Witness Lee's "fuzzy math"

[Freedom]

The following quotes represent how Lee liked to do math. It seems he saw himself as quite the expert when it came to determining the significance of various numbers in the Bible. It's something that away bothered me, the fact that the was so quick to assume the significance of certain numbers, especially when claiming how such numbers are composed in the Bible. Anyways, I will comment more on that later, for now here are some of the various assertions Lee made:
The number three signifies God in His dispensation...

What does the number five signify? This is quite easy to understand. The ten commandments were divided into two tablets each containing five commandments. In Matthew 25, we have ten virgins divided into two groups of five. If you look at yourself, you will see that you have ten fingers and ten toes, all arranged in groups of five. The five fingers on each of your hands are composed of four plus one. If you had two thumbs and three fingers, it would be awkward for you to do anything. But with one thumb and four fingers we can easily do anything. The thumb is number one, representing the one God as the Creator. Four is the number of God’s creature, like the four living creatures (Rev. 4:6). Thus, four plus one means man, God’s creature, plus God...

Why was the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth fifty cubits, and the height thirty cubits? It is clear that the number three hundred is a hundred times of three, that the number fifty is ten times of five, and that the number thirty is ten times of three. The basic numbers are three and five, and the numbers three hundred, fifty, and thirty are the multiples of these basic numbers. The number one hundred denotes fullness. The Lord Jesus said that the best way to bear fruit is to bear it a hundredfold (Matt. 13:23).
(LS Genesis, Msg. 30, pp. 403-404)
************************************************** **************************************************
After the birth of a male, the woman was to remain in the uncleanness of the blood for thirty-three days, and after the birth of a female, for sixty-six days (vv. 4a, 5b). This signifies that the uncleanness of a male’s birth should be tested (signified by the forty days—seven days plus thirty-three days) for cleanness, and that the uncleanness of a female’s birth should be doubly tested (signified by the eighty days—fourteen days plus sixty-six days) for cleanness.
(LS Leviticus, Msg 38, p. 333)
************************************************** **************************************************
Pentecost is a matter of forty-nine days plus the first day of the week. This involves eight first days, from the first day, the day of resurrection, to the eighth first day, which is the fiftieth day. This indicates from resurrection to resurrection. Here everything is in resurrection, for we have eight times resurrection.
(LS Leviticus, Msg. 53, p. 478)
************************************************** **************************************************
Twenty-five is five times five. In the Bible the number five signifies man plus God. Four is the number of the creature, man, and one is the number for the Creator, God. Five signifies the bearing of responsibility. Therefore, five, which is composed of four plus one, signifies that man as a creature plus God as the Creator together bear responsibility.
(LS Ezekiel, Msg. 19, p. 210)
************************************************** **************************************************
The number fourteen is composed in two ways: seven times two and ten plus four. Seven is the number of completion, two is the number of testimony, ten is the number of fullness in perfection, and four, of course, is the number of the creature. By putting all these numbers together, we can realize that this signifies that the creature in fullness bears a complete testimony.
(LS Ezekiel, Msg. 21, p. 244)
************************************************** **************************************************
In the Bible one way the number twelve is composed is of ten plus two. Ten denotes the majority of twelve, and two signifies the remainder. For example, two of the twelve apostles asked the Lord to let them sit on His right hand and on His left hand, whereas the other ten were indignant.
(LS Matthew, Msg. 64, p. 747)
************************************************** **************************************************
If someone is strong, he may live to the age of eighty. According to the Bible, in one sense a person's life may be regarded as beginning at the age of thirty, the age at which a priest began to function. Even the Lord Jesus was thirty years old when He began to minister (3:23). Thirty plus fifty equals eighty. Hence, a half century, fifty years, signifies the length of a person's life in the fallen nature. As the fiftieth year, the year of jubilee is the conclusion of our entire fallen life.
(LS Luke, Msg. 12, p. 98)
************************************************** **************************************************
The number twelve is not composed of six plus six, but of three times four. I do not say this lightly or without a basis. The biblical number twelve is composed of three times four.
(LS Revelation, Msg. 46, p. 531)

[Freedom]

As a quick follow-up, it is probably worth stating that my intention here is not to imply that numbers in the Bible are devoid of significance. The issue I take with Lee’s approach to numbers is how quickly he arrived at the conclusions he did. For example, Lee claims that five is made up of four plus one, not two plus three, using Rev 4:6 as a “reference”, but more importantly, using the configuration of the fingers on the hand to “prove” that five is grouped as four and one. That kind of logic doesn’t work in my book.

