Against LSM's Allegorizing

[Admin]

AGAINST LSM’s ALLEGORIZING

“We accept the allegorical method…as a valid principle of interpretation”—Living Stream Ministry [LSM]

“Allegorizing which ascribes to a text hidden…meanings which the writer never intended…is never justified”—Dr. Craig L. Blomberg

“In spite of its long tradition, allegorical interpretation must be rejected”—Professor S. Greidanus

LSM’s theology combines disparate strands of Christian doctrine, including Plymouth Brethren dispensational theology, Keswick “higher life” teachings and principles aimed at recovering the apostolic church. Another key element is the allegorical mode of Bible interpretation, highlighted in LSM’s publication Affirmation & Critique, which says,
“In coming to the truth of the Bible, we are guided primarily by three things. First, we understand that there is a single economy of God to be seen throughout the Bible. This economy centers on God's dispensing Himself through His Trinity into His elect…Second, the centrality of God's economy…is based upon the assumption that God can be known and experienced subjectively…Finally, we believe that the divine message of the Bible may transcend the intention of its human writers. Holding to the long-standing hermeneutical tradition of the Christian church, we accept the allegorical method for understanding the Bible, particularly its Old Testament, as a valid principle of interpretation.”
Here “the allegorical method for understanding the Bible” is a key element of LSM’s distinctive approach to Scripture. It ranks on par with God’s economy and subjective experience as a guiding principle in ascertaining biblical truth. This paper examines LSM’s allegorical method of Bible interpretation in the light of history and evangelical scholarship on this issue.

LSM justifies allegorizing on two grounds, [1] because the Bible’s “divine message…may transcend the intention of its human writers,” and, [2] based on “long-standing hermeneutical tradition.” On the first point, LSM’s stand is dissonant with most evangelical scholars who affirm that the proper¹ “interpretation of the biblical text leads to only one valid meaning—that intended by the author.” What was the writer’s intended meaning?—is a guiding principle of sound Biblical exegesis; LSM refuses to be bound by this maxim. We note further that LSM’s assertion is made in the context, not of prophecies or types, but of allegories. Regarding the second point, LSM’s statement, “we accept the allegorical methodfor understanding the Bible…as a valid principle of interpretation,”suggests acceptance is less than universal among Christian scholars. This is indeed the case; Professor Greidanus, writes,² “In spite of its long tradition, allegorical interpretation must be rejected as a viable method for preaching Christ...” Such rejection is not new; in the Reformation, John Calvin declared,³ “we must…reject the allegories of Origen, and of others like him, which…[render] the doctrine of Scripture ambiguous and destitute of all certainty and firmness.” In addition, LSM’s appeal to the “long-standing hermeneutical tradition of the Christian church,” contradicts W. Lee’s repudiation of traditional teachings. W. Lee asserted,⁴ “We must come back to the pure Word and not care for the traditions of the historic church….We don’t follow the creeds. They are man’s teaching and tradition.” If “historic traditions” cannot justify traditional teachings, how can they justify interpretational methods, such as allegorizing? Nevertheless LSM cites “the long-standing hermeneutical tradition of the Christian church,” to justify their allegorizing. On this issue LSM is at odds with the vast majority of Bible scholars. Despite its long pedigree, most evangelical scholars reject the allegorical hermeneutic espoused by LSM. We ask, has LSM answered their objections? Or is LSM repeating the abuses which brought allegorizing into disrepute?

History of the Allegorical Method
“For Origen the Bible was one vast allegory…in which every detail is symbolic.”⁵
“An allegory is an extended metaphor, [where] a number of elements in a story make up a string of metaphors which have a deeper, unified meaning. For example, Jesus’ parable of the sower is really an allegory…Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress is also an allegory; we would miss its meaning if we did not interpret it allegorically. In the Old Testament we find various allegories…the dreams of Joseph, Pharaoh…Nebuchadnezzar, and Daniel…All these passages require allegorical interpretation for proper understanding.”⁶ The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation defines the allegorical approach, saying⁷ “Allegory is primarily a method of reading a text by assuming its literal sense conceals a hidden meaning to be deciphered by using a particular hermeneutical key.” Jesus gave the key to the parable of the sower by interpreting it.

Origen (AD 185-254) developed the allegorical method. He linked man’s three parts (1 Thess. 5:23) with the threefold interpretation of Scripture—in its literal/historical, moral/ethical, and spiritual/allegorical meanings, corresponding to body, soul, and spirit (respectively). These levels of meaning matched the stages of Christian progress—beginners, progressing, and perfect.⁸ While the literal meaning was “milk” for beginners, Scripture’s deepest allegorical meaning was “spiritual meat” for those attaining perfection. Worse still Scripture’s literal sense was depreciated as the “killing letter.” “The traditional proof-text for allegory [was] 2 Cor. 3:6 (“The letter kills but the Spirit gives life”). The exegete’s task was …to penetrate (or escape) the killing literal sense in order to discover the spiritual sense of the text.”⁹ Inevitably this encouraged allegorizing at the expense of Scripture’s literal meaning. From AD 600 the allegorical mode of exposition “dominated medieval Christian exegesis for over a thousand years.”¹⁰ In fact¹¹ “until the end of the nineteenth century …allegorical exegesis…reigned supreme…as a method of interpreting the Bible.” Via allegorizing a single word in the Bible could have many meanings; e.g., the word ’sea’ could mean a gathering of water, Scripture, the present age, the human heart, the active life, the Gentiles, or baptism.¹² Even within the same passage multiple interpretations often occurred.

Allegorizing produced contradictory results. Consider the Samaritan woman’s five husbands (John 4:18). They were interpreted as the five natural senses (hearing, sight, etc.), the Samaritans’ five false gods (2 Kings 17:30f) and Moses’ five books accepted by Samaritans!¹³ More damaging, allegorizing widened the chasm separating clergy and laity. Only “mature” clergy could unlock the allegorical mysteries behind Scripture’s text. The laity deferred to the “spiritual” clergy. This gave the Roman Catholic Church a monopoly on Biblical truth, translation, and interpretation. “For a thousand years the [Catholic] Church had buttressed its theological edifice by means of an authoritative exegesis which depended on allegory as its chief medium of interpretation."¹⁴ Moreover, elevating Scripture’s allegorical meaning depreciated its literal sense, and the value of Scripture’s written text. Translating Scripture into layman’s language would promote grievous error among the uninitiated. Allegory’s proof-text, says, “the letter (Scripture’s literal sense) kills,” only “the Spirit (the spiritual-allegorical sense) gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6). Hence for over a millennium the Roman Catholic Church maintained control of Scripture and biblical interpretation. The Reformation unleashed forces which would change all this. “It is significant,” writes Mickelsen,¹⁵ “that reformation began when men questioned the allegorical…approach to Scripture.”

The Reformers Rejected Allegorical Interpretation
The Protestant Reformation was a watershed. Professor McGrath argues that¹⁶ “The idea that lay at the heart of the 16^th century Reformation…was that the Bible is capable of being understood by all Christian believers—that they have the right to interpret it...” “Luther’s radical doctrine of the ‘priesthood of all believers’” [1 Pet. 2:5, 9] contradicted the established “idea that a centralized authority had the right to interpret the Bible.” It meant “there was no centralized authority, no clerical monopoly on biblical interpretation.” In terms of interpretation¹⁷ “The Protestant Reformers…sponsored a new approach to the biblical text, and in so doing wrought a hermeneutical revolution…rejecting allegory and insisting instead that the Bible…was to be read for its literal or historical sense.” The Reformers’ “denial of the validity of allegorical interpretation…[had] far reaching consequences,” says Peter Harrison.¹⁸ In Roman Catholicism allegorizing continued.

Based on the principle of sola scriptura–Scripture alone,¹⁹ “Luther and Calvin both wished to argue that the Scripture was a sufficient source for our knowledge of God and His will. Allegory, however, actually led the reader away from the words of Scripture…Allegory…compromised the principle that Scripture alone was a sufficient source of revealed truth…” Allegorizing inserts the expositor between God’s Word and the uninitiated reader--to decipher the deeper meaning encoded behind the biblical text.The Protestant Reformers rejected the allegorical method. Martin Luther advised, “An interpreter must as much as possible avoid allegory, that he may not wander in idle dreams.” Characteristically outspoken he said, “Allegories are empty speculations, as it were the scum of Holy Scripture.”²⁰ Fellow-reformer, John Calvin “repudiated the time-honored allegorical method as wholeheartedly as Luther did.”²¹ Calvin asserted²² “we must…reject the allegories of Origen, and of others like him, which Satan…has endeavored to introduce into the Church, for the purpose of rendering the doctrine of Scripture ambiguous and destitute of all certainty and firmness.” In contrast to their predecessors,²³ “Calvin and his contemporaries found the spiritual sense within the literal interpretation, not beyond it.”

Reformation Principles—the Authority, Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture
“Allegory…compromised the principle that Scripture alone was a sufficient source of revealed truth”—Dr. Peter Harrison
Scripture alone was a rally cry of the Reformation. In practice this meant,²⁴ “The Protestant Reformers…emphasized in an unprecedented way the literal sense of Scripture,” as the hermeneutic key to Biblical exegesis. Luther asserted,²⁵ “The literal sense of Scripture alone is the whole essence of faith and of Christian theology.” Calvin stated,²⁶ “It is the first business of an interpreter to let [Scripture’s] author say what he does, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.” Another Reformation principle was the Clarity [“Perspicuity”] of Scripture, the view²⁷ “that the Bible can be understood by people through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and that people need to search the Scripture and judge for themselves what it means.” As Princeton’s Charles Hodge wrote, this²⁸ “means that in accordance with the priesthood of the believer, every Christian has the right…to read and interpret it for himself, so that his faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the [Roman Catholic] Church.” Thus the Reformation replaced the Church’s infallible statements based on allegorizing Scripture with the individual’s right to read and interpret Scripture for him/ herself based on its literal sense. “The Reformers recovered the authority of the Bible…[and] a biblical doctrine of Scripture. Protestant interpretation…was based upon the concept of the perspicuous (clear & self-interpreting) nature of the Bible…removing an authority for interpretation from outside the Bible—the infallible church.”²⁹ Viewed against this history, LSM’s allegorical hermeneutic seems to “turn the clock back” to the pre-Reformation era, to de-emphasize the Scripture’s literal sense and depreciate the believer’s right to interpret Scripture for him/herself with the Spirit’s aid. Again an interpreter is inserted between God’s Word and the believer; Scripture and the Holy Spirit are viewed as inadequate. In LSM’s paradigm W. Lee’s allegorical exposition is required to translate God’s written Word into the “interpreted word.”³⁰

Some Caveats
Allegory vs. Allegorizing: First, most expositors interpret parts of Scripture allegorically, e.g., Song of Songs. Scholars agree³¹ “the allegorical method is indeed a good method for interpreting allegories.” In what follows we set aside widely-recognized allegories in the Old and New Testaments. Scholars distinguish Scripture’s allegories from “allegorizing—which ascribes to the text hidden…meanings which its author never intended.”³² One scholar defines,³³ “allegorizing [as] the interpretive practice of turning into allegory what was not intended to be allegory.” Professor Blomberg states,³⁴ “Identifying a narrative as an allegory is a far cry from imposing an allegorical interpretation on a passage which was never intended to contain a second level of meaning…allegorizing per se…is never justified.” Here we focus on allegorizing.

New Testament’s minimal use of Allegory: Second, the New Testament uses the Greek word for “allegory” only once, in Gal. 4:24. Anderson observes³⁵ “Nowhere else does Paul use any of the normal technical terminology with respect to allegorical interpretation.” He deduces that “Paul’s use of allegory in Galatians 4 furnishes no grounds for claiming allegory as a divinely given method of interpretation.” Bible scholars conclude, ³⁶“New Testament writers use allegorical interpretation minimally” in expounding the Old Testament. Jesus didn’t allegorize³⁷ the Old Testament. New Testament writers’ minimal use of allegorical interpretation suggests Bible expositors’ use of this technique ought also to be limited.

Typology vs. Allegory: Thirdly, we distinguish types from allegories. The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation states,³⁸“Typology is not to be confused with allegory…The actual history of the biblical story is unimportant for [allegory]. But in typology interpreting history is essential…The original historical event is the ‘type’ and the later corresponding event is the ‘antitype’ that parallels, perhaps fulfills and sometimes even transcends the type.” It also says,³⁹ “The difference between typology and allegory is that the former [typology] attaches additional meaning to the text that is accepted as having a valid meaning in the ‘literal’ sense, whereas the latter [allegory] ignores the literal sense and may deny its usefulness altogether.” Dr. G. Lampe says,⁴⁰ “Allegory differs radically from…typology which rests upon…actual historical fulfillment. The reason…is simply that allegory takes no account of history.” Note that, [1] typology is distinct from allegory. [2] To reject allegorizing need not imply rejecting typology. Our present focus is allegorical interpretation.

W. Lee’s Justification of Allegorizing
“The Bible is full of allegories”—W. Lee
“If you don’t know how to allegorize the Bible, you’ll never know the secret of the Bible”—W. Lee
In contrast to the New Testament writers’ sparing use of this technique, W. Lee asserts the entire Bible should be allegorized. He claims Scripture was inspired according to this principle, saying,⁴¹ “The divine revelation in the Bible unveils spiritual things, and these spiritual things are mysterious, abstract, and, humanly speaking, unsubstantial. Due to our limited ability to understand them, God was forced to disclose His divine revelation in the way of picture and allegory.” To him, beginning with Genesis--“Genesis is a book of allegories,”⁴²through Exodus, “all the items in Exodus are figures,”⁴³ all the way to Revelation,⁴⁴ “the Bible is full of allegories.”⁴⁵ Based on this W. Lee asserts⁴⁶ “allegorizing the Bible is proper because much of it…is written in figurative language. Paul himself allegorized the Old Testament…In Galatians 4 Paul allegorized Sarah, Abraham's wife, and Hagar…as two covenants. Therefore, the best way to understand the Old Testament is to allegorize it…We need to allegorize the Bible. I encourage you to do this.” Here the unique New Testament occurrence of “allegory” (Gal. 4:24) is used to justify the wholesale allegorizing of the Old Testament. W. Lee noted that “many Christians say that we should not allegorize the Bible.” However, he alleged,⁴⁷ “if we do not know how to allegorize the Bible, it will be a closed book to us,” and we will “never know the secret of the Bible.” Hence, “it is not right to say that we should not allegorize the Bible,” he asserted, “We need to allegorize the Bible. I encourage you to do this.”

W. Lee claimed his allegorizing was deciphering the code hidden behind the words of Scripture. He contended⁴⁸
“Some may complain…[about my] allegorization of the Word. However, what they regard as allegorization is simply recognizing what is revealed in the Bible. We may compare this allegorization to reading and pronouncing a word. Suppose the word ‘availability’ is spelled out like this: a-v-a-i-l-a-b-i-l-i-t-y. As we read this word, we need to pronounce it correctly and know its meaning. This process is comparable to what we do when we allegorize the Scriptures in the proper way….The way to read and understand these letters is to allegorize them…The best way to study the Bible is to learn to decipher it. To decipher the Bible simply means to untie the Lord’s word. If we do not know how to decipher the Bible, we shall be like someone reading a telegram written in ciphers who does not know how to decode what he is reading. For many Christians today, the Bible is like a word written in ciphers that they are not able to decipher…Virtually every chapter of the Word contains something that they cannot decipher.”
Evidently W. Lee didn’t feel that he was “allegorizing” the Bible, i.e., turning Scripture’s text into allegories; he was simply “recognizing what is revealed in the Bible.” He equates allegorizing to spelling a word (e.g. “availability”) or deciphering a coded message. But are these comparisons valid? In such cases the “correct answer” can be discerned by independent experts using objective criteria. Two cryptographers decoding a cipher will arrive at the same solution.⁴⁹ But are objective tests possible with allegorizing? W. Lee didn’t address these issues. Rather he claimed most Christians aren’t able to decode Scripture--“Virtually every chapter of the Word contains something that they cannot decipher.”

Moreover, W. Lee claimed his allegorizing was not imposing a certain interpretation on the text; he asserted the resulting exposition was not merely his personal interpretation (“not my way”). He claimed,⁵⁰
“We do not intend to allegorize the Old Testament according to a certain interpretation. On the contrary, what we are doing is fitting various portions of the Word together in order to see a complete picture. This is not to allegorize or to guess at the meaning of things. This is to fit different parts of the Word together in order to see a picture of spiritual things…Just as children put together the pieces of a puzzle, so we need to fit together various parts of the Bible in order to see a picture. It takes time and patience to assemble a puzzle of hundreds of pieces. First you need to try one piece and then another. Eventually, little by little a picture comes into view…To allegorize the Old Testament in a certain way is not my way. Rather, my way is to fit the pieces together until a picture comes into view.”
Again W. Lee compares allegorizing to an objective process—assembling a picture puzzle. Such objective processes can be replicated; diverse individuals arrive at the same solution. However allegorical exposition is different. By definition,⁵¹ “Allegorizing is searching for a hidden or secret meaning underlying (but remote from and unrelated…to) the more obvious meaning of a text.” With allegorizing, the “puzzle pieces” are the “intrinsic significance” behind Scripture’s literal text. These are subjective matters, not resolved by researching linguistic roots of Greek and Hebrew terms, or applying rules of syntax. In the case of allegorizing, neither the “puzzle pieces” nor the assembled “picture” are objectively verifiable. The expositor’s subjective view plays a major role in the process. W. Lee claims, “To allegorize the Old Testament in a certain way is not my way…[I just] fit the pieces together until a picture comes into view.” Yet, contrary to W. Lee’s claims, the resulting allegorization does indeed reflect “his way;” it is his own private interpretation.

