The Psalms are the word of Christ

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Peter was told by a heavenly messenger to continue speaking "all the words of this life" to the people. What words were they? Paul's epistles did not yet exist. The prophetic word, now made clear, was of Jesus the Nazarene. The prophesied Messiah was "this Jesus".

By contrast, where was the prophetic word called low, fallen, and vain? Nowhere is where. By its own testimony Witness Lee’s ministry was judged as fallen man's natural concepts.

Suppose you quoted Peter out of context, saying Paul's words were difficult to understand, and recommended reading only Ephesians 1 and 2, because the rest of the epistle would only bring confusion and death? What kind of a gospel are you then preaching? What kind of a Bible do you then hold?

The Bible continually stresses "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Not just those words which are suitable for your hermeneutic. If you read the RecV Ephesians, you'll get a verse and a page of WL footnotes. Read a page of RecV Psalms, which Paul in his letter to the Ephesians recommended to the saints - "be filled in Spirit" - and you'll get nothing. Maybe a cross-reference. Maybe a footnote panning it as natural. Page after page of emptiness.

Answer me this. Is this verse a "word from the mouth of God"?:

Matthew 4:9 ""All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me.""

No. It is from the mouth of Satan.


Is this a word of life or a word of death?:

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'

Even though it is a word from God's mouth, it is clearly not a word of life. Suppose you read and pray read 1 Samuel 15:3, what sort of person would it make you? It would not do your spirit much good.

From these simple examples I have proved that
1. Not every word in the Bible is from "God's mouth", however, every word in the Bible is inspired (is there for a purpose, according to God's will).
2. Not every word in the Bible is a matter of life or can give life. Only the Spirit gives life.

Jesus said "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life.". There is actually no verse in the Bible that says all and every verse in Scripture gives life. I have given two such examples which do not give life - one the voice of Satan, the other God's judgement which brought death.

The Bible is a book of life but that does not me an we do not need to extract the words of life from the Bible, as Lee tried to do with the life studies.

We cannot extract much life from the words of Satan or the words of man, which are recorded in the Bible but are not from the "mouth of God".

I could go on with bible verses that are not from the mouth of God but from fallen man- the false prophets for example,or Job's friends, etc etc.

The bible has God's words recorded in it for sure, but it also has the words of Satan and the words of (uninspired, natural or fallen) man.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Answer me this. Is this verse a "word from the mouth of God"?:

Matthew 4:9 ""All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me.""

No. It is from the mouth of Satan. .

Correct. From Satan. I apologize for overgeneralizing. I like generalities because it makes good copy, but "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" needs qualifier, pertaining to scripture.

But let's go deeper, shall we? Suppose Satan quotes God. Does that then make the word null? No, of course not.

Suppose a sinner utters a prophetic word, "He rescued me because He delighted in me". Lee said, "No, Jehovah didn't delight in the sinner". But my question all along has been, why didn't Lee consider Christ? Lee says, "David considered God's approval, and this is a wrong concept" (Psa 18:20 footnote), because salvation is of God's mercy and grace etc.

But Lee apparently never considered the Obedient Lamb of God. Yet the NT reception of the psalms repeatedly invited this. The psalmist declares, yet the declaration falls not to him, a sinner but on the Chosen Seed of the prophet (David, Acts 2:30), per God's promise. Why is this concept so fantastic, so amazing as to be beyond any consideration? Why do you think the crowds kept singing hosanna to the Son of David as Jesus entered Jerusalem (Matt 21:9; cf 9:27)? They knew Who was coming.

The Obedient Lamb of God is our Good Shepherd. When we see a prophetic picture of the law-keeping One it is not us the redeemed sinners, nor David (also a sinner), but God's Christ, who as a perfect Man lives by His every word (Matt 4:4). Why is this so seeming strange? Even Satan could see Christ in the psalms: "He (the Father) will set His angels around You (the Messiah, the Son) lest You (the Son) should strike Your foot against a stone". So, why couldn't Lee see Christ?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is this a word of life or a word of death?:

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'

Even though it is a word from God's mouth, it is clearly not a word of life. Suppose you read and pray read 1 Samuel 15:3, what sort of person would it make you? It would not do your spirit much good. .

Not so fast. Christ tasted death for us. Death could not contain Him. So we are not afraid of death; it is death outside of Christ that is profitless.

