Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534
I recently read a message from the Life-Study of Matthew wherein Lee discussed at length "the new law" of the King. From a certain perspective, of course, that makes perfect sense, but I was struck this time with the very concept of "the new law" that Lee introduced there.
Even in Jesus' statement concerning "the old law," He does not express it in terms of it being "Law" at all... there is no "new law" being discussed here and the very inclination to find or discuss one is almost certainly the legacy of the ancient scholars of the law who were among the first of His disciples.
|
How quickly we can interject a "new law" into the text. Just supply a few words into the mouth of the King, and off we go.
Also re: the universal church. I was just listening to a song tape from the old days. We were singing about the "glorious church", and I recognized a lot of the songs inspired by exegeses Lee gave from Ephesians. I remember thinking as I listened, how we came full circle. First there was the RCC, where all the rank & file overlooked the egregious errors both in word and deed committed by the "church authorities". Then there was the Reformation & much subsequent splintering; group after group. This church and that church. After meeting one another, believers ask, "What church do you belong to?"
Then along comes Nee, trying to restore the "original church", supposedly ordained by God from the mouth of Jesus and the apostles. Now we overlook any shortcomings in word and deed of the leadership because, "It's the church". I know I did, right from the bat. Whenever I came across something which didn't square with the letter nor the spirit of the Bible, I would tell myself, "Well, it's the church."
Once I swallowed the "Universal Church" established here on earth and directed by men, it's amazing how much else my stomach could handle.