegory well" dried up, and the "typology fountain" stopped gushing forth. Now, it's possible that there were no riches there in the word, but it's also possible that the WL ministry was running on man-made steam, and simply ran out. He wasn't able to linger there, waiting for the arrival of the Spirit. So he simply moved on.

Originally Posted by OBW

He was not only blind to the Christ to be found, but to the spiritual value of the common that he DID find.

In other words, he did not have a spiritual view of the Bible. Just a skewed view of spirituality.

And that is one of the serious flaws of the inner-life camp of Christianity. They tend to ignore everything that is not our inner-life landscape. They emphasize the secular-spiritual divide rather than diminish it.

There are many, many testimonies in the Bible of those who didn't outwardly espouse theology, at least in the record, but manifested reality. Sister Dorcas, etc, etc... they were small, and common, but were connected to the well of living water. And somewhere, back in time, WL probably did have a mountain-top experience. But by the time he got to us it was covered over by layers of theology. The inner life simply became a teaching and a practice. And consequently, if up became down and in became out and black became white, well that's what "life" was telling him. And who were we to say?

[InOmnibusCaritas]

What did Witness Lee teach is the meaning of "Kiss the Son" in Psalm 2?

I realise that there is even a member in this forum that goes by the screen KissTheSon.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

What did Witness Lee teach is the meaning of "Kiss the Son" in Psalm 2?

I realise that there is even a member in this forum that goes by the screen KissTheSon.

I. THE REVELATION OF THE PSALMS BEGINNING
WITH THE PSALMIST STRESSING THE LAW AND
WITH THE SPIRIT TURNING THE PSALMIST TO CHRIST

The revelation of the Psalms begins with the psalmist stressing the law and with the Spirit turning the psalmist to Christ (Psa. 1—2). When the psalmist began in Psalm 1 by stressing the law, he was going in the wrong direction. In the first psalm, the psalmist seeking after God was driving on the wrong highway, so the Spirit came in to turn him to the right way.

In Psalm 2 the psalmist began to enjoy Christ—to take refuge in this Christ and to kiss this Christ (v. 12). The highest and best enjoyment of human life is kissing. When a child is born, the parents and grandparents enjoy kissing this child. If a person had no one whom he could kiss, he would surely be one of the most miserable people on earth. Psalm 2:12 commands us to "kiss the son." Kissing Christ is the enjoyment of Christ.

Some may wonder where the word enjoyment is in the Bible concerning our relationship with Christ. Although this word is not in the Bible, the fact of the enjoyment of Christ is there. It is the same with the words trinity and triune. Although these words are not in the Bible, the early church fathers discovered the fact in the Bible that our God is triune, that He is the Divine Trinity. In like manner, the word enjoyment is not found in the Scriptures, but the fact is there. In Psalm 2 we are told to kiss the son. The Son is a pleasant title. Kissing the Son is enjoying the Son.

The enjoyment of Christ in the Psalms begins with kissing the Son in Psalm 2. This enjoyment continues in Psalm 8, in which the psalmist declares, "How excellent is Your name/In all the earth!" (vv. 1, 9). Psalm 16 is also full of enjoyment. Verse 11 of this psalm says, "You will make known to Me the path of life;/In Your presence is fullness of joy;/In Your right hand there are pleasures forever." Psalm 22 gives us a very vivid picture of Christ's death on the cross. It also shows us His church-producing resurrection (v. 22). In Christ's resurrection His God is our God, His Father is our Father (John 20:17), and we are His brothers. The apostle Paul quoted Psalm 22:22 in Hebrews 2:12, pointing out that the Lord's brothers are the church.

Psalm 23 is full of the enjoyment of Christ as our Shepherd. Many Christians love Psalm 23, but not many have the realization that in this psalm they need to kiss Christ as the Shepherd.
http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=13EC03F3C3
__________________

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Yes, thank you bro. Awareness.

I'm trying to find the soft spots where LC members may be amenable to be shown the truth that is contrary to Lee's teachings without feeling entirely threatened (and thus turned off).

We need to find the chinks in the armour. I thought the Marcan priority and the synoptic problem was a good place to start. It's a minor issue that allows LC members to be a bit more relaxed in accepting that the RcV's not update with scholarship. Some might just say, "Well, it's just dates. Doesn't affect the truth." That's the response I want because it doesn't threaten them but allow them to be aware that LSM is not 100% perfect.

Psalm 2's kiss the son is another case in point. Lee ties this phrase kiss the son to "enjoyment" of Christ. Love. The Divine Romance.

The actual context of kissing the son is basically "submit to the king's rule". More like "pledge allegiance" and "kiss the ring". It has no romantic connotation.

This in itself doesn't disprove the teaching of the divine romance so no truth is compromised. Just that this verse doesn't teach the divine romance, that's all. The strength of this one is that it's exegetically clear. It's near impossible, if correctly explained, for LC members to deny its clear meaning.

I'll probably start my serious writings on this Psalm.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Yes, thank you bro. Awareness.

I'm trying to find the soft spots where LC members may be amenable to be shown the truth that is contrary to Lee's teachings without feeling entirely threatened (and thus turned off).

We need to find the chinks in the armour. I thought the Marcan priority and the synoptic problem was a good place to start. It's a minor issue that allows LC members to be a bit more relaxed in accepting that the RcV's not update with scholarship. Some might just say, "Well, it's just dates. Doesn't affect the truth." That's the response I want because it doesn't threaten them but allow them to be aware that LSM is not 100% perfect.

Psalm 2's kiss the son is another case in point. Lee ties this phrase kiss the son to "enjoyment" of Christ. Love. The Divine Romance.

The actual context of kissing the son is basically "submit to the king's rule". More like "pledge allegiance" and "kiss the ring". It has no romantic connotation.

This in itself doesn't disprove the teaching of the divine romance so no truth is compromised. Just that this verse doesn't teach the divine romance, that's all. The strength of this one is that it's exegetically clear. It's near impossible, if correctly explained, for LC members to deny its clear meaning.

I'll probably start my serious writings on this Psalm.

And notice bro IOC, that, Lee floats the word "enjoyment" into the Bible meaning on the back of the word "trinity." It's a brilliant sleight of hand (or mind) move. Lee was no dummy there. It supports all the calling, fist pumping, neck vain popping, and crazy emotional aspect of the local church, and thus supports Lee's efforts to build a movement around himself. The "enjoyment" ultimately meant: Check your mind at the door, and just follow.

In the LC it's not "kiss the son," but, "kiss Witness Lee."

I got the boot because I wouldn't kiss Witness Lee.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by awareness

And notice bro IOC, that, Lee floats the word "enjoyment" into the Bible meaning on the back of the word "trinity." It's a brilliant sleight of hand (or mind) move. Lee was no dummy there. It supports all the calling, fist pumping, neck vain popping, and crazy emotional aspect of the local church, and thus supports Lee's efforts to build a movement around himself. The "enjoyment" ultimately meant: Check your mind at the door, and just follow.

In the LC it's not "kiss the son," but, "kiss Witness Lee."

I got the boot because I wouldn't kiss Witness Lee.

Lots of evangelicals use the term "enjoyment", especially those influenced by John Piper. The crazy emotional stuffs are quite mild compared to the Pentecostals. So I'm ok with both "enjoyment" as a genuine experience of Christ and the fist pumpings, neck vain poppings as genuine expressions of the faith.

But, yes, the need to justify the term "enjoyment" via the "trinity" is very unnecessary. The theology of enjoyment/satisfaction "Christian hedonism" (See John Piper's "Desiring God") is able to stand on its own two feet without resorting to backdoor tactics and fancy footwork. For someone like Lee, who majors in "enjoyment" from Gen-Rev, this was just plain sloppy.

As for the need to kiss Witness Lee to be in LC, I'm afraid you are spot on. I do not see how anyone can critique Witness Lee and still be welcome in an LSM-aligned LC.

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

The actual context of kissing the son [in Psalm 2] is basically "submit to the king's rule". More like "pledge allegiance" and "kiss the ring". It has no romantic connotation.

This in itself doesn't disprove the teaching of the divine romance so no truth is compromised. Just that this verse doesn't teach the divine romance, that's all. The strength of this one is that it's exegetically clear. It's near impossible, if correctly explained, for LC members to deny its clear meaning.

In my cursory review of Psalms I noticed an interesting thing in the beginning of the book. Psalm 1 shows, to me, obedience. Blessing follows obeying God. It doesn't matter that we are all sinners, because we the sinners see the Obedient One, and are saved. We the wicked serpents see the Bronze Serpent raised on the cross, and are saved. In Psalm 1 we may see Christ and be similarly saved. We recognize His blessedness and His obedience. "His leaf shall not wither", indeed.

Psalm 2 shows the reigning king. Why is he reigning? Because God put him there. He is the Righteous One of God's good pleasure. And we Christians believe that this typifies Jesus, the sole obedient Son. "Go away! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God!"(Luke 4:34 NIV) Jesus is the singular Holy One of God. And yes, “kiss the son” in this context means recognize the authority of the Anointed Son (i.e. the Christ). Psalm 2 doesn’t introduce the “Divine Romance” as much as the recognition of divinely appointed authority.

Then, Psalm 3 shows rebellion, from within the king’s house. Absalom and some of David's nobles refused to "kiss the son", God's anointed. I was amazed to find rebellion following so hard upon the establishment of the kingship in Psalm 2.

[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?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

PSRP means?

PSRP means "Pray-read", "Study", "Recite", "Prophesy". It was a "move", maybe early '90s I don't remember. First you were supposed to "exercise your spirit" by repeatedly shouting the words. That's pray-reading. Then you study what WL said the words mean spiritually. Then you recite "bullet points", or snippets of "the ministry". Then you go to a LC meeting and "prophesy", or speak the WL ministry bullet points back to the crowd. If you did that repeatedly you would supposedly both "gain Christ" and "build up the Body".

I've mentioned this before, but maybe it's worth telling again. I went to the LSM website a couple or 3 years ago and looked at the music section. They had CDs of people singing WL's message outlines. I kid you not. They had musical Bible verses from Philippians and Colossians. They had hymns. And at the top, the web page had Paul's exhortation to sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. But they didn't have any Psalms available.

Many of the Psalms that made it into the LC movement meetings were musically arranged outside the LC, in dreaded "Christianity", and I suspect that WL & Blended Minions couldn't openly acknowledge that the Spirit of God could do anything there. So he had to pan the Psalms, and not encourage singing them. Too low, he said, we should stick with the NT. But Paul, in the NT, had repeatedly said to sing them!

So instead we got PSRP, and WL became the ultimate redactor of the Bible, saving us from the "uninterpreted word".

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by aron

PSRP means "Pray-read", "Study", "Recite", "Prophesy". It was a "move", maybe early '90s I don't remember. First you were supposed to "exercise your spirit" by repeatedly shouting the words. That's pray-reading. Then you study what WL said the words mean spiritually. Then you recite "bullet points", or snippets of "the ministry". Then you go to a LC meeting and "prophesy", or speak the WL ministry bullet points back to the crowd. If you did that repeatedly you would supposedly both "gain Christ" and "build up the Body".

That's how you were taught on PSRP? The way it was taught to me is:

Pray-read a verse: The way we all know how pray-read actually works although that may not have been the original design -- I'll talk about it in a different thread.

Study: Footnotes! What else? =D

Recite: Memorise the verse

Prophecy: Tell others about it.

Originally Posted by aron

I've mentioned this before, but maybe it's worth telling again. I went to the LSM website a couple or 3 years ago and looked at the music section. They had CDs of people singing WL's message outlines. I kid you not. They had musical Bible verses from Philippians and Colossians. They had hymns. And at the top, the web page had Paul's exhortation to sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. But they didn't have any Psalms available.

Many of the Psalms that made it into the LC movement meetings were musically arranged outside the LC, in dreaded "Christianity", and I suspect that WL & Blended Minions couldn't openly acknowledge that the Spirit of God could do anything there. So he had to pan the Psalms, and not encourage singing them. Too low, he said, we should stick with the NT. But Paul, in the NT, had repeatedly said to sing them!

So instead we got PSRP, and WL became the ultimate redactor of the Bible, saving us from the "uninterpreted word".

"Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" probably just meant "all kinds of songs".

In the context of Eph. 5 and its sister verse of Col. 3:16, there is some rift between the Jews and the Gentiles (as always). Speak/Sing to one another using psalms (mizmur - Jewish), hymns (hymnos - Greek), and spiritual songs (either mizmur or hymnos or whatever else is fine).

I had to write a paper on this last year and scoured as much journal/commentary material about it as I can find and ended up favouring this one. The others are just too artificially complicated and don't seem to fit the context as much.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

That's how you were taught on PSRP? The way it was taught to me is:

Pray-read a verse: The way we all know how pray-read actually works although that may not have been the original design -- I'll talk about it in a different thread.

Study: Footnotes! What else? =D

Recite: Memorise the verse

Prophecy: Tell others about it.

Initially PSRP was NOT for scripture, but for training outlines.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Initially PSRP was NOT for scripture, but for training outlines.

Ah, I'm not surprised. Although I only used PSRP on scripture.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

"Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" probably just meant "all kinds of songs".