W. Lee does not deny Scripture’s literal meaning. The “first principle” of Bible interpretation he gives⁵² “is to interpret and understand the Bible as literally as possible.” He insists that prophecies (e.g. Christ’s virgin birth in Bethlehem) ought to be interpreted literally.⁵³ However, within LSM’s paradigm, Scripture’s literal meaning is “milk” for beginners, while the allegorical, “intrinsic significance” is the “spiritual meat,” for the mature.⁵⁴ In W. Lee’s view “We need to allegorize the Bible” because “the Bible is full of allegories.” He differs from most evangelicals in perceiving this second, deeper level of meaning—the allegorical—to be pervasive in Scripture. It seems he has returned to the church fathers’ position, for e.g., Origen.⁵⁵ Since W. Lee excelled in allegorical exposition perhaps he should be designated the “Allegorizer of the Age.”

Reasons to Reject Allegorizing
“Allegorical interpretation…can make the text say whatever the interpreter wants to make of it.” Prof. S. Greidanus
Most Bible scholars reject the allegorizing mode of interpretation. For example,⁵⁶ Prof. Craig L. Blomberg states “one point on which virtually everyone is agreed: The days of anachronistic, allegorizinginterpretation must remain in the past.” Dr. S. Greidanus urges,⁵⁷ “In spite of its long tradition, allegorical interpretation must be rejected.” Critics cite 6 major reasons
1. Arbitrary
Allegorical interpretation is arbitrary because it is not governed by the scriptural author’s intent. Prof. Hall indicates⁵⁸ “Most evangelical students of biblical hermeneutics would affirm that the [literal] grammatical-historical interpretation of the biblical text leads to only one valid meaning—that intended by the author.” In contrast, allegorizing presumes “the divine message of the Bible may transcend the intention of its human writers” (LSM). It assumes⁵⁹ “beneath the outward 'letter' every part of Scripture contains a hidden truth…The apparent [literal] sense of a passage…and the original intention of the author…are all at best of secondary importance.” Hence, Zuck and Campbell write⁶⁰ “Allegorizing becomes arbitrary. It has no objectivity or controls on one’s imagination…one person may say a [Scripture] passage teaches a certain truth allegorically, where as another may see an entirely different teaching. It is a way of wresting the scriptures from having any certain authority. The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hand of the exegete.” Dr. Moises Silva concurs, stating,⁶¹ “The most powerful argument against the allegorical method is that it seems to allow for no controls. In effect anyone can see any meaning he or she wishes to see in the passage.” Others agree, seeing⁶² “allegory to be a fundamentally arbitrary process because no strictures, such as historicity or the author’s intention act as exegetical controls.” Allegorizing is capricious since it doesn’t require validating by asking “was that the author’s intended meaning?” Hanson warns allegorizing is⁶³ “a technique for emancipating the exegete from the bondage to the text [of Scripture].” Freed from biblical constraint, expositors are at liberty to supply their own subjective interpretations.
2. Subjective
“Since allegorical interpretation is not guided by the inspired author’s intention, its use leaves preachers wide open to the pitfall of arbitrary and subjective interpretations…Instead of preachers being ministers (servants) of the word, they become its masters,”⁶⁴ professor Greidanus warns. G. W. H. Lampe says in this process⁶⁵ “the reader is left at the mercy of any individual exegete with sufficient ingenuity to construct and solve artificial puzzles. The interpretation is wholly subjective and individualist.” Rather than being an exercise of exegesis—reading the author’s intended meaning out of the biblical text, this interpretive process becomes eisegesis—where the expositor imputes an allegorical meaning into the text. Because of this pitfall, Christopher A. Hall warns,⁶⁶ “The extended use of allegory is hermeneutical dynamite…[expositors] can easily wrap their imaginations around the biblical text, importing into the text whatever their hermeneutical fancy desires the text to say. For these allegorical interpreters the Bible can become a lump of wax that they mold into a foreign shape, perhaps even in their own image.” This approach is flawed because “allegorical interpretation…can make the text say whatever the interpreter wants to make of it.”⁶⁷ Professor F. F. Bruce agrees with this conclusion.⁶⁸

In this light consider W. Lee’s exposition of Jacob’s blessing his sons. Jacob spoke of Judah "Binding his donkey to the vine" (Gen. 49:11). To W. Lee this is more than Jacob’s expressed desire and prophecy about Judah’s future material well-being; he applies it to New Testament believers. Based on this text, W. Lee exhorts,⁶⁹ “you should tie your donkey to the vine, which is Christ, the source of life…”He asserts, “The significance of binding our donkey to the vine is that we cease our labor at Christ who is the source of life. This is not an imaginative interpretation. It is a proper, genuine, and sound interpretation according to the principle of the Bible. We thank the Lord for giving us this proper interpretation.” W. Lee also applies this proverb to individual believers,⁷⁰ “Setting the mind upon the spirit is somewhat like binding the donkey to the vine.” He also applies it to the future Millennium, since this⁷¹ “Verse…is a poetic description of the millennium, the coming age of the thousand years.” Hence behind the literal, historical meaning of Jacob blessing Judah, W. Lee posits a spiritual significance for believers in the Church age and the Millennium. Yet the Bible gives no indication this implicit message was intended. If Jacob’s blessings are prophetic shouldn’t they be fulfilled in material blessings upon the tribe of Judah? Why transpose Jacob’s prophecy of material blessings into the spiritual experiences of New Testament believers?
3. De-historicizing:
Critics claim allegorical interpretation has⁷² “tended to downplay the historical character of Old Testament narratives.” Events are extracted from their literal, historical context in order to endow them with New Testament significance. Greidanusconcludes that⁷³ “to use allegorical interpretation for other genres of literature, say historical narrative, is to make a genre mistake and to read alien ideas into the text. Clement and Origen read historical narratives as allegories… [interpreting] Joshua is Jesus; Jericho, the world; Rahab, the church; the scarlet cord, the blood of Christ. [This] makes the Old Testament word a Christian message. In looking for the real message at this ‘deeper’ level, allegorical interpretation violates the historical nature of the biblical narrative…” Reviewing the allegorical method, Graeme Goldsworthy observes that⁷⁴ “Medieval theology had internalized and subjectivized the gospel…This de-historicizing of …the gospel went hand in hand with the allegorizing of the history of the Old Testament.” Moreover, he says, “One serious effect of the allegorical method was that it tended to hinder people from taking the historical or natural [literal] sense of the Old Testament seriously.”

Take for example, W. Lee’s allegorizing Moses’ wife (Zipporah) and father-in-law (Jethro) in Exodus 18. W. Lee asks,⁷⁵ “Are Jethro and Zipporah merely historical figures? Certainly not. To say this is to fail to realize that Exodus is a book of pictures. As Pharaoh represents Satan and Egypt represents the world, so Jethro signifies the Gentiles, and Zipporah, the Gentile church. According to the principle that all the items in Exodus are figures…” Thus Moses’ wife, Zipporah, transposed from her historical context, becomes a figure of the “Gentile Church” belonging to the New Testament. This raises questions.⁷⁶ If Zipporah as Moses’ wife represents the “Gentile Church,” what about Moses’ Ethiopian wife (Num. 12:1)? Does she also represent the Church? W. Lee doesn’t address this question. He states categorically⁷⁷ “Moses was wrong in marrying an Ethiopian woman.” W. Nee concurs, saying,⁷⁸ “It was wrong for Moses, as a descendant of Shem, to marry a Cu****e, that is, a descendant of Ham.” We ask, is this view based on the Bible or out-dated prejudice against inter-racial marriage? In none of these instances is it ever suggested that Moses’ Ethiopian wife depicts the Church.
4. Anachronistic
The previous point deals with the Old Testament. More generally point allegorizing (either the Old or New Testament) is frequently anachronistic—it extracts the Scriptural passage fromits correct historical or chronological setting and interprets it out of context. Consider, for example, Jesus’ parables. Professor Craig L. Blomberg writes⁷⁹ “The error of pre-modern interpreters lay in the overzealous and anachronistic use of allegory.” Blomberg concludes⁸⁰ that “allegorizing which ascribes to a text hidden, often anachronistic meanings which the writer never intended…is never justified.” For example, Jesus spoke in parables to a Jewish audience. It is anachronistic to assign New Covenant meanings to these parables and to suppose that Jesus’ Jewish listeners ought to have deciphered such significance; it is inconceivable that pre-crucifixion listeners would decipher post-resurrection meaning in Jesus’ parables. Dr. Craig L. Blomberg states⁸¹ “The meaning ascribed to [components of parables] must be the ones which the stories’ original audiences could have been expected to grasp in their historical settings.” Yet the allegorical hermeneutic often violates this maxim.

Against this background consider W. Lee’s interpretation of the three parables in Luke 15—the “Good Shepherd,” the Seeking Woman and the “Prodigal Son.” He asserts that⁸² “in these three parables we can see the Trinity, with each parable referring to one of the Trinity. Clearly, the shepherd refers to the Son, the woman refers to the Spirit, and the father refers to the heavenly Father. Therefore, in these parables the Three of the Trinity are clearly depicted.” W. Lee also asserts that, via this trio of parables, Jesus intended to convey to His audience the Trinity’s saving work. He says,⁸³ “only in chapter fifteen of Luke do we have the picture concerning God’s salvation worked out by the Divine Trinity…While the Lord Jesus was on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem, He had a suitable environment and an excellent opportunity to present a picture of God’s salvation…” Thus, in W. Lee’s view, by speaking these parables, Jesus intended the Pharisees and scribes to see “God’s salvation worked out by the Divine Trinity.” Hence, he states,⁸⁴ “In answering the self-righteous Pharisees and scribes who condemned the Savior for eating with the sinners, [Jesus] spoke three parables unveiling and depicting how the Divine Trinity works to bring sinners back through the Son by the Spirit to the Father…in these parables the Three of the Trinity are clearly depicted.” W. Lee suggests the Pharisees and scribes, had they been unveiled, would have grasped the Trinity’s work from this parable sequence. Moreover, in recording this trilogy, he asserts⁸⁵ “it is Luke’s intention in his narration to portray the Divine Trinity.”These strong assertions, allege that when Jesus spoke, and when Luke wrote these parables, they both intended to depict the Trinity’s saving work. Yet, even today, many Bible scholars reject the notion that the Trinity is depicted in Luke 15; to them W. Lee’s assertion that “Clearly…the woman refers to the Spirit” is far from self-evident. How then could the scribes and Pharisees of 1^st century Judea be expected to discern the Trinity? It took several centuries before the “church fathers” agreed on an acceptable description of the Trinity. It is anachronistic to read the later creeds concerning the Trinity back into the synoptic accounts of Jesus’ earthly ministry.
5. Elitist
Moises Silva criticizes⁸⁶ “the [allegorical] method as requiring the presence of an elite group of interpreters—spiritual, mature believers who alone are given the key to the deeper meaning of Scripture. This feature of allegory is in some respects the most disagreeable one…It is easy to prove that one can find no evidence of such a method in the New Testament.” The allegorical hermeneutic presupposes the existence of such an elite. G. W. H. Lampe says,⁸⁷ “Allegorical interpretation assumes that beneath the outward 'letter' every part of Scripture contains a hidden truth…which the Spirit who inspired the writings can reveal to those whom he enlightens to perceive it. This attitude to the Scriptures is…the basis of allegorical exegesis.” “Those whom [the Spirit] enlightens to perceive” are not all believers, but a select few, the elite,⁸⁸ “spiritual, mature believers who alone are given the [hermeneutical] key to the deeper meaning of Scripture.”

This elitist attitude is reflected in W. Lee’s presentation. He outlines five prerequisites, stating,⁸⁹ “it is not an easy matter to allegorize the Bible…We need several things: the knowledge of the Bible in black and white; the knowledge of the history of the children of Israel; the experiences of Christ and the church life; the wisdom to allegorize the Bible; and the knowledge of how to apply the types to today's situation. When we have all this, then we shall be able to see the true significance of this portion of the Word.” Clearly much study, plus many years of growth, training and perfecting are required before anyone is qualified to allegorize the Bible. Clearly W. Lee felt qualified–he was allegorizing the Bible. But who else in the “Lord’s Recovery” was qualified? Not many; in fact, not any! W. Lee was the Recovery’s unique allegorizer.
6. Redundant
Allegorizing typically takes the biblical text—an historical incident, parable or vision—and decodes it in terms of doctrines expressly taught elsewhere in the New Testament. For example, W. Lee tells us⁹⁰ the fact that the New Jerusalem’s “twelve gates…are twelve pearls signifies that regeneration through the death-overcoming and life-secreting Christ is the entrance into the city.”But this interpretation—“regeneration…is the entrance into the city”--simply illustrates the New Testament’s teaching, “Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).It adds nothing to the Bible’s explicit teaching and hence is redundant; the net value added is zero. Hence scholars assert that allegory’s “role, hermeneutically speaking, is parasitic,”⁹¹ it extracts its significance from the rest of the Bible, yet contributes nothing in return. Professor C. F. Evans asks the obvious question⁹² “Why…fundamental theological truths had to be secured by being uttered twice and in two such different modes, once explicitly in the doctrinal language fitted for them and then over again in the language of cipher [encoded in allegorical form?].” When it merely recovers pre-existing New Testament teachings, allegorical interpretation is redundant. On the other hand, if the product of allegorizing goes beyond the New Testament’s explicit teachings it risks being labeled heretical. In such cases Wiersbe’s biting critique may be justified,⁹³ "All things are possible to those who allegorize—and what they come up with is usually heretical."
For these reasons most evangelical Bible scholars reject allegorizing. Professor F. F. Bruce states,⁹⁴ “interpretation according to the interpreter’s whim or preference is impermissible, and this is too often what allegorical interpretation amounts to. The allegorical method can make the text mean whatever the allegorizer wants it to mean.” Therefore Bruce judges,⁹⁵ “Allegorical interpretation…is almost always to be avoided in biblical exposition; very few parts of the Bible were intended to be understood in this manner.” Dr. Craig Blomberg goes one step further, declaring,⁹⁶ “allegorizing which ascribes to a text hidden, often anachronistic meanings which the writer never intended…is never justified.” Dr. Sidney Greidanus concurs, saying,⁹⁷ “In spite of its long tradition, allegorical interpretation must be rejected as a viable method for preaching Christ…” W. Lee acknowledged that⁹⁸ “many Christians say that we should not allegorize the Bible.” But he never addressed these objections; he simply asserted,⁹⁹ “it is not right to say that we should not allegorize the Bible.”

EXAMPLES OF LSM’s ALLEGORICAL HERMENEUTIC

Example 1: Peter’s Boat Signifying the Church
Matthew 13 says, “On that day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. And great crowds were gathered to Him, so that He stepped into a boat and sat, and all the crowd stood on the shore. And He spoke many things to them in parables…” [Matt. 13:1-3, RcV.] Most scholars view this passage as setting the scene for the following parables. Some observe that Jesus used the acoustics of a natural amphitheatre to address the large crowd.¹⁰⁰ W. Lee mentions none of these points; instead he allegorizes this scene, attributing a deeper meaning to the house, the sea and the boat. He says,¹⁰¹ “This is very significant. The house signifies the house of Israel, and the sea signifies the Gentile world. [Jesus’] going out of the house to sit beside the sea signifies that after His break with the Jews, He forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles.” Moreover, “The boat…signifies the church, which is in the world but not of the world. It was in the boat, in the church, that [Jesus]…revealed in parables the mysteries of the kingdom.” W. Lee also equates the boat with the church while expounding Mark. In Mark 3:9 Jesus “told His disciples to have a little boat ready…so that [the crowds] would not throng Him.” Concerning this W. Lee says,¹⁰² “In figure, the little boat that the Lord wanted to stand ready near Him signifies the church.” He uses both scenes to emphasize the church; based on Matthew, W. Lee says,¹⁰³ “Do you want to know the mysteries of the kingdom? If you do, then you must leave the house and not stand on the seashore, but get into the boat close to the Lord. This is the only place where we can understand the mysteries of the kingdom. Oh, we are in the church, in the boat! The church…is the boat of the believers. In the church all the mysteries of the kingdom are revealed to us.”He castigates “opposers” who, “because they do not have the way to allegorize…do not know [the Bible].” W. Lee contends,¹⁰⁴ “If you do not know how to allegorize the Bible, you will not be able to interpret the parables. For example, the boat is a parable. How can you interpret the boat if you do not know how to allegorize it? All the opposers need to follow this way. Then they will know the Bible. However, because they do not have the way to allegorize the Bible, they do not know it. Because we have the way to allegorize the Scriptures, we know the significance of the house, the sea, and the boat. Furthermore, we know all the parables. How happy I am to know the parables!”

