Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
These words ''just" and "simply" mean, do only this, or risk censure, being labeled vanity, or fallen, or natural, or eating from the wrong source, the TOKOGAE.
|
I wanted to add to this, but first will look at the NT as a contrast. The idea of revelation is paramount in NT text. Paul says he "knows a man" who was caught up to the third heaven, 14 years ago (2 Cor 12:2). John writes, "We beheld his glory", referring to the vision on the mountain, of the scene of transfiguration. It's interesting that in 1:14, John doesn't say that we beheld his resurrection, or his ascension, but his glory. Peter as John's companion on the mountain confirms this in some detail in 2 Peter 1:17-19.
Nowhere in this do I recall "eating" being a central motif, or even a peripheral one. Yet there was a kind of transfer: both Jesus in receiving glory as the only-begotten of the Father, and the disciples receiving revelation that changed then forever. Once they came down from the mountain, they couldn't go back, and could never see Jesus again as before. Something transcendent had happened, and irrevocable transfer from one state to another. There was a revelation, a change in their consciousness, their world-view. "We with unveiled face beheld his glory and were transfigured into the same image, from glory to glory" says Paul.
There's a reason John put his revelation of Jesus at the forefront in 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory". John is using this "beholding" to establish his position as narrator of the gospel that follows. He's not relating folk tales or hearsay, or conjuring abstract theology, but relating an established and corroborated eye-witness account.
Now look at WL's so-called revelation, his construct, his version of God's economy. "Just eating" and "simply eating" by definition exclude all other options. And the basis for these exclusionary criteria are what? That the supposed apostle and revelator Witness Lee said so. He prominently called Watchman Nee the Seer of the Divine Revelation, and he (WL) was clearly understood to be positioned as heir of WN's apostolic 'mantle' (as it was called in the LC).
So I see two very distinct revelations: one established by John, Paul, Peter, and James et al, and the other an interpretive overlay, established by a self-proclaimed apostle, which upon examination doesn't rest comfortably on the NT text at all. But because he was supposedly the apostle we didn't question it. That's the most reasonable explanation I can come up with, that one person could put out so many novel and questionable assertions, even categorically exclusionary statements, of what is and isn't in the NT and the Christian life, and nobody called it out. That's some very powerful mojo he had working there.
Imagine if someone stood up at the end of the message, and said, "I don't see where Paul is going to ask Timothy to remain in Ephesus and teach intensification of the life-giving spirit as part of 'oikonomea theou'. Where's any textual basis of asserting this?" What would happen? "Exercise your spirit, brother! Don't think, just drink!" No, just enjoy the Processed God. Why? Because I said so.
Those words "just" and "simply" are codes, and show us what's really operating in this so-called ministry. It's a subtle and powerful form of mind control. And we sang the songs lustily, not realizing what we were doing, that we were allowing ourselves to be programmed by WL. The lusty singing prevented the thinking, the critical examination, even as the words of the song replaced the former contents of our thinking. Et voila. Presto, change-o.
And lastly, I want to repeat that any understanding we have, any personal interpretation or public profession, should be toward a seamless and coherent narrative emerging from the received scriptural text. Anytime we relegate substantial sections to lesser position, to maintain our so-called revelation, we're in danger of precipitous decline from truth. John and James and Paul and Peter and Matthew and Luke were all saying the same thing. (And there's no indication that the Psalms or Job or any other OT source was treated by them in a second-tier fashion, either).