Yes, I agree. But "all kinds of songs" undoubtedly included psalms as well. I don't think that Paul was either imposing or excluding anything here. WL looked right at this word and excluded Psalms. On the LSM website they had music CDs based on Song of Songs, on Isaiah, on Jeremiah, etc, etc, but no Psalms. Pretty strange, to say the least.

Back in the day, when the Jesus Movement(s) were happening, there were also "all kinds of songs" springing up. Not just in the LCs either; some of the burgeoning CCM efforts made it into the LCs. Here I'm thinking specifically of scriptural songs, and psalms in particular. For example, a man named Keith Green wrote a song based on Psalm 51: "Create in me a clean heart". It was very popular in Christianity, and in the LCs as well. There were a lot of others, some of whom I later tracked down. They weren't from LC people; they were from the Baptists and "free groups" but their songs became popular in the Lord's recovery movement. The music was getting sung, re-recorded, and passed around.

Can you imagine the consternation that this caused, to the control freak WL? Don't you think that this affected his interpretative abilities? Certainly there's correlation; perhaps we can't prove causation but we can suspect it. I believe that he felt the need to suppress this word because otherwise through it, these "outside forces" would have a door into his precious movement. So he created a "low word" and "high word" metric and used that to drive a wedge into the text, which enabled him to cut off anything deemed unfit for public consumption, including scripture itself.

So in Psalm 34, for example, he could say, "Natural, natural, natural" and then come to the verse saying, "not one of His bones shall be broken" and say "Revelation!", then it was right back to "Natural, natural, natural". And so forth... the whole body of the text got treated thus.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by aron

Back in the day, when the Jesus Movement(s) were happening, there were also "all kinds of songs" springing up. Not just in the LCs either; some of the burgeoning CCM efforts made it into the LCs. Here I'm thinking specifically of scriptural songs, and psalms in particular. For example, a man named Keith Green wrote a song based on Psalm 51: "Create in me a clean heart". It was very popular in Christianity, and in the LCs as well. There were a lot of others, some of whom I later tracked down. They weren't from LC people; they were from the Baptists and "free groups" but their songs became popular in the Lord's recovery movement. The music was getting sung, re-recorded, and passed around.

The interesting thing about this is that I was taught Keith Green's Psalm 51 song by my youth serving one. I just assumed that it was written by Howard Higashi because we were big on Higashi at that time. My youth serving one has since been elevated as a "co-worker".

Only much later did I discover that it was written by "Christianity". The funny thing is that I'm currently teaching this song to the youths I am pastoring at the Methodist church here.

Originally Posted by aron

Can you imagine the consternation that this caused, to the control freak WL? Don't you think that this affected his interpretative abilities? Certainly there's correlation; perhaps we can't prove causation but we can suspect it. I believe that he felt the need to suppress this word because otherwise through it, these "outside forces" would have a door into his precious movement. So he created a "low word" and "high word" metric and used that to drive a wedge into the text, which enabled him to cut off anything deemed unfit for public consumption, including scripture itself.

So in Psalm 34, for example, he could say, "Natural, natural, natural" and then come to the verse saying, "not one of His bones shall be broken" and say "Revelation!", then it was right back to "Natural, natural, natural". And so forth... the whole body of the text got treated thus.

I do think WL has a low view of most of the Psalms but to be fair I don't think he totally shuns songs from Psalms. When Ron Kangas came to Malaysia, he taught us to sing Hymn 1336, "What shall I give unto the Lord", based on Psalm 116:12-13 (https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/h/1336).

I don't think WL's low view of many Psalms stem from his fear of CCM songs. I think he simply couldn't reconcile these Psalms with God's economy.

'I think he simply couldn't reconcile these Psalms with God's economy.'
Exact.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

I don't think WL's low view of many Psalms stem from his fear of CCM songs. I think he simply couldn't reconcile these Psalms with God's economy.

Perhaps. I only observe that once WN put pen to paper and composed hymns, no "outside" songs made it into Little Flock/LC meetings, until these. And none after.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by aron

Perhaps. I only observe that once WN put pen to paper and composed hymns, no "outside" songs made it into Little Flock/LC meetings, until these. And none after.

With the death of WL, it is probably close to impossible to issue a new hymn book or an updated RcV. Nobody has the authority to be MotA any more since the Blendeds proclaimed "Brother We". Barring external input, stagnation is the only course.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Barring external input, stagnation is the only course.

The peril of exclusive claims to truth is that once one's convinced themelves of this idea, they're on the inexorable path to self-centeredness, eccentricity, and stagnation.

Of course being open has its perils too, and associated costs. For instance, while there's good Christian music today, one may have to search far and wide to find it, while occasionally holding the nose. But the alterantive is to sit in a corner and declare that nobody else has communion with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and thereby enter the portal of spiritual doom.

"So be open, don't be hardened, drop your concepts, eat that tree!" (a little inside humour).

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by aron

The peril of exclusive claims to truth is that once one's convinced themelves of this idea, they're on the inexorable path to self-centeredness, eccentricity, and stagnation.

Of course being open has its perils too, and associated costs. For instance, while there's good Christian music today, one may have to search far and wide to find it, while occasionally holding the nose. But the alterantive is to sit in a corner and declare that nobody else has communion with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and thereby enter the portal of spiritual doom.

"So be open, don't be hardened, drop your concepts, eat that tree!" (a little inside humour).

And to get the living water into me

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

With the death of WL, it is probably close to impossible to issue a new hymn book or an updated RcV. Nobody has the authority to be MotA any more since the Blendeds proclaimed "Brother We". Barring external input, stagnation is the only course.

Brothers in Toronto, Ontario put out a new "Songs and Hymns of Life" in 2009 after LSM had quarantined the GLA. Hymnal has Nee hymns but none of Lee due to copyrights.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brothers in Toronto, Ontario put out a new "Songs and Hymns of Life" in 2009 after LSM had quarantined the GLA. Hymnal has Nee hymns but none of Lee due to copyrights.

Outside of the LSM system. Once you allow for a post-Lee ministry, this can happen. There are also local compilations and sometimes regional ones. But I doubt there can be a new hymnal like the one published by LSM.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Outside of the LSM system. Once you allow for a post-Lee ministry, this can happen. There are also local compilations and sometimes regional ones. But I doubt there can be a new hymnal like the one published by LSM.

This is an effect of the "One trumpet" edict: no new voices can rise, and we all must now repeat the deceased oracle's speaking. The Blendeds by this, made themselves curators of a museum.

So, what is the difference between Mary Baker Eddy, Witness Lee, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Brigham Young, Sun Myung Moon, Ellen G. White, David Koresh, and Haile Selassie, to name but a few? In the words of RK, "Absolutely nothing"! Each of these was apparently a chosen vessel, God's man (or woman) of the hour. No one else could receive revelation, or minister God's words, apart from God's present oracle. The Bible said that none could come to the Father except through Jesus Christ, and now, according to these self-claimed "special vessels", none could get access to Jesus Christ except through them. So if you had a "gift" for God and it wasn't brought into "submission" below these oracles of God, you were wasting your time. God is only interested in one thing on Earth today and, according to WN, you'd better get in line. Know who's in front of you and obey without question.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by aron

This is an effect of the "One trumpet" edict: no new voices can rise, and we all must now repeat the deceased oracle's speaking. The Blendeds by this, made themselves curators of a museum.

Yes, exactly! "One publication" was the main trigger for my departure from LC because I realised that it was beyond reformation.

Originally Posted by aron

So, what is the difference between Mary Baker Eddy, Witness Lee, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Brigham Young, Sun Myung Moon, Ellen G. White, David Koresh, and Haile Selassie, to name but a few? In the words of RK, "Absolutely nothing"!

Um... this I cannot agree. LC is an exclusive Christian sect but not a cult.

Originally Posted by aron

So if you had a "gift" for God and it wasn't brought into "submission" below these oracles of God, you were wasting your time. God is only interested in one thing on Earth today and, according to WN, you'd better get in line. Know who's in front of you and obey without question.

Yes, the doctrine of MotA is extremely damaging. LSM likes to argue by marshalling test cases from OT. I don't even have to argue this from an NT perspective. Jeremiah and Ezekiel ministered at the same time, the former in Jerusalem, the latter in Babylon.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Yes, exactly! "One publication" was the main trigger for my departure from LC because I realised that it was beyond reformation.

In the name of "oneness," anaheim attempted to bring every LC under subjection. My departure was finalized with the realization that LSM was becoming no different than the RCC which i had grown up in.

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Um... this I cannot agree. LC is an exclusive Christian sect but not a cult.

I have been saying this for years. Unfortuately we are the minority here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

LC is an exclusive Christian sect but not a cult.

I won't argue with your point. Nonetheless the LC obsessively and excessively honors its founders Nee and Lee, such that it shades into the gray area of de facto "cultic" if not de jure "cult". It's an exclusive Christian sect which could be mistaken for a cult, and often is. And look how far the apple had to fall from the tree to produce a full-blown cult with the Shouter sect on mainland China, who allegedly do regard WL as Christ Himself, God become flesh. Not far at all, in fact; it didn't take much to get from "I'm a God-man" and "I'm a Baby God" and "WL was Acting God (or, Deputy Authority, Number Four, God's Oracle, MotA)" to treating him as deity incarnate.

Of course there's variance in the historical characters whom I cited. But there's also a theme, that of elevating individuals as the center and focus of a religious group; likewise the LC seems like a personality cult with a small "c". Arguably this also happens in politics, in sports, in entertainment and the arts, and too often in religious life as well. Perhaps the LC didn't cross the line, but they moved too close.

Back to the topic at hand:

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

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 organized the Psalter into 5 books to invite the readers to consider meditating upon these Psalms as equivalent to meditating upon the Torah...

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 redaction 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.

I also see Psalm 1 being a kind of thematic overview of the texts that follow. And WL had a flattened view of the law, to be sure. I argue that he was entirely swayed by Luther's reaction to the RCC and the subsequent recovery of justification by faith. But in WL's hands that became a bulldozer, pushing the text into a Protestant and post-Protestant thought-world. Now, we all filter the word through our various cultural lenses to some extent, so I don't fault him there. But my lens is different: I see "law" as something not merely opposed to and subsumed by "grace" (as in the Lutheran treatment of Paul's epistles).

Rather I see God's word as eternal, and pure. It is not God's fault that we could not keep it. What were the pious Jews supposed to do but say, "Amen, LORD, we will keep your word?" And my interpretive lens is this: In the NT I see Peter in Acts 2, saying that while David indeed failed in keeping the utterance, he being a prophet foreknew that his coming Seed would not fail. Also in the NT I see the writer to the Hebrews quoting a long string of OT texts, prominently featuring psalms, and then saying "We see Jesus" (2:9). So there's an open invitation for us (the royal "we") to search the OT for Jesus. And what do I see in Psalm 1? A person who loves the word of the LORD, who meditates on it day and night, and who is blessed thereby. This is clearly contrasted with those who do not (the wicked).

Well, to me the Christian testimony is that we the wicked see this Righteous One and live. This is grace, that God sent His Son to save sinners, of whom I am indeed one. We the failed sinners see Jesus and believe, and live.

Now, we come to Psalm 2, with the installation of the victorious king, etc. These first two Psalms are not diametrically opposed, as WL thought. He said the first Psalm was vanity, being unattainable - just "kiss the Son" in Psalm 2, he said, and experience God's grace. No, the reason Jesus is enthroned in Psalm 2 is because He kept the word of Psalm 1. He did not overturn the word of God but fulfilled it. We the disobedient bow before the Obedient One. We acknowledge Him as King of all, as the designated Son of God. Yes God loves us, but He in love sent the Obedient One to die for we who were disobedient. This is love, that while we were yet sinners Christ Jesus died for us. The Blessed One who fulfilled Psalm 1 laid down His life for we who were accursed, who couldn't keep the word; we now see this One and live. We acknowledge Him as God's installed King, come under His righteous rule, and share His blessing. The promises of God to the Faithful and Obedient One ("He believed God, now let Him come and save Him" [Matt 27:43] and "My God in whom I trust; I will not be ashamed" [Psa 25:2]) now are available to all who by this same spirit of faith see Him.

[HERn]

I think the entire bible, even the Psalms were meant to be read and valued. Here's a quote from Rick Warren on the Psalms.

"To instruct us in candid honesty, God gave us the book of Psalms--a worship manual, full of ranting, doubts, fears, resentments, and deep passions combined with thanksgiving, praise, and statements of faith. Every possible emotion is catalogued in the Psalms. When you read the emotional confessions of David and others, realize this is how God wants you to worship Him---holding back nothing of what you feel."

Dear brothers and sisters in the lords recovery, please tell me, who is this Lee that sniffs at the Psalms? Both Jesus and Paul valued the Psalms!

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by HERn

I think the entire bible, even the Psalms were meant to be read and valued. Here's a quote from Rick Warren on the Psalms.

"To instruct us in candid honesty, God gave us the book of Psalms--a worship manual, full of ranting, doubts, fears, resentments, and deep passions combined with thanksgiving, praise, and statements of faith. Every possible emotion is catalogued in the Psalms. When you read the emotional confessions of David and others, realize this is how God wants you to worship Him---holding back nothing of what you feel."

