Nee's 'Ministry to the House or to the Lord'

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

He might have been onto something. But if that is true, then there is another passage or two that will actually support it. Find that one and we can talk about it.

1Cor 10:6 “these things were spoken as our examples”

1Pet 2:5 “we are built up a spiritual priesthood to offer sacrifices”

Heb 10:1 “the law having a shadow of good things to come”

Col 2:17 “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

Heb 8:5 “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,”

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1Cor 10:6 “these things were spoken as our examples”

1Pet 2:5 “we are built up a spiritual priesthood to offer sacrifices”

Heb 10:1 “the law having a shadow of good things to come”

Col 2:17 “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

Heb 8:5 “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,”

Great verses. How do they establish that there is a "first" and "second" service?
What exactly is a "spiritual priesthood"?
And what are the "sacrifices" offered?
How does a general statement like "the law having a shadow of good things to come" make the analysis that Nee provided meaningful, rational, and supportable?
What do shadows tell us? Whatever someone dreams up and declares to be its meaning?

Every one of these things is written in a context about specific things. These are not broad overlays or world-views through which clear words take on different meaning. They are only meaningful when you actually see the way that the law is a shadow.

I have noted that the scripture is strong to see actual links and point them out. There were prophecies. With few exceptions, they weren't so obvious as to what they meant that everyone was looking for their fulfillment. Instead, the actual fulfillment occurred, then they realized that the prophecy was fulfilled.

So, for each of the vague, general statements in scripture, what actual parallels do you see that these could be pointing at? They aren't there to allow some alleged teacher to declare an otherwise nonexistent parallel to be there just because some verse declares that there are some things that are shadows, parallels, signs, etc.

Nee, and now you, never have made an actual connection between Ezekiel 44 and Mary and Martha. It is just said to be so. Then, when I ask where there is something that could support there actually being an ordering of ministry/service in the way that Nee taught it in that little booklet, you come back with these 4 verses that simply mention that there are shadows and a spiritual priesthood. Neither of those make Nee's teaching real. They make no comment whatsoever on the topic of the discussion.

It is almost a sort of stereotype. Find one thing that fits a pattern, then brow-beat everything with some common characteristic into that pattern even if it absolutely does not fit.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Great verses. How do they establish that there is a "first" and "second" service?

The verses I provided from the NT establish that the chapter in Eze 44 is given for our example. The priesthood in the OT was a shadow of the NT priesthood.

Originally Posted by OBW

What exactly is a "spiritual priesthood"?

In the example provided it refers to Mary anointing Jesus Body for the burial before his death. Although this act is physical it signified faith, hope and love.

Originally Posted by OBW

And what are the "sacrifices" offered?

In the example provided it refers to the oil that Mary poured out. In addition to the cost of the oil it also signified that she was sacrificing her possible marriage in the future. Based on the society at the time this signified she was sacrificing her security and future.

Originally Posted by OBW

How does a general statement like "the law having a shadow of good things to come" make the analysis that Nee provided meaningful, rational, and supportable?

It is meaningful to discuss the OT priesthood with regards to our NT service because the OT priesthood and law were a shadow of the NT.

It is rational to do this because the apostles also did this to explain things of the NT, as in the Book of Hebrews and 1Corinthians and Colossians.

These verses support the process. You can argue about the interpretation, but it is perfectly valid process supported by the clear word of the NT.

Originally Posted by OBW

What do shadows tell us? Whatever someone dreams up and declares to be its meaning?

To take a position that you cannot teach that the OT ministry is a shadow of the NT ministry is contrary to the clear word of the NT. Such a position is not supported and is not rational. To take the position that this process has no value or is meaningless is also not supported since the Apostle Paul and others clearly did this very thing. As to your inability to glean any meaning from this process, you have made that abundantly clear.