Putting to Test the Recovery Version

[NewManLiving]

The Darby version uses the same terms "Not Yet". I for one do not believe that WL was modalistic and can certainly testify that in the number of churches I was involved in, no one else was modalistic either. I think WL over-emphasized or mis-interpreted certain versus. Now the Lord is that Spirit, and He shall be called Father, etc. However the verses do say what they say! Keep in mind very little "light" came from WL even though he thought so. Andrew Murray's the Spirit of Christ is an excellent source and was at one time in the LC book rooms along with others. When they tell you that WL read all the books, well he really did and at one time we were encouraged to read them ourselves as well, even the Catholic Mystics (John of the Cross, brother lawerence) could be found on many of the saints book shelf. We used to trade off with one another

[JJ]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

The Darby version uses the same terms "Not Yet". I for one do not believe that WL was modalistic and can certainly testify that in the number of churches I was involved in, no one else was modalistic either. I think WL over-emphasized or mis-interpreted certain versus. Now the Lord is that Spirit, and He shall be called Father, etc. However the verses do say what they say! Keep in mind very little "light" came from WL even though he thought so. Andrew Murray's the Spirit of Christ is an excellent source and was at one time in the LC book rooms along with others. When they tell you that WL read all the books, well he really did and at one time we were encouraged to read them ourselves as well, even the Catholic Mystics (John of the Cross, brother lawerence) could be found on many of the saints book shelf. We used to trade off with one another

I'm with NewManLiving on this, as the word "given" is not in the Greek text.

"Light" comes to us in the person of Jesus Christ. And, while our brothers and sisters often help us to see "the Light", they and we are not The Light, just luminaries reflecting Him. Unfortunately, our dear brother and his followers (including me) fell into the snare of Lucifer by looking at the glory and beauty given by the Lord to the recovery when it was beholding and reflecting Him, taking the credit, and grasping equality with God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

I'm with NewManLiving on this, as the word "given" is

Translation work is extremely difficult, and when to supply words for the readers' help is just one situation. No translation can ever arrive at "perfection," which is why I prefer a multitude of translations along with footnotes.

John 7.39 is an example of a verse that just defies theology. Various writers in church history (Darby, Lee, et. al.) have attempted to tackle it, but they risk being tagged Modalists, or worse. I feel it is best just to note it without promoting it, otherwise exclusive elitists sects like the LCM and the Peebs are the result.

Btw, the early RecVers (Ingalls et.al.) actually began with a minimum of footnotes, selecting only those words or verses which are more troublesome. Later on, LSM's "translation team" were instructed to go thru all the Life-Studies to cull the "riches," and thus pad the RecVers with Lee's theology. I still use the RecVers (old and new versions), and do use the cross references and explanatory footnotes at times. Much of the Outline I no longer agree along with Lee's controversial stuff in the footnotes.

[JJ]

Nice to know you use Rec. Ver. with discernment.

Yes, I remember those days when each book would come out during the "trainings" with far fewer footnotes, and when LSM added the new notes.

I like the new notes on one level, because they make it easier to know what Witness Lee "shared" on a particular verse or section of scripture (don't have to go searching through another publication).

I missed a lot of the sad drama people discuss on these pages because I was not in one of those regions. My region had its own drama that caused me to be outside for 20 years praying, reading the Bible, fellowshipping with believers outside of the recovery, occaisionally popping into Recovery meetings, then trying to work within it it again for 10 years. I left again when I could no longer endure the wretching in my spiritual stomach, objections of the Lord Spirit in my spirit, and His leading said "get out".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

The Darby version uses the same terms "Not Yet". I for one do not believe that WL was modalistic and can certainly testify that in the number of churches I was involved in, no one else was modalistic either. I think WL over-emphasized or mis-interpreted certain versus.

I would agree that Lee was not modalistic in the sense that most theologians use the term. But he seemed to depreciate, and even argue against any real "threeness."

He would make statements like "there is only one spirit, therefore if the last Adam becomes the life giving spirit, then that must mean the Holy Spirit" (paraphrased). While he would argue against modalism, he would insist that there was no real, meaningful three. He focused so exclusively on the "One" aspects that he pushed the three almost completely aside.