Another issue is that of how much importance can really be placed upon any number. We know that certain numbers are significant, because the Bible makes them so, but just because we know the significance of a number doesn’t mean that number gains any more importance, or that it can be used to generate some new construct (by adding or multiplying numbers). To think otherwise can be dangerous. Lee was so confident making certain claims about what represents what. But what was he really doing? It seems this was mostly part of his whole paradigm of supposedly holding the key to “unlock” the significance of everything in the Bible.

[TLFisher]

I acknowledge in some places there could be significance to numbers. The question I raise, isn't it possible sometimes a number is just a number?

[Freedom]

I acknowledge in some places there could be significance to numbers. The question I raise, isn't it possible sometimes a number is just a number?

WL was very inconsistent with what he chose to emphasize. When it came to the "significance" of various numbers in the Bible, he became hyper-focused on explaining each number. When it came to the longest book of the Bible, he skimmed right through it, declaring that numerous psalms weren't written according to God's economy.

Lee was so confident that he had figured out exactly what everything meant, but he never answered, or proved the larger question of what made his interpretation significant in the first place.

[Intothewind]

Yes...when I was young this seemed like very stringy reasoning...esp. with phrases in text often modified or omitted I think assigning significance to numbers in text dubious.

[Freedom]

Yes...when I was young this seemed like very stringy reasoning...esp. with phrases in text often modified or omitted I think assigning significance to numbers in text dubious.

This is the exact kind of stuff that really drove my crazy sometimes. Lee's reasoning was borderline absurd at times, yet all this kind of stuff was read and swallowed with no critical thought whatsoever. None. Even when I was young, I remember reading this stuff and only wishing someone could provide better clarification as to how Lee arrived at the conclusions he did. It never came, because obviously we were not supposed to question anything.

[Freedom]

What is the meaning of these three colors[in the rainbow]? Blue signifies the throne. According to Psalm 89:14, righteousness is the foundation of God's throne. Thus, the blue throne signifies the righteousness of God. Red signifies the sanctifying, separating, and consuming fire and refers to God's holiness. Yellow signifies God's glory in the glowing electrum. Thus we have three things: holiness, glory, and righteousness.

Witness Lee, The Visions of Ezekiel, Ch. 9
This above quote is another example of how quickly WL drew conclusions. Notice the lack of scripture references in regards to his assertions. I'm sure some people out there might arrive at the same conclusions as Lee, however, other people won't. That is the whole problem. When it comes to minor details, it doesn't really matter, and that's assuming such details had significance in the first place.

[micah6v8]

It was not just colours and numbers. Here is another of WL's interpretation set out in his footnote of Exodus 30:25 that I found not too convincing.


This holy anointing oil, a compound ointment of olive oil and four spices (vv. 23-24), is a full type of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the compound, all-inclusive, life-giving Spirit of the processed Triune God, whom Christ became through His death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:45; cf. footnotes 1 on John 7:39 and 4 on Phil. 1:19). The significances of the ingredients of this compound anointing oil are as follows: (1) flowing myrrh, a spice used in burial (John 19:39), signifies the precious death of Christ (Rom. 6:3); (2) fragrant cinnamon signifies the sweetness and effectiveness of Christ’s death (Rom. 8:13); (3) fragrant calamus, from a reed that grew upward in a marsh or muddy place, signifies the precious resurrection of
Christ (Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1; 1 Pet. 1:3); (4) cassia, used in ancient times to repel insects and snakes, signifies the power of Christ’s resurrection (Phil. 3:10); and (5) the olive oil as the base of the compound ointment signifies the Spirit of God as the base of the compound Spirit (Gen. 1:2).

[Freedom]

It was not just colours and numbers. Here is another of WL's interpretation set out in his footnote of Exodus 30:25 that I found not too convincing.