Analysis:
1. W. Lee asserts that the boat in Matt. 13:2 and Mark 3:9 represents the church. He says, “The boat is a parable. How can you interpret the boat if you do not know how to allegorize it?” This statement assumes a priori that “the boat” symbolizes something beyond the physical realm, requiring interpretation. Most Bible expositors would respond, “it is simply a boat.”
2. The scene has been extracted from its historical setting and invested with New Testament significance. On both occasions, Jesus was in Galilee addressing an audience of Jews and disciples. He had not yet unveiled the matter of the Church (Matt. 16). At that time none of Jesus’ audience would understand the house as Israel, the sea as the Gentiles or the boat as the Church. W. Lee exhorts “you must leave the house and not stand on the seashore, but get into the boat close to the Lord.” Yet, Jesus did not exhort people to join Him in the boat! There’s nothing explicit indicating the boat represents the church.
3. W. Lee invests some events in this passage with dispensational significance, but not others. He asserts, Jesus’ “going out of the house to sit beside the sea signifies that after His break with the Jews, He forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles.” [Matt 13:1, RcV. note 1]. Let us note a few things. First, Jesus’ decisive break with Judaism occurs later (Matt. 21:41-43; 23:38). There is nothing in Jesus’ words or actions up to this point (Matt. 13:1-3) indicating He “forsook…Israel and turned to the Gentiles.” Second, at the start of Matthew 13 Jesus went out of the house, got into the boat and sat beside the sea. Later in the same chapter Jesus “left the crowds and went into the house” (Matt. 13:36). Clearly Jesus exited the boat, left the sea and returned to the house. Does that mean Jesus abandoned the Church (the boat), left the Gentiles (the sea) and restored Israel (the house)? W. Lee attributes no allegorical significance to this later sequence of events which are the exact reverse of those earlier. Why not? Here we confront the arbitrary nature of allegorizing.
4. Equating the boat with the church, W. Lee exhorts¹⁰⁵ “you must…get into the boat close to the Lord…Oh, we are in the church, in the boat!” What does W. Lee make of Peter leaving the boat to walk on the water? (Matt. 14:28-29) Does this signify leaving the church? W. Lee expounds on this incident in terms of faith, saying,¹⁰⁶ “Peter walked on the waves by faith. Faith is our action upon the word of the Lord.” He later says, “Do not be troubled by any storms, for we are in the boat, the Lord’s church.” But this begs the question—what about Peter’s leaving the boat? After emphasizing the local church, W. Lee balked at expounding Peter’s exiting the boat as leaving the church; this biases his exposition, making it inconsistent. In contrast Watchman Nee took this interpretation to its logical conclusion. He says,¹⁰⁷ “The ‘boat’ is the church...The Lord expects to see that some will have an increase of faith to come down from the boat (the brothers and sisters in the church) and walk on the sea.” On this point Watchman Nee’s exposition is consistent; Witness Lee’s is not.
5. W. Lee was not the first to allegorize the boat as the Church. This has been “the long-standing hermeneutical tradition of the Christian church” (in LSM’s words). Augustine (AD 354–AD 430) held this view.¹⁰⁸ Roman Catholic commentators seize on the fact that the first boat Jesus entered belonged to Peter (Luke 5:3). Curiously W. Lee equates ‘the boat’ with the church in Matt. 13 and Mark 3, but not here. Since Jesus entering Peter’s boat (Luke 5:3), European art often uses the boat to symbolize the Church (e.g. in paintings at the papal Vatican in Italy). Catholics triumphantly assert¹⁰⁹ “the Church is specifically [the Church of Rome] Ecclesia Romana, for the ship is the fishing boat of Saint Peter.” Catholic writers elaborate on this point. St. Maximus of Turin (d. circa. AD 4o8) declared¹¹⁰ “Our Lord entered the one boat of the Church in which Peter was appointed the pilot when He said, ‘On this rock I will build My Church.’…He intended to appoint Peter the pilot or supreme ruler of the Church …to entrust him the helm of the whole Church…They only will be saved who are received into the bark [i.e. boat] of Saint Peter.” W. Lee claims the boat represents the local church; Catholics assert it represents the universal church with Peter as the “pilot.” Which interpretation (if any) is correct? Catholics point out that Jesus entered Peter’s boat (Luke 5:3). In contrast W. Lee gives this incident no ecclesiastical significance.¹¹¹ Catholics are justified in asking, why is the fact that it was Peter’s boat treated as merely incidental? This disparity illustrates that allegorizing can be arbitrary and subjective; results depend on the expositor’s underlying theological bias.

Example 2: The Parable of the Good Samaritan [Luke 10:25-37]
In non-allegorical terms¹¹² “the intended message [of the Good Samaritan] is to love the neighbor as oneself. It is a call to show mercy to people who lie wounded alongside the Jericho road of human suffering. The concept neighbor is not limited to friends and acquaintances, but includes people who are deprived of essential needs…Jesus’ message to the teacher of the law [is] ‘Go and do likewise’.” The parable’s ‘punch-line,’ indicates the underlying message. What is the meaning hearers and readers must discover? ^113”This…can be readily seen in the Good Samaritan parable where Jesus told the teacher of the law, ‘Go and do likewise’.” Damien Casey writes,¹¹⁴ “the point of the parable…is precisely that one should make no distinction in defining the neighbor in terms of blood, polity, or religion. Furthermore, the parable is presented as an answer to the question: who is my neighbor? After telling the parable Jesus commands us to go and do likewise. What could be less ambiguous? But while the obvious–literal or historical, indeed ethical sense of the parable–is usually acknowledged…one of the most common readings of the parable was to allegorize it in terms of the church.”

This famous parable has a long history of allegorical interpretation. For example, Augustine interprets¹¹⁵ various elements: [1] The man is Adam; [2] going down from Jerusalem to Jericho indicates the fall of Adam[3] Jerusalem is the heavenly city; [4] Jericho is the moon (Jericho sounds like the Hebrew ‘moon’), which stands for our mortality (because the moon “is born, increases, grows old, & dies”) [5] the robbers are the devil & his angels [6] stripping the man, they rob him of his immortality [7] they beat him by persuading him to sin; [8] the Priest represents the Law [9] the Levite represents the Prophets; [10] the Good Samaritan is Christ, [11] oil means the comfort of hope [12] wine is the encouragement of work; [13] being placed on his ass/donkey means being united to the incarnation, [14] the inn is the church, [15] the innkeeper is Saint Paul, [16] the next day is after the resurrection of Christ; [17] the two pence are the sacraments (bread & wine), or [18] the 2 commandments of love--towards God & man or (yet again) [19] the promise of this life and that which is to come and [20] the Samaritan’s promised return is Christ’s second coming, when He will “repay.”

W. Lee does not provide a non-allegorical interpretation. He never expounds the punch-line, “Go and do likewise” (10:37). Instead, W. Lee allegorizes many of the parable’s points, taking Jesus as the Good Samaritan.¹¹⁶
[1] The “certain man” signified the self-justified lawyer
[2] He had fallen from “Jerusalem,” (the foundation of peace) to “Jericho,” a city of curse
[3] The “robbers” signify the legalistic teachers of the Judaic law robbing the law-keepers like the lawyer.
[4] “Stripped” signifies stripping by the law misused by the Judaizers.
[5] “Beating” signifies the killing by the law.
[6] Leaving the man “half dead” signifies the Judaizers leaving the law-keeper in a dead condition
[7] The Samaritan signifies Jesus, the Man-Savior
[8] The Good Samaritan’s care portrays the Savior’s care for a sinner condemned under law.
[9] “Binding up his wounds” indicates the Savior healed him.
[10] “Pouring oil & wine on the man’s wounds” signifies giving the Holy Spirit and the divine life.
[11] The Samaritan placed the man on a donkey, i.e., carried him by lowly means in a lowly way.
[12] “Brought him to an inn & took care of him”--brought him to the church & cared for him through the church.
[13] “Paid the inn-keeper” for the man means that He blessed the church for him.
[14] The “inn-keeper” represents the local church’s elders¹¹⁷
[15] Promising to repay whatever was spent--whatever the church spends is repaid when the Savior comes back.

Summarizing, W. Lee says,¹¹⁸ “The Savior intended to unveil to [the lawyer] through this story that he was condemned to death under the law, unable to take care of himself, needless to say love others, and that the Man-Savior [Jesus] was the one who would love him and render him full salvation.” Elaborating, W. Lee says,¹¹⁹ “It seems that [Jesus] used that story to tell the lawyer, ‘You are elated and self-justified, yet you do not realize that you are the man who fell from Jerusalem to the place of curse and who was beaten on the way. The Jewish religionists have beaten you half dead, stripped you, and left you alone, and the priests and the Levites, the moralists, have passed by and ignored you. Only a good Samaritan, who was journeying, was moved with compassion toward you and has cared for you in a detailed way. Do you still remember that formerly you said that I am a Samaritan and have a demon (Jn. 8:48-49)? I do not have a demon, but I am definitely a ‘Samaritan,’ a lowly person whom you have despised and slandered. I am your neighbor, and only I can take care of you by pouring oil and wine on your wounds to anoint and heal you. I am the very neighbor who loves you’.”

In his exposition W. Lee asserts that Jesus intended the lawyer to decode these allegorical points upon hearing the parable. According to W. Lee, Jesus expected to lawyer to identify himself as the victim—“you are the man who fell from Jerusalem to the place of curse.” The lawyer ought also to identify the Samaritan as Jesus--“Formerly you said that I am a Samaritan…I am definitely a ‘Samaritan’…only I can take care of you by pouring oil and wine on your wounds to anoint and heal you. I am the very neighbor who loves you’.” Moreover, the lawyer was supposed to realize:
· “The Jewish religionists have beaten you half dead, stripped you, and left you alone”
· “the priests and the Levites, the moralists, have passed by and ignored you.”
· “he was condemned to death under the law”
· “he was…unable to take care of himself, needless to say love others”
· Jesus as the Good Samaritan “was the one who would love him and render him full salvation.”
W. Lee doesn’t just “borrow” this parable, extract it from its original context and transform it into a gospel message. Through the imagined dialogue, W. Lee implies that Jesus intended to convey all these allegorical points when He spoke this parable to the original hearers, including the lawyer. He also allegorizes the parable into a contemporary situation.¹²⁰

Analysis:
1. W. Lee’s interpretation is strikingly similar to Augustine’s. Both treat the parable as an allegory where every detail of the story has its counter-part. Augustine has 20 points; W. Lee has 15 allegorical points. Both say Jesus brings the man to the church; Augustine says the inn-keeper is Saint Paul; W. Lee says he’s the church elders. Augustine’s exposition of this parable is a frequently cited example of illegitimate allegorizing, where¹²¹ “people have read into the parables elements of the church’s theology that have little to do with Jesus’ intent.” It is eisegesis, not exegesis; it ought to be rejected.
2. LSM justifies allegorizing because “the divine message of the Bible may transcend the intention of its human writers.” Yet here, we believe, Luke faithfully recorded the dialogue between Jesus and the lawyer. Can this parable’s “divine message transcend the intention of its human writer” (Luke) and the intention of its speaker (Jesus, God incarnated)? Does it transcend the message that could be understood by Jesus’ first-century Jewish audience who originally heard it?
3. W. Lee’s allegorizing ignores the parable’s punch-line—“Go and do likewise.” He identifies the lawyer as the victim and Jesus as the Samaritan, the Savior who imparts the Holy Spirit and divine life. Hence, in W. Lee’s view, “The Savior intended to unveil to [the lawyer] that he was condemned to death under the law, unable to take care of himself, needless to say love others…” We ask, if this is the case, why did Jesus tell the lawyer “Go and do likewise”? Was He being ironic? Was He taunting him, as if to say, “Go ahead and try”? None of these answers appears satisfactory. W. Lee’s allegorical interpretation makes this command--“Go and do likewise,” which is the parable’s punch-line--irrelevant, if not positively misleading. How could he imitate the Samaritan by “going and doing likewise,” if the Samaritan represents the Savior? The lawyer could never be a Savior; Jesus is demanding the impossible! Contrast this with a literal reading, which implies, “the point of the parable…is precisely that one should make no distinction in defining the neighbor in terms of blood, polity, or religion. Furthermore, the parable is presented as an answer to the question: who is my neighbor? After telling the parable Jesus commands us to go and do likewise.”¹²² This might seem obvious, but it fits the parable’s punch-line.
4. W. Lee’s exposition extracts this parable from its actual setting—Jesus was responding to a lawyer in 1^st-century Judaism. W. Lee projects this incident forwards, interpreting it in a post-Pentecost setting, in terms of the whole New Testament. He interprets this parable in the light of Christ’s death, resurrection, the formation of the church, imparting of the Holy Spirit, etc. But, when Jesus told this parable, these events had not yet transpired! The lawyer was supposed to realize the “the Jewish religionists have beaten you half dead, stripped you, and left you alone.” But this is Paul’s teaching (Rom. 7). The lawyer was expected to recognize Jesus, as the Good Samaritan¹²³ “was the one who would love him and render him full salvation.” But Jesus had not yet been crucified to “render him full salvation.” Jesus’ disciples weren’t clear about His death and resurrection; how could this Jewish lawyer be expected to know this? Jesus was not preaching the gospel to this lawyer. The lawyer asked “Who is my neighbor?” ¹²⁴“Christ responded by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan. The parable clearly gives, in illustration form, the meaning of ‘neighbor.’ This parable was understood by an unbelieving lawyer…the Lord told him to do even as he had understood the Samaritan to have done...the lawyer was compelled to acknowledge the deep truth conveyed by it.’ Thus the truth of Leviticus 19:18 is clearly taught by our Lord.”
5. [b]Allegorizing this parable produces a variety of interpretations. Take the “two denarii (pence)” for example. Among various suggestions, they are said to represent: [a] the two sacraments (bread & wine), the 2 commandments of love--towards God & man, [c] the promise of this life and that which is to come, [d] the Old and New Testaments^,125 [e] the gifts and grace (W. Nee)^,126 [f] the price of redemption (W. Nee)¹²⁷ [g] Christ blessing the church (Lee)¹²⁸. Of these possibilities, which is the correct interpretation?

Example 3: Noah’s Ark with 3 Stories—the Trinity, & One Window—“One Vision through One Ministry”
A further example is W. Lee’s deciphering the Trinity in Noah’s ark. He says,¹²⁹ “Undoubtedly, the three stories of the ark signify the Triune God.” Moreover, W. Lee asks, “Which Person of the Trinity is the first story?” He concludes¹³⁰ “When we come to the Father, we are in the third story…The first story of the ark is of the Spirit.” So, according to W. Lee, the first, second, and third levels of Noah’s ark signify the Spirit, Son and Father (respectively). Noah’s ark also had only one window. Allegorizing, W. Lee states,¹³¹ “In God's church there should be only one window…In the building of God, there is only one window, one revelation, and one vision.” LSM’s “blended brothers” extrapolate this into¹³² “one revelation and one vision through one ministry” LSM’s senior editor, Ed Marks says,¹³³ “This one skylight signifies the one revelation of God’s eternal economy. This revelation is the one vision of the age…the vision of God becoming man through incarnation and of man becoming God—in life and nature but not in the Godhead.” So the single skylight implies Athanasius’ dictum!

Analysis
1. The New Testament tells us Noah’s ark is related to the believer’s baptism (1 Pet. 3:20-21). It doesn’t tell us the ark depicts the Trinity. This is eisegesis. We cannot assert “undoubtedly” the Trinity is signified just because the number three occurs; not every biblical instance of “three” implies the Trinity.¹³⁴ The Trinity is a New Testament revelation. The Old Testament is not inconsistent with the Trinity, but, the Trinity is not revealed there. W. Lee’s assertion that the first, second, and third levels of Noah’s ark signify the Spirit, Son and Father (respectively) is arbitrary. Which Bible reader would conclude that “the first story of the ark is of the Spirit”? Or, that the third story of Noah’s ark represents God the Father?
2. LSM’s allegorizing connects the ark’s one window with “one revelation and one vision through one ministry.” LSM’s “blended brothers” assert that this “one skylight” represents “the one vision of the age” through “the ministry of the age” carried out by the one “minister of the age.”¹³⁵ In the 20^th century LSM designates firstly, Watchman Nee and secondly,¹³⁶ Witness Lee as the unique “minister of the age.” All of this, LSM’s “blended brothers” claim, is implied by “one window.” Such interpretations are incredible to any believer not thoroughly indoctrinated with LSM’s sectarian and elitist ideology.

Example 4: The Disciples as a Travailing Mother begetting a Newborn Child--Christ [John 16:19-22]
“Jesus…said ‘A little while and you do not behold Me, and again a little while and you will see Me. Truly, truly, I say to you that you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice; you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will be turned into joy. A woman, when she gives birth, has sorrow because her hour has come; but when she brings forth the little child, she no longer remembers the affliction because of the joy that a man has been born into the world. Therefore you also now have sorrow; but I will see you again and your heart will rejoice, and no one takes your joy away from you’.” [Jn. 16:19-22, RcV.]