So I ask, is this death in, or out of Christ? Why simply assume it is fallen, natural, fleshly? Paul wrote of putting to death (Rom 8:13, Col 3:5), but it was spiritual warfare, not flesh and blood (Eph 6:12). Why not accept Paul's invitation? Why is scripture read figuratively (when convenient), but then literally (when not convenient)?

Tell me this: was David a bad boy when he threw the stone against Goliath, or a type of the coming Christ? I say the latter. There's opportunity to see spiritual types here. Why categorically dismiss it?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

From these simple examples I have proved that
1. Not every word in the Bible is from "God's mouth", however, every word in the Bible is inspired (is there for a purpose, according to God's will).
2. Not every word in the Bible is a matter of life or can give life. Only the Spirit gives life.

Jesus said "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life.". There is actually no verse in the Bible that says all and every verse in Scripture gives life. I have given two such examples which do not give life - one the voice of Satan, the other God's judgement which brought death.

The Bible is a book of life but that does not me an we do not need to extract the words of life from the Bible, as Lee tried to do with the life studies.

We cannot extract much life from the words of Satan or the words of man, which are recorded in the Bible but are not from the "mouth of God".

I could go on with bible verses that are not from the mouth of God but from fallen man- the false prophets for example,or Job's friends, etc etc.

The bible has God's words recorded in it for sure, but it also has the words of Satan and the words of (uninspired, natural or fallen) man.

Lee with his post-protestant hermeneutic said he extracted life from the Bible, but I've shown that he never considered Christ. So he failed. There is no life without Christ. And there's no life in his footnote in Psalm 18:20. Just fallen men's concepts.

The NT clearly showed the Father's deep delight in the Son. But the psalmist spoke of God's delight (Psa 18:19) and Lee simply said, "Nope." What kind of exposition is this? "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Son) because He delighted in Me". Didn't Peter use this kind of word in Acts 2, to show the relationship of the Father to the Son, and to declare that our faith in this Approved, Resurrected and Glorified Son now opened the door to salvation for all? Why close the door so quickly, so summarily?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Correct. From Satan. I apologize for overgeneralizing. I like generalities because it makes good copy, but "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" needs qualifier, pertaining to scripture.

But let's go deeper, shall we? Suppose Satan quotes God. Does that then make the word null? No, of course not.

It's still God's word, but its' not from God's mouth, so we cannot live by it.

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose a sinner utters a prophetic word, "He rescued me because He delighted in me". Lee said, "No, Jehovah didn't delight in the sinner". But my question all along has been, why didn't Lee consider Christ? Lee says, "David considered God's approval, and this is a wrong concept" (Psa 18:20 footnote), because salvation is of God's mercy and grace etc.

Only the 2nd and 49th verses of Psalm 18 are quoted in the New Testament. Maybe that is why he does not consider Christ. But I can see it could refer to Christ.

Originally Posted by aron

But Lee apparently never considered the Obedient Lamb of God. Yet the NT reception of the psalms repeatedly invited this. The psalmist declares, yet the declaration falls not to him, a sinner but on the Chosen Seed of the prophet (David, Acts 2:30), per God's promise. Why is this concept so fantastic, so amazing as to be beyond any consideration? Why do you think the crowds kept singing hosanna to the Son of David as Jesus entered Jerusalem (Matt 21:9; cf 9:27)? They knew Who was coming.

The Obedient Lamb of God is our Good Shepherd. When we see a prophetic picture of the law-keeping One it is not us the redeemed sinners, nor David (also a sinner), but God's Christ, who as a perfect Man lives by His every word (Matt 4:4). Why is this so seeming strange? Even Satan could see Christ in the psalms: "He (the Father) will set His angels around You (the Messiah, the Son) lest You (the Son) should strike Your foot against a stone". So, why couldn't Lee see Christ?

Perhaps Lee was making a point in case people mistakenly thought that God rewarded them according to their own righteousness. But he could have said this refers to Christ and not us.

Originally Posted by aron

Not so fast. Christ tasted death for us. Death could not contain Him. So we are not afraid of death; it is death outside of Christ that is profitless.

So I ask, is this death in, or out of Christ? Why simply assume it is fallen, natural, fleshly? Paul wrote of putting to death (Rom 8:13, Col 3:5), but it was spiritual warfare, not flesh and blood (Eph 6:12). Why not accept Paul's invitation? Why is scripture read figuratively (when convenient), but then literally (when not convenient)?