This holy anointing oil, a compound ointment of olive oil and four spices (vv. 23-24), is a full type of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the compound, all-inclusive, life-giving Spirit of the processed Triune God, whom Christ became through His death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:45; cf. footnotes 1 on John 7:39 and 4 on Phil. 1:19). The significances of the ingredients of this compound anointing oil are as follows: (1) flowing myrrh, a spice used in burial (John 19:39), signifies the precious death of Christ (Rom. 6:3); (2) fragrant cinnamon signifies the sweetness and effectiveness of Christ’s death (Rom. 8:13); (3) fragrant calamus, from a reed that grew upward in a marsh or muddy place, signifies the precious resurrection of
Christ (Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1; 1 Pet. 1:3); (4) cassia, used in ancient times to repel insects and snakes, signifies the power of Christ’s resurrection (Phil. 3:10); and (5) the olive oil as the base of the compound ointment signifies the Spirit of God as the base of the compound Spirit (Gen. 1:2).

It's interesting how in this footnote you quoted, there are some scripture references that are provided. That might lead the average LC reader to believe that the claims being made are easily verifiable (and of course, very few will actually go through the effort to do this). It doesn't take much effort, however, to realize that the verses being referenced have nothing to do with what is being discussed in Exodus. In fact, the only verse I see referenced that has any relationship at all is John 19:39, and that is just because it mentions myrrh.

What I've always found to be somewhat ironic is that WL was seemingly good about providing references for his basic doctrines, or things most people would agree on. It's his wild, or even absurd claims that are greatly lacking in support. As I mentioned, the vast array of references provide at times (especially on outlines), might lead people to think that all such claims are easily verifiable. It seems however, that whenever WL when down the path of metaphorical interpretation, scholarship got thrown out the window. It could have just been a matter of convenience. I don't think anyone would have cared had he provided support for his arguments or not. They were ready to swallow whatever he said.

[TLFisher]

What I've always found to be somewhat ironic is that WL was seemingly good about providing references for his basic doctrines, or things most people would agree on. It's his wild, or even absurd claims that are greatly lacking in support. As I mentioned, the vast array of references provide at times (especially on outlines), might lead people to think that all such claims are easily verifiable. It seems however, that whenever WL when down the path of metaphorical interpretation, scholarship got thrown out the window. It could have just been a matter of convenience. I don't think anyone would have cared had he provided support for his arguments or not. They were ready to swallow whatever he said.

I'm sure had someone chosen to undertaken research to verify Witness Lee's interpretation, you might hear the following words: argumentative, contentious, nit-picking, just to name a few. All because he/she wasn't ready to swallow whatever he said.

[OBW]

It's interesting how in this footnote you quoted, there are some scripture references that are provided. That might lead the average LC reader to believe that the claims being made are easily verifiable (and of course, very few will actually go through the effort to do this). It doesn't take much effort, however, to realize that the verses being referenced have nothing to do with what is being discussed in Exodus. In fact, the only verse I see referenced that has any relationship at all is John 19:39, and that is just because it mentions myrrh.

What I've always found to be somewhat ironic is that WL was seemingly good about providing references for his basic doctrines, or things most people would agree on. It's his wild, or even absurd claims that are greatly lacking in support. As I mentioned, the vast array of references provide at times (especially on outlines), might lead people to think that all such claims are easily verifiable. It seems however, that whenever WL when down the path of metaphorical interpretation, scholarship got thrown out the window. It could have just been a matter of convenience. I don't think anyone would have cared had he provided support for his arguments or not. They were ready to swallow whatever he said.Actually, I think that Lee seldom used meaningful verses in his support. He littered his messages with references to things that were not important to the subject at hand. I long ago began to realize it as a sort of conga line of verses stirring everyone up to understand that he was telling the truth. Then when the real issue comes up, he provides a verse and makes a statement and everyone is ready to jump and shout "Hallelujah!" but they have their critical thinking turned off (or as was popular to say, they had gotten out of their minds) and the "What the [bleep] are you saying?!?" didn't happen in the way we would expect.

But we had said we bought it, so we never thought about it again.

"If you do a careful study of the entire Bible you will see that . . ." followed by not even one example of where it was true. But Lee said it was all over the Bible. And I hear some of them saying it to this very day.

[TLFisher]

"If you do a careful study of the entire Bible you will see that . . ."

How about if we rephrase that statement to say:
"If you do a careful study of our Local Church history you will see that..."