Putting to Test the Recovery Version

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the beginning, the exclusive Brethren held to their strict principles. Once Darby began his public assaults on Newton and later Muller, (~1845 AD) he and his cronies (particularly Wigram) developed all sorts of extra-biblical interpretations of O.T. stories to justify their actions. That begun a downward spiral which has never changed.

Today's true Darby exclusives are among the weirdest of the weird. Their aberrant interpretive principles for fellowship are so codified in extra-biblical legalism that no one could possibly join them. Even C.H. Macintosh in his day lamented the slow decay of evangelism among them due to excessive focus on "truth and light."

Br. Ohio, I would like to know why do you think Darby assaulted Newton and later Muller.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Br. Ohio, I would like to know why do you think Darby assaulted Newton and later Muller.

I have written much about the Brethren on these forums over the last decade. I'm not sure where you received your history, but if it came from WL, then it is suspect. After much study, in fact, I have purged myself from every bit of history I ever heard from Lee. Every historical lesson he ever gave to us was totally self-serving.

I read the story of the Brethren first division by numerous authors -- Neatby, Coad, Ironsides, Groves, Embley, and others including Darby, Wigram, and Kelly. I studied the reasonings, the arguments, the complaints, the charges, etc. made by Darby against initially Newton, and later against Muller. Back in 2003-06 I read everything I could find on the Brethren in an attempt to understand what was happening to us in the Recovery. By then it became apparent that the Blendeds were going to quarantine the GLA.

I know this may come as a surprise to you, but Darby's treatment of Newton and Muller was a baseless attack on the integrity of these men of God. Both Newton and Muller acted honorably, uprightly, honestly, godly, and scripturally, but the sheer weight of Darby's character, especially in public venues, caused more noble men to back down from the endless wrangling of strife. This, by the way, was exactly what A. N. Groves had predicted in his prophetic letter to Darby in 1836.

Here's what removed any final shadows of doubt from my mind concerning Darby's motives. There were a number of gifted scholars in Plymouth, far and away the largest Brethren assembly, who lived through the hell Darby subjected on that fair church in the mid to late 1840's. Initially they stood by Newton, rejecting all of Darby's endless doctrinal charges from eschatology to sectarianism to clericalism to whatever. Eventually as the recently widowed Newton began to succumb to Darby's accusations, the subject of the sufferings of the Christ under the federal headship of Adam caused questionings in their minds. In the absence of Newton, they eventually swung to Darby's side.

Then in 1866 some of these brothers, i.e. Thomas Newberry, W.H. Dorman, Joseph Stancomb, Capt. Percy Hall, et. al. began to compare Darby's teachings on the subject with Newton's some 20 years earlier. To their dismay, they discovered that Darby held the exact same beliefs about the sufferings and person of Jesus as Newton did, and for which Newton was excommunicated and his reputation was forever smeared among Brethren circles. The brothers documented their work, and attempted to fellowship with the ruling London Park Ave. assembly, but they refused to hear any of it. It never was about mere teachings in the first place! Once the brothers learned this, they departed the movement for good.

To be clear, let me add a footnote about what teachings were at the heart of the Brethren split. In a nutshell, Newton taught that Jesus suffered as a normal man under God's arrangement, i.e. He spent 9 months in a womb, He got sick, He had to work, He got tired, etc. Darby would mock Newton saying that, "Newton's savior need a Savior." Being a former Brethren, WL knew this dispute well, therefore he would conclude that "all the sufferings of Christ were with a view to the cross."

Study Darby, and you can understand Lee.

[HERn]

To me that's the best way. Purge all of the Lee and LSM leaven and lies.

[testallthings]

Thanks Ohio for the quick reply. I'll try to share my point of view ASAP.

[testallthings]

12 APOSTLE
(DOES THIS MATTER OR NOT?)

It will take more than I expected to answer Ohio. So let's consider another footnote.


Mat. 10:1, RcV “And He called His twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they would cast them out and heal every disease and every sickness.”

The footnote on Mat. 10:1.1 says, “11*See note 122*in Rev. 21. So also in v. 2.”