Dear brothers and sisters in the lords recovery, please tell me, who is this Lee that sniffs at the Psalms? Both Jesus and Paul valued the Psalms!

Lee doesn't devalue all the Psalms -- those that were quoted in the NT gets the thumbs up.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Lee doesn't devalue all the Psalms -- those that were quoted in the NT gets the thumbs up.

Even some of them didn't pass muster with Lee. Peter's citation of Psalm 34 in 1 Peter chapter 3 got a thumbs down. Not high enough, according to the so-called vision of the age.

And what really irks me about Lee's coverage of the Psalms was his stubborn refusal to see spiritual types in the physical portrayals. So when the psalmist prayed for calumny to his foes, for example, that God would smite the oppressors and turn them back to darkness, Lee simply said, "We shouldn't curse others but bless them." Oh really - was David supposed to bless Goliath? Was Samuel supposed to bless Agag? This is a complete misreading of the OT narrative, in my view. And in the NT, did Jesus bless the demons and unclean spirits, and pat them on their soft, fuzzy little heads? The often bloody and violent world of the OT can be seen as a type of the daily struggle we face. We Jesus-confessors are trying to stay connected to the path home to our Father, and we're violently opposed at every turn. And many of the worst enemies are close at hand; some are within!

Matthew 26:40-42 "And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour? "Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done."

Our struggles of faith occasionally do involve threats of physical harm. I know in some places that is reality and don't want to dismiss it. But nonetheless the struggle to overcome opposition is real for all of us. Look at what happened to the disciples. They tried to "watch and pray" for one hour, but were overcome. And Paul clearly wrote, "We don't struggle against flesh and blood but spiritual forces", but Lee simply ignored this spiritual dynamic when in the Psalms. "Nope", he said. "These guys wished harm on others; that's not Christian. We can safely ignore this text. On to the next, to the 'high peak revelations' located elsewhere in the Bible."

Interestingly to me, Psalm 119 offers a vivid picture of one struggling to stay connected to spiritual reality. The protagonist continually tries to keep his/her face toward God, and constantly meets opposition, but the narrative is stylized, or generalized, to include spiritual pursuit, and spiritual opposition. "The wicked are waiting to destroy me/but I have pondered all your precepts" (v.95). The "violent opposition" in Psalm 119 is to someone trying to pray! Incredible! What a vivid portrayal of what Jesus presented to Peter et al in Matthew 26! I don't have my RecV in front of me & can't review Lee's textual treatment here, but still the larger point remains of the spiritual struggle to overcome deadness, weakness, greed, dormancy, confusion, shame, dullness, tiredness (can I stop now?) and so forth is repeatedly and clearly laid before us by the seeking one in the OT. It is not vain. Sorry, I just can't see the word of God pushed into an exegetical hole like that. No. I simply refuse this speaking.

[Amcasci]

"And what really irks me about Lee's coverage of the Psalms was his stubborn refusal to see spiritual types in the physical portrayals. So when the psalmist prayed for calumny to his foes, for example, that God would smite the oppressors and turn them back to darkness, Lee simply said, "We shouldn't curse others but bless them." Oh really - was David supposed to bless Goliath? Was Samuel supposed to bless Agag? "

Here is where we need to distinguish between the two kingdoms, the right hand Kingdom being the Gospel/Church and the left hand being Government. The Lord has established both and both have their place. So, King David and Samuel are acting in the Left hand kingdom and the task of the left hand Kingdom is to punish evil and promote good (Romans 13).

Not only so but one of the beauties of the Psalms is that they bring out the whole range of human emotion that we are all susceptible to. We are yet sinners and sinners do have outbreaks of anger, lust, greed and all. We pour out our hearts to the Lord but then we ask forgiveness for those sins. Praying the Psalms is a much needed exercise for all saints of Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

"And what really irks me about Lee's coverage of the Psalms was his stubborn refusal to see spiritual types in the physical portrayals. So when the psalmist prayed for calumny to his foes, for example, that God would smite the oppressors and turn them back to darkness, Lee simply said, "We shouldn't curse others but bless them." Oh really - was David supposed to bless Goliath? Was Samuel supposed to bless Agag? "

And why didn't Lee decide to bless those who criticized him?

He brought lawsuits against the outsiders, and quarantine smear sessions against the insiders. The Blendeds have simply duplicated his feats, except that they will also sue the insiders, like they did in Toronto, Columbus, and Mansfield.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

... one of the beauties of the Psalms is that they bring out the whole range of human emotion that we are all susceptible to. We are yet sinners and ... pour out our hearts to the Lord but then we ask forgiveness for those sins. Praying the Psalms is a much needed exercise for all saints of Christ.

My main argument for praying, singing, reading, speaking, and meditating on the Psalms as a much needed exercise is very much in line with both Paul's NT presentation and WL's vaunted "God's economy". When we "exercise our spirits" in God's word, and bring it in experientially, i.e. with action and not merely thought, it reinforces the word and opens us up to the sustained influence of that word. Paul said "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly", which meant to fully "saturate and permeate" us, in LC lexicon.

So why am I not back in the LCs? Because the word I want to experience isn't the one that the blended leadership wants me to experience. I want the word of Christ, not the interpreted word of someone's ministry.

For example, in Psalm 131:2 it says "But I have calmed and quieted myself, I am like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child I am content." Who was content in the boat, upon the rough sea, when the wind and waves were contrary? Only One Person could fulfil this word. "Master, why do you sleep!? Save us for we perish!" Only One could be "calm and quiet" in the storm. Only One.

If we truly want to walk upon the sea of glass, I believe that it's necessary to see the Lord. If we "exercise our spirits" in the word we will eventually say, "I have seen the Lord!"

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

If we truly want to walk upon the sea of glass, I believe that it's necessary to see the Lord. If we "exercise our spirits" in the word we will eventually say, "I have seen the Lord!"

Just seeing is of course not the same as doing. Everyone, including LSM, preaches this. It's not doctrines but behavior. Lip service alone to God doesn't cut it.

But without seeing, what doing is there? The doing of the blind, the lost, the confused. I was recently touched with Paul's reminder to the Corinthians of his ministry among them. I was touched by two aspects: "spirit" and "word". The word alone is dead letters. But the spirit unharnessed by the word is directionless. Paul claims that in his ministry they were fused, as they had been in Him who he declared, Jesus Christ.

1Cor 2:4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power.

1Cor 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

1Cor 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power

Back to my previous post (#462), what if I'm the word, wrestling with God as it were, and the Spirit comes and reveals Jesus Christ to me? Suddenly the "parousia" to some extent occurs, the word becomes "living and operative", and "witnesses with my spirit", and begins to "dwell richly" in me. Suddenly like Mary, I can exclaim, "I have seen the Lord!"

And then, what if my friendly neighborhood Bible expositor, says, "No, that's just a word from fallen men, according to their vain concepts". What then? And what if this particular Bible expositor is so dominating of the flock, so controlling, and insisting on "one accord", that the churches be "exactly identical" and "speaking the same thing" that essentially my vision makes me persona non grata, unwelcome? What then to do with my vision?

Actually that's not an easy question. The simple answer is "walk away" but if we all walked away from the flock every time we got a vision that not everyone else picked up on, what kind of a flock would it be? A flock of quarrelsome, divisive "seers"... no, we have to bear with one another, visions and all.

But I digress. The point I wanted to make is that the Spirit opens the word and reveals Jesus Christ. That's what Paul was doing, speaking in Athens and Philippi. That's what Peter did, standing with the eleven, after the flames came down from heaven. That's what John did, writing his Apocalypse. The Spirit uses the Word to reveal Jesus Christ to us, and this saves us. To me that's foundational. This provides the necessary lamp to our feet, the basis of our subsequent behaviors. My time in the LCs was all part of the journey. "Exercising my spirit" in the word. Like the writer to the Hebrews said, "we see Jesus" (2:9).

But at the same time, ultimately there's a decision, whether to follow the Spirit of power, or the words of men. Because at some point, these may diverge, and then one must choose whether they want "words taught by the Spirit" (1 Cor 2:13) or words taught by men. Because to maintain contact with the Spirit of the Word, they'll have to pay a price.

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.."

Galatians 1:10 "Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ."

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

Here is where we need to distinguish between the two kingdoms, the right hand Kingdom being the Gospel/Church and the left hand being Government. The Lord has established both and both have their place. So, King David and Samuel are acting in the Left hand kingdom and the task of the left hand Kingdom is to punish evil and promote good (Romans 13).

Not only so but one of the beauties of the Psalms is that they bring out the whole range of human emotion that we are all susceptible to. We are yet sinners and sinners do have outbreaks of anger, lust, greed and all. We pour out our hearts to the Lord but then we ask forgiveness for those sins. Praying the Psalms is a much needed exercise for all saints of Christ.

AM,
This is very good. Thanks for sharing. I didn't know it. WL's ministry was very lacking in this type of understanding, esp the 1st paragraph.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Lee doesn't devalue all the Psalms -- those that were quoted in the NT gets the thumbs up.

That was the case in the book "Christ and the Church in the Psalms".
But in his old age, WL gave ministry messages on the Psalms, and he even trashed the parts of Psalm 34 which were quoted by Peter, as pointed out by Aron.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas
Um... this I cannot agree. LC is an exclusive Christian sect but not a cult.

I have been saying this for years. Unfortuately we are the minority here.

I agree with the 2 of you.

I'd like to know what AMCasci thinks about this.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Um... this I cannot agree. LC is an exclusive Christian sect but not a cult.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have been saying this for years. Unfortuately we are the minority here.

Minority here? Has there been some survey that I'm not aware of? Actually the vast majority of LCD members would not use the term "cult" to apply to the Local Church. But what do I know, I'm just the dummy who reads every post!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

I agree with the 2 of you.

I'd like to know what AMCasci thinks about this.

And then there were three ...

....................................

Anybody else like stand up and be counted?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And then there were three ...

....................................

Anybody else like stand up and be counted? awareness, how about you?

Did somebody mention cult? I'll be the voice of cult out here.

The local church is not a cult like Jim Jones, or Heaven's Gate. Nobody is gonna drink poison Kool-Aid, or commit suicide expecting a spaceship to pick them up.

The local church is a cult because they usurp the mind. In fact, they are proud of being out of their mind.

And they are a cult of the personality type, a personality cult, because, they devote their life to following one man; their MOTA.

The problem of calling the local church a cult is that they are basically an evangelical Christian movement. So calling them a cult brands by extension evangelicalism a cult.

Why do you think CRI came out with "We Were Wrong? They didn't want to also be branded a cult ... which they are ... them and Hank, The Bible Answer Man. He's been constantly hitting me up for money in email for years now. And was prolly paid off by the local church cult to withdraw their claim that the local church is a cult.
http://www.equip.org/PDF/EnglishOpt.pdf

You boys, and gals, from the mid-west were buffered by Titus Chu. So I understand why you don't think the local church is a cult. But praise be to the Lord, ya'all were quarantined by that cult. That should tell you something about LSM. Stop cutting them slack.

Say it loud. Say it proud : LSM is a cult.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did somebody mention cult? I'll be the voice of cult out here.

The local church is not a cult like Jim Jones, or Heaven's Gate. Nobody is gonna drink poison Kool-Aid, or commit suicide expecting a spaceship to pick them up.

The local church is a cult because they usurp the mind. In fact, they are proud of being out of their mind.

And they are a cult of the personality type, a personality cult, because, they devote their life to following one man; their MOTA.

The problem of calling the local church a cult is that they are basically an evangelical Christian movement. So calling them a cult brands by extension evangelicalism a cult.

Why do you think CRI came out with "We Were Wrong? They didn't want to also be branded a cult ... which they are ... them and Hank, The Bible Answer Man. He's been constantly hitting me up for money in email for years now. And was prolly paid off by the local church cult to withdraw their claim that the local church is a cult.
http://www.equip.org/PDF/EnglishOpt.pdf

You boys, and gals, from the mid-west were buffered by Titus Chu. So I understand why you don't think the local church is a cult. But praise be to the Lord, ya'all were quarantined by that cult. That should tell you something about LSM. Stop cutting them slack.

Say it loud. Say it proud : LSM is a cult.

I hope that we will stick to Psalms on this thread. There are way more threads in these forums on whether LC is a cult. The bit about evangelicalism is very bizarre though. I'm also not comfortable with the unChristian allegations that LC paid off Hank and CRI (or Fuller Theological Seminary).

At any rate, I want to listen more about Psalms.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

I hope that we will stick to Psalms on this thread. There are way more threads in these forums on whether LC is a cult. The bit about evangelicalism is very bizarre though. I'm also not comfortable with the unChristian allegations that LC paid off Hank and CRI (or Fuller Theological Seminary).

At any rate, I want to listen more about Psalms.

Sorry InOmnibusCaritas ...

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

I hope that we will stick to Psalms on this thread. ... I want to listen more about Psalms.