Most expositors say the woman giving birth is a graphic metaphor depicting sorrow turned into joy. The Lord’s separation through crucifixion caused the disciples sorrow. Yet, as the sorrow of a woman’s labor turns to joy at child-birth, the disciples’ sorrow changed to joy at Christ’s resurrection. However, W. Lee goes further, allegorizing this metaphor. He identifies the “child,” saying,¹³⁷ “Christ is the child in the parable of the travailing woman [in] John 16:21” and the woman, saying,¹³⁸ “the mother, the woman, in [Jn. 16] verse 21 refers to the disciples.” Putting these elements together, he asks,¹³⁹
“Who is this woman? The woman is the whole group of disciples. Who is the child, the son? The child is Christ. What is the birth? It is resurrection. At the time the Lord spoke this to the disciples, He was one with them, like a child conceived within its mother, waiting to be delivered in birth that He might be a newborn child. In this sense, His disciples were the delivering woman in travail. In those three days, the disciples did suffer the travail of the birth of Christ in resurrection to be born as the Son of God. After the Lord’s resurrection, this ‘woman’ had a newborn child and she rejoiced (20:20).”
W. Lee views Christ’s resurrection as a birth, saying,¹⁴⁰ “In John 16:20-21…This woman is the whole group of the disciples, the child is Christ, and the birth is resurrection (Acts 13:33)…When Christ was born of Mary, He was born as a man, and His humanity had nothing to do with His being the only begotten Son of God…The human part of Jesus was not the Son of God. Therefore, it was necessary for this human part of Him to be born into the divine sonship through resurrection. Hence, Christ’s resurrection was a new birth for Him. In this birth the disciples were the travailing woman. After the Lord’s resurrection this ‘woman’ had a newborn child—the resurrected Christ as the firstborn Son of God.” W. Lee says the “new-born child” is Christ, but includes all the believers as the “new man.” He declares¹⁴¹ “This newborn child is the aggregate of all of God’s children…[it] is the new man, the Body of Christ.” He also refers to it as the “Spirit’s child” saying,¹⁴² “the Spirit needs a child for His moving…God's elect are the suffering, delivering woman (John 16:20-21). On the one hand, we are the child born; on the other hand, we are the delivering woman. We are the mother and the child as well. This is a mystery. Furthermore…Christ left the disciples by His death…That newborn child was Christ coming back. Thus, God's elect are the mother as well as the child, and the child is Christ. Now He is the new man…”

Analysis:
1. W. Lee’s allegorizing suggests Jesus’ disciples played a positive, active, and productive role in the process of Christ’s death and resurrection. He asserts that Jesus’ ¹⁴³“disciples were the delivering woman in travail. In those three days, the disciples did suffer the travail of the birth of Christ in resurrection to be born as the Son of God.” W. Lee says Jesus’ “disciples were the delivering woman in travail” and Jesus was “like a child conceived within its mother, waiting to be delivered in birth that He might be a newborn child.” This suggests the disciples played an active role and Jesus a passive role in the process of redemption and resurrection! The disciples’ alleged positive role, ascribed by W. Lee, contradicts the historical record of the disciples’ negative role. They abandoned Jesus, denied Him and fled (Matt. 26:56, 70, 72; Mark 14:50, 68, 70); the best of them were passive observers of Jesus’ suffering, crucifixion, burial and resurrection (John 19:25). Where, in the historical narrative, did Jesus’ disciples play a positive role? It is counter-factual to attribute them an active, positive role. We ask—Is this view consistent with the orthodox Christian faith?
2. Most expositors view the travailing woman in John 16 as a graphic metaphor depicting sorrow turned into joy; it is nothing more. Yet W. Lee allegorizes this image, saying¹⁴⁴ “Who is this woman? The woman is the whole group of disciples. Who is the child, the son? The child is Christ. What is the birth? It is resurrection.” To most scholars these questions are redundant. They would answer—“It’s simply a metaphor depicting sorrow turned into joy.” W. Lee is joined by a few Roman Catholics. One says¹⁴⁵ “the analogy of childbirth is used by Jesus to describe the disciples' present sorrow and future joy (Jn. 16:20-22), but there is hint of something more than analogy.” He connects this with Jesus’ words to Mary—“Behold, your son,” and to John—“Behold, your mother,” identifying Mary as the travailing woman, and the “child” as Mary’s “other children” signified by John. This Catholic writer ascribes to Mary a significant role beside Jesus in His work at Calvary. He says,¹⁴⁶ “at Calvary, the hour when Mother [Mary] and Son [Jesus] are joined in struggle and at that moment she becomes the mother of ‘other children’ in the person of the Beloved Disciple [John] (Jn. 19:25-27). This is the Johannine nativity scene.” Most believers reject the notion that Mary, or any other disciple, had any part in Christ’s accomplishment at Calvary. Catholics claim such a role for the Virgin Mary; W. Lee implies “the whole group of disciples” played such a role. Both these aberrant claims are based on allegorizing John 16.
3. Does the “delivering woman” represent the first group of disciples (Peter, John, etc.) or all the believers? On this point W. Lee makes contradictory claims. On one hand he says,¹⁴⁷ “The first group of Christ's believers…was the delivering woman (Jn. 16:20-21).” On other occasions he says the “woman” is all God’s elect,¹⁴⁸ “God's elect are the suffering, delivering woman (16:20-21)…We are the delivering woman. We are the mother…”So, is it the first group of disciples or all the believers? LSM-adherents may respond, “Both, the first disciples are our representatives.” However, it was only the first disciples who experienced the sorrow of Christ’s absence through death, prior to resurrection. Today’s believers don’t have that experience. But, if the “delivering woman” represents the first group of disciples this makes them an elite group—the “mother” of the resurrected Christ and the new man! This creates a further conundrum.
4. W. Lee’s rationale for Christ’s being “born” in resurrection is curious. He says,¹⁴⁹ “When Christ was born of Mary, He was born as a man, and His humanity had nothing to do with His being the only begotten Son of God…The human part of Jesus was not the Son of God. Therefore, it was necessary for this human part of Him to be born into the divine sonship through resurrection. Hence, Christ’s resurrection was a new birth for Him.” W. Lee asserts that during His earthly life, “the human part of Jesus was not the Son of God,” while Jesus’ “divine part” was God’s Son. He expounds further, saying,¹⁵⁰ “He had a human part that was not divine and that had nothing to do with God's Son. That human part was the Son of Man, not the Son of God.” Plus he states¹⁵¹ “In the human part of Jesus there was no divine life.” More explicitly W. Lee asserts¹⁵² “Jesus was the Son of God in His spirit...[But] a part of Jesus Christ, His flesh, was altogether human. It was not divine, not the Son of God.” This suggest that, in His earthly life, a dichotomy existed within the Person of Jesus, that He was a kind of “dualistic hybrid” which could be “partitioned” into distinct divine and human parts. W. Lee talks of Christ’s human “outer shell,” saying,¹⁵³“Christ's humanity was like a shell, and Heas the embodiment of God was concealed and confined within this shell…Christ's death was the breaking of the outer shell of His humanity…[it] broke His humanity and released His divinity.” We ask--are W. Lee’s statements (above) consistent with orthodox Christology?
5. W. Lee asserts the mother¹⁵⁴ “brings forth the child…a man…” LSM’s Recovery Version follows the King James rendering “a man is born.” ¹⁵⁵“Modern readers quite naturally attribute the woman’s joy to the birth of a son. But the Greek word here translated ‘man’ means ‘a human being’." The Greek word, anthropos means “a human being, male or female, without reference to sex” (Vine).¹⁵⁶ The ESV--“a human being is born”—matches the original Greek text. Jesus’ metaphor doesn’t indicate the gender of the “little child;”it could be either a boy or girl. The Recovery Version assumes the child is male; LSM extrapolates from this to an equation with Christ, the Firstborn Son and the New Man. But that assumption is tenuous at best. If the Holy Spirit wanted to indicate that, the Greek phrase, huion arsen—“man-child” could have been used as in Revelation 12:5. It was not; this suggests a more circumspect exposition is called for. This is a weak link in the chain of logic. The textual basis for LSM’s allegorical interpretation is tenuous, at best.

Is LSM’s Allegorizing Innocuous?
Some may respond to this article by claiming that LSM’s allegorizing is innocuous. They may assert that New Testament teachings (e.g. by the Apostle Paul) are simply being read into parables, visions and historical events; thus clear passages of Scripture are used to clarify less-clear sections. LSM- apologists may suggest that, while the “benefit” of allegorizing is perhaps small, the “cost” is also trivial. This defense of LSM’s allegorizing is contradicted by the historical record of the “Lord’s Recovery.” History demonstrates that LSM’s allegorizing is far from innocuous. Consider the following 3 examples.

1. The New Jerusalem’s Foundations—Side by Side vs. Layer upon Layer?
W. Lee asserted that “the entire New Jerusalem is an allegory.” This includes the 12 foundations. He emphasized that¹⁵⁷ “These twelve foundations are not laid side by side; rather, they are laid one on top of another.The top layer…was jasper …Thus, all the work of the apostles issued in the same appearance, jasper.” W. Lee allegorized this, saying,¹⁵⁸ “If you examine the ministries of the apostles in the New Testament, you will see that each ministry was upon the top of another, not side by side.” He asserted that his own ministry was layer on layer with Watchman Nee’s ministry, “my ministry is the same in appearance as Brother Nee’s ministry.” Moreover, he warned,¹⁵⁹ “it is absolutely wrong to have another, side-by-side work. Your work must be a layer laid upon the present layer, and it must produce the same appearance.” W. Lee vehemently condemned other ministers, asserting¹⁶⁰ “Today’s Christian workers not only have different colors; instead of being one on top of another, they are side by side.” In W. Lee’s estimation his own ministry was “layer on layer,” while those of “today’s Christian workers…are side by side.” But who decides which ministries are “layer on layer,” vs. “side by side”? What is the objective standard of measurement? In practice isn’t it totally subjective? In recent years, LSM’s “blended brothers” used this accusation against Titus Chu of the Great Lakes area and Yu-Lan Dong of Brazil. While asserting that LSM’s “blended brothers’” work is “layer upon layer,” Titus Chu and Yu-Lan Dong were condemned for “side by side” works. But who decided which work is “layer upon layer,” and which “side by side”? Not an objective third party; it was LSM’s “blended brothers” who decided that other minister’s work was “side by side” and therefore condemned. LSM’s condemnation and their ensuing denunciations, attacks and quarantines were based on LSM’s allegorical interpretation. We conclude that LSM’s allegorizing is not innocuous; it has been used to attack others.

2. Contemporary Christian Music—Worship of the Golden Calf?
As a further example, consider W. Lee’s exposition of Israel’s worship of the golden calf (Exo. 32:6). W. Lee says,¹⁶¹ “The worship of the golden calf was a kind of amusement and entertainment.” Allegorizing, he transitions from Israel’s golden calf to today’s Christianity, where worship is (allegedly) directed at “their enjoyment.” W. Lee states,¹⁶² “This principle can be applied to today’s Christians. Many Christians worship a calf, but they think that they are worshipping the Lord Jesus or the true God. Actually what they are worshipping is their enjoyment. Much of today’s Christian worship is a matter of sitting down to eat and drink and rising up to sport, sing, and dance around a certain kind of enjoyment, around a golden calf.” W. Lee castigates Christianity, saying¹⁶³ “how pitiful and even tragic is the situation among Christians today. There are golden calves almost everywhere. People sing to a golden calf, praise it, and rejoice before it. In the presence of a golden calf, people eat, drink, sport, even dance. They may claim to be praising God, singing to God, and rejoicing before God. But we must ask who is being worshipped—Jehovah God, or the god of the golden calf?” But, may we ask, how much of this evaluation is spiritual? To what extent was it cultural, based on the speaker’s age, ethnic background and personal preference? LSM’s “blended brothers” used this allegorizing to denounce contemporary worship styles in Brazil and the Great Lakes area. LSM’s senior editor, Ron Kangas, testified¹⁶⁴ “I was once in a Lord’s table meeting in another part of the world where there were many musical instruments and much jumping and marching around. My feeling was that the only thing missing was the golden calf.” Evidently Ron Kangas’ subjective feeling was sufficient grounds to justify LSM’s publishing this assessment. Three years later, LSM’s Ron Kangas was told that music in Brazil is "a big production with drums and lots of instruments." He responded¹⁶⁵ “To use the music in this way is to set up the golden calf and call it God. In Exodus 32 God told us how He feels about this.” Thus contemporary Christian worship music was denounced by LSM’s “blended brothers” based on W. Lee’s allegorizing of the golden calf incident and Ron Kangas’ subjective feeling.

3. Leprosy in the House (Lev. 14)—“Churches can be Terminated”
In the New Testament a local church is never excommunicated nor “quarantined;” there is no such teaching or example. Church discipline is handled individually case by case. This lack of biblical precedent is not a problem for allegorizers; the Old Testament provides a “happy hunting ground”¹⁶⁶ for supposed exemplars. Thus leprosy in the house is used to justify “terminating” local churches. Leviticus says that if the Priest decides there is “malignant leprosy in the house…He shall break down the house” (14:43-45). To W. Lee this means¹⁶⁷ “the whole church should be torn down…it will be necessary for that church to be terminated.” He also states¹⁶⁸ “we have to realize who has the function and qualification as the priest to discern leprosy…” Allegedly¹⁶⁹ “to discern…leprosy was a difficult thing. This could not be discerned by ordinary people; it could be discerned only with great care and by a proper priest.” Who is the “proper priest”? There is no mention of the priesthood of all believers here! It is “the apostle, the Lord’s deputy.”¹⁷⁰ Thus a Scriptural precedent was created for “terminating churches.” LSM’s “blended brothers” demonstrated their willingness to apply this teaching. In 2006 LSM’s Ron Kangas warned ominously that¹⁷¹ “churches can be terminated.” Perhaps perceiving some elders were reluctant to comply, he cautioned,¹⁷² “An elder’s local authority pales in comparison to the authority of the head expressed through His representatives in the Body. The elders should be careful in how they conduct themselves.” Via allegorizing Leviticus an Old Testament “type” was concocted for “terminating churches.” Yet no New Testament “anti-type” for this can be found. Nevertheless this word has been used to justify vicious attacks against local churches which fail to submit to LSM’s leadership and direction (e.g. churches in the Great Lakes area & S. America). The recent history of the “local church movement” demonstrates that LSM’s allegorizing is far from innocuous.

Conclusion
Among the “Church Fathers,” Origen (AD 185-254) promoted allegorical interpretation. For him,¹⁷³ “the Bible was one vast allegory…in which every detail is symbolic.” Allegorical exposition reigned supreme, buttressing the Catholic Church’s monopoly, until the Reformation. John Calvin and Martin Luther rejected allegorizing in favor of Scripture’s literal sense. They stood for Scripture alone--its authority, sufficiency and clarity. Allegorizing contradicts these vital maxims. It denies the Holy Spirit’s ability to enlighten every believer regarding Scripture’s significance based on its literal-historical sense.

Witness Lee was the 20^th century Origen, the “Allegorizer of the Age,” publishing over 2,200 messages, 21,000 printed pages;¹⁷⁴ a sizeable portion being allegorical expositions. E.g. he contends¹⁷⁵ “the 3 stories of [Noah’s] ark signify the Triune God,” and the 1^st, 2^nd & 3^rd stories represent the Spirit, Son and Father (respectively). LSM’s brothers allege¹⁷⁶ the ark’s one skylight represents “one vision through the one ministry of the age”—W. Lee’s ministry. He says at the crucifixion, Jesus’¹⁷⁷ disciples were the Christ-child’s mother, “the delivering woman in travail. In those 3 days, the disciples did suffer…[for] the birth of Christ in resurrection.” “The Bible is full of allegories,” W. Lee states¹⁷⁸ adding “If you don’t know how to allegorize the Bible, you will never know the secret of the Bible.” He castigated his “opposers,” saying,¹⁷⁹ “because they do not have the way to allegorize the Bible, they do not know it.”In promoting the allegorical method, W. Lee ignored the Reformers and “turned the clock back” to pre-Reformation exegesis. We ask: Is this a recovery or a regression to the “dark ages” of biblical exegesis? Allegorizing requires an¹⁸⁰ “elite group of interpreters—spiritual, mature believers who alone are given the key to the deeper meaning of Scripture.” In the “Lord’s Recovery,” Witness Lee was this elite interpreter. In LSM’s view W. Lee’s allegorical exposition of Scripture’s “intrinsic significance”¹⁸¹ translates God’s written Word into “the interpreted word,”¹⁸² which is venerated in the “Lord’s Recovery” equal to (if not above) Scripture. Allegorizing is a vital part of LSM’s paradigm.

LSM declares “we accept the allegorical method for understanding the Bible…as a valid principle of interpretation.” Yet today most evangelicals reject allegorizing because it is arbitrary, subjective, de-historicizing, elitist, anachronistic, and/or redundant. Scholars state¹⁸³ “allegorizing is not a legitimate means of interpretation;” They regard LSM’s allegorical hermeneutic is untenable in the 21^st century. W. Lee never addressed these issues. Our analysis suggests these problems persist in LSM’s allegorical expositions. Despite its history as a “long-standing hermeneutical tradition of the Christian church,” we conclude that LSM’s allegorical method ought to be rejected; it is an invalid interpretational practice.¹⁸⁴
Nigel Tomes,

Toronto, CANADA,

August, 2011.