Our first reaction is, Why? Why go to the end of the Bible and not to the beginning. 12 sons of Jacob (Israel), 12 tribes of Israel, 12 apostles of the Lord Jesus. But, let's read the footnote on Rev. 12:2.2

“The gates are for communication, for coming in and going out. Twelve is the number of absolute perfection and eternal completion in God's administration. Hence, twelve gates indicates that the communication in the New Jerusalem is absolutely perfect and eternally complete for God's administration.”

The verse talks about gates. So let's consider only the part related to the significance of the number 12. “Twelve is the number of absolute perfection and eternal completion in God's administration.” I have not much so say here.

Mat. 12:5-6 says, “These twelve Jesus asent forth, charging them, saying, Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into any city of the 1cSamaritans. But go rather to the lost asheep of the house of bIsrael.”

Footnote 12:5.1 says, “The Samaritans were a mixture of Gentile and Jewish blood (2 Kings 17:24; Ezra 4:10; John 4:9). The twelve apostles were sent to the house of Israel (v. 6) and were charged not to go to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans.”

Basically, the footnote says nothing about these two verses. We were expecting much more from a Bible that in its Preface contains these bombastic words, "The consummation of this understanding forms the basis of this translation and its footnotes. Hence, this translation and the accompanying footnotes could be called the 'crystallization' of the understanding of the divine revelation which the saints everywhere have attained to in the past two thousand years."


We have some questions. Why the Lord Jesus chose 12 apostles, why not 11 or 13 or 25, etc.? Why did he send them only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Why did He charge them not to go to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans? Why the RcV avoids commenting on these verses? We have a simple explanation. These verses stand clearly against all the baseless claims in the footnotes, already analyzed in the previous posts, about the Lord Jesus leaving the Jews to turn to the Gentile.

[aron]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Mat:13:1 On that day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea.

Footnote 13:1.1 "At the end of ch. 12 the heavenly King, having been fully rejected by the leaders of the Jewish religion, made a break with them. On that day He went out of the house and sat beside the sea. This is very significant. The house signifies the house of Israel (10:6), and the sea signifies the Gentile world (Dan. 7:3, 17; Rev. 17:15).

The King's going out of the house to sit beside the sea signifies that after His break with the Jews, He forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. It was after this, while on the seashore, that He gave the parables concerning the mysteries of the kingdom. This signifies that the mysteries of the kingdom were revealed in the church. Hence, all the parables in this chapter were spoken to His disciples, not to the Jews."

His disciples were Jews. See e.g. Peter arguing with a voice from heaven: “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” (Acts 10:14). After Jesus had left, Peter was still holding to Jewish dietary practices. And they were going to the temple, synagogues, etc. The big difference between Peter and the "Jews" was that Peter believed Jesus was the foretold (Jewish) Messiah, King of Israel. The others of course didn't.

Also note that Jesus left the house in Matthew 13:1 and went by the sea, to speak in parables. After speaking to them, 13:36 says He left the crowds and went back into the house. No footnote. I guess the house subsequently lost typological significance.

Originally Posted by testallthings

Mat. 10:1, RcV “And He called His twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they would cast them out and heal every disease and every sickness.”

We have some questions. Why the Lord Jesus chose 12 apostles, why not 11 or 13 or 25, etc.? Why did he send them only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Why did He charge them not to go to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans? Why the RcV avoids commenting on these verses? We have a simple explanation. These verses stand clearly against all the baseless claims in the footnotes, already analyzed in the previous posts, about the Lord Jesus leaving the Jews to turn to the Gentile.

In defense of the Recovery footnotes, the charge to go to the house of Israel and not the Gentiles is in chapter 10. The "leaving the house" is in chapter 13. I suppose there's a sort of chronological narrative, here.

[testallthings]

To aron

You are right, of course. Recently I have been to much concerned about how to answer Ohio, that I have lost track of the footnotes already covevered. Thanks for pointing that out. I went back to chapter 10! Of course what I have written in my last post cannot be applied to chapter 13! But it still holds true to what I wrote about chapter 5 where the footnote says that the Lord spoke to Christians and not to Jews. If He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel His message in chapter 5 was meant evidently to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Originally Posted by testallthings View Post
Mat. 10:1, RcV “And He called His twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they would cast them out and heal every disease and every sickness.”