I'll try to summarize: the apostle Paul twice mentioned singing Psalms in his epistles, calling them the "word of Christ" in Colossians and "the infilling Spirit" in Ephesians. But WL had a kind of allergic reaction when he covered the Psalms, because they prominently have the word "law". WL said "nobody can keep the law; salvation is by grace". Yes, but the standard NT interpretation was that Jesus the Nazarene was foretold in scripture. In the OT writers' declarations of fealty and obedience they typified the coming Messiah. And this is prominently featured in the Psalms. Jesus wasn't called the "Son of David" for nothing. See e.g. Luke 18:38 "He called out, 'Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!'" and Matthew 21:9 "The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, 'Hosanna to the Son of David!' 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!' 'Hosanna in the highest heaven!'"

So we know that Jesus didn't circumvent the law but kept and fulfilled it, and that now we the formerly lawless ones have hope, because we can believe into the Obedient Son and be saved. And yes "being saved" involves obeying Him (in hearing, recognizing, and cooperating with the sent Spirit of Life) just as He obeyed the Father. The OT writers, including David, were indeed sinners, but in their struggles to obey God they gave and outline, or framework, for the One who was to follow.

When the psalmist said, "Oh God, you've saved me because I obey You and do your will", WL said, in effect, "No God didn't save him. He saved himself". I reject this interpretation. The psalmist's poem, or song, was a picture of the Obedient Son, and the Father's raising Him from death. This is clearly outlined in the initial speech in Acts 2, by Peter, on the day of Pentecost. David had indeed failed, but being a prophet he foreknew, and spoke about, the promise of God to his seed.

Second, the writer to Hebrews quotes the Psalms something like 8 or 10 times in the first section, then says, "we see Jesus" (2:9). Some of those quotations wouldn't seem like the humble Nazarene at first glance. "Your throne, O God, is forever", etc. Wow! That was Jesus?!? What a revelation! So there's an open invitation in the NT usage to explore the OT text for revelation of Jesus. (Of course there are limits - our revelation should be tempered by reason, precedence, and fellowship).

Third, when John quoted Psalm 69, "And His disciples remembered where it was written, 'Zeal of Thy house has eaten Me up"', John was presupposing familiarity with the cited text. But in the evangelical, fundamentalist thought-world we take for granted the NT authority as intrinsic to itself, and typically downplay or even ignore the source text. How many Christians really have deep familiarity with Psalm 69, in toto? Did just that one single verse convey information about the coming Christ, or was John supposing that the reader, familiar with the source text, would continue the study?

That brings me to my last point: is there any place in the myriad citations in the NT where the author says, in effect, "Only use this citation. The rest of the Psalms are natural, and written according to fallen human concepts. They aren't revelatory of Jesus Christ"? Where's the accompanying warning in the NT usage to ignore the "natural" chaff? I don't see it; "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

WL ran his "God's economy" bulldozer through the text and the results were not pretty. Imagine if the Ethiopian had asked, "Did he write this about himself, or someone else?" and Philip had said, "No, you can ignore that verse. That was just a natural man trying to save himself by keeping his mouth shut. Eventually everyone opens their mouth and reveals their fallen nature. All men are sinners."

No, there was One Man who overcame. We would do well to heed this Man, and live. And He is revealed for us in the words of scripture.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

How many Christians really have deep familiarity with Psalm 69, in toto? Did just that one single verse convey information about the coming Christ, or was John supposing that the reader, familiar with the source text, would continue the study?

It is not merely objective information that we get, however. It is truly the "infilling Spirit" that Paul wrote of in Ephesians 5.

17 So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;…

The disciples were not drunk on the day of Pentecost, as observers supposed. Paul's readers didn't get drunk on wine but got filled in spirit. This is not outward "head knowledge" but a spiritual entering. We enter deeper into the will of the Lord, which is entirely centered around the person of His Son Jesus Christ; likewise this "word of Christ" enters us more deeply, and begins to "dwell in us richly". I cannot adequately describe the experience, but I know it's real. WL effectively discouraged this experience by making fun of people who sang the Psalms. "Too low", he said. Better to sing a hymn by a good Protestant reformer. (insert loud "ooh-gah! ooh-gah!" noise and flashing red lights here.)

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... there's an open invitation in the NT usage to explore the OT text for revelation of Jesus. (Of course there are limits - our revelation should be tempered by reason, precedence, and fellowship).

... there was One Man who overcame. We'd do well to heed this Man, and live. And He's revealed for us in the words of scripture.

I think Psalm 22 is a classic example. Repeatedly this psalm is cited in the NT text, showing not only the suffering and death of Jesus, but the glories to come. Yet not all of the chapter is cited. Yet it is hard to read the chapter, even the non-cited parts, and not see experiences of the coming Christ.

I don't think it's too much to say that we may cautiously peruse the non-cited parts of the book of Psalms and see pictures of our Jesus. I think the NT usage was an invitation to do just that. The frail, human, suffering Person whose faith in God sustained Him in adversity. In the midst of death He lifted up His voice and blessed the Father. How could we lose hope, with such a One in our midst?

"In the midst of the assembly I will sing praises to You, O Father" (Psa 22:22) If such a suffering, crucified, buried, resurrected, and ascended One is by His Holy Spirit praising the Father among us, how can we but be encouraged, and carry on? And why shouldn't we be interested in finding details of His relations with the Father in heaven, detailed in the prophetic word? I think if done carefully, patiently, with respect, among the oversight of the leaders of the flock, it might be profitable.

"Moreover, the rules of the Church require that Scripture should be understood as the holy Fathers explain it, and not at all arbitrarily. By being guided in our understanding of the Gospel by the explanation of the holy Fathers, we keep the tradition of the Holy Church." Russian Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

"In the midst of the assembly I will sing praises to You, O Father" (Psa 22:22) If such a suffering, crucified, buried, resurrected, and ascended One is by His Holy Spirit praising the Father among us, how can we not but be encouraged, and carry on likewise? And why shouldn't we be interested in finding details of His relations with the Father in heaven, detailed in the prophetic word?

"Finding details of His relations with the Father in heaven"... that sums up my current Bible reading. To me, everything worthwhile, today, hinges on this. As I wrote earlier, WL typically gave three options from the text. First, that the psalm-writer was natural and fallen and wrote from that perspective, trying vainly to keep the law and please God. Something like "My hands are clean, and You've saved me because You delighted in me" in Psalm 18 was supposedly natural. Or, the writing typifies the Christian believer and his relations with the ascended Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit operating within. Today, therefore, it's not dead letter to strain after, but an indwelling, living and life-giving Spirit. And lastly, there's the option of a "revelation of Christ" which the psalmist had, while writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit: e.g. "Not one of His bones shall be broken." Obviously this interpretation was typically driven by NT usage.

But I believe that another interpretive option shows us the Man, Jesus Christ, of Nazareth town, a Galilean in occupied Judea, a descendant of David who hungered and thirsted and struggled and wept, who was mocked by His own younger brothers: "If you are the Christ, go and show yourself at the feast. Don't hide." This very frail, mortal Man can be seen, again and again, in intimate relation with His Father, who is God enthroned in heaven. In this, the psalmist typified Him excellently. Those declarations of fealty and obedience were kept to the "jot and tittle". Jesus overturned nothing, sidestepped nothing, fulfilled all - "It is finished". It is entirely complete in Him. "The things which were written concerning Me must be fulfilled" (Luke 18:31, 22:37, 24:44).

And the weak, frail, mortal human race can now see in Scriptures this One, while yet on earth, in full dependence upon the Father's will and speaking. He was completely dependent and utterly obedient. "He trusted in Him, let Him come down and save Him now" (Psa 22:8; Matt 27:43). The vulnerability of the mortal Christ on earth, which He overcome with faith and trust and hope and obedience, is now a vision beckoning to all those vulnerable creatures who follow.

Let me shift gears for a moment. I try to be "up" on what's current, and recently was viewing a website of one of the "Mega-churches". Essentially they have their own streaming tv station: all the meetings are video-taped and available for viewing. I clicked on one of their recent services, and I couldn't even make it through the first song. It was the typical "Praise and Worship" affair, with a large, plain stage and a half-dozen fresh, smiling musicians. What got me at first was the metronomic banging of the drummer. It was like they were 'thump-thump-thump' agitating the crowd into an elevated, trance-like state. (Maybe that's just my post-Pentacostal allergy kicking in).

But what killed it for me was the "We love You and praise You, our exalted Jesus" theme. Now, nothing's wrong with that of itself. But what I missed was any trace of the relationship of Jesus with the Father. I needed evidence of Jesus, on earth, praising the Father, obeying the Father, and yes even being perfected by the Father. That's why these texts rescue me today. Jesus is now enthroned on high, King of kings and Lord of lords, but before exaltation He walked the proverbial mile or three, with us. The "Man in the glory" was first a man living among the sheep. The P&W guys just bypassed that, and created their own Cargo Cult, staring up at a shiny "Jesus in the Sky" that's far above our toils and cares of humanity below.

But He was here with us.

Now back to my point, and why I think this textual imagery has such powerful potency. Instead of saying, "This is the natural psalmist trying to trust in God", or instead of, "This is the Christian trusting in his own version of 'Jesus in the Sky'", what we might see in the text is the very human Jesus, on earth, trusting in His Heavenly Father. Through fealty and obedience Jesus and the Father were one. Man and God were joined again, and the curse was broken, and estrangement and alienation were gone. When the writer of Hebrews quoted the Psalms and said, "We see Jesus" (2:9) this is Jesus that I recognize. This is He of whom Peter said, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we're all witnesses of it." (Acts 2:32).

To sum, it's not my trust in God that counts, nor even my trust in Jesus, even (though I do). The vision that burning before me in the text is the frail, mortal, vulnerable Human Being who trusted in His Father God to save Him. This is the brass serpent who was lifted up before our eyes. And this is the One now enthroned. This is the Lamb of God, slain for all. This is the One we can see, and hear, and follow. Because we're here, and He was here, among us. The disciples were with him for several years, and their testimonies are clear; His Holy Spirit is here, declaring Him through the Holy Word.

To me, the Spirit expressly declares that "My hands are clean/I have kept Your word/You rescued Me because You delighted in Me" in Psalm 18 is not merely King David trying to rescue himself, but it importantly typifies the coming Son of David, who is Jesus Christ. God got Jesus out of the 'jam' of incarnation in the flesh of sin, and did it in a way that gives life to all who believe. This was the unique grain that fell and brought forth many grains. God even said, "This is My Son in whom I delight". God delights in Jesus, His Son.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

But WL had a kind of allergic reaction when he covered the Psalms, because they prominently have the word "law".

I give WL more credit for intelligence than that (except for when he was in his 90's his mind was not working so well, but his supporters kept saying that his ministry was getting higher and richer.)
WL's ministry was severely lacking in the working together of faith and works. Most psalms have this as their basic structure, as does much of the NT. It seems rather than acknowledge a severe lack in his ministry, WL said the word of God was wrong. As far as I know, WN never did this.

Originally Posted by aron

When the psalmist said, "Oh God, you've saved me because I obey You and do your will",

What verse is that?

Originally Posted by aron

Third, when John quoted Psalm 69, "And His disciples remembered where it was written, 'Zeal of Thy house has eaten Me up"', John was presupposing familiarity with the cited text. But in the evangelical, fundamentalist thought-world we take for granted the NT authority as intrinsic to itself, and typically downplay or even ignore the source text. How many Christians really have deep familiarity with Psalm 69, in toto?

good point

Here is a verse that I have trouble with, Ps 31:6
6 I have hated the keepers
of worthless vanities,
but I've to the LORD trusted.

In the NT we are not supposed to hate people. I wish the verse said, "I have hated the keeping of worthless vanities", but that rendering doesn't seem possible.

what do you do with this verse, anyone?

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

I give WL more credit for intelligence than that

Well I probably should, too. Unfortunately I'm no Nigel Tomes, and don't have LC materials to present a balanced case. I just have my old RecV Bible with the Psalms. And I do oversimplify WL's presentation, in order to contrast mine. Surely his had more depth than I give him credit for, and I did his interpretation a disservice. Nonetheless, the theme in the RecV Psalms seems pretty clear: Psalm 1 he dismisses because "there's nobody righteous", and then he was committed to a theme and it carried throughout the work.

The Psalms were not about the psalmist, ultimately, nor is the Christian experience their focus. No; these are the "words of Christ", according to Paul, and were "written about Me", according to Jesus. I think a case can be made for that (with caveats of course, and hopefully I've made them as well).

Anyway I'm a rank amateur at argumentation and don't expect people to get it. I just hope to do the subject some service by being clear and direct, not too insulting by being too clear and direct(!), and not being too repetitive and wordy. I may come off like a know-it-all, but really I'm just thinking aloud. And I don't mind when people respond, that I'm more-or-less full of it, because I may well be.

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

What verse is that?

When I wrote ""Oh God, you've saved me because I obey You and do your will", I was paraphrasing Psalm 18. See e.g. vv 16 - 24.

16 He reached down from on high and took hold of me;
he drew me out of deep waters.
17 He rescued me from my powerful enemy,
from my foes, who were too strong for me.
18 They confronted me in the day of my disaster,
but the Lord was my support.
19 He brought me out into a spacious place;
he rescued me because he delighted in me.

