Putting to Test the Recovery Version

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Honestly speaking, with this kind of system of interpretation, that is the allegorical (instead of a literal one), the preacher can just say anything he likes. This passage is not a parable or a type, but W.L. treats it in an allegorical way. He quotes verses to support his interpretation, as every good student of the Bible should do. But, we ask a simple question, What does the text say? Is it too insignificant just to look at what the text says without injecting in it, or trying to discover under its surface a secret message?
The Lord Jesus was healing people and casting out demons. That's the simple fact. What's the explanation of this simple fact? He did those things to fulfill the Scripture, “He Himself took away our infirmities and bore our diseases.” Isn't this explanation provided by the Holy Spirit Himself sufficient to understand this passage?

None of the verses that WL quotes have anything to do with supporting his allegory. I suppose that this style of interpretation gave him a opportunity to claim that he saw something 'new', as the plain text already speaks for itself.

The main issue I take with WL's style of interpretation is that he never answered the basic question of why a passage like this should be interpreted allegorically. Furthermore, he gives no evidence as to why each person/thing represents what he says that it does.

[Ohio]

Honestly speaking, with this kind of system of interpretation, that is the allegorical (instead of a literal one), the preacher can just say anything he likes. This passage is not a parable or a type, but W.L. treats it in an allegorical way. He quotes verses to support his interpretation, as every good student of the Bible should do. But, we ask a simple question, What does the text say? Is it too insignificant just to look at what the text says without injecting in it, or trying to discover under its surface a secret message?

We have had much good discussion on this forum about Lee's excessive use of allegorization and interpretation of O.T. types. The exclusive Brethren teachers became masters at this, and to this day can utilize bible stories to say anything they want. It appears to be the most effective means at waging "war" with other Christian ministries and congregations.

For example, Lee stole the Brethren interpretation of the O.T. ordinance forbidding honey (No grain offering, which you bring to the LORD, shall be made with leaven, for you shall not offer up in smoke any leaven or any honey as an offering by fire to the LORD. -- Leviticus 2.11) to be a divine command forbidding natural affection between the saints -- in other words, no friendships. Lee and Company would pull this little "gem" out of his bag of tricks after every "storm" that passed thru the Recovery.

The ultimate fruit of this aberrant teaching was that in was not safe to love or trust anyone but the ministry of Lee. Not family, not friends, not James Dobson or Joyce Meyers, and not even one's spouse could be trusted or loved when the ministry decided it was time to "choose sides." Compare this pathetic interpretation with the Apostle Paul's plain words about the end times, "But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection ..." -- I Timothy 3.1-3. Note also that Paul was most likely speaking of the church of God.

While I am not totally against Biblical allegorization, I prefer to limit its use to those places authorized by scripture. Those of us who spent long periods under Witness Lee often lost sight of the plain meaning of the Bible, while constantly digging through the footnotes or Life Studies for the "deeper" meaning. Often the plain meaning of the Bible was equated with the "low Gospel" and with "degraded" Christianity.

I still seem to be surrounded by those who have different views than mine on this. It is truly amazing what new found "discoveries" are made by some "ministers" who appear to be almost OCD with eschatological allegories and interpretations. They can make the Bible say anything they like, and only they have got it right!

[OBW]

This example of the footnote concerning Peter's mother-in-law is representative a lot of Lee's use of scripture. There is a focal verse which is being effectively ignored or reinterpreted. It is surrounded by a bunch of verses that are correctly commented on but have nothing to do with the issue in the focal verse. And I might add that often the verses which are used properly are designed to either get everyone on a "Amen! Hallelujah!" roll, or at least noting how many verses Lee references properly, after which he can say almost anything and most will simply accept it as yet one more correct statement without a thought, or be fully caught up in the Hallelujahs and not even think about it.

Therefore, I think that the quoting of irrelevant verses is often part of a ploy to establish credibility at the moment. Sort of a magician's trick to get you looking at what he wants you to look at so that you will not notice the error that was slipped in and instead just accept the new teaching.

