Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Of course it's hard, Harold, didn't your mommy teach you that anything worth while takes lots of time and much effort?
Where Witness Lee and his followers have got it wrong (with devastatingly tragic results) is that they believe that the interpretation of the Divine Revelation is actually equal to the Divine Revelation itself. This is how Lee could make such absurd declarations as "James was devoid of the Divine Revelation". Of course this is preposterous on it's face - James could NOT have been devoid of the Divine Revelation because his writings ARE THE DIVINE REVELATION!
Furthermore, God's "living speaking" is contained in the Word of God, NOT in the interpretation of it. At best, all man does is add a little salt and pepper. Lee got it backwards - he taught that his interpretations and teachings were the main course, and the Bible was to be employed as simply a proof text.
-
|
I would say the Recovery both respects the Word of God as the divine revelation and also the interpretation as the divine revelation. Yes there is the interpretation, but remember there is also pray-reading the Word which respects the Word itself as the divine revelation.
Some parts of the bible need more interpretation than others. e.g. clear cut words from Christ or the prophets don't need much interpretation. Revelation needs a lot of interpretation - one could read it forever and still not understand it.
I dont think the bible agrees that the interpretation is not the revelation. The interpretation is otherwise known as the spirit of the word/law. The interpretation is more important than the letter as bible says. Thats why a believer and unbeliever can read the same passage and one gets revelation and the other doesn't. If the words themselves were the revelation then everyone would get revelation when they read it. Even people of other faiths read the bible but they dont get revelation because of their wrong interpretation. Christians interpret the old testament through the lens of the new testament. There is always some interpretation involved. A written "God said" divine revelation to a Jew is a "God said" interpretation to a Christian, particularly where it concerns the law.
By the way, the book of James was treated with suspicion in the early church, not being found in the earliest list of new testament books, and accepted later as the divine revelation. So we can't escape this matter of interpretation, whether it is the text itself or its authenticity.