[tasteslikegold]

I know Lee argued for two kingdoms. But even his footnote provides nothing but a bare statement that it is so. It is this kind of hollow, meaningless talk that has caused me to lose respect for Lee. He did not take scriptural text and show how it means something that can be seen as being there. He too often has to apply some overarching metaphor or principle that is said to alter meaning from the obvious. And then there is this case. He didn't even bother to apply some principle or metaphor. He simply said that there is something there for which there is nothing supporting the statement. He doesn’t even pretend that there is. He just says that it is so. (This is where I typically refer to some Monty Python humor and say "and there was much rejoicing. Yea." I know that seems trite, but Lees whole footnote is trite. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for ever buying a completely baseless claim as this, and probably following its hearing with shouts of "Hallelujah" and a bunch of popcorn testimonies.)

This is a matter of opinion, so it’s really hard to dispute your claim that he used “overarching metaphors,” etc. Your cynicism is duly noted…again…however. ‘

I trust that you are not aware that Lee is far from being alone in his view that the differentiation in terminology that Matthew’s gospel employs is far from insignificant. I’ll address your subsequent paragraph which starts with, “But when I look at the terminology in Matthew, I see no basis for differentiation.” By simply linking a few sources for you to examine.

Scofield Reference Edition Bible (KJV): “Chapter 3
3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
(1) The phrase, kingdom of heaven (lit. of the heavens), is peculiar to Matthew and signifies the Messianic earth rule of Jesus Christ, the Son of David. It is called the kingdom of the heavens because it is the rule of the heavens over the earth Matthew 6:10 The phrase is derived from Daniel, where it is defined ; Daniel 2:34-36 Daniel 2:44 ; Daniel 7:23-27 as the kingdom which the God of heaven will set up after the destruction by "the stone cut out without hands," of the Gentile world-system. It is the kingdom covenanted to David's seed 2 Samuel 7:7-10 described in the prophets; (See Scofield "Zechariah 12:8") and confirmed to Jesus the Christ, the Son of Mary, through the angel Gabriel Luke 1:32 Luke 1:33 .
(2) The kingdom of heaven has three aspects in Matthew:
(a) "at hand" from the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist Matthew 3:2 to the virtual rejection of the King, and the announcement of the new brotherhood Matthew 12:46-50
(b) in seven "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," to be fulfilled during the present age Matthew 13:1-52 to which are to be added the parables of the kingdom of heaven which were spoken after those of Mt. 13., and which have to do with the sphere of Christian profession during this age;
(c) the prophetic aspect--the kingdom to be set up after the return of the King in glory. Matthew 24:29-25:46 ; Luke 19:12-19 ; Acts 15:14-17 See "Kingdom (N.T.)" ; Luke 1:33 ; 1 Corinthians 15:28 Cf. "Kingdom of God," (See Scofield "Matthew 6:33") .

The Condensed Biblical Encyclopedia (Blueletterbible.com): http://www.blueletterbible.org/searc...ist&DictList=1

Easton’s bible Dictionary (Blueletterbible.com): http://www.blueletterbible.org/searc...God&DictList=2

Dispensational Truth (Blueletterbible.com) – Note the chart at top. Look familiar at all?: http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/larkin/dt/13.cfm

The point here is not to prove or disprove the above commentaries, it’s simply to show that Lee was never alone in the view that there is importance – especially to a dispensationalist approach – and significance to Matthew’s employment of differentiating terms. And all cynicism aside, I trust that you are well aware that many of the footnotes in the Recovery Version were derived from larger published works, such as the Life Study of the Bible, fro example. So had you really wanted to fully understand Lee’s view the publications were always available for you to do so. Frankly that your assertion that Lee’s claim was “hollow” really speaks to a certain level of ignorance on your part. Witness Lee hardly ever made flippant remarks or claims without a lot of following qualification; and not without having repeated such qualification in various trainings, etc.