"There is only one spirit" is a false statement. There is only one with the name "Spirit" but God the Father is spirit. As are Jesus (the Son) and the Holy Spirit. But the reference to "spirit" is not about person, but about nature, or essence. When Jesus told the woman at the well that God is spirit, he did not say that God is the Holy Spirit. He said that God is not a singular being with a fixed location. God is of essence that is dispersed. There is no "here" or "there" with respect to God. No need to worship at this place because that is where he is. He is everywhere.

And Lee's oft-quoted question that went something like "is there more than one spirit that gives life?" is a misunderstanding of terms. Jesus gives life and he is spirit. But he is not the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit also gives life because God gives life. But the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, yet he is spirit and gives life. Same analysis for the Son and the Spirit.

Was Lee just that ignorant about what he was talking about? Or was he that deceitful? I am not sure that there are any other options. Either he really didn't understand or he was a manipulator of linguistics to arrive at conclusions that the words couldn't actually get to.

Lee believed in the three, so not modalist in the normal sense. But he primarily believed and taught a kind of trinity in which the purpose of three was virtually meaningless. In which everyone but a near modalist was a tritheistic heretic.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by OBW

... he seemed to depreciate, and even argue against any real "threeness."
... He focused so exclusively on the "One" aspects that he pushed the three almost completely aside....
Lee believed in the three, so not modalist in the normal sense. But he primarily believed and taught a kind of trinity in which the purpose of three was virtually meaningless. In which everyone but a near modalist was a tritheistic heretic.

Yeah, this makes it clearer...I remember hearing or reading about how the Father is the Son is the Spirit...or something like that. I never really got too much into the life studies or the HWFMR. I am sure some of you here could correct me. Is that what underpins the recovery version along with God's economy and our somewhat deification? And if so, what are the consequences that in the verse I mentioned, the Spirit was not yet. (John 7:39)

The following is the footnote for the word Spirit in John 7:39:
The Spirit of God was there from the beginning (Gen 1:1-2), but at the time the Lord spoke this word, the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:19), was not yet, because the Lord had not yet been glorified. Jesus was glorified when He was resurrected (Luke 24:26). After Jesus' resurrection, the Spirit of God became the Spirit of the incarnated, crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ, who was breathed into the disciples by Christ in the evening of the day on which He was resurrected (John 20:22). The Spirit is now the "another Comforter," the Spirit of Reality promised by Christ before His death (John 14:16-17). When the Spirit was the Spirit of God, He had only the divine element. After He became the Spirit of Jesus Christ through Christ's incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, The Spirit had both the divine element and the human element, with all the essence and realty of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Hence, the Spirit is now the all-inclusive Spirit of Jesus CHrist as the living water for us to receive (John 7:38-39)

Pretty confusing to me.

[OBW]

I think the key to that verse is that as far as the experience of the people was concerned, the Spirit was not yet. He was poured out at Pentecost and has been with us ever since. So even the terse rendering that Lee favored so much was correct — just not in the way he taught it.

In terms of the sequence that God had ordained, God — the one who did so much but could not be looked upon — became flesh. Not the whole Godhead, but the Son. Yet because of the shared existence, the fullness of the godhead dwelt in Him. But the sequence required that the man, Jesus, fulfill certain things. He had to die, arise, and be taken away from this world as a physical person. Then the Spirit came to be with all of us, not just the ones in the right place at the right time.

Lee erred in making it into a sequence of "becomings." But the Trinity had decided that the Son would come to the earth as a man. Not to just any random group of people, but to one that was prepared to a sufficient extent to be looking for him and already following his ways (generally, as a people, not specifically in every way). From there he had a way to generate followers without coercion. Their life and testimony (heavily that life) would attract more followers. At that point, the group of followers would expand beyond what could go find the person Jesus within a few days of walking and so it was time to put the next phase in motion. The Spirit came which made the invisible God more closely connected with his people without sending prophets or signs.

Yes there was a process. But it was not really a processing of God as Lee would have it, but a preparation of the people. It was a preparing of the way. And one day the preparation was close to complete so a man came saying "prepare the way." Then he came as man. He changed their thinking from ritual that covered sin to redemption that forgave sin. Then the Spirit was poured out and we all have a better way than even the disciples did during Jesus' time on earth.

Yes God had a process and it was to prepare man, not to prepare God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Lee erred in making it into a sequence of 'becomings'... Yes God had a process and it was to prepare man, not to prepare God.