20 The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.
21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord;
I am not guilty of turning from my God.
22 All his laws are before me;
I have not turned away from his decrees.
23 I have been blameless before him
and have kept myself from sin.
24 The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

I don't remember what WL said about Psalm 18, but it's pretty similar to Psalm 34, which he panned completely, even though it was quoted in the NT. Seems that David saved himself, not God, according to WL. And no mention by him of the foretold Son of David, even though as I said the NT cites the psalm text as of Christ.

Verse 24: "The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight". When I read this, I just can't see who it can be about except Jesus Christ. The rewarded "me" here, speaking, is none other than Jesus. Who else fulfills this word? Essentially that's my argument in a nutshell: WL said "nobody", and I say "Jesus Christ".

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Here is a verse that I have trouble with, Ps 31:6
6 I have hated the keepers
of worthless vanities,
but I've to the LORD trusted.

In the NT we are not supposed to hate people. I wish the verse said, "I have hated the keeping of worthless vanities", but that rendering doesn't seem possible.

what do you do with this verse, anyone?

I think there are a couple of related approaches. First is to see that God doesn't really "hate". God is love itself. But God is also holy, and God's dealing with the worthless vanities is unpleasant. Like when you spank your kids. You really love them, and don't hate them, but you may whale on them a bit to keep them from going into the abyss.

So what you experience as "the day of God's wrath has come" is not God being wroth but God's righteous dealings. (not saying "this is the way it is" but rather that this is one way of looking at it. We anthropomorphize God in some ways, to characterize Him, but shouldn't be too smitten by our thought-pictures)

Another way is that it's not people we hate but the forces that control them. Paul said that we fight not against flesh and blood but spiritual forces. We know this. This opens the door to a third way, which is my preferred way, because it draws out the most inference, and utility, from the source text. Look, David was a warrior, right? I mean if he wasn't tough, Goliath would have crushed him like a bug. David told Saul, "I killed a lion and a bear and now I'm gonna kill that uncircumcised Philistine."

The background of these poems was unrelenting bloodshed and warfare. Peace was only established when one side was utterly vanquished. And this is a clear picture of the coming King. When He came, the dark forces cried out with fear. "Oh! What do we have to do with you, Jesus? Have you come to destroy us before our time?"

So when Jesus said, "Get thee behind Me, Satan", to Peter, He meant it. He utterly rejected Peter at that moment. Utterly. Jesus knew that there was no compromise with the forces of darkness. Anyone who took Satan's way would be turned away. But Jesus didn't reject Peter, but the forces that operated in Peter. He prayed for Peter, and the rest, (see e.g. Luke 22:32) and God had mercy and saved them. Jesus truly fought the good fight. And yes it is a fight.

Originally Posted by OBW

We cannot separate our theology from our practice. But our practice is a window into the value of our theology. However, there are two levels of theology — that which you have argued yourself into thinking is right and which you will argue for, and that which has become true and affects your life. And we often cannot tell the difference between the two. But it shows in our practice.

While I will not say that war is immoral, or that there is no sin, when we speak of those &@$*# homosexuals, ISIS insurgents, liberals, illegal aliens, or whatever, we may hold to "love your neighbor as yourself" as theologically true, but it is not the theology we live. And it is therefore not really our theology. We talk like it is, but we don't believe it enough to reject our natural hatred, bigotry, etc., and live like it is. So our practical theology is not what we say is our theology.

And many who still speak in that manner study, contemplate, and meditate on God's word.

I wanted to bring OBW's post over here because I think it's related. As Christians we can either judge people, and fight them, like the Crusaders going after the godless Muslims and re-taking the Holy Land. Our swords drip with blood, literally, to bring the kingdom nigh.

Or, we say, "Oh, no, we just love everybody", and become relativists. I'm okay, you're okay. No; no one is good except God. The rest of us are in peril, here in the flesh. So we struggle with our own flesh, and try to help others. We close our doors and do battle before the Father's throne.

This is where Psalms come in. The battle rages, and Jesus has won the Victory, and urges us all through the fight, to follow Him. Outwardly we imitate Him, as Christians: when someone says for us to declare judgment, we can say, "Man, who appointed me judge over you?" (Luke 12:14). On earth we are nothing, know nothing except Christ and Him crucified, and have nothing. God is everything. When someone curses us we bless, when they slap our cheeks we expose the other. But inwardly we have the "words of Christ indwelling us richly", per the apostle in Col 3:16, and yes these are words of battle. We are not surprised by anything because we can see the unseen, in the words of Scripture.

But it is not, not, not, not, not against people. We cannot overstress this. It is against forces that have usurped people. To me this is why the seven letters were written to the "angel of the church in Thyatira", etc. There were forces controlling these regions, and the word of the Lord was, "repent". Plain and simple. Repent. Turn and come back to God. John was essentially "praying over" geographical regions, and addressing the forces that were affecting the stuff seen on the ground.

Anyway, as usual I've carried on far too long. Sorry for the wordiness.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

And the weak, frail, mortal human race can now see in Scriptures this One, while yet on earth, in full dependence upon the Father's will and speaking. He was completely dependent and utterly obedient. "He trusted in Him, let Him come down and save Him now" (Psa 22:8; Matt 27:43). The vulnerability of the mortal Christ on earth, which He overcome with faith and trust and hope and obedience, is now a vision beckoning to all those vulnerable creatures who follow.

We are weak, and mortal, because of our venality. The weight of our crimes, both individual and collective, hang heavy. Yet it pleased God that the weight of our sins would be placed on a frail, mortal human body such as our own. One of our own rescued us. And this One was none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, exalted now forevermore.

It seems that the "Processed Triune God" metric of WL somehow sidestepped this. The Incarnated Jehovah superseded the clear and repeated image of a frail, mortal Man. So when the frail mortal man cried out in trouble, in type, in the poetry of psalms, WL dismissed that as vanity.

Psalm 31:1
In You, O Jehovah, do I take refuge;

Never let me be put to shame.

Rescue me in Your righteousness.

The RecV footnote says, "In this psalm David speaks of God's saving him from distress. However, God's salvation for the New Testament believers is not mainly from their distress. In His salvation God sustains and strengthens His believers in their distresses that they may live and magnify Christ (Phil. 1:19-21a)."

Yet where is the Father rescuing Jesus Christ from death? This is the one, singular narrative, in which all others find their home. This is the "one ring to rule them all", a la JRR Tolkien. Apart from this, WL's "New Testament believers" have nothing. Yet it is ignored.

Psalm 31:9-17

9 Be gracious to me, O Jehovah, for I am in distress. My eye is wasted away with grief, Indeed my soul and body.

10 For my life has been consumed in sorrow, And my years, in sighing. My strength fails because of my iniquity, And my bones have wasted away.

11 Because of all my adversaries, I have become a reproach, And especially so to my neighbors, And something dreaded to my acquaintances; Those who see me on the street flee from me.

12 I am forgotten, like a dead man out of mind; I am like a destroyed vessel.

13 For I hear the slander of many; Terror is on every side. When they take counsel together against me, They scheme to take my life.

14 But I trust in You, O Jehovah; I say, You are my God.

15 My times are in Your hand; Deliver me from the hand of my enemies and from those who pursue me.

16 Cause Your face to shine upon Your servant; Save me in Your lovingkindness.

17 O Jehovah, do not let me be put to shame when I call out to You; Let the wicked be put to shame; let them be silent in Sheol.

The only RecV footnote here was for verse 9. "David's distress included his grief, sorrow, and the reproach of his opposers. The believers today who follow the Lord also suffer much distress, including persecution. In the NT, however, the apostle Paul did not complain about his distress. Rather, he said that all things worked together for his good that he, as one of God's many sons, could be conformed to the image of the firstborn Son of God."

I find this assessment to be rather subjective. In the Gospel of John, Jesus said, "Now my soul is troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save Me out of this hour. But for this reason I have come to this hour." (v.27)

What? Jesus was troubled?

And, Jesus wept? (11:35)

Jesus groaned? "He was deeply moved in spirit and troubled"? (11:32, NIV)

"Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb." (11:38, NIV).

These few gospel fragments show the inner life being revealed. In actuality, the inner life was continually poured out before the Father in heaven. But it was done typically in secret, behind the proverbial "closed door" (e.g. Matt 6:6; see also Mark 1:35, Luke 5:16). Occasionally the disciples got witness of that - "And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground." (Luke 22:44 NIV)

Yet what was He praying? Was He praying Paul's epistles? Here is the RecV footnote on Psalm 29: "David's prayer and praise in this psalm is too much in the material and physical realm and cannot compare with the prayer and praise in the New Testament"

Oh, really? So if Paul, in the New Testament, encouraged the "word of Christ to dwell in you richly, in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," then that should be rather the NT prayers and blessings that now compose the body of the "word of Christ"? Do you think Paul actually wanted us to take the Psalms out of the repertoire and simply replace them with his own writings? WL seems hopeful that this is the case. I disagree. This seems to be some kind of sleight-of-hand trick: the NT writer recommends the OT writings to dwell in you richly, but the NT expositor WL says, "Don't bother. Stick with the NT. It's much better." But did the actual NT writings in any way promote or suggest that idea? I say, quite the contrary.

Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

When WL read the Psalms he certainly saw the "weak flesh" and the "troubled soul" but he missed its typification of the Seed of David, the Son of Man, the coming prophesied Messiah. Even though the NT constantly alludes to this, WL conceded it only when absolutely necessary. It apparently wasn't helpful to his "Processed Triune God" and "New Testament Economy" metrics.

I repeat that WL isn't entirely to blame for this exegetical mess. I grew up in Protestantism, where the viability of the NT was taken for granted, and its constant appeals to the OT were supposedly safe to ignore. The NT was scripture, and portrayed Christ. The OT, on the other hand, seemed to talk about the Jews, history, the law (which was now rendered moot by the age of grace), etc. It was useful for some background, if you really wanted to pursue it. But it could be safely and profitably ignored. Like WL put it, "Stick to he high peak revelations of the NT". But the NT was clearly building its revelations out of the OT material. The foretold coming Messiah, being fulfilled by the Man Jesus of Nazareth, was its nearly constant theme. And that included His being ground down to nothing, suffering and being lowered to the shameful death of a slave. All the "high peaks" of the NT are built on this one foundation. When Philip told Nathaniel in John 1:45, "We have found Him", that clearly presupposed common understanding of the typified Messiah alluded to in scriptures. But the gospel narrative repeatedly stressed that the disciples' ideas of this typified Messiah had missed the suffering and dying part. They can be forgiven a little quicker than today's Bible expositors, who have less excuse for ignorance.

So when David says, "You will rescue me" and "You will save me" and "I trust in You" and even, "I obey You. My hands are clean and You delight in Me" I don't think we should be so quick as WL was, to dismiss it out of hand as merely the vanity of David's fallen human imagination. There was One Man who redeemed these declarations; in fact He was even known in NT parlance as the incarnated Word Himself. He lived out this word because He was the Word. And now His sent Spirit makes this Word come alive in our hearts, as we exercise our mouths. This is why the apostle also says that we will be "filled in Spirit" by enjoying this word (Eph 5:18,19). Gee, it sounds something like God's New Testament Economy to me!

[aron]

Psalm 31:5 says, "Into your hands I commit my spirit; deliver me, LORD, my faithful God." We know from Luke 23:46 that Jesus quoted this: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.' When he had said this, he breathed his last."

So even though Jesus, in agony, quoted Psalm 31 on the cross, when the same psalm was found saying, "Do not let me be put to shame" and "rescue me O God" then its author David was complaining in his distress, according to the RecV footnote, and desiring to avoid suffering, instead of following the NT principle of "living and gaining Christ". Hmmm.... seems to be a lot of effort here, expended to avoid seeing the Christ plainly coming into view. And similarly we've seen the RecV footnote panning Psalm 1, which speaks of the blessing to the righteous man. Sorry, folks, no righteous men allowed. Salvation in the NT is rather "unmerited grace to sinners". So the "assembly of the righteous" in Psalm 1:5 is naturally ignored - by definition it can't exist. Because there aren't any righteous, see?

But when Christ is found praising the Father in the midst of the assembly, (Psa 22:22; Heb 2:12), suddenly the interpreter forgets that there wasn't supposed to be an assembly of the righteous! Poof - on cue an assembly appears... likewise Psalm 26:12; 35:18; 40:9,10; 68:26; 107:32; 109:30 and so on. When the argument didn't want an assembly, there wasn't one; but when the argument needed to allow one it magically appeared on cue. How convenient; just like when the psalmist groans or cries in distress he's just complaining, unless of course it's Jesus Christ who's pictured groaning and crying out to the Father, which is of course okay. Disconnect, much?

And so I ask, why can't the LC flock include these words of scripture in their NT economy? Why can't they say, "Thy words were found and I did eat them" to these passages, as with those in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy? I can think of two reasons: first off, WL discouraged it. So there it is, everyone: the oracle has spoken. Doesn't matter if Paul repeatedly encouraged it. "Nope", goes the reply, "We may profitably 'eat' Paul's recommendations, but we don't have to follow them! We're indeed hearers of his word, even eaters, but certainly not doers! Likewise, when Peter quotes the psalms we can dismiss Peter as being 'low' and lacking vision. Got that? Our 'apostle' WL had the high peak NT vision, like today's Paul (though we'll ignore Paul when necessary) but Peter the ignorant Galilean fisherman who composed it unfortunately didn't have sufficient revelation."