That is an aspect of expression. But the kind of expression that the LC seems to focus upon is the spirituality of the members as seen within the assembly and in their corporate existence. Surely this is part of the expression of the Kingdom of God. But when we really go "back to the beginning" we would find that the purpose of man was to be in the image of God and to subdue, care for, and replenish the earth. That charge, moved forward 5,000 years until today would be seen in the totality of the living of the people who were the "replenishment."

Yet, as you imply, in the "corporate" sense. God has always concerned himself with a group of people, designed to be the corporate expression of Himself. Adam was created that way, Abraham was called out by God to be that way, Israel was designed to be that way, and ultimately the church [i]is the fulfillment[/b] of that design. So how could the "spirituality of the members as seen within the assembly" be diverse from the kingdom?

And when I consider the expression of the Kingdom of God being about the expression of the "body" which is mostly about meetings and communal living, it has the impact of calling the beauty of some cathedral as being the expression of the goodness that is within the members inside. But even if that is true, it is no match for the expression of what is inside spilling out into the complete lives of the individuals. It flows out into righteousness in all circumstances.

I agree with that. We don't disagree about individual's living being an expression of the kingdom at all. If anything we part ways in the overall importance of one expression over the other. If righteous living, expressions of the kingdom in various ways are the "spilling out" of the corporate meetings, then it's the corporate meetings that are the primary expression. Ephesians 4:7-16 is the perfect example of the need of the members to function in the Body corporately as the expression of Christ. If any believer thinks that he doesn't need the members of the church, the meetings of the church, in order to have a righteous living then he's being fooled. The writer of Hebrews was pretty blunt about this "Not abandoning our own assembling together, as the custom with some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more as you see the day drawing near." (Heb. 10:25)

You indicate in a later post that this is mainly or completely about things done for and to the believers. But if we only do for our own, we are no better than the heathen who take care of their own. What kind of testimony of the God who "loves the world" is that? It isn't. That is a God who loves those who love Him. That's how the pagans see their gods.

Actually paganism is all about doing "good works" which is primarily doing for others so that you might win the favor of God. Wicca's primary tenet is "do no harm" new Age philosophy is about doing good to humanity and to the earth, even Mormonism and Catholicism, which are both mixtures of paganism and Christianity, are rife with good works and lawkeeping as the primary means of "making God happy." True "service" to God is first offering yourself up as a sacrifice to him, allowing him to gain your heart, grow in you, and the result is His expression. That expression manifests itself in various ways, including good works. Otherwise your "righteousness" is self-derived and useless to God - no matter how "good" it is.

This topic does come up in the next post, so I will continue it there. But having said that, would you prefer to finish your overall response and then come back to this one topic so we can discuss it until we decide to move on, or should I respond down your posts again. My time to give to this has diminished lately. I sense that it is the same with you. But we do not need to be in a hurry. Eventually we should probably take the different points of contention and hash them out separately rather than continually going through them all then waiting for the other to catch up. But whether now is the time for that is your call.

I have a tough time being "linear" in my thinking, so I purposefully try to address what I see as the larger issues and dispense with the smaller tertiary issues. Some have seen this as disregarding what they feel to be a larger point, but if allowed to first dispense with the greater points, sometimes those tertiary issues are discussed. So here's what I view as being the primary issues thus-far:

The Kingdom of God and it's expression(s)
The use of and importance of exclusive terminology.

Tertiary to those subjects are: Religion, specific issues pertaining to how LC members view the LC as opposed to Christendom.

I welcome any clarification/correction of these issues. I think that if we can agree what is really important here we can concentrate on those things and allow the discussion to evolve as we dispense with those issues. As for time, yes, I am pressed for time in other areas of my life. It is also hard fro me personally to devote a lot of time time to responding as I tend to be some what of a perfectionist in the way that I compose my responses. So where words may flow easily for some others, they don't with me. I have to spend quite a bit of time thinking about how I'm composing my responses. I do appreciate your continued patience and willingness to pursue this discussion at length without regard for time constraint. As for now, I'm passing the ball back to your court. I think I've just about answered everything that I feel was important to the discussion.