And so many times the points weren't even worthy of making. But I think that is one of the tricks. Make strange point after strange point stick and eventually they won't even balk when it should be blatantly obvious that you have lied to them.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

Therefore, I think that the quoting of irrelevant verses is often part of a ploy to establish credibility at the moment. Sort of a magician's trick to get you looking at what he wants you to look at so that you will not notice the error that was slipped in and instead just accept the new teaching.

And so many times the points weren't even worthy of making. But I think that is one of the tricks. Make strange point after strange point stick and eventually they won't even balk when it should be blatantly obvious that you have lied to them.

Given the amount of material that LCers typically cover in meetings or trainings, there isn't time for them to verify everything even if someone had the desire to do so, there is just too much thrown at people. There is usually an implicit trust in the assertions being made simply because an outline lists numerous references.

When I attended some of the LSM trainings, we had our group study sessions, and a few times we actually tried to go through some of the verses listed in the outline. The goal was to try and to make sense of the points using the verses referenced. What always seemed to happen is that we would get stuck on a point and never finish the outline.

I always assumed that it was because the study group was just not good at getting through things. Obviously, there was too much material to get through in the first place, but it also seems like the real reason that we got 'stuck' is because none of the support we were looking for actually existing in the first place. It was a wild goose chase trying to make sense of what the outlines were actually saying.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Given the amount of material that LCers typically cover in meetings or trainings, there isn't time for them to verify everything even if someone had the desire to do so, there is just too much thrown at people. There is usually an implicit trust in the assertions being made simply because an outline lists numerous references.

When I attended some of the LSM trainings, we had our group study sessions, and a few times we actually tried to go through some of the verses listed in the outline. The goal was to try and to make sense of the points using the verses referenced. What always seemed to happen is that we would get stuck on a point and never finish the outline.

I always assumed that it was because the study group was just not good at getting through things. Obviously, there was too much material to get through in the first place, but it also seems like the real reason that we got 'stuck' is because none of the support we were looking for actually existing in the first place. It was a wild goose chase trying to make sense of what the outlines were actually saying.

That is why you are really not supposed to try to figure it out yourself, but to read the ministry first and assume it is right as you read the scripture. Otherwise you might not agree with the ministry.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have had much good discussion on this forum about Lee's excessive use of allegorization and interpretation of O.T. types. The exclusive Brethren teachers became masters at this, and to this day can utilize bible stories to say anything they want.

What you said about W.L. is true. What you said about the exclusive Brethren is not. The Brethren were and are dispensationalists, and it is well known that dispensationalist hold to a Literal Grammatical Historical Method.

Watchman Nee held the same principles of interpretation. “All the words in the Bible should be interpreted literally unless the literal interpretation is nearly absurd. Parables, visions, and signs should not be interpreted literally. Everything else should be interpreted literally.”
(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 1) Vol. 15: Study on Matthew, Chapter 6, Section 5)

Witness Lee followed the same teaching, at the least up to the 1950s.
“No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.” (On Knowing the Bible, Chapter 4, Section 1)


What happened since then, we all know. W.L. turned from the literal to the allegorical method, producing sometimes very aberrant interpretations.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by testallthings

What happened since then, we all know. W.L. turned from the literal to the allegorical method, producing sometimes very aberrant interpretations.

What would be your guess as to the reason that WL turned to an allegorical interpretation of the Bible? My best guess is that it gave him the opportunity to claim that he saw something ‘new’. Other than that, I have no clue.

When I read the LS of Genesis, I hadn’t read much else of WL’s ministry. I was taken aback by his constant defense of his use of allegory. Up until then I had never thought about this style of interpretation since it was the norm in the LC, but I quickly took the hint that it wasn’t widely accepted outside the LC.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

What would be your guess as to the reason that WL turned to an allegorical interpretation of the Bible? My best guess is that it gave him the opportunity to claim that he saw something ‘new’. Other than that, I have no clue.

When I read the LS of Genesis, I hadn’t read much else of WL’s ministry. I was taken aback by his constant defense of his use of allegory. Up until then I had never thought about this style of interpretation since it was the norm in the LC, but I quickly took the hint that it wasn’t widely accepted outside the LC.