So the LC are willing to ignore Paul and dismiss Peter, if it means to closely follow their own apostle. If WL dismissed the word, then so does the LC. And if he subjectively picked through it, ignoring obvious contradictions arising in his exegeses, then his acolytes also choose that path. Because their oracle has spoken.

Second, suppose that somehow the Blendeds managed to side-step WL's ministry and figured out how to allow the LC flock to profitably exercise their spirits in this text. What then? What if they quietly ignored WL's discouraging words and - surprise, surprise - found the Spirit of God's Christ, there in those scriptures (e.g. Eph 5:18,19)? Well, another threat would soon arise. Then, unfortunately, the gates to dreaded Christianity might open! They might see others, not meeting on the precious ground of locality, who're currently enjoying Christ in the Psalms. What then? The whole foundation for being 'God's particular people' might be undermined. The whole reason for being the LC is to separate from fallen Christianity, right? No bridges allowed to Babylon - none! So if someone is seen profitably enjoying, and ministering to others from their enjoyment in the text of God's word, then the "One Trumpet" edict is in question and the whole edifice totters and shakes. "And the crash of the house was great"... who knows, there might be another Keith Green out there today, singing something like, "Create in me a clean heart, O God" from the Psalms. Then what? What if God was found moving outside of the demarcated "central lane of God's economy"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv16...ature=youtu.be

No, better to ignore Paul, dismiss Peter as ignorant, and just hold tightly to the letter of Lee. Ministry uber alles.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

So even though Jesus, in agony, quoted Psalm 31 on the cross, when the same psalm was found saying, "Do not let me be put to shame" and "rescue me O God" then its author David was complaining in his distress, according to the RecV footnote, and desiring to avoid suffering, instead of following the NT principle of "living and gaining Christ".

For Lee to be truly consistent about all of this, then he should have panned Jesus' own prayer in the garden where he asked that he be spared of the agony to come. Seems awfully whiney and natural.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

For Lee to be truly consistent about all of this, then he should have panned Jesus' own prayer in the garden where he asked that he be spared of the agony to come. Seems awfully whiney and natural.

Psalm 42 For the director of music. A maskil of the Sons of Korah.

1 As the deer pants for streams of water,
so my soul pants for you, my God.
2 My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.
When can I go and meet with God?
3 My tears have been my food
day and night,
while people say to me all day long,
“Where is your God?”
4 These things I remember
as I pour out my soul:
how I used to go to the house of God
under the protection of the Mighty One
with shouts of joy and praise
among the festive throng.
5 Why, my soul, are you downcast?
Why so disturbed within me?
Put your hope in God,
for I will yet praise him,
my Savior and my God.
6 My soul is downcast within me;
therefore I will remember you
from the land of the Jordan,
the heights of Hermon—from Mount Mizar.
7 Deep calls to deep
in the roar of your waterfalls;
all your waves and breakers
have swept over me.
8 By day the LORD directs his love,
at night his song is with me—
a prayer to the God of my life.
9 I say to God my Rock,
“Why have you forgotten me?
Why must I go about mourning,
oppressed by the enemy?”
10 My bones suffer mortal agony
as my foes taunt me,
saying to me all day long,
“Where is your God?”
11 Why, my soul, are you downcast?
Why so disturbed within me?
Put your hope in God,
for I will yet praise him,
my Savior and my God.

The RecV footnote for verse 4 says, “On the one hand, the psalmist was panting after God (v.1). On the other hand, he was recalling the glorious and pleasant past in his leading of the festal multitude to enjoy God in His house with His people. Actually, this recalling was a departure from his panting after God… We should not allow our considerations and our remembering of our past to distract us from our present enjoyment of god (cf Phil 3:13-14).”

So when it says that “Jesus, knowing that he had come from God, and that He was to return to God” (John 13:3), was Jesus mistakenly looking back to the house of God? Or rather was He looking ahead?

When Paul wrote to Timothy that he remembered the tears of his confession, was he mistakenly looking back? (2 Tim 1:4).

When the Jews put up a rock as a memorial for God's salvation, was that a mistake, as well? (Josh 24:27).

Psalm 137:5,6 says, "If I forget you, O Jerusalem, May my right hand forget her skill. May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, If I do not exalt Jerusalem above my chief joy". Was this also vanity?

Now, we do know that the Lord Jesus taught that once someone put their hand to the plow, not to look back (Luke 9:62). We do remember what happened to Lot's wife, and what happened to the children of Israel who pined for the food of Egypt with their selective memory.

But the psalmist in chapter 42 wasn't daydreaming away from his "present enjoyment of God", as per the footnote. The Psalm's context has placed him outside of the land of promise (see v. 6) and thus he is rightly orienting himself back toward his true home.

What about the boy in Luke 15 who suddenly "came to himself" and lifted his eyes up above the pig trough as he remembered his father's house? Was that a mistake? Should he just have "enjoyed God" there with the carob pods? Or was God calling him back home?

I find WL's assessment of these verses to be quite arbitrarily subjective. Now, the Psalms are indeed poetry, and some interpretive leeway is understood. But I can make a better argument that Jesus was the unique One who remembered His Father's house. The rest of us became pigs. We were lost; we were dead to God. Only when we heard His voice calling us home did we lift up our eyes and turn homeward, again. Only then did we re-orient ourselves back to the Father who waited there for his lost sons, who were dead and now lived again. (Luke 15:23,24).

So if I am looking at the "festive throng" of Psalm 42:4 and make a connection with Hebrews 12:22-24 --

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.…

then I also am making a subjective assessment. But what if my admittedly subjective interpretation is made after "being filled in spirit by singing psalms", per Paul's encouragement in Ephesians 5:18,19? And similarly, what was the basis of WL's subjective assessment of Psalm 42? Enjoyment of any type or stripe? I see no evidence at all. A sort of hurried, disdainful glance is all I can tell from the footnotes. He didn't linger there, like Mary at the grave, waiting for life to return. He just hurried on. He had a ministry to tend to: messages to give and meetings to preside over.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

So when it says that “Jesus, knowing that he had come from God, and that He was to return to God” (John 13:3), was Jesus mistakenly looking back to the house of God? Or rather was He looking ahead?

Jesus was the only One who knew where He came from, and where He was going. The rest of us were lost. He never lost His orientation to the Father. He said, "The Father is always with Me, for I see Him and do His will." (John 8:29)

The others scorned this. No, they insisted, This is a fallen man like us. How can He say that God is His Father? (John 10:33) "Give glory to God - this man is a sinner" (John 9:24). They had lost way of the Father's house, and insisted that this Man was similarly lost. He was a Galilean - didn't they know His mother Mary, and His brothers and sisters? (Matt. 13:56).

To me, it's been similarly discouraging and frustrating to see WL's ministry continually use the text to point to, or orient toward, other things: the church, the 'natural' psalmist, the New Testament believer, and so on, all without seeing Jesus Christ. It is only by seeing Jesus' unyielding orientation to the Father in heaven, that my own orientation gets restored. He is the only way back to the Father's house. But WL put so many other things there, distracting us. We should come to the text, I argue, and "see Him, and live".

Numbers 21:8 The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live."

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God's glory displayed in the face of Christ.

Hebrews 2:9a But we see Jesus...

[aron]

Psalm 6

6 I am worn out from my groaning.
All night long I flood my bed with weeping
and drench my couch with tears.

7 My eyes grow weak with sorrow;
they fail because of all my foes.

8 Away from me, all you who do evil,
for the Lord has heard my weeping.

9 The Lord has heard my cry for mercy;
the Lord accepts my prayer.

10 All my enemies will be overwhelmed with shame and anguish;
they will turn back and suddenly be put to shame.

It occurred to me that the righteous and holy God doesn't listen to the cries of the unrighteous. Their tears are in vain. Hebrews 12:17 says, "Afterward, as you know, when [Esau] wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done." The tears of the fallen can't change God's righteous judgment. 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 tell of what happened to the angels who sinned. These epistles seem dependent upon the Book of Enoch's description of how the fallen angels of Genesis 6 tried to extricate themselves from punishment, but were denied.

On the other hand, the tears of the righteous avail, before God's throne. Jesus wept not for His sins, but for ours. And the Father listened. So the tears of the psalmist are of themselves vain, but as a preface of the coming Christ they display God's salvation in His Son Jesus, the High Priest of Heaven who intervenes on our behalf.

Peter went outside and wept bitterly (Luke 26:62), which was of itself vain. Only Jesus' intercession - "Peter, I have prayed for you" (Luke 22:32) - could ultimately save him from the darkness of rejection. So when the writer of Hebrews said, (5:7) "Christ, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared," I think that this "strong crying and tears" was not only for Himself, but for the deliverance of Israel and even all humankind. The NT record continually stresses the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as God's vindication of Jesus' obedient human life, and His Father's designation as the Son of God in power (Rom 1:4), and that this resurrection becomes the hope of all humanity, to be likewise saved from death by faith in this One.

Yes, Jesus cried strongly, and the Father heard His cries. Similarly, Psalm 6:9 says, "Jehovah has heard my supplication; Jehovah receives my prayer". Yet in covering Psalm 6 WL merely stressed the inadequacy of David's repentance. Nothing here, to WL, indicated the coming Christ. The Epistle to the Hebrews clearly says that Jesus' cries were heard, and God saved Him from death. The psalmists' strong cries and desire to be saved from death, and the exultation and hope of the same, were found by the indifferent RecV footnote expositor to be absent of any connection. I find this strange.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus wept not for His sins, but for ours. And the Father listened. So the tears of the psalmist are of themselves vain, but as a preface of the coming Christ they display God's salvation in His Son Jesus, the High Priest of Heaven who intervenes on our behalf...

Yes, Jesus cried strongly, and the Father heard His cries. Similarly, Psalm 6:9 says, "Jehovah has heard my supplication; Jehovah receives my prayer". Yet in covering Psalm 6 WL merely stressed the inadequacy of David's repentance. Nothing here, to WL, indicated the coming Christ.

The Epistle to the Hebrews clearly says that Jesus' cries were heard, and God saved Him from death. The psalmists' strong cries and desire to be saved from death, and the exultation and hope of the same, were found by the indifferent RecV footnote expositor to be absent of any connection. I find this strange.

The apostle Peter said that even though David declared the word and it was not fulfilled in him, God still used David's word as a prophecy of the coming Seed of David. See Acts 2:29-32.

Contrast this with the "apostle" WL who merely said that David declared the word in vain, and left it at that. It was not up to the New Testament standard, he said. So I ask, which version should WL's "New Testament believers" prefer? And are there other versions or views that also work, here?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The apostle Peter said that even though David declared the word and it was not fulfilled in him, God still used David's word as a prophecy of the coming Seed of David. See Acts 2:29-32.

Contrast this with the "apostle" WL who merely said that David declared the word in vain, and left it at that. It was not up to the New Testament standard, he said. So I ask, which version should WL's "New Testament believers" prefer? And are there other versions or views that also work, here?

Psalm 6:9 says, "The Lord has heard my cry for mercy; the Lord accepts my prayer." No, WL effectively replied, The Lord didn't hear David's cry for mercy; He didn't accept his prayer. It was vain, because "David's grave remains with us to this day." (see Acts 2:29) God didn't save David, but rather let him rot in the grave. (forgive me for being blunt but we're talking about a sinner - David sinned with Uriah and Bathsheba and wasn't a righteous man. WL repeatedly stressed this).

Another approach is to say that David was a type of Christ, and his words provided the framework for the coming Messiah, the coming Seed of David. David as the overcoming king presaged the coming King whose kingdom would never end. Psalm 89:3-4, for example, says, ""I have made a covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to David My servant, I will establish your seed forever And build up your throne to all generations." I believe that this is why the crowds yelled, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" (Matt 21:9) as He entered Jerusalem. They expected His immanent human ascension to glory and kingship, and (finally!!) the end of the hated Idumean (Edomite) Herod. (Could any man have been more despised and feared by the public than Herod was?) Even the opposing Council raised this thought: "This Man will provoke the Romans to act and will take away our place and our nation" (see e.g. John 11:48).

The NT record shows the expectation was already there in captive Judea, which was chafing under the Romans as it had under the Greeks, Assyrians, and Babylonians before them. And the disciples, of course, believed that this expectation was of God's Messiah was fulfilled in none other than Jesus of Nazareth. The crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus were all part of the divine narrative. It is all there, already, in scripture: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" All of it was there: the sufferings, the trial, the shame, the cries, the death. And then the glory that followed. And not just Israel but all of humanity would be redeemed (see e.g. John 11:52).

The disciples as religious Jews clearly believed that the prophets were pointing to the coming Christ. And their role as apostles was therefore to show that the prophets were pointing to Jesus as Christ. So in Acts 2 Peter said, "30 But he [David] was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it."