Notes: Thanks to those commenting on earlier drafts. The author alone is responsible for the contents of this piece. The views expressed here are solely the author’s and should not be attributed to any believers, elders, co-workers or churches he is associated with.
0. “Our Perspective,” LSM’s Affirmation & Critique accessed at http://www.affcrit.com/perspect.html. Illustrative of the close alignment between LSM and its affiliated local churches is the fact that this statement also appears on the website of the Church in Oklahoma City at http://www.churchinokc.org/chOKCOP.asp
1. Quote from Christopher A Hall who says, “Most evangelical students of biblical hermeneutics would affirm that the [literal] grammatical-historical interpretation of the biblical text leads to only one valid meaning—that intended by the author. To add other layers of meaning is to create a hermeneutical labyrinth, a maze…” [Christopher A. Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, p.133, emphasis indicates portion quoted in the main text] In the main text we use the term non-technical “then proper interpretation” to represent Hall’s phrase “the grammatical-historical interpretation.” Along the same lines Prof. C. L. Blomberg says contemporary Bible scholars reject “allegorizing which ascribes to a text hidden, often anachronistic meanings which the writer never intended…is never justified.” [Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 1990, p. 44, emphasis added] Professor A. Berkeley Mickelsen says, “Allegorizing makes the narrative convey ideas different from those intended by the original author. Thus allegorizing is an arbitrary way of handling the narrative.” [A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, p. 231, emphasis added] Note that LSM’s statement—“we believe that the divine message of the Bible may transcend the intention of its human writers”--is made in the context of allegorical interpretation. They are not discussing OT prophecies of the coming Messiah or OT types where it might be argued that “divine message of the Bible [e.g. the OT prophecy about Christ] may transcend the intention of its human writers.” The subject of this paper is confined to the topic of allegorizing, and statements made herein ought to be understood within that context.
2. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 1999, Chapter 3. Dr. Greidanus is professor of preaching at Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, MI. The statement in context reads: “In spite of its long tradition, allegorical interpretation must be rejected as a viable method for preaching Christ from the Old Testament.”
3. David Puckett, John Calvin's Exegesis of the Old Testament(2001) p. 107
4. W. Lee, Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 45, Section 1. (For ease of verification we refer to LSM’s online publications).
5. B. Ramm cites Jean Danielou’s observation that for Origen “the Bible was one vast allegory, atremendous sacrament in which every detail is symbolic.” [B. Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 32. Emphasis indicates quote in the main text]
6. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 1999, Chapter 3, p. 88
7. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, editor, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, & N.T. Wright, associate editors, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible,(London: SPCK; Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2005.) p. 34
8. Ilaria Ramelli, Origen and the Stoic Allegorical Tradition: Continuity and Innovation, Invigilata Lucernis, 2006
9. Timothy Wengert, chapter 11 in A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Medieval Through the Reformation Periods, Alan J. Hauser & Duane F. Watson (eds.), vol. 2, pp. 326-7
10. Peter Martens (University of Notre Dame) “Origen the Allegorist and the Typology/ Allegory Distinction,”
11. C. F. Evans, Parable and Dogma, University of London Lecture, 24 February 1976, p. 5
12. A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, p. 36
13. I. Howard Marshall, The Problem of New Testament Exegesis Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1974
14. A. S. Wood, Captive to the Word: Martin Luther: Doctor of Sacred Scripture, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1969, p. 164.
15. A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, p. 38
16. Alister McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, p. 2. The following quote is from the same source p. 3
17. Peter Harrison,The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science,Science & Christian Belief, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2006, p. 116. Along the same lines, McGrath says this necessitated a “fundamental change,” a “hermeneutical revolution,” leading to a new approach to the biblical text (Alister McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, p. 373)
18. Peter Harrison,The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science,Science & Christian Belief, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2006, p. 122
19. P. Harrison,The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science,Science & Christian Belief, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2006, pp. 124-5
20. G. L. Scheper, Reformation Attitudes toward Allegory and the Song of Songs, Pub. of the Modern Language Association (1974) p. 551
21. F. F. Bruce, “The History of New Testament Study,” in I. Howard Marshall, ed., New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, 1977.
22. David Puckett, John Calvin's Exegesis of the Old Testament(2001) p. 107
23. Alan J. Hauser & Duane F. Watson (eds.) A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Medieval Through the Reformation Periods, vol. 2, p. 57, emphasis original
24. Peter Harrison, HERMENEUTICS AND NATURAL KNOWLEDGE IN THE REFORMERS, chapter 11 in Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: Up to 1700, Volume 1, edited by Jitse M. van der Meer, Scott Mandelbrote, 2009, p. 343
25. Martin Luther cited in B. Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 54
26. John Calvin cited in B. Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 58
27. Larry D. Pettegrew, The Perspicuity of Scripture, The Master's Seminary, 2004. Along these lines Prof. F. F. Bruce emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding each believer. Bruce says, “The Holy Spirit is also the supreme Interpreter of the Scriptures, doing for us to-day as we read them what Christ did for the disciples on the road to Emmaus when He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” [F. F. Bruce, “What Do We Mean By Biblical Inspiration?” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol. 78 (1946): p. 128]
28. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. 1:183.
29. Graeme Goldsworthy, Is the Old Testament for Christians?
30. One example of the “blended brothers” use of the phrase “the interpreted word” is: “we must recommend the use of the Life-studies and the Recovery version. We need to spend time to dig into the interpreted word of God…” [Minoru Chen, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3, (March 2005) p. 55, emphasis added] In this context the role of the Life-studies and footnotes is emphasized; “We all need to be helped through the Life-studies and Recovery version with the footnotes to see the intrinsic significance of the word of the Bible.” [Minoru Chen, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3, (March 2005) p. 53] Consider also the following statements by LSM-President, Benson Phillips: “Today we have the Bible in our hands, but not many believers understand the Bible. It is closed to them. However, in the Lord’s recovery, we have the Bible that has been properly translated. The Recovery version is probably the best translation available. We also have the ministry of the age. Through the ministry of the age, the Lord has continued to further unveil His word. The ministers of the age have interpreted and given the sense that is in the Word. Today we not only have the Bible; we also have the ministry that interprets the Word of God and gives the sense of the Word.” [Benson Phillips, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3 (March 2005) p. 117, emphasis added] Benson Phillips continues by making some striking exclusive claims: “In Nehemiah’s time they had the Word, and they had the interpretation. They were given the sense of the Word, entering into its intrinsic significance. Today we have the same. This takes place only in the Lord’s recovery. Everything in the publications circulated among Christians today is old. However, in our publications everything is new. The Word is opened; every page opens up the Word along with its intrinsic significance. Only here can it be said that there is such a deep and real opening of the Word.” [Benson Phillips, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3 (March 2005) pp. 117-8, emphasis add]
31. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 1999, Chapter 3, p. 88
32. Klauck quoted by Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 1990, p. 44. Along the same lines, A. Berkeley Mickelsen writes, “Allegory, a very legitimate way of teaching truth, should not be confused with allegorizing, which takes a narrative that was not meant to teach truth by identification…Allegorizing makes the narrative convey ideas different from those intended by the original author. Thus allegorizing is an arbitrary way of handling the narrative.” [A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, p. 231]
33. Klyne R. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, (2008) p. 4, emphasis original. [Klyne R. Snodgrass is Professor of New Testament studies at North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago, IL.]
34. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 1990, pp. 43-4
35. R. Dean Anderson, PAUL’S USE OF “ALLEGORY” IN GALATIANS 4:21—5:1, A METHOD OF INTERPRETATION? p. 9 to following quote is from the same source, p. 11
36. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 1999, p. 187 quoting James D. G. Dunn “The use of the Old Testament” The quote in context reads: “New Testament writers use allegorical interpretation minimally…James Dunn concludes that in the New Testament ‘the only really clear examples are 1 Cor. 10:1-4; Gal. 4:22-31 and probably 2 Cor. 3:7-8.’ …Longenecker adds 1 Cor. 9:9.”
37. F. Buchsel says, “Jesus did not use allegory according to the four gospels.” I take this to mean (according to the context) that Jesus didn’t allegorize the OT. F. Buchsel’s statement reads, “Jesus did not use allegory according to the four Gospels, but Paul did in 1 Cor. 5:5ff.; 9:8ff.; 10:1ff.; Gal. 4:21ff...Hebrews offers another example of christological allegorizing along these lines (7:1ff.).” [F. Buchsel on “Allegoreo—to allegorize” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, [TDNT] Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed.) pp. 42-43]
38. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, editor , Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, & N.T. Wright, associate editors, Dictionary for theological interpretation of the Bible (London: SPCK ; Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2005.) p. 383. These authors also state: The allegorizer “does not necessarily assume the text is unhistorical or without literal meaning. His exegesis is simply not concerned with this aspect of the biblical text.” [Kevin J. Vanhoozer, editor , Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, & N.T. Wright, associate editors, Dictionary for theological interpretation of the Bible (London: SPCK ; Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Academic, 2005.) p. 383]
39. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, editor, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, & N.T. Wright, associate editors, Dictionary for theological interpretation of the Bible (London: SPCK ; Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2005.) p. 34. Professor Greidanus elaborates on the distinction, stating, “Typology…is quite different from allegorical interpretation which can make the text say whatever the interpreter wants to make of it. Typology by contrast, is limited to discovering specific analogies along the axis of God’s acts in redemptive history as revealed in Scripture. As G. W. H. Lampe says ‘Allegory differs radically from this kind of typology which rests upon…actual historical fulfillment. The reason…is simply that allegory takes no account of history.” [Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 1999, p. 249, quoting Lampe, “The Reasonableness of Typology” p. 31] Along the same lines, “Danielou argues that allegory does not represent the sense of scripture at all. It is merely the presentation of philosophy or morality under biblical imagery. Typology, on the other hand, is a legitimate extension of the literal sense of the Bible.” [Alan Carroll Purves, The Idea of Difficulty in Literature, p. 30] A. Berkeley Mickelsen quotes K. J. Woolcombe saying, “Typology as a method of exegesis is ‘the search for linkages between events, persons or things within the historical framework of revelation, whereas allegorism [allegorizing] is the search for secondary and hidden meaning underlying the primary and obvious meaning of the narrative’.” [A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, p. 238] These scholars accept typology as a valid hermeneutic technique, while rejecting allegorizing as invalid. It should be noted that problems associated with allegorizing are not resolved by merely re-labeling them as “types.”
40. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 1999, p. 249, quoting Lampe, “The Reasonableness of Typology” p. 31. The quote, by Sidney Greidanus, in context reads: “Typology…is quite different from allegorical interpretation which can make the text say whatever the interpreter wants to make of it. Typology by contrast, is limited to discovering specific analogies along the axis of God’s acts in redemptive history as revealed in Scripture. As G. W. H. Lampe says ‘Allegory differs radically from this kind of typology which rests upon…actual historical fulfillment. The reason…is simply that allegory takes no account of history.” [Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 1999, p. 249, quoting Lampe, “The Reasonableness of Typology” p. 31]
41. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 17, Section 1 However, contrast the statement in the text with the following words of W. Lee, regarding Bible interpretation, in which he says “the first principle is to interpret and understand the Bible as literally as possible.” He elaborates, saying, “When God inspired men to write the Bible, He used words that are fully comprehensible to man. When we attempt to understand the Bible today, we must understand the thought of God strictly and accurately according to the letter of the words. We should not think that since the Bible is inspired by God, it will always transcend human language, and is therefore open for spiritual interpretation. This is a dangerous proposition. We should interpret the Bible according to the literal meaning of the words. No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.”[W. Lee, On Knowing the Bible, Chapter 4, Section 1Reproduced in LSM’s Lesson Book, Level 6: The Bible—The Word of God, Chap. 22, Sec. 5]
42. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 46, Section 1
43. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 49, Section 2
44. “The greatest allegory in the Bible is in its last two chapters…the New Jerusalem…In this one allegory,” W. Lee asserted, “it is possible for one to see nearly every single divine point revealed in the Bible.” [W. Lee, God's New Testament Economy, Chapter 33, Section 1]
45. W. Lee, The Kernel of the Bible, Chapter 6, Section 1
46. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 10, Section 3
47. W. Lee, The Kernel of the Bible, Chapter 6, Section 1
48. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 160, Section 3
49. Consider for example the 1799 discovery of the Rosetta Stone in Egypt. Scholars realized that it contained the same passage written in three languages—Greek, Demotic Egyptian and Egyptian hieroglyphs. Since Greek was a known language, this allowed scholars to figure out the entire Ancient Egyptian language of hieroglyphs from the Rosetta Stone’s inscriptions. Like the Rosetta Stone, the Behistun Rock inscriptions, discovered in 1598 in Persia, include the same passage in three ancient cuneiform script languages: Old Persian, Elamite and Babylonian. This text was instrumental in deciphering the cuneiform script to modern scholars. In each instance scholars arrived at a consensus regarding the “correct answer”—e.g. the Greek equivalent of a certain Egyptian hieroglyph symbol--when deciphering the unknown script. That “correct answer” could then be verified by translating another inscription. In the above cases we are dealing with an objective code (e.g. Egyptian hieroglyphs). The difficulty with allegorical interpretation is the we are dealing with a “code” hidden behind the objective text of Scripture. As G. W. H. Lampe states, allegorical interpretation assumes “that beneath the outward 'letter' every part of Scripture contains a hidden truth…which the Spirit who inspired the writings can reveal to those whom he enlightens to perceive it. This attitude to the Scriptures is, of course, the basis of allegorical exegesis.” [G. W. H. Lampe, Hermeneutics and Typology,London Quarterly & Holborn Review (January 1965): p. 23]
50. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chap. 74, Section 1
51. Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communications, 1991), p. 29. The sentence in context, in the original, reads: “Allegorizing is searching for a hidden or secret meaning underlying but remote from and unrelated in reality to the more obvious meaning of a text. In other words the literal reading is a sort of code, which needs to be deciphered to determine the more significant and hidden meaning. In this approach the literal is superficial, the allegorical is the true meaning.” [Emphasis indicates quote in the main text.] In the main text we have also taken the liberty of inserting parenthesis in order to ease the understanding of Zuck’s complex sentence--“Allegorizing is searching for a hidden or secret meaning underlying (but remote from and unrelated…to) the more obvious meaning of a text.”
52. W. Lee, On Knowing the Bible, Chapter 4, Section 1 [Reproduced in LSM’s Lesson Book, Level 6: The Bible—The Word of God, Chapter 22, Section 2] W. Lee expands on this, saying, “We should not think that since the Bible is inspired by God, it will always transcend human language, and is therefore open for spiritual interpretation. This is a dangerous proposition. We should interpret the Bible according to the literal meaning of the words. No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.” [W. Lee, On Knowing the Bible, Chapter 4, Section 1]
53. For example, W. Lee writes, “When the prophecy is spoken in plain words, we should understand it according to the plain words. For example, Isaiah says, “The virgin will conceive and will bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel” (7:14b). We have to interpret this verse literally.” [W. Lee, The Path of Our Growth in Life, Chapter 2, Section 4]
54. Significantly W. Lee’s teaching emphasizing the Bible’s literal interpretation [W. Lee, On Knowing the Bible, Chapter 4, Section 1] is reproduced in LSM’s Lesson Book, Level 6: The Bible—The Word of God, [Chapter 22, Section 2]. This Lesson Book was specifically for LSM’s “Summer School of Truth” to teach young people (Jr. High & High School) within LSM-affiliated local churches their doctrines. Hence Scripture’s literal interpretation is emphasized with “beginners” (e.g. young people). Dr. Moises Silva refers to the traditional view that the allegorical interpretation represents “the deeper meaning of Scripture” when he writes, “We may define the [allegorical] method as requiring the presence of an elite group of interpreters—spiritual, mature believers who alone are given the key to the deeper meaning of Scripture.” [Moises Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? P. 74] Professor James D. G. Dunn refers to “The long and respected tradition of biblical interpretation by means of allegorizing. For by turning to allegory the allegorizer expresses his dissatisfaction with the obvious [i.e. literal] meaning of the biblical text (it is unedifying, outmoded, or whatever) and seeks for a deeper meaning.” [James D. G. Dunn, DEMYTHOLOGIZING - THE PROBLEM OF MYTH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, p. 288] W. Lee seems to express this kind of dissatisfaction when he says, ““The shallow teaching of Christianity tells us things mostly according to the black and white. But we have realized more by our further and deeper study. I have been studying this Book further and further for over 69 years. Gradually my study of the Bible has been getting deeper and deeper and higher and higher. Today my study of the Bible concerning resurrection has become a crystallization… Christianity teaches people mostly to behave according to the printed pages of the Bible. There is nothing wrong with this. It is absolutely right. But they have never seen…” [W. Lee, The Practical Way to Live a Life According to the High Peak of the Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures, Chapter 3, Section 2]
55. Sidney Greidanussays, “Clement and Origen read historical narratives as allegories…They still acknowledge the historical sense as true, but this ‘bodily sense’ hardly functions in their interpretation and preaching. The deeper level of meaning [in which] Joshua is Jesus; Jericho, the world; Rahab, the church; the scarlet cord, the blood of Christ makes the Old Testament word a Christian message. In looking for the real message at this ‘deeper’ level, allegorical interpretation…” [Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, chapter 3] In like manner W. Lee’s allegorical exposition is presented as the “intrinsic significance,” the deeper meaning.
56. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 1990, p. 47. Blomberg’s observation is made in the context of allegorizing parables.
57. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 1999, Chapter 3
58. Christopher A. Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, p.133
59. G. W. H. Lampe, Hermeneutics and Typology,London Quarterly & Holborn Review (January 1965): p. 20
60. Roy B. Zuck & Donald Campbell, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 46
61. Moises Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? p. 74 (Dr. Moises Silva is a past president of the Evangelical Theological Society)
62. G. W. H. Lampe quoted by William M. Wright, Rhetoric and Theology, p. 60
63. R. P. C. Hanson, Biblical Exegesis, p. 450
64. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 1999, Chapter 3
65. G. W. H. Lampe, Th. Vol.51 (1953) pp. 206-7
66. Christopher A. Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, p.156. A. Berkeley Mickelsen writes, “Allegorizing tells the observer [reader/listener] clearly what the interpreter is thinking but it tells nothing about what the biblical writer was saying. His meaning is ignored. We are left with only the interpreter’s arbitrary assertions. These…may be good, but the interpreter should not pretend that his ideas are somehow found in, with, or under the biblical statement.” [A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, pp. 32-33]
67. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 1999, p. 249
68. F. F. Bruce says, “The allegorical method can make the text mean whatever the allegorizer wants it to mean.” [F. F. Bruce, “The History of New Testament Study,” in I. Howard Marshall, ed., New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, 1977.]
69. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 100, Section 6
70. W. Lee, says, “Setting the mind upon the spirit is somewhat like binding the donkey to the vine. When you are thinking about the past or about how your wife is treating you, bind your donkey to the vine and set your mind upon the spirit.”[W. Lee, The Spirit and the Body, Chapter 9, Section 5]
71. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 99, Section 5
72. Moises Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? p. 70
73. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, chapter 3
74. Graeme Goldsworthy, Is the Old Testament for Christians? The following quote in the main text is from the same source.
75. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 49, Section 2
76. We ought also to ask: What is meant by the term, “Gentile church”? In the New Testament Church there are no Greeks or Jews. The Bible talks of the “churches of the Gentiles,” but never the “Gentile Church” or the “Jewish Church.”
77. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 33, Section 2. Later W. Lee writes, “the Bible does not tell us that God was bothered by this marriage or that He condemned it.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Numbers, Chapter 19, Section 1]
78. W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 59: Miscellaneous Records of the Kuling Training (1), Chapter 14, Section 4
79. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 1990, p. 42. An anachronism[noun] is defined as “something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time…” [Dictionary.com]
80. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 1990, p. 44
81. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 1990, p. 68
82. W. Lee, Life-Study of Luke, Chapter 34, Section 1
83. W. Lee, Life-Study of Luke, Chapter 35, Section 3
84. W. Lee, Life-Study of Luke, Chapter 34, Section 1 This is also a footnote on Luke 15:3 (RcV. note 1)
85. W. Lee, Life-Study of Luke, Chapter 2, Section 1
86. Moises Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? p. 74
87. G. W. H. Lampe, Hermeneutics and Typology,London Quarterly & Holborn Review (January 1965): p. 23
88. Moises Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? P. 74
89. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 99, Section 1. The quote, in context, reads: “it is not an easy matter to allegorize the Bible. In order to understand such a portion as [Genesis] 49:8-15, we need several things: the knowledge of the Bible in black and white; the knowledge of the history of the children of Israel; the experiences of Christ and the church life; the wisdom to allegorize the Bible; and the knowledge of how to apply the types to today's situation. When we have all this, then we shall be able to see the true significance of this portion of the Word.”
90. W. Lee, God's New Testament Economy, Chapter 33, Section 2
91. D. J. A. Clines, “Biblical Hermeneutics in Theory and Practice,” Christian Brethren Review 31, 32 (1982): p. 69
92. C. F. Evans, Parable and Dogma, The Ethel M. Wood Lecture at the University of London, 24 Feb. 1976.
93. Warren W. Wiersbe, "Song of Solomon," Bible Exposition Commentary/Wisdom and Poetry, p. 542. Wiersbe is former pastor of Chicago’s Moody Church and has taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Dallas Theological Seminary. Since 1995 he has been Distinguished Professor of Preaching at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. As a general statement, we consider Wiersbe’s comment to be “over the top.” However, in the context of allegorizing which draws implications beyond the Bible’s explicit teaching, it may apply.
94. F. F. Bruce, “The History of New Testament Study,” in I. Howard Marshall, ed., New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, 1977.
95. F. F. Bruce, The Christian Approach to the Old Testament, 1955, 2^nd edn. London: The Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1959. p. 16
96. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 1990, p. 44
97. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 1999, Chapter 3
98. W. Lee, The Kernel of the Bible, Chapter 6, Section 1
99. W. Lee, The Kernel of the Bible, Chapter 6, Section 1. W. Lee also adopted a paternalistic attitude towards local church members’ reading materials. He discouraged local church members from reading publications authored by other Christians (except for a few “token” older publications which he approved). To the extent such discouragement was effective, local church believers were unlikely to access critiques of the allegorical method employed by W. Lee. For example W. Lee declared “Since 1945 until the present there has not been a publication with spiritual weight in English or in Chinese. Many Christian publications are being printed, but they are like newspapers and lack content concerning the divine life, the truth, and Bible exposition…We can boldly say that in the last thirty-nine years few Christian publications with spiritual weight were published in the world. This shows the poor condition of Christianity.” [W. Lee, Guidelines for the Propagation of the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 1, Sec. 2] Local church believers naively accepting this analysis—that “few Christian publications with spiritual weight were published” in the last 40-years--are unlikely to read other Christian publications.
100. For example, the ESV Study Bible notes, “Local tradition locates this discourse at the ‘Cove of the Parables,’ a natural horseshoe-shaped amphitheater whose environmental acoustics could have carried Jesus' voice over 300 feet (91 meters) from the boat to a crowd of hundreds on the shore.” [ESV Note on Matt. 13:1-2]
101. Matt 13:1, RcV. note 1. The following quote is from the same source.
102. W. Lee, Life-Study of Mark, Chapter 11, Section 1. The quote in context reads, “In figure, the little boat that the Lord wanted to stand ready near Him signifies the church. In Matthew 13 the boat has this significance. The church is different from the nation of Israel, which is signified by the land. The church is also different from the Gentile world, which is signified by water. The church is something that is separated from the land and is on the water. Therefore, the church is neither on the land nor in the water. Although the church ‘boat’ is on the water, it is not in the water, and the water is not in the boat. Therefore, the land signifies the nation of Israel, the sea signifies the Gentile world, and the boat, which is separated from both the land and the sea, signifies the church. By this we see that the church is separated both from the nation of Israel and from the Gentile world. This understanding is according to Paul’s word in 1 Cor. 10:32 concerning the Jews, the Greeks (the Gentiles), and the church of God. Today the Lord is ministering His life to those in the church; He is also ministering from within the church to others. This is the significance of the boat.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Mark, Chapter 11, Section 1] W. Lee refers back to Mark 3:9 where the crowd was thronging (pressing) Jesus. He allegorizes this situation, saying, “If we see the significance of the figure of the boat, we shall realize that if we are out of the church and try to minister to people, we may suffer the pressing of the crowd Today many ministries are being rendered to a crowd without a boat. However, the proper ministry is a ministry in the boat, a ministry that imparts the life supply not to those who press the Lord, but to those who sincerely desire to touch Him.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Mark, Chapter 11, Section 1] Note that the incident in Mark 3:9 is different from (and precedes) Matt. 13:1-3 (which corresponds to Mark 4:1-2).
103. W. Lee, Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 35, Section 2
104. W. Lee, Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 35, Section 2.
105. W. Lee, Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 35, Section 2.
106. W. Lee, Life-Study of Matthew, Chapter 44, Section 2
107. W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 15, Study on Matthew, Chapter 15, Section 2
108. For e.g. referring to the disciples in the boat on stormy sea (Matt. 8:23-27), “Augustine…reads the scene as a reminder that all of us are ‘foreign travelers’. Every voyage exposes one to storms: So it’s essential we should stay in ‘the boat’, which is the church.” Damien Casey, In search of the preferential option for “the other” in Origen and Augustine, p. 351, emphasis added]
109. G. C. Bauer, Bernini's "Pasce oves meas" and the Entrance Wall of St. Peter's, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 2000 Describing this piece of Bernini's art at the Vatican, Bauer says, the “ship is a mysterious symbol of the Church, often buffeted by the enemies of our faith, but never capsized. But here the Church is specifically Ecclesia Romana [the Church of Rome], for the ship is the fishing boat of St. Peter.” [G. C. Bauer, Bernini's " Pasce oves meas" and the Entrance Wall of St. Peter's, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 2000] With reference to another painting, which includes Peter’s boat, entitled Miraculous Draught of Fishes, depicting Jesus calling Peter & Co. to follow Him as disciples, the artist, Conrad Witz identifies the true Church with the image of the boat of Peter that can never be submerged.” [M. T. Smith, Conrad Witz's Miraculous Draught of Fishes and the Council of Basel, The Art Bulletin, 1970, emphasis added] These are just two examples showing the influence of allegorizing Peter’s boat as the Church upon European works of religious art for many centuries. Clearly W. Lee tapped into an allegorical interpretation which had a long history within the Catholic Church.