We have some questions. Why the Lord Jesus chose 12 apostles, why not 11 or 13 or 25, etc.? Why did he send them only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Why did He charge them not to go to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans? Why the RcV avoids commenting on these verses? We have a simple explanation. These verses stand clearly against all the baseless claims in the footnotes, already analyzed in the previous posts, about the Lord Jesus leaving the Jews to turn to the Gentile.



Let me rephrase the last sentence. These verses clearly point to the strong Jewish character of the Gospel of Matthew and the ministry of the Lord Jesus for His people, the lost sheep of the house of Israel. What the footnotes throughout the Gospel of Matthew try to prove is just the opposite, the Lord Jesus leaving the Jews to turn to the Gentiles. This, I think I have clearly proved, didn't happen until Acts 28.

Sorry for the mistake, and thanks again to aron for the prompt finding. If W. Lee was alive I even would have apologized to him.

[testallthings]

APOLOGIZE OR NOT APOLOGIZE, THAT'S THE PROBLEM

Originally Posted by aron

Also note that Jesus left the house in Matthew 13:1 and went by the sea, to speak in parables. After speaking to them, 13:36 says He left the crowds and went back into the house. No footnote. I guess the house subsequently lost typological significance. In defense of the Recovery footnotes, the charge to go to the house of Israel and not the Gentiles is in chapter 10. The "leaving the house" is in chapter 13. I suppose there's a sort of chronological narrative, here.

After aron pointed out my mistake I promptly apologized. Now I would like to consider what happened in chapter 15. But before we do that let's recap.

1. The Lord Jesus charged the disciples to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. “Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans:
Mat 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
2. In chapter 13 Jesus went out of the house, “ Mat 13:1 On that day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.” Let me quote again the footnote on this verse,

Footnote 13:1.1 "At the end of ch. 12 the heavenly King, having been fully rejected by the leaders of the Jewish religion, made a break with them. On that day He went out of the house and sat beside the sea. This is very significant. The house signifies the house of Israel (10:6), and the sea signifies the Gentile world (Dan. 7:3, 17; Rev. 17:15). The King's going out of the house to sit beside the sea signifies that after His break with the Jews, He forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. It was after this, while on the seashore, that He gave the parables concerning the mysteries of the kingdom. This signifies that the mysteries of the kingdom were revealed in the church. Hence, all the parables in this chapter were spoken to His disciples, not to the Jews."
Here W. Lee is saying that The King left the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. So we cannot claim Mat. 10:5-6 to disprove the allegorical interpretation of 13:1.
Now, let's suppose for a moment, an instant, a fraction of a second, that this interpretation is sound, we find 2 chapters later this words spoken by the Lord, confirming what He said in chapter 10, “Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The footnote on this verse is interesting.

24.1*“The Lord was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. However, at this time He came to a Gentile region, thus affording the Gentiles an opportunity to participate in His grace. This bears dispensational significance, showing that Christ came to the Jews first and that because of their unbelief, His salvation turned to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; Rom. 11:11).”

Finally, we have some verses! But what has Acts 13:46 to do with the Lord turning to the Gentile, in the Gospel of Matthew? (By the way I have proved that Paul, after he spoke those word, few verses later went (again!) into the synagogue of the Jews . Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium that they entered together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake that a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks believed.”)

I have come to the conclusion that W. Lee's footnotes on this subject contradict each other.
Is it so?

_______________________
Notes:
the verses are from the KJV

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Thanks Ohio for the quick reply. I'll try to share my point of view ASAP.

OK. I never did get to how Darby treated Muller.

Also, I am not completely "negative" on Darby, or Lee, to be honest and fair. For years I admired them as "Ministers of the Age." The Brethren historian F. Roy Coad (A History of the Brethren Movement) summarized for me the best description of J. Darby, and W. Lee too for that matter, "with John Darby there is so much good to say, and so much more wrong."

It was not until I understood Darby fairly, that I could really understand Lee. If I sound too harsh on these two ministers, then I apologize to all. It is only because I excessively eulogized them for decades, and perhaps I now am only attempting to rectify past errors. Both of them did much work for the Lord, yet like Diotrephes, they had to be first among the brethren.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK. I never did get to how Darby treated Muller.