Tell me this: was David a bad boy when he threw the stone against Goliath, or a type of the coming Christ? I say the latter. There's opportunity to see spiritual types here. Why categorically dismiss it?

Lee with his post-protestant hermeneutic said he extracted life from the Bible, but I've shown that he never considered Christ. So he failed. There is no life without Christ. And there's no life in his footnote in Psalm 18:20. Just fallen men's concepts.

The NT clearly showed the Father's deep delight in the Son. But the psalmist spoke of God's delight (Psa 18:19) and Lee simply said, "Nope." What kind of exposition is this? "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Son) because He delighted in Me". Didn't Peter use this kind of word in Acts 2, to show the relationship of the Father to the Son, and to declare that our faith in this Approved, Resurrected and Glorified Son now opened the door to salvation for all? Why close the door so quickly, so summarily?

I would say the old testament footnotes are incomplete, many verses have no commentary for them or the commentary is very bland. It would be interesting to investigate why Lee did not think these verses could be attributed to Christ. I don't know if that is possible by reading his books, without asking him himself.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can see it could refer to Christ.
But he could have said this refers to Christ and not us.

Thanks you for the charity of your reply. It's possible that I have been too strong in my condemnation (I get like that often). Anyway I found Lee's treatment to be perfunctory and unsatisfactory.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Thanks you for the charity of your reply. It's possible that I have been too strong in my condemnation (I get like that often). Anyway I found Lee's treatment to be perfunctory and unsatisfactory.

I have found that at times Lee's footnotes claim things which are not written there (hard to justify from the text), and other times denies things which clearly are.

Before joining "the Recovery" my understanding of Psalm 18 was that it did refer to Christ. That has not changed actually. The footnote by Lee did not raise alarm bells with me because I thought the statement is true - if the verse was speaking about David, or me or you, then it is correct to say we cannot appeal to our own righteousness. I never saw his footnote to be contradictory to the idea that we could "find Christ" in any Bible verse. The bible portrays Christ but the bible can also portray ourselves. Sometimes we see Christ in the Bible and other times we see ourselves.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Correct. From Satan. I apologize for overgeneralizing. I like generalities because it makes good copy, but "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" needs qualifier, pertaining to scripture.

But let's go deeper, shall we? Suppose Satan quotes God. Does that then make the word null? No, of course not.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's still God's word, but its' not from God's mouth, so we cannot live by it.

Evangelical, methinks you needa get outa your mind, and turn to your spirit!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, methinks you needa get outa your mind, and turn to your spirit!

Do you mean you can live by Satan's words?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do you mean you can live by Satan's words?

I think a better question on this forum would be, did Witness Lee mean that 90% of the Psalms were Satan's words? Look at how he categorizes them: natural, fallen, well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts.

When Peter told Jesus "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You!!" he was speaking in his natural, ignorant human concept. This ignominy would never happen to Jesus! Right? Simon, aka "The Rock" Peter, would never allow it! "Not so, Lord!"

Peter's speaking was, correctly we believe, characterized by Jesus as "Satan's speaking". So my question becomes, are there degrees of well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts on display in the Bible, some of which are Satan insinuating himself into the conversation, and some not? If Psalms are merely ignorant good intentions but not "revelatory of Christ", then what are they?

When Job's wife advised him to "curse God and die" (2:9) after he was brutally afflicted, this was arguably a natural concept, via God's enemy Satan. Satan advises, at some point in the process you can give up with the praise and worship thingy, and get down to brass tacks, and tell God off. But no, "I will praise God with my dying breath" (Psa 146:2 NLT). And also like Peter: "Lord, I forgave my brother six times. Now can I bash him on the noggin as he so rightly deserves?" Again, lack of awareness of God's mercy leads to behaviors controlled by the fallen flesh. Satan has now usurped. Again and again in the NT the well-intentioned disciples crowded round, and displayed God's enemy.

But if Paul called Psalms the Words of Christ, where's the corollary calling them Words of Satan (Col 3:16)? How can Lee define scriptural text thus and say that he's closely following the apostles? Where's the precedent for this?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps Lee was making a point in case people mistakenly thought that God rewarded them according to their own righteousness. But he could have said this refers to Christ and not us.