I'm repeating myself, so I'll try to be brief. The one Spirit 'becoming sevenfold' to deal with the degraded church(es) makes no sense whatsoever to me. The record in scripture shows seven lamps of fire, burning before the mercy seat ever since Moses was commanded to "build all things according to the pattern which you have seen on the holy mountain". (Heb 8:5; Exod 25:40)

So when Lee considered the seven flames burning before the throne in Revelation 4:5, to him this was the one Spirit of Ephesians 4:4, now processed? What a stretch. Do we really think John meant that? No; John knew well the history of the tabernacle, the ark and the temple. John knew of seven lamps shining before the throne, at least since the time of Exodus 25, and arguably would be aware that this represented heavenly, i.e. eternal things; immutable, or nearly so, from our earthly and temporal perspectives.

Yet suddenly, five of the seven Asian churches showed degradation, and God needed to intensify the Spirit to overcome that? The more Lee tried to fit the scripture to his hermeneutic, the worse it looked; and his interpretative template disintegrated here, if it hadn't already, with the 'becoming intensified' idea. There had been seven lamps burning, all along. John knew that, and would expect his readers to know that.

And is God that mutable, needing to react to church degradation by processing and 'intensifying' Himself? I don't think this deserves serious and/or lengthy consideration; their recent A&C position paper, with the thinnest veneer of purported 'scholarship', supporting the intensification idea, is also largely posturing for the faithful. Another pamphlet to sell to the True Believers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I'm repeating myself, so I'll try to be brief. The one Spirit 'becoming' sevenfold to deal with the degraded church makes no sense whatsoever to me.

And the Lord God looked at poor, poor Christianity, and decided that it needed a seven-fold intensified Spirit. Then He took a look at the LSM's Recovery and decided it needed seventy times seven.

[testallthings]

Mat. 3:4 Now this John had his garment of camel's hair and a leather girdle around his loins, and his food was locusts and wild honey. (RcV)

Footnote 4.1, after saying what John (as a priest) should have eaten, wore, and lived, concludes in this way, “All this indicates that he had wholly abandoned the Old Testament dispensation...His intention was to introduce God's New Testament economy....”

Imagine John the Baptist wearing priestly garment of fine linen preaching repentance! Imagine the same person eating the best food and preaching repentance! How fit was for John to show by practice what he preached.
Was he abandoning the OTD? Was that his mission? Wasn't he called to prepare the way of the Lord?

“In his own person he embodied, so to speak, the Old Testament dispensation in its legal bearing, just as the Virgin Mary embodied and represented the evangelical aspect of the Old Testament as set forth in Abraham and the prophets. John was the personification of Old Testament righteousness according to the law; Mary was the personification of Old Testament faith in the promise, and of deep and earnest waiting for the promised salvation. Hence John appeared in Israel as the preacher of repentance, and the baptist.”

“In one respect, however, the baptism of John resembled the sacrificial services of the priests, as John administered the rite of submersion himself; whereas, in ordinary lustrations, the person to be baptized sprinkled himself with the water of baptism.”

Lange's Commentary on the NT

Without clear statements, from John or from others, it is too much to conclude that he was abandoning the OTD.

“had his raiment of camel's hair; not of camel's hair softened and dressed, which the Talmudists (z) call צמר גמלים "camel's wool"; of which wool of camels and of hares, the Jews say (a) the coats were made, with which God clothed Adam and Eve; and which being spun to a thread, and wove, and made a garment of, they call (b) חמילה, and we "camlet"; for this would have been too fine and soft for John to wear, which is denied of him, Mat_11:8 but either of a camel's skin with the hair on it, such was the "rough garment", or "garment of hair", the prophets used to wear, Zec_13:4 or of camels hair not softened but undressed; and so was very coarse and rough, and which was suitable to the austerity of his life, and the roughness of his ministry. And it is to be observed he appeared in the same dress as Elijah or Elias did, 2Ki_1:8 in whose spirit and power he came, and whose name he bore, Luk_1:17.”
John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible

If the fact that John living in a wilderness and not in Jerusalem, with the holy temple, implies that he was abandoning the OTD, if we apply the same logic, the fact that the Lord Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Holy Spirit, we have to conclude that they were going back to the OTD.