Also, I am not completely "negative" on Darby, or Lee, to be honest and fair. For years I admired them as "Ministers of the Age." The Brethren historian F. Roy Coad (A History of the Brethren Movement) summarized for me the best description of J. Darby, and W. Lee too for that matter, "with John Darby there is so much good to say, and so much more wrong."

It was not until I understood Darby fairly, that I could really understand Lee. If I sound too harsh on these two ministers, then I apologize to all. It is only because I excessively eulogized them for decades, and perhaps I now am only attempting to rectify past errors. Both of them did much work for the Lord, yet like Diotrephes, they had to be first among the brethren.

I was not offended by your remarks. Actually it is I who don't want to offend you by my future post. I am sure you see things in another way because you read mainly books by writer closed to the Open Brethren and I read those written by the Close Brethren. I am taking my time, going through things I read in the past and things I didn't read in the past, and considering of including a little study on W. Lee most aberrant teaching concerning the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. On this point I am really sad and outraged. On other points I could really be more lenient, considering them just different views, but if anyone mars the blessed Person of Christ he would be treated accordingly.


Would you please consider to read some of this articles before I give my "history"?



1. STEM Publishing: Hamilton Smith: Open Brethren,

http://www.stempublishing.com/author.../OPENBRET.html

2. STEM Publishing: William Kelly: The Doctrine of Christ, and Bethesdaism.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author.../dochrist.html


3. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: The Bethesda Circular
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...NE/15009E.html


4. STEM Publishing: W. Trotter: The Origin of (so-called) Open-Brethrenism.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author.../Openbret.html



5. STEM Publishing : Magazines : The Bible Treasury : Volume 13 : "Open" "Exclusivism"
http://www.stempublishing.com/magazi...clusivism.html


6. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: Indifference to Christ: or Bethesdaism - extracted from a private letter
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...IA/20013E.html


7. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: A Plain Statement of the Doctrine on the Sufferings of our blessed Lord propounded in some recent tracts, in extracts taken from the Author's writings.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...NE/15004E.html


8. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: The refusal of Mr. Newton to meet the brethren.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...IA/20003E.html

9. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: Notice of the Statement and Acknowledgment of Error circulated by Mr. Newton.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...NE/15005E.html

10 STEM Publishing: C. H. Mackintosh: Fifteenth Letter to a Friend. http://www.stempublishing.com/author.../CHM_15TH.html

11. STEM Publishing: J. N. Darby: Notice of the Statement and Acknowledgment of Error circulated by Mr. Newton.
http://www.stempublishing.com/author...NE/15005E.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by testallthings

I was not offended by your remarks. Actually it is I who don't want to offend you by my future post. I am sure you see things in another way because you read mainly books by writer closed to the Open Brethren and I read those written by the Close Brethren. I am taking my time, going through things I read in the past and things I didn't read in the past, and considering of including a little study on W. Lee most aberrant teaching concerning the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. On this point I am really sad and outraged. On other points I could really be more lenient, considering them just different views, but if anyone mars the blessed Person of Christ he would be treated accordingly.

TestAllThings I was a supporter of Lee and Darby for 3 decades. I am not a biased and ignorant bystander on this subject. I studied both sides of the story when it comes to the Brethren and the Recovery. Many of the linked articles which you have posted I have already read 10 years ago when I researched the first Brethren split in depth. On my shelf I still have marked up copies of these articles with comments in the margins. If you only read the Exclusive side of events, then you will never know what really happened. That is why I mentioned in brief what occurred among some of the senior exclusives in 1866.

And, by the way, I don't think you should link anything by Wm. Kelly. Have you never read that the Darby exclusives dumped Kelly just before Darby died? Anyways, Stem is an exclusive publisher no different from LSM, DCP, and afaithfulword.org. You will never find an accurate account of history from any of them. For those contemporary readers who have waded through some of the dissembling vitriol which has filled the archives at afaithfulword.org during the quarantine of TC and the GLA, you will find these articles to be in the same vein.

Let's be honest here. It is a fact that most of the Brethren scholars ended up in the exclusive camp. But just because they were prolific, knowledgeable writers, does not mean they were more mature or spiritual than their "open" counterparts. For years I tried unsuccessfully to find some writings by Henry Craik, Muller's partner in Bethesda. He was a true scholar, but the open brethren just did not archive their writings as the exclusives did.