110. Saint Maximus, Sermon, #89 quoted by Paul Bottalla,in The Pope and the Church..., p. 46. Another Catholic author says, “Saint Maximus of Turin (d. c. AD 4o8) wisely observed, ‘Of how great merit before his God was Peter, that, after rowing his little boat, there should be consigned to him the helms of the whole Church’." [Steven K. Ray Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, 1999, p. 25, emphasis added]
111. Elsewhere W. Lee emphasizes interpreting every detail. For e.g. he says Genesis 1 & 2 “are full of striking significances. Every detail of these two chapters has some significance…In Genesis 1:2 we read about the Spirit. What is the significance of the Spirit here?...What is the significance of the waste, void, darkness, and deep water?” [W. Lee, History of God in His Union With Man, Chap. 3, Section 3, emphasis added] Yet, in the synoptic gospels, W. Lee doesn’t allegorize the incident when Jesus entered Peter’s boat (Luke 5:9). Without being contentious, we ask, if the boat in Matt 13 and Mark 3:9 equals the church. Doesn’t Peter’s boat in Luke 5:9 also represent the church? Why then didn’t W. Lee allegorize on that point in Luke 5? Augustine identified the boat in John 21 as the church. J. Lauand comments, “Many (sic) information the Bible contains, which may seem secondary and irrelevant from a modern Christian point of view, are very essential to a medieval reader… In the case of the 153 fishes Augustine, for example…The fishes are allegorically the elect; the boat of Peter the Church; and so on…” [J. Lauand, The Role of Riddles in Medieval Education, emphasis added]
112. S. J. Kistemaker, “Jesus as story teller: literary perspectives on the parables,” The Master's Seminary Journal, 2005
113. S. J. Kistemaker, “Jesus as story teller: literary perspectives on the parables,” The Master's Seminary Journal, 2005
114. Damien Casey, In search of the preferential option for “the other” in Origen and Augustine, pp. 354-5
115. See for e.g. C. F. Evans, Parable and Dogma, The Ethel M. Wood Lecture at the University of London, 24 Feb. 1976, or Z. L. Erdey, Interpreting Parables: One Point or Many?Conspectus, 2010.
116. See W. Lee, Life-study of Luke, Message #25 and RcV. footnotes
117. W. Lee writes, “A local church with its elders is in partnership with the Lord, and the Lord entrusts the newly saved ones to them just as the good Samaritan entrusted the one he had rescued to the innkeeper (Luke 10:33-35).” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon, Chapter 28, Section 3]
118. W. Lee, Life-study of Luke, Message #25, section 2 [reprinted in W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Messages. 63-78), Chapter 5, Section 1]
119. W. Lee, Four Crucial Elements of the Bible—Christ, the Spirit, Life, and the Church, Chapter 3, Section 3
120. W. Lee also allegorizes the Good Samaritan parable into a contemporary situation, saying, “This story implies some deep matters. It shows us that we were fallen people ‘beaten half dead’ and ‘stripped of our clothing.’ Neither the religionists nor the moralists can save us. However, the Lord is the good Samaritan. He was God who became a despised man to pass through human life for us and journey through human life as we do. When He came, He not only saved us but also healed and soothed us with oil and wine. Furthermore, He carried us on His own beast, not in an impressive car or on a big horse but on a little donkey. He brought us to the inn, the church…in a lowly manner. The Lord did not use a big hotel but a small inn as a type of the church. He entrusted us to the care of the small inn. He also promised that He will return and repay for us all the necessary expenses.” [W. Lee, Four Crucial Elements of the Bible—Christ, the Spirit, Life, and the Church, Chapter 3, Section 3]
121. Klyne R. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, (2008) p. 4 [Klyne R. Snodgrass is Professor of New Testament studies at North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago, IL.] It is worth reading this quote in context; it says, “Allegorizing is the interpretational practice of turning into allegory what was not intended to be allegory. That is people have read into the parables elements of the church’s theology that has little to do with Jesus’ intent. A frequently cited and most revealing example of allegorizing is Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan.” [Klyne R. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, (2008) p. 4, emphasis indicates the quote in the main text] Craig L. Blomberg states that “St. Augustine provides the classic example of ancient allegorizing with his interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan.” [Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 1990 p. 31] The statement which begins this paragraph, that Augustine & W. Lee “treat the parable as an allegory where every detail of the story has its counter-part,” is based on Vernon D. Doerksen, who says, “An allegory is a story where every point is important. The classical illustration is Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress …Thus in an allegory every detail of the story has its counter-part; whereas, in a parable there is usually but one central truth.” [Vernon D. Doerksen, THE INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES, Grace Theological Journal 11.2 (1970) p. 5, emphasis--relevant portion]
122. Damien Casey, In search of the preferential option for “the other” in Origen and Augustine, pp. 354-5. The quote in context reads: “Perhaps the parable of the Good Samaritan is less ambiguous in that the point of the parable… is precisely that one should make no distinction in defining the neighbor in terms of blood, polity, or religion. Furthermore, the parable is presented as an answer to the question: who is my neighbor? After telling the parable Jesus commands us to go and do likewise. What could be less ambiguous?” Along the same lines, S. J. Kistemaker writes, “Take the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) in which the intended message is to love the neighbor as oneself. It is a call to show mercy to people who lie wounded alongside the Jericho road of human suffering. The concept neighbor is not limited to friends and acquaintances, but includes people who are deprived of essential needs, including food and clothing. Jesus’ message to the teacher of the law, “Go and do likewise,” is echoed by James who wrote in his epistle, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says” (James 1:22).” [S. J. Kistemaker, “Jesus as story teller: literary perspectives on the parables,” The Master's Seminary Journal, 2005]
123. W. Lee, Life-study of Luke, Message #25, section 2 [much of this is reprinted in W. Lee, Conclusion of the New Testament, (Messages. 063-078), Chapter 5, Section 1]
124. Vernon D. Doerksen, THE INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES, Grace Theological Journal vol. 11, No. 2 (1970) p. 6
125. “The two denarii signify various possibilities, including the two Testaments.” [Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. 17o.]
126. “The denarii, which signify the gifts and grace. These things He gives until He returns…This is the way to read the stories in the Bible.” [W. Nee, How to Study the Bible, Chapter 2, Section 10] Space does not permit us to examine in detail W. Nee’s expositions of the Good Samaritan Parable. Some of the points made in the main text apply also to W. Nee’s exposition. For example, W. Nee says: “The lawyer was the one who had fallen into the hands of the robbers. The One who showed mercy to him was his neighbor. The neighbor does not refer to any man; it refers to the Savior. The Lord showed the lawyer that the neighbor is the Lord Himself. He said, “Go, and you do likewise.” This means that the lawyer should do his best to love that Samaritan. Many people have turned the parable around. They think that the Lord wants them to be the Samaritan. They do not realize that they cannot go to the cross to forgive sins, and they cannot be lifted up to bring down the Holy Spirit. Only He has the wine and the oil. Only He has the beast, the inn, and the denarii. We are not the Samaritan. It would be totally wrong to ask the man who fell into the hands of the robbers to be the Samaritan. The neighbor whom the Lord referred to was the Samaritan. This means that the Lord came to be our Neighbor; He came to save us, to provide us with the beast, the wine, which signifies the forgiveness, the oil, which signifies the life, the inn, which signifies the church, and the denarii, which signify the gifts and grace. These things He gives until He returns. When the Lord tells us to love the Samaritan, He is telling usto love Him.We have to learn to touch the fine points in this passage. This is the way to read the stories in the Bible.” [W. Nee, How to Study the Bible, Chapter 2, Section 10] W. Nee concludes that Jesus’ charge to the lawyer, “’Go, and you do likewise.’…means that the lawyer should do his best to love that Samaritan,” i.e. to love his neighbor (the Samaritan).But Jesus didn’t charge the lawyer merely to“love his neighbor,” Jesus charged him to “Go, and do likewise”—including imitating the Good Samaritan’s actions. Again, if the Samaritan depicts the savior, then “We are not the Samaritan,” (W. Nee) and we cannot be the Samaritan! Then, Jesus’ charge—“Go and do likewise”--makes no sense.Again W. Nee says, “Who is our neighbor? He is the good Samaritan. What is it to love our neighbor as ourselves? It does not say that we have to love others as ourselves. It means that we have to love the Savior as ourselves. It does not mean that we must first love others before we can inherit eternal life. Rather, it means that if we love the Savior, the Samaritan, we will surely have eternal life.” [W. Nee, Gospel of God, (2 volume set), Chapter 13, Section 7, emphasis added] Here, W. Nee has transposed the parable into the context of justification (salvation) by faith or by love (works). But that context belongs to the post-resurrection age of grace, especially the Reformation era issue of justification by faith vs. works. But Jesus spoke this parable to a 1^st century Jewish audience, as part of His (Jesus’) earthly ministry. The parable was not addressing the issue of justification by faith vs. works.
127. “In the Old Testament, the money paid for redemption was silver. The two denarii here signifythe price of redemption. The two denarii were handed to the innkeeper.” [W. Nee, Gospel of God, (2 volume set), Chapter 13, Section 7]“The two denarii mentioned in Luke 10:35. These two denarii have been paid by the Lord Jesus for us. These two denarii are sufficient for us to live in the inn (temporal life in the world) until the 2^nd coming of our Savior.” [W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 17: Notes on Scriptural Messages (1), Chap. 8, Sec. 1]
128. W. Lee writes, Luke 10 “Verse 35 says, “And on the next morning, taking out two denarii, he gave them to the innkeeper and said to him, Take care of him; and whatever you spend in addition, when I return, I will repay you.” Here we see that the Samaritan paid the inn for the man. This means that He blessed the church for him. Furthermore, His promise to pay the innkeeper whatever he spent in addition points to whatever the church spends for him in this age being repaid at the Savior’s coming back.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Luke, Chapter 25, Section 2, emphasis added]
129. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 30, Section 3. The quote, in context, reads: “The ark was of three stories, the lower, the second, and the third ([Gen.] 6:16). The first, second, and third stories signify the height of the ark. The three sections of the tabernacle signify the depths into which we all must enter. The three stories of the ark signify the height which we all must attain. In one sense we are getting deeper, and in another sense we are getting higher. Undoubtedly, the three stories of the ark signify the Triune God.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 30, Section 3, emphasis shows quote in main text.]
130. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 30, Section 3. W. Lee allegorizes saying, “In the Trinity of the Godhead, we always say, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Which Person of the Trinity is the first story? It is easy to say who is the second, for we all know that the Son is in the middle. But is God the Father or God the Spirit the first story?...When we come to the Father, we are in the third story…The first story of the ark is of the Spirit.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 30, Section 3, emphasis added] So, in W. Lee’s allegorizing, the 1^st, 2^nd & 3^rd levels of Noah’s ark signify the Spirit, the Son and God the Father (respectively). We ask: Did the writer of Genesis (Moses) intend this interpretation? Did the OT Jewish audiences understand this? Do New Testament believers today get this significance? Where in the Genesis text is this significance implied (except in the number 3)? Isn’t this “grasping at straws”?
131. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 30, Section 4. The quote in context read, “There was only one window in the ark. Today people argue a great deal about different ministries. I do not care for the number of ministries. There is only one window and only one light. The Apostle Paul said that we must reject the doctrines different from what he preached and taught (Gal. 1:6-9; Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 1:3). In God's economy and in God's church there should be only one window. The light should not come from the north, south, east, or west, but from the sky. In the building of God, there is only one window, one revelation, and one vision. The light comes from above.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 30, Section 4, emphasis indicates quote in main text.]
132. Ed. Marks, The Ministry, Vol. 7, No. 6 (Aug. 2003) p. 17. Ed Marks says “In the building of God there is only ‘one window’—one revelation and one vision through one ministry (cf. Gen. 6:16…)” [Ed. Marks, The Ministry, Vol. 7, No. 6 (Aug. 2003) p. 17] Notice this is the heading for a sub-section of a message entitled, “The Ministry of the Age, the Vision of the Age, the Flow of the Age, and the commission of the Age.” The “one window” is not tangential to the main topic of Ed Marks’ message; it illustrates his main point.
133. Ed. Marks, The Ministry, Vol. 7, No. 6 (Aug. 2003) p. 18. The quote, in context, reads: ““There was only one window, one skylight. This one skylight signifies the one revelation of God’s eternal economy. This revelation is the one vision of the age, which is the vision of God’s eternal economy. It is the vision of God becoming man through incarnation and of man becoming God—in life and nature but not in the Godhead…” [Ed. Marks, The Ministry, Vol. 7, No. 6 (Aug. 2003) p. 18]
134. Does every Scriptural occurrence of the number 3 imply the Trinity? When the “shameless neighbor” asks for three loaves (Luke 11:5), do the “three loaves” signify the Trinity? [“Friend, lend me three loaves, since a friend of mine has come…from a journey and I have nothing…” (Luke 11:5-6)] Can we allegorize this to mean that, spiritually speaking, he was asking “lend me the Trinity”?!
135. LSM’s Ron Kangas explains, “In any age…the Lord has a move…He desires to carry out. Therefore He has a ministry of that age with a minister of that age. To that minister with that ministry the Lord releases from the Word the vision of that age, the vision of the age.” [RK, The Ministry, Vol. 9, No. 8, Sept. 2005, p. 11, emphasis added.] Note the emphasis on the individual minster: “…a minister (sing.) of that age. To that minister (sing.)…” LSM’s “blended brothers” say, “We thank the Lord for the ministry of the age which has reached the final stage to be the all-inheriting ministry of the age with the vision of the age.” [DT, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 8, Sept. 2005, p. 34] LSM’s senior editor, Ron Kangas, says, “At the very end of the last century the revelation and the vision in the Lord’s recovery reached a virtually unprecedented peak…the consummate, ultimate, all-encompassing, all-inheriting vision…the consummate vision in the Lord’s recovery, the all-inheriting vision of the age.” [RK, The Ministry, Vol. 9, No. 8, Sept. 2005, p. 10] He also connects the “vision of the age” with the footnotes to LSM’s Recovery version (RcV), saying, “Within this ultimate consummation everything is included. The footnotes in the Recovery Version of the Holy Bible are all-inclusive. The truth, the life, the light, the revelation, and the vision in these notes are inherited. These notes are not the work of one or two individuals. Every positive element of vision in the Scriptures is included in the up-to-date all-inheriting vision of the age. Thus there is no reason to go back.” [RK, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 8, Sept. 2005, p. 17]
136. LSM’s “blended brothers” are on record saying, “In this age, we were privileged to be perfected by a wise master builder…. Brother Lee could not say it then, but we can say it today; He was the wise master builder; he was the [this emphasis original] minister of the age, he had the design, and he could oversee the work. There is no successor to this wise master builder, but there is an open group of being-blended brothers who are absolutely consecrated to the Lord to continue the work begun by this wise master builder. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” [Ron Kangas, The Ministry, vol. 10, No. 1, (Jan./Feb. 2006) p. 150] “Today we are under the ministry of the age, cooperating with the minister of the age. We are co-workers of Witness Lee, carrying out the unique work of the one ministry, building up the corporate Christ.” [DT, Spoken April, 2005, The Ministry, Vol. 9, No. 6, June 2005, p. 142] LSM’s President, Benson Phillips compares W. Nee & W. Lee to Elijah & Elisha, saying, “In the case of Elijah and Elisha, one followed the other….It was the same with Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Throughout church history, we do not know of a case where one followed the other so definitely, both having the vision of the age. The Lord raised up our Brother Nee in approximately the first half of the twentieth century. The vision of the age was with him. He was the minister of the age. God stood with him, and Witness Lee followed him, just like Elisha followed Elijah. But then…God set Watchman Nee aside when he was put into prison. Who did God bring in? Who continued this? It was Witness Lee.“ [BP, The Ministry, vol.7, no. 6, August, 2003, p. 35, emphasis added] He also says, “As many of us were under Brother Lee’s ministry for years, even decades, no one can dispute the fact that he was the minister of the age, that he had the vision of the age….” [BP, The Ministry, vol.7, no. 6, August, 2003, p. 36, emphasis added]
137. W. Lee, Conclusion of the New Testament, (Msgs. 34-49), Chapter 15, Section 4
138. W. Lee, Life-Study of John, Chapter 37, Section 3
139. W. Lee, Life-Study of John, Chapter 37, Section 3
140. W. Lee, Conclusion of the New Testament, (Msgs. 276-294), Chapter 12, Section 1. The quote, in context, reads: “In John 16:20-21… This woman is the whole group of the disciples, the child is Christ, and the birth is resurrection (Acts 13:33)…When Christ was born of Mary, He was born as a man, and His humanity had nothing to do with His being the only begotten Son of God…The human part of Jesus was not the Son of God. Therefore, it was necessary for this human part of Him to be born into the divine sonship through resurrection. Hence, Christ’s resurrection was a new birth for Him. In this birth the disciples were the travailing woman. After the Lord’s resurrection this ‘woman’ had a newborn child—the resurrected Christ as the firstborn Son of God—and she rejoiced (John 20:20)…The disciples as the mother must have been very happy at the birth of this wonderful child.”
141. W. Lee, Truth Lessons, Level 3, Vol. 3, Chapter 8, Section 4
142. W. Lee, Crystallization-Study of the Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Section 4
143. W. Lee, Life-Study of John, Chapter 37, Section 3
144. W. Lee, Life-Study of John, Chapter 37, Section 3
145. Eugene D. Stockton, The Woman: a Biblical Theme, Australian Journal of Biblical Archeology, 1973, pp. 108-9
146. Eugene D. Stockton, The Woman: a Biblical Theme, Australian Journal of Biblical Archeology, 1973, pp. 108-9
147. W. Lee, The Issue of Christ Being Glorified by the Father with the Divine Glory, Chapter 5, Section 5
148. W. Lee, Crystallization-Study of the Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Section 4
149. W. Lee, Conclusion of the New Testament, (Msgs. 276-294), Chapter 12, Section 1
150. W. Lee, The Issue of the Dispensing of the Processed Trinity and the Transmitting of the Transcending Christ, Chapter 3, Section 2
151. W. Lee, God's New Testament Economy, Chapter 5, Section 2
152. W. Lee, God's New Testament Economy, Chapter 5, Section 2
153. W. Lee, The Experience of Christ, Chapter 7, Section 5. The statement in context, reads: “Christ's humanity was like a shell, and He as the embodiment of God was concealed and confined within this shell. Outwardly He had no glory, but inwardly He was filled with the glory of God. How could the glory within shine out? The only way was by death. Christ's death was the breaking of the outer shell of His humanity. Through His death, His human shell was broken, and the divine glory was released. In other words, His death broke His humanity and released His divinity.” [W. Lee, The Experience of Christ, Chapter 7, Section 5, emphasis show quote in main text]
154. W. Lee, Life-Study of John, Chapter 37, Section 3, emphasis added
155. Casey Miller & Kate Swift,Women and the Language of Religion, article adapted from the "The Language of Religion," which appeared in the Christian Century, April 14, 1976, pp. 353-358.
156. W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of NT Words, Vol. 3, p. 47
157. W. Lee, Life-Study of Revelation, Chapter 62, Section 3
158. W. Lee, Life-Study of Revelation, Chapter 62, Section 3
159. W. Lee, Life-Study of Revelation, Chapter 62, Section 3
160. W. Lee, Life-Study of Revelation, Chapter 62, Section 3
161. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 173, Section 4
162. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 173, Section 4
163. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 174, Section 4
164. RK, The Ministry magazine, vol. 8, No. 3 (March 2004) p. 17
165. Ron Kangas, 02/02/2007 9:00 am, Milagro, Ecuador (patio of Sister Illena's house/school) (Notes by David W. Vinson of Irving, TX)
166. This phrase is used in a description of the Plymouth Brethren, a group with strong affinities to the “Lord’s Recovery.” Roger N. Shuff writes, “Another traditional feature of Brethren exposition was the extensive use of typology, analogy, and allegory in the interpretation of the Old Testament in particular…Typology provided ‘a happy hunting ground for adherents of narrow doctrines’ which could not be supported from the New Testament.” [Roger N. Shuff, Searching for the true Church: Brethren and Evangelicals in Mid-20^th Century England, (2005) p. 72, emphasis added] I submit that LSM’s exposition of “Leprosy in the House” (Lev. 14) fits this pattern.
167. W. Lee, Life-Study of Leviticus, Chapter 44, Section 3. The quote, in context, reads: “If…it is a malignant leprosy in the house; it is unclean. He [the priest] shall break down the house, its stones, its timber, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall carry them outside the city into an unclean place” (vv. 43-45). This signifies that after the dealing, if additional serious sins break out, the whole church should be torn down. This is most pitiful. If the situation of a church reaches the point where it cannot be cured, healed, then it will be necessary for that church to be terminated.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Leviticus, Chapter 44, Section 3, emphasis added]
168. W. Lee, The Problems Causing the Turmoil in the Church Life, Chapter 3, Section 4. The quote, in context, reads, ““We cannot receive division-makers who have been quarantined by the Body. Furthermore, we have to realize who has the function and qualification as the priest to discern leprosy among the Lord’s children. Again this is a matter of practicing the Body life. If a local church receives someone who has offended the Body to the uttermost, that local church is obviously not going along with and not one with the Body. We have to take care of the Body.”[W. Lee, The Problems Causing the Turmoil in the Church Life, Chapter 3, Section 4] We note W. Lee’s references to “the Body.” Does he mean the universal Body of Christ, with Billions of believers; or does he mean “the Recovery”?
169. W. Lee, The Practice of the Church Life according to the God-ordained Way, Chapter 1, Section 6
170. W. Lee says, “The owner’s coming and telling this to the priest signifies that the leading brothers or those who are concerned for the church approach the Lord or the apostle, the Lord’s deputy, and tell the Lord or His deputy. This is what we need to do when the church is sick.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Leviticus, Chapter 44, Section 1, emphasis added] Evidently W. Lee viewed himself as qualified to “discern leprosy” in individuals and in local churches. [See W. Lee, The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion] W. Lee’s “apostolic successors,” LSM’s “blended brothers,” assume the same position.
171. Ron Kangas in The Ministry, (July 2006) pp. 212-213.
172. Ron Kangas in The Ministry, (July 2006) pp. 212-213. Ron Kangas, LSM’s “senior editor,” is on record saying: “That signifies a local church becoming incurable in its disease and that church being terminated. Churches can become sectarian, and churches can be terminated. The leading brothers should have a proper fear of the Lord. They should not think that they are the supreme authority on the earth. The co-workers respect them and honor them as elders, but they are elders in a church as a part of the Body, and the Body has a Head. The Head possesses all authority (Matt. 28:18), and organically He deputizes certain members of His Body to represent Him. An elder’s local authority pales in comparison to the authority of the head expressed through His representatives in the Body.The elders should be careful in how they conduct themselves.” [Ron Kangas in The Ministry, (July 2006) pp. 212-213, emphasis added] In this context, Ron Kangas invented as new term, the “organically deputized representatives in Christ’s Body.” Evidently he viewed himself as one. Again, when Ron Kangas talks about “the Body,” does he mean the universal Body of Christ, with Billions of believers; or does he mean “the Recovery”? Ron Kangas also refers to “those having the feeling of the Body.” The number of believers in “the Lord’s Recovery” represent about 0.01% of all Christians on earth today. In view of this it is audacious of Ron Kangas (or anyone else) to claim to be “organically deputized representatives in Christ’s Body” and to “have the feeling of the Body.”
173. Ramm cites Jean Danielou’s observation that for Origen “the Bible was one vast allegory, a tremendous sacrament in which every detail is symbolic.” [B. Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 32.]
174. More exact figures for Witness Lee’s Life-Study & Conclusion of the NT Messages are given below:
Books in the Bible No. of Messages No. of Pages
Old Testament 39 865 7,787
New Testament * 27 1,361 13,432
Total 66 2,226 21,219
*Including Conclusion Messages Source: www.witnesslee.org. This table does not include W. Lee’s numerous other books.
175. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 30, Section 3
176. LSM’s senior editor, Ed. Marks says, “In the building of God there is only ‘one window’—one revelation and one vision through one ministry (cf. Gen. 6:16…)” [Ed. Marks, The Ministry, Vol. 7, No. 6 (Aug. 2003) p. 17] “There was only one window, one skylight. This one skylight signifies the one revelation of God’s eternal economy. This revelation is the one vision of the age, which is the vision of God’s eternal economy. It is the vision of God becoming man through incarnation and of man becoming God—in life and nature but not in the Godhead…” [Ed. Marks, The Ministry, Vol. 7, No. 6 (Aug. 2003) p. 18]
177. W. Lee says, “Who is this woman? The woman is the whole group of disciples. Who is the child, the son? The child is Christ. What is the birth? It is resurrection. At the time the Lord spoke this to the disciples, He [Jesus] was one with them, like a child conceived within its mother, waiting to be delivered in birth that He might be a newborn child. In this sense, His disciples were the delivering woman in travail. In those three days, the disciples did suffer the travail of the birth of Christ in resurrection to be born as the Son of God. After the Lord’s resurrection, this “woman” had a newborn child and she rejoiced (20:20).” [W. Lee, Life-Study of John, Chapter 37, Section 3, emphasis added] He also says, “In John 16:20-21…This woman is the whole group of the disciples, the child is Christ, and the birth is resurrection…After His resurrection He was the “child” with the divine life and the human nature with both divinity glorified and humanity “sonized.” The disciples as the mother must have been very happy at the birth of this wonderful child.” [W. Lee, Conclusion of the New Testament, (Msgs. 276-294), Chapter 12, Section 1, emphasis added] W. Lee doesn’t explicitly use the term “Christ-child’s mother” to describe the disciples, but his description (above) justifies such a phrase.
178. The quote in context reads: “Many Christians say that we should not allegorize the Bible. However, if we do not know how to allegorize the Bible, it will be a closed book to us, for the Bible is full of allegories.” [W. Lee, The Kernel of the Bible, Chapter 6, Section 1]
179. W. Lee, The Kernel of the Bible, Chapter 6, Section 1
180. Moises Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? p. 74. The quote in context reads, “We may define the [allegorical] method as requiring the presence of an elite group of interpreters—spiritual, mature believers who alone are given the key to the deeper meaning of Scripture. This feature of allegory is in some respects the most disagreeable one….It is easy to prove that one can find no evidence of such a method in the New Testament.” [Moises Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? P. 74]
181. As an e.g. of the term “intrinsic significance,” take the following: “We need revelation from the Lord to see the intrinsic significance of His word. To see the miracle of feeding five thousand with five loaves and two fish is easy, but to know the deeper lessons…requires revelation. These lessons are intrinsic, deeper, and of life.” [W. Lee, The God-man Living, Chapter 14, Section 4, emphasis added]
182. Within the “Lord’s recovery,” the phrase “the interpreted word” is a short-form for W. Lee’s Life-studies and the footnotes to LSM’s Recovery version of the New Testament. One example of the “blended brothers” use of the phrase “the interpreted word” is: “we must recommend the use of the Life-studies and the Recovery version. We need to spend time to dig into the interpreted word of God…” [Minoru Chen, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3, (March 2005) p. 55, emphasis added] In this context the role of the Life-studies and footnotes is emphasized; “We all need to be helped through the Life-studies and Recovery version with the footnotes to see the intrinsic significance of the word of the Bible.” [Minoru Chen, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3, (March 2005) p. 53] Consider also the following statements by LSM-President, Benson Phillips: “Today we have the Bible in our hands, but not many believers understand the Bible. It is closed to them. However, in the Lord’s recovery, we have the Bible that has been properly translated. The Recovery version is probably the best translation available. We also have the ministry of the age. Through the ministry of the age, the Lord has continued to further unveil His word. The ministers of the age have interpreted and given the sense that is in the Word. Today we not only have the Bible; we also have the ministry that interprets the Word of God and gives the sense of the Word.” [Benson Phillips, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3 (March 2005) p. 117, emphasis added] Benson Phillips continues by making some striking exclusive claims: “In Nehemiah’s time they had the Word, and they had the interpretation. They were given the sense of the Word, entering into its intrinsic significance. Today we have the same. This takes place only in the Lord’s recovery. Everything in the publications circulated among Christians today is old. However, in our publications everything is new. The Word is opened; every page opens up the Word along with its intrinsic significance. Only here can it be said that there is such a deep and real opening of the Word.” [Benson Phillips, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3 (March 2005) pp. 117-8, emphasis added]
183. Klyne R. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, (2008) p. 5 [Klyne R. Snodgrass is Professor of New Testament studies at North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago, IL.]
184. Our last sentences directly contradict LSM’s stated position (quoted at the start of this paragraph) [LSM “Our Perspective,” LSM’s Affirmation & Critique accessed at http://www.affcrit.com/perspect.html]