Even though Peter the Galilean fisherman could see this, the so-called apostle WL could not see David as a prophet pointing to Christ, but rather saw David the fallen sinner pointing to himself, and declaring his own natural concepts of himself vis-a-vis God. I think that I rather prefer Peter's interpretation, here. (Sorry, I guess I'm funny that way.) And Peter is not alone in this: other sections such as Romans 1:4 and Hebrews 5:7 show God hearing the prayers and cries of the righteous Man Jesus and saving Him from the pangs of death, and giving him glory. As does the NT record elsewhere, as well: see for instance the inquiry of the Ethiopian - "Is this man writing of himself, or of someone else?" - I mean, talk about slow pitch softball! Philip knocked that one out of the park (Acts 8:34).

To conclude: the OT prophet points toward the coming Messiah, who the NT apostle then declares is none other than Jesus Christ the Nazarene. WL on the other hand said that the OT prophet (in this case David) was merely pointing to himself. WL's disciples claim that he was an apostle and held "God's oracle", but his own teachings belied this. He looked at scripture and could only see fallen men. He said that there were no righteous men (see e.g. his footnotes in Psalm 1). For some reason, he couldn't see God's Christ.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

No, WL effectively replied, The Lord didn't hear David's cry for mercy; He didn't accept his prayer. It was vain, because "David's grave remains with us to this day." (see Acts 2:29) God didn't save David, but rather let him rot in the grave.

The funny thing about this argument is that even we "rot in the grave" until the resurrection. So David is in no worse position than we are. And unless there was truly a different covenant in that day (which there was), not a single one of them have any hope for the future. None of them were righteous and none were without sin, therefore, according to Lee, they would all "rot in the grave." I guess he must mean forever. Even Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc. But they did have a hope. And it was not simply that the Messiah would come an save those who live after them at the time of the Messiah or after. That is no hope at all if it only resides in those who are as yet unborn.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Those very verses [Psalm 133] were pray-read in the meetings, to support the Flow of Oneness that Mel Porter, the lead elder in the church in Ft. Lauderdale, came back from Anaheim with.

The Flow of Oneness was supported with Rev. 22:1. It was said that the river of life, carried the authority of the throne, to the apostle on the earth: Witness Lee.

And Lee was likened to Aaron in Psalms 133. It was said. that, the anointing came down from Lee, thru the elders, and finally, to the "garments," or us little ones.

"I'm Witness Lee - I'm the meaning of the universe;

I'm Witness Lee - I'm the meaning of the universe."

This little man fufills God's plan,

He's the center and the meaning of the universe.

(To the tune of "O I'm a man", with apologies.)

The irony here, and one of many, is that WL said that David was being ego-centric: that David was thinking that the Holy and Righteous God of heaven paid attention to him, a sinner, and declared that God had saved him out of death (see e.g. 34:4); WL's commentary said that David saved himself and that David's fallen natural concepts had ascribed this to God's intervention (see accompanying RecV footnotes). Yet when WL fortuitously came into the foment of the "Jesus Movement" of the 1960s, he skimmed off a few hundred unsuspecting young souls as his own personal acolytes, and set about anointing himself as the center of God's move on the earth today. Fallen human ego, much?

Originally Posted by OBW

The funny thing about this argument is that even we "rot in the grave" until the resurrection. So David is in no worse position than we are. And unless there was truly a different covenant in that day (which there was), not a single one of them have any hope for the future... Even Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc. But they did have a hope. And it was not simply that the Messiah would come an save those who live after them at the time of the Messiah or after. That is no hope at all if it only resides in those who are as yet unborn.

Eventually I realized that what I found so deeply appealing about the Psalms was their universal character. The psalmist makes a bold declaration of piety: "I desire to do your will, my God; your law is within my heart." (Psa 40:8). But this declaration is not merely David's ego-centric fallen human nature, or Jewish religious culture, or WL's "New Testament believer", although arguably all three can be seen. But it's drawn Jews and Christians for centuries because of its transcendent nature: it may be embodied in the Christ, but even though it was fulfilled in Him ("Then he said, 'Here I am, I have come to do your will.'" [Heb 10:9]) it speaks to and of the aspirations of all creation.

Revelation 5:13

Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"

It has been slowly dawning on me that even as I speak of a post-Protestant world today, I could also speak of a reality in which "Christianity" itself is no more. Paul told the crowd that he was a Pharisee of Pharisees (Acts 23:6). But that was an acknowledgment of his journey through time and space and human culture. But Paul wasn't looking back; he was headed for the stars. His home was in the Father's house. And this "house", or "family" or "kingdom" is not merely a Christian realm. Rather the Christian realm, on earth today, allows us access to it. But it is not itself exclusively Christian. Yes Christ is enthroned as Head over all, but if you look at the denizens of the open heavens (e.g. John 1:51 - "you will see heaven opened") you slowly realize that the Christian faith is pointing at them. "You shall be like angels in heaven" in Matt 22:30 is not exclusively pertaining to the issues of marrying and being given in marriage, but rather the issues of marrying and being given in marriage are subsumed by the experience of "being like an angel in heaven".

And the Psalms give voice to this. In exquisite and magisterial detail they portray this. Yes they were penned by frail mortals who ultimately faltered, fell, and lay still, yet the voice is from heaven. "Your word O LORD is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. Your faithfulness continues to all generations" (Psalm 119:89). When the angel told Mary, "No word from God will ever fail" (Luke 1:37), he was declaring something that included but transcended all of Jewishness, Christianity, and even humanity. This is something that's true at all times, and in all ways that truth can exist. Christianity certainly points to it, and draws from it, but ultimately it is not dependent upon Christian understanding. It just is. The angel was neither a Jewish angel nor a Christian one; merely a vessel bringing something forth from the presence of the eternal God. In their purest form the Psalms draw us deeper into this realm, a realm which includes WL's Christian "New Testament believer", the psalmist, certainly Jesus Christ(!), the angels, and everything that lives and breathes. Even the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). There is a tremendous universal character and aspiration here: to orient oneself to the Source, to praise and thank and bless and obey. The Christian experience, through our faith in the Person of Jesus Christ, allows us full access to this. But we shouldn't be so presumptuous to think that we, and our experiences, are the "center and the meaning of the universe". At least I'm not comfortable declaring this. I sense that God is bigger than my theological notions.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

It has been slowly dawning on me that even as I speak of a post-Protestant world today, I could also speak of a reality in which "Christianity" itself is no more. Paul told the crowd that he was a Pharisee of Pharisees (Acts 23:6). But that was an acknowledgment of his journey through time and space and human culture. But Paul wasn't looking back; he was headed for the stars. His home was in the Father's house. And this "house", or "family" or "kingdom" is not merely a Christian realm. Rather the Christian realm, on earth today, allows us access to it. But it is not itself exclusively Christian. Yes Christ is enthroned as Head over all, but if you look at the denizens of the open heavens (e.g. John 1:51 - "you will see heaven opened") you slowly realize that the Christian faith is pointing at them. "You shall be like angels in heaven" in Matt 22:30 is not exclusively pertaining to the issues of marrying and being given in marriage, but rather the issues of marrying and being given in marriage are subsumed by the experience of "being like an angel in heaven".

And the Psalms give voice to this. In exquisite and magisterial detail they portray this. Yes they were penned by frail mortals who ultimately faltered, fell, and lay still, yet the voice is from heaven. "Your word O LORD is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. Your faithfulness continues to all generations" (Psalm 119:89). When the angel told Mary, "No word from God will ever fail" (Luke 1:37), he was declaring something that included but transcended all of Jewishness, Christianity, and even humanity. This is something that's true at all times, and in all ways that truth can exist. Christianity certainly points to it, and draws from it, but ultimately it is not dependent upon Christian understanding. It just is. The angel was neither a Jewish angel nor a Christian one; merely a vessel bringing something forth from the presence of the eternal God. In their purest form the Psalms draw us deeper into this realm, a realm which includes WL's Christian "New Testament believer", the psalmist, certainly Jesus Christ(!), the angels, and everything that lives and breathes. Even the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). There is a tremendous universal character and aspiration here: to orient oneself to the Source, to praise and thank and bless and obey. The Christian experience, through our faith in the Person of Jesus Christ, allows us full access to this. But we shouldn't be so presumptuous to think that we, and our experiences, are the "center and the meaning of the universe". At least I'm not comfortable declaring this. I sense that God is bigger than my theological notions.

I just lost 30 minutes of work because despite checking the "keep me logged in" button (or thinking I did), I got logged out. Trying again.

I hear a lot these days about post-Protestantism, post-evangelicalism, and even post-Christianity.

Seems that post-Protestantism should not be a bad thing. End the protest. Recognize that we are the body of Christ. Understand that the RCC is actually Christian. Of course that still leaves us all thinking that our particular way is more right than all others. Otherwise we would change.

Post-evangelicalism is more troublesome for many of us because we think that the best collection of doctrines resides there. But doctrines don't save. When we arrive at the judgement seat, some will probably say "Lord, Lord, did we not hold to the best doctrines" to which we may hear either "so what" or "best? really?" My conclusion of late is that the best worship may not be within evangelicalism. And the best understanding of the Christian live may not be within evangelicalism. They are too concerned with shoving everyone out the door to "preach the gospel." And if you are not into that, the rhetoric would suggest that you are a sub-par Christian.

But if Jesus railed on the teachers of the law, and Paul laid out guidelines for the lives of those who would be elders, deacons, teachers, etc., then why should we, who all think that everything applies equally to us, think that we should not be the same? Instead we (and even some of our leaders) refuse to "go through the motions" to correct their sins. That is "works." Instead we take grace for our failures (and it is there for that purpose). We think we are going to arrive at anything when we reject even "trying" to start on the journey. Maybe those poor liturgicals are just "doing it in themselves." But at least they started on the journey. Not at least trying is to not move down the road.

The post-Christian. If that means that there are no more Christians, then we have a problem. But the term generally means something like the visible testimony of Christianity changes sufficiently that it no longer resembles the thing that is currently called Christianity. We may have the best doctrines (collectively) and think we are on the path. But we are going nowhere except on a journey being rapidly expelled from the mouth of God. (Not pointing fingers. I see myself going on that same journey as well.)

We have all the doctrines. But maybe the ones who follow a confessional path to salvation, and worship in a more ancient way have a better lock on practice. They don't just teach great stuff. The teach the important stuff — Christ died for our sins; obedience; and so on — and eventually you come to believe. And in the process you actually live as Christ commanded. We excuse our failures and "take the blood" and just go on our merry way.

This is where I see the highly spiritual view of the Psalms as a potential hook. Oh, everything you speak of is there. But it is not just about the kingdom to come. If it is not informing this life, then we have missed its impact. That is one of the reasons that I have tended to hold back from bible studies on Revelation. Too much speculation about the future and no desire to consider today. That is not the fault of Revelation, but those who study it in that manner.

Yes, we need to orient ourselves to the source. But too often our rhetoric ends there. If we are oriented to the source, our lives should be different. But that is seldom talked about. We get all wrapped up in the feelings of being spiritual. If we get oriented to the source, we should at least try. And if we don't try, we will never arrive. That leaves the liturgicals with their works as the only ones who have a chance of arriving.

I like the Psalms. They are 150 examples of written prayers. They come from many different aspects of life. When things are up and when things are down. When we have sinned woefully. When enemies are camped outside our city. And when enemies have been vanquished. Yet God is the same God in all. "Hear my cry, Oh Lord." "Have mercy on me, Oh God." "I will sing of the mercies of the Lord." "Your word is a lamp to my feet." And so on.

Maybe saying that it is the "Word of Christ" is not always accurate. But it is always a picture of God in some way. Whether in prophetic form, or in describing the things that God does for us, or in the character of God. And some are instructive concerning the way in which we are to go. None are simply natural man whining with no spiritual value.

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by OBW

The funny thing about this argument is that even we "rot in the grave" until the resurrection. So David is in no worse position than we are. And unless there was truly a different covenant in that day (which there was), not a single one of them have any hope for the future. None of them were righteous and none were without sin, therefore, according to Lee, they would all "rot in the grave." I guess he must mean forever. Even Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc. But they did have a hope. And it was not simply that the Messiah would come an save those who live after them at the time of the Messiah or after. That is no hope at all if it only resides in those who are as yet unborn.

I came into the LC the fall of 72, and officially Jan 1 73. I came in much the result of having read WN. I think I remember WN saying if you are wrong with money you are wrong with everything. Some of you well read posters can agree with this or maybe it was Ben Franklin. It certainly didn't originate with me. I do think it's right. So of course what I am coming to is that WL was wrong with money so..... My hearing is that WL had money troubles that people knew about at least back in the 50's. It seems very likely that he is traveling 6000 miles to Seattle in 1962 to sell Chinese menswear to help his situation monetarily. But it didn't work. This venture was well hidden in the DFW area however a close friend of mine was in Elden and as others have posted help try to salvage something of this venture although they were not successful. They probably ended up at Goodwill.

After this came Day Star. What a can of worms. I lost $1000, no big deal, but others lost their life's savings. Then tennis rackets, just lost $250 there. Then church chairs. To me it's not that easy to place the blame and loss on these foregoing but when we gets to selling the ministry, that's pretty easy.
Since around 1975 there have been around 4000 in attendance at the winter and summer trainings. Unless my arithmetic has gone to you know where, that comes out to 32 million dollars without including the video trainings and books. This kind of money is in the Paul Crouch-Jimmie Swaggart arena.