Read Lee's allegorical interpretation of Lot and his daughters. I think it is message #54. It is the most pathetic interpretation, extreme even by Lee's standards. He tears into free groups. What hypocrisy! A decade later he instructs all the LC 's to meet in homes, just like the free groups did.

[Ohio]

What you said about W.L. is true. What you said about the exclusive Brethren is not. The Brethren were and are dispensationalists, and it is well known that dispensationalist hold to a Literal Grammatical Historical Method.

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."

[testallthings]

SIMPLE QUESTION, NOT VERY SIMPLE ANSWER

"Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." (Mat. 9:14-17, KJV)

*“The unfulled cloth signifies Christ from His incarnation to His crucifixion, as a piece of new cloth, untreated, unfinished; whereas the new garment in Luke 5:36 signifies Christ as a new robe after He was "treated" in His crucifixion. (The Greek word for new*in Luke 5:36 is the same as for fresh*in Matt. 9:17.) Christ first was the unfulled cloth for making a new garment, and then through His death and resurrection was made a new garment to cover us as our righteousness before God that we might be justified by God and be acceptable to Him (Luke 15:22; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:30).” RcV, footnote 9:16.1)


This is another aberrant example of following an allegorical method! What was the simple question the disciples of John asked? “Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?” What was the Lord's answer? It was not appropriate for His disciples to fast at that time, as it is was not appropriate to put a piece of new cloth on an old garment or to put new wine in old bottles. But when the Lord Jesus will leave them, then it would be a right thing to fast. Simple question, simple answer. Not for W.L. He was able to discover a hidden meaning. It really requires God's inspiration or a vivid imagination to be able to come up with such interpretation.

I spare you the other footnotes that deal with this passage.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Once Darby began his public assaults on Newton and later Muller, (~1845 AD) ...."

On this point I am sure we read a different story.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by testallthings

On this point I am sure we read a different story.

Glad to discuss it on another thread, perhaps one already started.

It's just like everything else, it all depends on where you get your news.

[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.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have had much good discussion on this forum about Lee's excessive use of allegorization and interpretation of O.T. types. The exclusive Brethren teachers became masters at this, and to this day can utilize bible stories to say anything they want. It appears to be the most effective means at waging "war" with other Christian ministries and congregations.

For example, Lee stole the Brethren interpretation of the O.T. ordinance forbidding honey (No grain offering, which you bring to the LORD, shall be made with leaven, for you shall not offer up in smoke any leaven or any honey as an offering by fire to the LORD. -- Leviticus 2.11) to be a divine command forbidding natural affection between the saints -- in other words, no friendships. Lee and Company would pull this little "gem" out of his bag of tricks after every "storm" that passed thru the Recovery.

The ultimate fruit of this aberrant teaching was that in was not safe to love or trust anyone but the ministry of Lee. Not family, not friends, not James Dobson or Joyce Meyers, and not even one's spouse could be trusted or loved when the ministry decided it was time to "choose sides." Compare this pathetic interpretation with the Apostle Paul's plain words about the end times, "But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection ..." -- I Timothy 3.1-3. Note also that Paul was most likely speaking of the church of God.

While I am not totally against Biblical allegorization, I prefer to limit its use to those places authorized by scripture. Those of us who spent long periods under Witness Lee often lost sight of the plain meaning of the Bible, while constantly digging through the footnotes or Life Studies for the "deeper" meaning. Often the plain meaning of the Bible was equated with the "low Gospel" and with "degraded" Christianity.

I still seem to be surrounded by those who have different views than mine on this. It is truly amazing what new found "discoveries" are made by some "ministers" who appear to be almost OCD with eschatological allegories and interpretations. They can make the Bible say anything they like, and only they have got it right!

This is so true. I remember spending much time reading the ministry to try and understand what the bible was saying. What I am doing now is reading the bible and throwing the ministry on the trash heap. I'm also reading widely. I'm sorry, but I think WL was a deceiver. Satan's aim was to point lovers of Jesus away from the Savior to the ministry of a man.