REFERENCES:
· R. Dean Anderson, PAUL’S USE OF “ALLEGORY” IN GALATIANS 4:21—5:1, A METHOD OF INTERPRETATION? (2008)
· G. C. Bauer, Bernini's "Pasce oves meas" and the Entrance Wall of St. Peter's, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, (2000)
· Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, InterVarsity Press, (1990)
· F. F. Bruce, “The History of New Testament Study,” in I. Howard Marshall, ed., New Testament Interpretation, 1977.
· F. F. Bruce, “What Do We Mean By Biblical Inspiration?” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol. 78 (1946):
· F. F. Bruce, The Christian Approach to the Old Testament, 1955, 2^nd edn. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1959
· F. Buchsel on “Allegoreo—to allegorize” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed.) pp. 42-43
· Damien Casey, In search of the preferential option for “the other” in Origen and Augustine, in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, Vol. 5. Poverty and Riches, St. Paul’s Publications, Sydney, AU. (2009)
· D. J. A. Clines, “Biblical Hermeneutics in Theory and Practice,” Christian Brethren Review31, 32 (1982)
· Vernon D. Doerksen, THE INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES, Grace Theological Journal 11.2 (1970)
· James D. G. Dunn, “DEMYTHOLOGIZING - THE PROBLEM OF MYTH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT,”chapter 15 inI. Howard Marshall, The Problem of New Testament Exegesis, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, (1974/7)
· Z. L. Erdey, Interpreting Parables: One Point or Many?Conspectus, (2010)
· C. F. Evans, Parable and Dogma, University of London Lecture, 24 February 1976
· Graeme Goldsworthy, Is the Old Testament for Christians? www.Christianlibrary.org.au
· Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI. (1999)
· Christopher A. Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, IVP Academic (1998)
· Peter Harrison, HERMENEUTICS AND NATURAL KNOWLEDGE IN THE REFORMERS, chapter 11 in Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: Up to 1700, Volume 1, edited by Jitse M. van der Meer, Scott Mandelbrote, (2009)
· Peter Harrison,The Bible and the Emergence of Modern Science,Science & Christian Belief, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2006
· Alan J. Hauser & Duane F. Watson (eds.) A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Medieval Through the Reformation Periods, vol. 2, Eerdmans Publishing (2004)
· Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. 1 Hendrickson Publishers (Reprint 1999)
· S. J. Kistemaker, “Jesus as story teller: literary perspectives on the parables,” The Master's Seminary Journal, (2005)
· G. W. H. Lampe, Hermeneutics and Typology,London Quarterly & Holborn Review (Jan. 1965)
· J. Lauand, The Role of Riddles in Medieval Education www.hottopos.com
· I. Howard Marshall, The Problem of New Testament Exegesis, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, (1974/7)
· Peter Martens, “Origen the Allegorist and the Typology/ Allegory Distinction”, University of Notre Dame, (2009)
· Alister McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution--A History from the 16^th to the 21^st Century
§ Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, Eerdman’s Grand Rapids, MI, (1963)
· Casey Miller & Kate Swift,Women and the Language of Religion, article adapted from the "The Language of Religion," which appeared in the Christian Century, April 14, 1976,
· Larry D. Pettegrew, The Perspicuity of Scripture, The Master's Seminary (2004)
· David Puckett, John Calvin's Exegesis of the Old Testament,Westminster John Knox Press (1995)
· Alan Carroll Purves, The Idea of Difficulty in Literature, SUNY Press (1991)
· Ilaria Ramelli, Origen and the Stoic Allegorical Tradition: Continuity and Innovation, Invigilata Lucernis, 2006
· Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Baker Academic; 3^rd edition (1999)
· Steven K. Ray Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, 1999
· G. L. Scheper, Reformation Attitudes toward Allegory and the Song of Songs, Pub. of the Modern Language Ass’n. (1974)
· Roger N. Shuff, Searching for the True Church: Brethren and Evangelicals in Mid-20^th Century England, Paternoster Press, UK (2005)
· Moises Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible?The History of Interpretation in the Light of Current Issues, Zondervan.
· M. T. Smith, Conrad Witz's Miraculous Draught of Fishes and the Council of Basel, The Art Bulletin, 1970
· Klyne R. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. (2008)
· Eugene D. Stockton, The Woman: a Biblical Theme, Australian Journal of Biblical Archeology, 1973
· Kevin J. Vanhoozer, editor, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI (2005.)
· W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of NT Words, Vol. 3, Nelson, (Reprint, 1996)
· Timothy Wengert, chapter 11 in A History of Biblical Interpretation, Alan J. Hauser & Duane F. Watson (eds.), vol. 2
· Warren W. Wiersbe, "Song of Solomon," Bible Exposition Commentary/Wisdom and Poetry,Cook Communications (2004)
· S. Wood, Captive to the Word: Martin Luther: Doctor of Sacred Scripture, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1969,
· Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation Cook Communications, Colorado Springs, CO. (1991),
· Roy B. Zuck & Donald Campbell, Basic Bible Interpretation, David C. Cook pub. (2002)