And of course this isn't all. There's the dumping of dozens of "co-workers" which actually he had none.

WL was not that smart so could not do that much till WN left the scene. But freed, he became the Little General. He figured out a lot of things in his head but I doubt he had any revelation at all. I just don't think our God gives big revelations to the wicked.

He had a good cover which he maintained til death
Lisbon

[aron]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

WL was not that smart so could not do that much till WN left the scene. But freed, he became the Little General.

We can see why WL loved the "ground of the church" so much. It gave him unfettered access to the lives and pockets of the parishioners. Just like with WN, who could come back from shame and exile in the late-1940s and promote (demand?) the "handing over" of everything to "the church". And I guess WN initially made an example for everyone by handing over all his possessions to himself. (A little humor, there)

Originally Posted by Lisbon

He figured out a lot of things in his head but I doubt he had any revelation at all. I just don't think our God gives big revelations to the wicked.

Well the Psalms exposed this lack of revelation like nothing else that I have seen. Matthew 21:44 says, "Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed." WL tried to dismiss the Psalms as natural writings but instead they crushed and spit out his ministry like so much "natural" dust. It was a completely failed exegesis in my view.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

The post-Christian. If that means that there are no more Christians, then we have a problem. But the term generally means something like the visible testimony of Christianity changes sufficiently that it no longer resembles the thing that is currently called Christianity. We may have the best doctrines (collectively) and think we are on the path. But we are going nowhere except on a journey being rapidly expelled from the mouth of God. (Not pointing fingers. I see myself going on that same journey as well.)

Well I can't do the idea justice and perhaps I shouldn't have even tried. I certainly wasn't clear.

I am a sinner, redeemed and reborn. Jesus is and remains the "Lamb of God." This is my immutable fact as a Protestant evangelical fundamentalist, for lack of a better label. 'Christian' OK, fine.

But imagine a world beyond this in which there is no sin, death, pain, sorrow, shame, and confusion. Failure isn't known. But these words still fit! Incredible! The blessing and praise and honor and glory. The declarations "I will obey Your will" still stand as true and real. All that kind of stuff.

So I was looking at it not as a pious Jew or WL's "New Testament believer" but as if it were reality itself, come to us in the person of the Son of God. All my cultural "Christian" baggage isn't rendered moot, but rather in the brightness of His glory my religious background is rendered irrelevant. Sometimes I can just "feel" the Spirit of reality in these words. I don't know how to express it. But even my "Christianity" fades away.

That's why I got so indignant when WL dismissed them as the "fallen natural concepts" of a sinner. Unbelievable. Simply shocking.

Originally Posted by OBW

This is where I see the highly spiritual view of the Psalms as a potential hook. Oh, everything you speak of is there. But it is not just about the kingdom to come. If it is not informing this life, then we have missed its impact. That is one of the reasons that I have tended to hold back from bible studies on Revelation. Too much speculation about the future and no desire to consider today. That is not the fault of Revelation, but those who study it in that manner.

Well it's pretty clear by now that I'm a "lost in the clouds" type, and I can tell you my living doesn't match my vision at all. But I try to be merciful to others, and Jesus said if you show mercy to others, then God will be merciful to you. That's my best hope.

But visions and dreams have this: they call us. Beyond ourselves, our struggles, our situations and considerations. Moses still had to go back to Egypt. He had to confront Pharoah and lead the people out. But the vision on the back side of the mountain propelled him, and sustained him. In the Psalms I see Christ calling, speaking, declaring. It is a powerful attention-getter. I certainly hope that in that day, I will be found to have followed that voice, and to have obeyed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Well it's pretty clear by now that I'm a "lost in the clouds" type, and I can tell you my living doesn't match my vision at all. But I try to be merciful to others, and Jesus said if you show mercy to others, then God will be merciful to you. That's my best hope.

I sort of doubt that. And I was not complaining about this thread. But I see so much where the study starts with the truth in something like the Psalms and then it never gets to what does it mean for me today. And without that, it isn't worth much.

I am less lost in the clouds, but often lost in the analysis. Not much different until I actually put some of this into practice.

Maybe tomorrow.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

That's why I got so indignant when WL dismissed them as the "fallen natural concepts" of a sinner. Unbelievable. Simply shocking.

Of course I over-reacted. I always do. I write myself into an emotional state, then think that somehow my emotional state matches reality. It does not, and cannot. So forgive me for publicly hyperventilating.

Still, the NT reception of the Psalms seems fairly consistent, and WL departed from that, even radically. So it's right to question it. But to get all "huffy" about it is not my job, obviously.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I see so much where the study starts with the truth in something like the Psalms and then it never gets to what does it mean for me today. And without that, it isn't worth much.

I am less lost in the clouds, but often lost in the analysis. Not much different until I actually put some of this into practice.

Maybe tomorrow.

One thing the analysis does, right off the bat, is make me resistant to poor teaching. Lord knows there's enough of that. So that helps. I've got enough problems already, without being dragged into the ditch by someone's confidence game (see under, "Lee, Witness").

Secondly I've enjoyed doing analysis as part of an ongoing conversation, or discussion, because it helps to be corrected by others, and hear what others think, as well. And it even helps when some of the correction seems a bit thin. I remember one unregistered guest who said I'd gone way off the right path, with my thinking. And perhaps I had. But the guest never addressed or even acknowledged the verses that I'd been examining. I found that to be rather telling. It was encouraging, actually, like the Holy Spirit was saying, "Keep going."

And occasionally it comes into my conversations at work and home and church. My ideas and perceptions sometimes seem helpful to others, in untangling the knots that bind us all. So it always encourages me to have something useful for others. I mean, that's what it's all about: helping others. If I just please myself, that surely wouldn't please God. It must have utility or it's nothing.

And lastly, we have the promise: "Seek and ye shall find". My seeking is of itself, as an activity, a vain affair. But God has promised us that we'll find. Therefore, I keep seeking.

Notice that the Psalms are very much in the here and now: "Let a righteous man strike me—that is a kindness; let him rebuke me—that is oil on my head." (Psalm 141:5). The Psalms were written when the battle raged. I'm not sure how much of Psalm 3 was actually composed when David was hiding in a cave, with his son Absalom and the princes on the warpath. But it is very focused on the moment. It's within the context of a God who is in heaven, who has promised and who functions, at least in part, through the "invisible host". But "Save me, O God" is not the sweet bye-and-bye. It is today. "Today, if you hear His voice, do not refuse it" (cf Psa 95:7-11; Heb 3:15).

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

The post-Christian. If that means that there are no more Christians, then we have a problem. But the term generally means something like the visible testimony of Christianity changes sufficiently that it no longer resembles the thing that is currently called Christianity. We may have the best doctrines (collectively) and think we are on the path. But we are going nowhere except on a journey being rapidly expelled from the mouth of God. (Not pointing fingers. I see myself going on that same journey as well.)

I think we've clearly established the NT reception of Psalms. They're part and parcel of God's speaking to fallen man, "concerning His Son, Jesus Christ" (Romans 1:3). And nowhere does the NT invite us to dismiss them, even in part, as the concepts of fallen men.

But they're poetry; they're ecstatic utterances. It becomes problematic, attempting to go beyond the strict usage of the NT; even to do a kind of quasi-systematic, "thematic" attempt. Because of the subjective and personal nature of the writings they're like Rorschach tests: we see what we want to see. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews saw the verse, "Your throne, O God, is forever" and said, "This is Jesus". Wow - I bet that rattled some skulls. But if I go see angels and demons whizzing around in the text it's probably a distraction at best. Who's helped by my visions? I really don't want to start a new church or new church movement.

So how to (subjectively) interpret these highly poetic texts? Or, why even try? Well, they invite us, for one. "Man doesn't live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." The word itself is a lamp unto our feet - it guides us home. So we peer, and ponder, and wonder as shapes dimly emerge from the text. "We see, darkly" indeed. What I was faintly seeing, emerging from the text was the suggestive idea that they're so personal, and therefore so universal, that there is a kind of recursive "folding-over" in the text and I was publicly wondering where it stopped, if at all? Who's speaking here - the psalmist, or the Holy Spirit, or the Christ, or the "richly indwelling word" in the New Testament believer? If it is arguably all of them, then why stop at the edges of Christianity? Why not keep going on, forever?

"I come to do Your will, O God" was uttered by the prophet in oracular ecstasy, and pointed to the fulfillment by God's Christ. But anyone doing God's will can partake of this word. I'm bound by the history of my journey: I'm a Protestant and son of Protestants, a card-carrying American evangelical. But I'm becoming less limited by the creeds of my forebears and more freed by the images emerging from the text. Why presuppose the notion that "anyone who does God's will" is bound by Protestant creeds and theology as I am?

"When did we do your will?" ask the astonished guests. "Whenever you did it to the least of these my brothers" is the answer. If you give a cup of water to a prophet you get a prophet's reward. It doesn't say that only Protestants who give a cup of cold water will be blessed.

God is bigger than we are, and He's arguably bigger than our ideas. So the words of faith, trust, hope, and obedience, while pointing to God's Christ the Christian "NT believer" of WL's Psalms footnotes, are not dependent upon NT theology for substance. They certainly aren't framed by our understanding! At best they invite us to participate. "Be filled in Spirit by singing" as Paul wrote to the Ephesians. And as these "words of Christ" begin to dwell in us richly, they whisper to us of realities beyond, and we begin to gaze in wonderment; our eyes leave the earth, and look up. The text is inviting us to join God.

Yet, when Jesus said, "You will see the heavens open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man", what did He expect us to see? "The (LC) church", said WL; "which is the house of God". Angels ascending and descending are passed off by WL as "much traffic". The open heavens themselves are essentially ignored. Perhaps I (subjectively) want to run shouting after the text, "My Father, my Father, the horses and chariots of Israel!!" When the heavens open before me, I see what I want to see, not what WL wanted me to see. But at the same time I admit that a) it is subjective, b) it is provisional, and c) it ultimately awaits the proving of God.

I accept that. The day awaits.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

So how to (subjectively) interpret these highly poetic texts? .... What I was faintly seeing, emerging from the text was the suggestive idea that they're so personal, and therefore so universal, that there is a kind of recursive "folding-over" in the text and I was publicly wondering where it stopped, if at all? Who's speaking here - the psalmist, or the Holy Spirit, or the Christ, or the "richly indwelling word" in the New Testament believer? If it is arguably all of them, then why stop at the edges of Christianity? Why not keep going on, forever?

The problem with this statement today is that it doesn't capture my experience at all. Secondly, what is someone else to make of it, who didn't have my own experience of "enjoying God in His word"? There's an open-ended nature to poetry, and an invitation to go beyond the borders of the rational, but when you try to rationalize your experience, what have you done except place new boundaries and borders? Put another way: I began this thread because I resented WL circumscribing the Psalms with his interpretations. How then do I begin to circumscribe it with my own descriptions of what is and is not?

So I don't disavow the previous post but it's probably of little utility. The word itself is before us, beckoning us into God, but any issue of the "going in" will probably found only in transformed living, and not in our verbiage. We have Paul's words before us, and others', and the gospel testimonies, but these words indicate sufficiently transformed and transformative behavior to merit attention. Of themselves I suspect that mine can't and don't.

We were so fooled by WL that we thought fixation on his verbiage would propel us into God's kingdom. Why think that my own ruminations, however heartfelt, might be exempt? So by all means ignore my words if you will, and likewise those of WL, but fixate yourself unyieldingly upon the words of God, as pertaining to His Christ in glory. And I suspect that this includes the Psalms as well, far more than WL let on. It's "the mind of Christ" that now dwells within us, allowing us to see the Father's house as Christ, though yet on earth, saw it. Because the prophetic words were written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus indicated repeatedly that they were concerning Him.

So forget my hypothetical "recursive, post-Christian world", forget WL's templates and interpretive schemes, and let the Holy Spirit guide you in. The holy word is the vehicle for the Holy Spirit to reveal God's Son in us.

[aron]

Psalm 119:60 says, "I will not delay to obey your commands." WL would tell us that nobody could keep that word. To which I respond, "In whom, then, should we believe?" If nobody could keep the commands of God, where then is our hope?

No; the hope of the Christian believer is in Jesus Christ, born of a woman, born under law, who though in the flesh of sin, did not hesitate to obey the Father's will, all the way up to and including the death of the cross. This is our faith, our hope.

I don't know what gospel WL preached if he ignored the incarnated Word to that degree. Maybe he was, ironically, pushing a gospel of self-reliance: first he showed us the OT prophet unable to fulfill the word, then he declared that the "NT believer" could do it, according to "God's New Testament economy". In the middle of the narrative, however, was a gaping hole, where Jesus Christ was supposed to be seen. For all the talk about incarnation, and about the "humanity of Jesus", when given the opportunity to see a very human Jesus portrayed in the OT text, WL passed.

[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?

Goliath laughed with disdain, and cursed at the "stripling" that faced him. It was the last thing he said. Likewise Satan underestimated the man Jesus, until it was too late. We should never consider the word of God as low or natural, or of little or no account.

"Don't be like a horse or mule, that has no understanding at all. But their mouths must be held by the bridle or bit, or they won't come near to You." Psalm 32:9

[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.