But he didn't refer to Christ at all. How can we say this RecV translation with footnotes is in any way definitive if it's so glaringly deficient?

Paul made the point that the law of itself gave nobody righteousness (Rom 3:20). But why not consider whether "I will obey Your word" in the Psalm (e.g. 119:17) might possibly reference the coming Righteous One? How many times in the gospel text does Jesus reference obedience to the Father's will? No, says Lee, that psalm is just Satan distracting and deceiving the fallen mankind. At best, at very best, I think that's a shallow and perfunctory reading of the text; to me, Lee evinced no interest whatever in finding nor unpacking "life". Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find"; I see no evidence of seeking with Lee. How did he then claim to be a teacher, much less holding God's supposedly singular oracle?

[Drake]

Aron) "... why not consider whether "I will obey Your word" in the Psalm (e.g. 119:17) might possibly reference the coming Righteous One?"

"But he didn't refer to Christ at all. How can we say this RecV translation with footnotes is in any way definitive if it's so glaringly deficient?"



aron,

You agree with Brother Lee but you are apparently unaware of what he actually taught. Case in point:

"Psalm 119 is a Psalm of 176 verses describing Christ, who is the reality of the law, the commandments, the ordinances, the statutes, the precepts, and the judgments. "

RCV Psalm 119 footnote 1 (1).

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I think a better question on this forum would be, did Witness Lee mean that 90% of the Psalms were Satan's words? Look at how he categorizes them: natural, fallen, well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts.

When Peter told Jesus "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You!!" he was speaking in his natural, ignorant human concept. This ignominy would never happen to Jesus! Right? Simon, aka "The Rock" Peter, would never allow it! "Not so, Lord!"

Peter's speaking was, correctly we believe, characterized by Jesus as "Satan's speaking". So my question becomes, are there degrees of well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts on display in the Bible, some of which are Satan insinuating himself into the conversation, and some not? If Psalms are merely ignorant good intentions but not "revelatory of Christ", then what are they?

When Job's wife advised him to "curse God and die" (2:9) after he was brutally afflicted, this was arguably a natural concept, via God's enemy Satan. Satan advises, at some point in the process you can give up with the praise and worship thingy, and get down to brass tacks, and tell God off. But no, "I will praise God with my dying breath" (Psa 146:2 NLT). And also like Peter: "Lord, I forgave my brother six times. Now can I bash him on the noggin as he so rightly deserves?" Again, lack of awareness of God's mercy leads to behaviors controlled by the fallen flesh. Satan has now usurped. Again and again in the NT the well-intentioned disciples crowded round, and displayed God's enemy.

But if Paul called Psalms the Words of Christ, where's the corollary calling them Words of Satan (Col 3:16)? How can Lee define scriptural text thus and say that he's closely following the apostles? Where's the precedent for this?

There is a saying that says God goes to church and so does Satan, or wherever God is Satan is there too watching. The Bible says tares and wheat live and grow together. Finding the words of God and the words of Satan in the same Psalm should not surprise us. In fact when Jesus was tempted Satan was quoting the words of God to Christ. I think fallen man, or natural man, can be considered Satan in a certain sense, but not in the same sense as Satan's literal speaking as with Christ's temptation. But actually it doesn't really matter if it is Satan speaking through natural man or Satan speaking directly, it is still Satan. We have this idea that Satan is about child sacrifice and witchcraft and all these things but actually Satan is the temptation of the natural man - just as Satan used Eve's natural desires to cause her to disobey.

Originally Posted by aron

But he didn't refer to Christ at all. How can we say this RecV translation with footnotes is in any way definitive if it's so glaringly deficient?

Paul made the point that the law of itself gave nobody righteousness (Rom 3:20). But why not consider whether "I will obey Your word" in the Psalm (e.g. 119:17) might possibly reference the coming Righteous One? How many times in the gospel text does Jesus reference obedience to the Father's will? No, says Lee, that psalm is just Satan distracting and deceiving the fallen mankind. At best, at very best, I think that's a shallow and perfunctory reading of the text; to me, Lee evinced no interest whatever in finding nor unpacking "life". Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find"; I see no evidence of seeking with Lee. How did he then claim to be a teacher, much less holding God's supposedly singular oracle?

There are possibly many verses Lee did not address in his footnotes where life can be unpacked. Are you aware of any of Lee's writings or teachings that might explain why he ignored Christ in this Psalm?