[Cal]

We should only attempt to find allegorical meaning in things that are plainly meant to be allegorical, such as parables, symbolic language and visions, like those in Ezekiel and Revelation. When Jesus said, "Don't put new wine in old wineskins" he wasn't just talking about the care of alcoholic beverages. He was clearly painting a picture that needed to be interpreted. But to allegorize the story of the good Samaritan--whose meaning is plainly the face value of the story, that is to be compassionate and caring--is just to go around the bend.

[ZNPaaneah]

Also, an allegorical interpretation is not on the same level as the plain word. So to take the "golden calf" to be an allegory of music in your worship, you would need NT verses to corroborate that music (I assume they were referring to musical instruments) in your worship is forbidden. If the NT does not forbid such a thing you have no business building a teaching on your allegorical interpretation. On the other hand, the conclusion of the parable of the Samaritan is "now you go and do likewise" which was an answer to the original question "who is my neighbor". So the clear word in the NT says to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and the Lord referred directly to the OT "love thy neighbor as thyself" but he needed to use this story to help flesh out these verses.

[OBW]

I'm impressed. This "little" work takes on a core theological construct of Witness Lee. They are beginning openly do more than question where the LSM and the BBs have taken Lee since his death. Now even Lee is subject to question.

I wsh I could get my dad to actually read this thing. It will probably be too much to take in at one time. But it is a profound word to be coming from within what is still theoretically the LRC (even if no longer assiciated with the LSM).

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm impressed. This "little" work takes on a core theological construct of Witness Lee. They are beginning openly do more than question where the LSM and the BBs have taken Lee since his death. Now even Lee is subject to question.

I wsh I could get my dad to actually read this thing. It will probably be too much to take in at one time. But it is a profound word to be coming from within what is still theoretically the LRC (even if no longer assiciated with the LSM).

Wish Ohio were around to comment on this. I thought Nigel Tomes had several articles openly questioning some of Lee's teachings? (ex.: the curse of Canaan/Ham, etc.).

[Ohio]

Nigel Tomes' recent article is quite an eye-opener. Having only read the first two pages, I can already see how manipulating allegorical hermeneutics can be. It reigned supreme throughout the dark ages, and the hallmark of the reformation was its rejection. These facts alone casts huge shadows upon LSM's liberal approach to scripture.

I began in the Recovery many years ago with the tenet of "coming back to the pure word of God." Being raised Catholic, and attending 12 years of parochial education, 97.6349% of what I had learned was man-made tradition. Leaving centuries of stale tradition sounded real good to me and that new life within me. Eventually, however, the ministry of WL changed for the worse, leaving the "pure word" and introducing speculative allegorical interpretations at every turn. Yes, WL changed.

Now, I'm not against every allegory, and I doubt Nigel Tomes is either. The Apostle Paul allegorically connected Hagar to Mount Sanai and probably suffered immensely for this at the hands of the Jewish zealots. What I am against is the use of allegories in order to manipulate and lord it over the flock of God. For LSM to hold meetings in Toronto concerning "replastering the house of lepers," qualifies to me as manipulation of the worst sort.

And I have 20 more pages to read ...

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

He was clearly painting a picture that needed to be interpreted. But to allegorize the story of the good Samaritan--whose meaning is plainly the face value of the story, that is to be compassionate and caring--is just to go around the bend.

Then why all the details, the salve, the clothing, the inn and inn keeper, etc.?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Then why all the details, the salve, the clothing, the inn and inn keeper, etc.?

He was making vivid the extent to which the Samaritan went out of his way to show love for his neighbor.

[Paul Cox]

Some of us might remember being taught about the "Seven-fold Intensified Spirit," from Revelation. The impression we were given was that in these last days of degradation, the Lord has intensified his "move on the earth" through the Local Churches. It always bothered me: as if the Lord didn't get his planning right, and had to rev it up toward the end.

The other night I was reading T. Austin-Sparks' Golden Candlestick, Volume 158, The Throne of God and of the Lamb. In there he beautifully explains the significance of the sevens in Revelation. It's the number of covenant. Everything the Lord does with and through His people is based upon a precious covenant He has made with us.

How precious is that? you don't normally make covenants with those who are not your equal. You just over power them. But the God of the universe has made a covenant with us. From beginning to end, all his doings with man is based upon that covenant.

You see the difference? Lee's teaching on the subject is church-centric; movement centered. Sparks' is Christ centered. The point of Lee's teaching was to keep us in his movement, in fear and trembling lest we miss God's "intensified" move in these last days. God has put the metal to the pedal in the Living Stream Churches, and you dare not miss it. It could mean 1000 years in a dark closet.

P.C.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Some of us might remember being taught about the "Seven-fold Intensified Spirit," from Revelation. The impression we were given was that in these last days of degradation, the Lord has intensified his "move on the earth" through the Local Churches. It always bothered me: as if the Lord didn't get his planning right, and had to rev it up toward the end.

The other night I was reading T. Austin-Sparks' Golden Candlestick, Volume 158, The Throne of God and of the Lamb. In there he beautifully explains the significance of the sevens in Revelation. It's the number of covenant. Everything the Lord does with and through His people is based upon a precious covenant He has made with us.

How precious is that? you don't normally make covenants with those who are not your equal. You just over power them. But the God of the universe has made a covenant with us. From beginning to end, all his doings with man is based upon that covenant.

You see the difference? Lee's teaching on the subject is church-centric; movement centered. Sparks' is Christ centered. The point of Lee's teaching was to keep us in his movement, in fear and trembling lest we miss God's "intensified" move in these last days. God has put the metal to the pedal in the Living Stream Churches, and you dare not miss it. It could mean 1000 years in a dark closet.

P.C.

I like your point that, Lee was "movement" centered -- his -- while Spark's was Christ centered -- His.

And what hubris and gall is it to ascribe the seven spirits of God as Lee's Recovery Movement ... like the Recovery was the Reformation but intensified by the seven spirits of God ... to tackle intensified corruption in Christianity ... of which Lee obviously thought the Reformation was part of, some kind of intensified corruption added to that of the RCC ... poor, poor, poor, Christianity.

In the end : seven lamps, are the seven spirits. And we have seven heads and ten horns in that book ... and all those crazy horses ... and stars falling to earth (like that's gonna happen more than once -- the author of Revelation, whoever that was, sure didn't understand what stars were ... but then how could he?).

In the end :
Who has the necessary omniscience to fathom the book of Revelation? Such omniscience would require deity. Do we really think we are God enough to understand the book of Revelation?

I guess Lee thought he was God enough ... but Lee was delusional like that.

Harold Camping thought he was God-omniscient enough to understand it, and preach it. But when he failed, and Jesus didn't return, the wiring in his brain melted down, and he's now in a nursing home, from a stroke, trying to maybe be rehabilitated. Will he come out less insane? or more? still thinking the Bible gives specific details and dates and such? Let's face it. The Bible is a good book (in places). But it sure can make some people crazy and batty.

Methinks there's a good chance that, Lee was Bible batty ...

Originally Posted by Igzy

We should only attempt to find allegorical meaning in things that are plainly meant to be allegorical, such as parables, symbolic language and visions, like those in Ezekiel and Revelation. When Jesus said, "Don't put new wine in old wineskins" he wasn't just talking about the care of alcoholic beverages. He was clearly painting a picture that needed to be interpreted. But to allegorize the story of the good Samaritan--whose meaning is plainly the face value of the story, that is to be compassionate and caring--is just to go around the bend.

Igzy, According to your 1st sentence, Paul was wrong in Galatians 4 to allegorize Sarah, Hagar, Mount Sinai and Jerusalem. You also are condemning much of the book of Hebrews, chs 4, 7, 9-10, at least.

Nigel makes many good points. I especially like his pt#6, "Redundant". But these scholars who say that the meaning of all scripture is limited to what the author and his audience at that time understood are totally extra-Biblical and very wrong based on the New Testament explanation of the Old.

-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceInWilderness.info

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Igzy, According to your 1st sentence, Paul was wrong in Galatians 4 to allegorize Sarah, Hagar, Mount Sinai and Jerusalem. You also are condemning much of the book of Hebrews, chs 4, 7, 9-10, at least.

Actually, it was to Abraham that the promise (a covenant) was made. As Abraham and Sarah are "one flesh" it is reasonable to assert that the covenant is also to her. So it is not as much allegory to speak of the son of Sarah and the son of Hagar in this manner. Almost more literal than we might initially think.

And one statement in one context does not override all exceptions. It is clear that Jesus and some of the other NT writers used the OT allegorically in places. It was not stated that there are no allegories. Just that it is not open season to allegorize everything. And thatt is all tha Igzy said.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

As Abraham and Sarah are "one flesh" it is reasonable to assert that the covenant is also to her. So it is not as much allegory to speak of the son of Sarah and the son of Hagar in this manner. Almost more literal than we might initially think.

Actually, "Jewishness" is passed down from the mother. So in a literal sense, the covenant is passed from Sarah, and not Hagar or Abraham ...

But maybe if Abraham had kept his missile in his tunic, and not have gone into Hagar, the WTC would still be standing ... literally speakin ....

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Actually, "Jewishness" is passed down from the mother. So in a literal sense, the covenant is passed from Sarah, and not Hagar or Abraham ...

Jewishness is not passed on from mother. That is a rabbinical fabrication not in
the Bible.
-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceInWilderness.info

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, it was to Abraham that the promise (a covenant) was made. As Abraham and Sarah are "one flesh" it is reasonable to assert that the covenant is also to her. So it is not as much allegory to speak of the son of Sarah and the son of Hagar in this manner. Almost more literal than we might initially think.

You see, now you are getting the hang of allegorizing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Igzy, According to your 1st sentence, Paul was wrong in Galatians 4 to allegorize Sarah, Hagar, Mount Sinai and Jerusalem. You also are condemning much of the book of Hebrews, chs 4, 7, 9-10, at least.

Nigel makes many good points. I especially like his pt#6, "Redundant". But these scholars who say that the meaning of all scripture is limited to what the author and his audience at that time understood are totally extra-Biblical and very wrong based on the New Testament explanation of the Old.

-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceInWilderness.info

Steve,

We have had some discussions concerning the limits of proper Biblical allegorizing. Obviously LSM's extreme views on "total" allegorizing enabled them to justify attacks on former members and entire LC's, claiming their "leprous house needed to be torn down for replastering." These extreme exclusive views could thus condone all manners of unrighteousness, violating scores of plain Bible instruction. The other extreme of "zero" allegorizing was first taken by Protestant reformers in the aftermath of the dark ages. Rome could use the Bible to say anything they wanted. The fact that the reformers went to the other extreme was according to the leading of the Spirit.

Tomes has provided a few good guidelines concerning healthy allegorizing, citing several examples, but still many questions are unanswered. Many in the LC's have a history of just looking to the footnotes to see "what the verse 'really' means." Thus they miss the obvious message of the author, like the example of the Good Samaritan, and overly rely on WL's interpretations, thus completely missing the Lord's plain instruction to love your neighbor. The quarantine of TC and others highlights these dangers all too well.

[ZNPaaneah]

Allegorizing produced contradictory results. Consider the Samaritan woman’s five husbands (John 4:18). They were interpreted as the five natural senses (hearing, sight, etc.), the Samaritans’ five false gods (2 Kings 17:30f) and Moses’ five books accepted by Samaritans!¹³ More damaging, allegorizing widened the chasm separating clergy and laity. Only “mature” clergy could unlock the allegorical mysteries behind Scripture’s text. The laity deferred to the “spiritual” clergy. This gave the Roman Catholic Church a monopoly on Biblical truth, translation, and interpretation. “For a thousand years the [Catholic] Church had buttressed its theological edifice by means of an authoritative exegesis which depended on allegory as its chief medium of interpretation."¹⁴ Moreover, elevating Scripture’s allegorical meaning depreciated its literal sense, and the value of Scripture’s written text. Translating Scripture into layman’s language would promote grievous error among the uninitiated. Allegory’s proof-text, says, “the letter (Scripture’s literal sense) kills,” only “the Spirit (the spiritual-allegorical sense) gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6). Hence for over a millennium the Roman Catholic Church maintained control of Scripture and biblical interpretation. The Reformation unleashed forces which would change all this. “It is significant,” writes Mickelsen,¹⁵ “that reformation began when men questioned the allegorical…approach to Scripture.”

I find this interesting. You begin with the idea that every word is meaningful, so someone asks what the number 5 means? Does it mean more than 1, or is there a hidden meaning in there. But at that point they leave scripture. Is there a Biblical basis to say it refers to the five senses? But this then leads to the idea that the Bible is full of hidden meanings, instead of deeper meanings. It is as though the Bible is written in some mysterious code that only certain ones can unlock. So this discourages the laity from doing their own reading because they don't know the code, and it creates a special class of saints in the church that have the code and everyone else needs to get the new up to date speaking from.

Now we know from Jesus parables that Jesus did speak figuratively and the OT is full of figurative speech. But there is always a very neat fit between the type and the fulfillment. The figurative speech should only confirm and illuminate the clear teachings, they should not be used as a basis for a teaching. And of course, any teaching that discourages saints from reading the Bible is a reprobate teaching.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So this discourages the laity from doing their own reading because they don't know the code, and it creates a special class of saints in the church that have the code and everyone else needs to get the new up to date speaking from.

Conclusion : some claim special omniscience.

And those are the scary ones....

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I find this interesting. You begin with the idea that every word is meaningful, so someone asks what the number 5 means? Does it mean more than 1, or is there a hidden meaning in there. But at that point they leave scripture. Is there a Biblical basis to say it refers to the five senses? But this then leads to the idea that the Bible is full of hidden meanings, instead of deeper meanings. It is as though the Bible is written in some mysterious code that only certain ones can unlock. So this discourages the laity from doing their own reading because they don't know the code, and it creates a special class of saints in the church that have the code and everyone else needs to get the new up to date speaking from.

Now we know from Jesus parables that Jesus did speak figuratively and the OT is full of figurative speech. But there is always a very neat fit between the type and the fulfillment. The figurative speech should only confirm and illuminate the clear teachings, they should not be used as a basis for a teaching. And of course, any teaching that discourages saints from reading the Bible is a reprobate teaching.

I believe this is already starting to go one step further. Not only are people discouraged from reading the Bible itself (not explicitly, no, but let's be honest here), they may actually be discouraged even from reading "the ministry" itself. That is to say, Witness Lee's and Watchman Nee's own writings.

Better to just stick with what the church is actively reading in the HWMR, and "the current speaking". It's safer that way...

Nigel,

am enjoying your posts. You are messing me up now because I was thinking that if you get too many people in the boat it sinks into the sea. Another thought I was having was that it is no use talking to Balaam as he won't listen to a dumb ass like me. Love you
Ned Beck

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Nigel,

am enjoying your posts. You are messing me up now because I was thinking that if you get too many people in the boat it sinks into the sea. Another thought I was having was that it is no use talking to Balaam as he won't listen to a dumb ass like me. Love you
Ned Beck

Now there's an old friend from the past!

Greetings NB, stick around awhile.