Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

Evangelical · 07-02-2017, 07:21 PM

I believe many Christians and even many popular pastors, and I realized this while I was still in denominations, take a narrow approach to scripture. They interpret snippets of passages without realizing the context of verses or paragraphs before. Some of this can be attributed to the flawed chapter and verse numbering system which no modern bible versioners to my knowledge have bothered to correct. It can also be attributed to a mistaken belief that every verse in the bible is standalone, and then individual verses take on a life of their own, and diverge from the author's and God's intended meaning. "Words or verses for today" and such have not helped in this respect, only contributing to this mistaken , but popular view. In part, it is due to the modern idea of convenience - fast food, fast internet, fast scripture. Just give me a "word for today" and I have fed my soul with God's Word. I know people who are great at remembering facts and details of scripture, but are completely lost on the spiritual meaning and broader perspective.

Most Christians are bad at interpreting the bible because there is a view that on becoming a Christian, the Spirit will teach everything and every person is qualified to interpret the bible correctly because they have the Spirit. But even Christ had to study and learn the scriptures, which as a young boy he did. It is something Christians do not receive training in unless they have undertaken biblical studies of some kind themselves. It is something that many churches do not offer. I suspect that biblically trained members in a church would threaten the denominational systems that rely upon specially trained and qualified pastors or priests. If everyone could interpret the bible well, there would be less need for a theologically trained pastor or priest.

To appeal to popularity, the sermons of many pastors/priests in denominations are merely copied from the internet anyway, with a few funny pictures inserted for humor and "life lessons", rather than solid training in biblical exegesis. People may feel they are receiving some benefit, but they do not improve their ability to understand the bible for themselves.

A classic example which has popped up on this forum, is the idea that gathering of two or three people is a church based upon an isolated reading of Matthew 18:20. Examination of the surrounding passages, particularly verses 16 and 17, reveal that the statement by Christ is about telling ones grievances to the church, and telling two or three people is the next step after telling the person you have issue with. This is according to the principle of two or three witnesses. Context reveals it is not about defining a church as two or three people, at all.

The context is set by verse 16 and 17:

16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

It is saying to tell the person you have issue with, if they don't listen, then take along two or three, and then if the two or three don't convince them, make it public in the church. It is not saying that any gathering of two or three Christians are a church. Why would verse 16 say take along two or three, and then verse 17 say tell it to the church of two or three? Doesn't make sense. So the church must be something larger than just two or three.

Another example is the prosperity gospel which is built upon a few verses that when read in isolation seem to appear that God wants us to be financially rich. Many churches believe in this idea and the congregation accepts it because all they have to do is literally read the verse that says God wants us to prosper, and then take that to its logical conclusion that God wants us to be rich.

But Lee does not take individual verses and try to explain them in isolation. Instead, Lee employs the principle of first mention. The dominant meaning comes from the first mention of the theme and carries through the rest of the bible. This is why sometimes we compare Lee's footnote with the verse and find it does not match so well if read in isolation. The reason is that he has connected it with the first mention.

Lee often talks of "lines" in the bible. A line of this and a line of that. They are dominant themes that weave from Genesis through to Revelation. Reading the bible in this way has provided great insight and simplification of the bible as a whole, leading to greater understanding. It based upon the idea that the bible is not merely a collection of daily verses, but a complete message, a story which God wants to reveal to humanity. We can think of the bible as a tree with branches rather than as a collection of standalone verses.

To my knowledge the principle of first mention is a sound approach for biblical interpretation. Catholics would disagree of course, stating that the principle of reading scripture is by way of "sacred tradition". But in Protestant circles, the principle of first mention is solid.

Therefore Christians who take what shall I say, a naive approach, to reading the bible - reading each verse in isolation, and trying to squeeze as much meaning out of it as possible, even by taking it to its literal extreme, may find it confusing when the stated meaning of the passage by Lee, differs from the isolated, strict and literal interpretation they expect.

07-02-2017, 07:21 PM	#19
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	I believe many Christians and even many popular pastors, and I realized this while I was still in denominations, take a narrow approach to scripture. They interpret snippets of passages without realizing the context of verses or paragraphs before. Some of this can be attributed to the flawed chapter and verse numbering system which no modern bible versioners to my knowledge have bothered to correct. It can also be attributed to a mistaken belief that every verse in the bible is standalone, and then individual verses take on a life of their own, and diverge from the author's and God's intended meaning. "Words or verses for today" and such have not helped in this respect, only contributing to this mistaken , but popular view. In part, it is due to the modern idea of convenience - fast food, fast internet, fast scripture. Just give me a "word for today" and I have fed my soul with God's Word. I know people who are great at remembering facts and details of scripture, but are completely lost on the spiritual meaning and broader perspective. Most Christians are bad at interpreting the bible because there is a view that on becoming a Christian, the Spirit will teach everything and every person is qualified to interpret the bible correctly because they have the Spirit. But even Christ had to study and learn the scriptures, which as a young boy he did. It is something Christians do not receive training in unless they have undertaken biblical studies of some kind themselves. It is something that many churches do not offer. I suspect that biblically trained members in a church would threaten the denominational systems that rely upon specially trained and qualified pastors or priests. If everyone could interpret the bible well, there would be less need for a theologically trained pastor or priest. To appeal to popularity, the sermons of many pastors/priests in denominations are merely copied from the internet anyway, with a few funny pictures inserted for humor and "life lessons", rather than solid training in biblical exegesis. People may feel they are receiving some benefit, but they do not improve their ability to understand the bible for themselves. A classic example which has popped up on this forum, is the idea that gathering of two or three people is a church based upon an isolated reading of Matthew 18:20. Examination of the surrounding passages, particularly verses 16 and 17, reveal that the statement by Christ is about telling ones grievances to the church, and telling two or three people is the next step after telling the person you have issue with. This is according to the principle of two or three witnesses. Context reveals it is not about defining a church as two or three people, at all. The context is set by verse 16 and 17: 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. It is saying to tell the person you have issue with, if they don't listen, then take along two or three, and then if the two or three don't convince them, make it public in the church. It is not saying that any gathering of two or three Christians are a church. Why would verse 16 say take along two or three, and then verse 17 say tell it to the church of two or three? Doesn't make sense. So the church must be something larger than just two or three. Another example is the prosperity gospel which is built upon a few verses that when read in isolation seem to appear that God wants us to be financially rich. Many churches believe in this idea and the congregation accepts it because all they have to do is literally read the verse that says God wants us to prosper, and then take that to its logical conclusion that God wants us to be rich. But Lee does not take individual verses and try to explain them in isolation. Instead, Lee employs the principle of first mention. The dominant meaning comes from the first mention of the theme and carries through the rest of the bible. This is why sometimes we compare Lee's footnote with the verse and find it does not match so well if read in isolation. The reason is that he has connected it with the first mention. Lee often talks of "lines" in the bible. A line of this and a line of that. They are dominant themes that weave from Genesis through to Revelation. Reading the bible in this way has provided great insight and simplification of the bible as a whole, leading to greater understanding. It based upon the idea that the bible is not merely a collection of daily verses, but a complete message, a story which God wants to reveal to humanity. We can think of the bible as a tree with branches rather than as a collection of standalone verses. To my knowledge the principle of first mention is a sound approach for biblical interpretation. Catholics would disagree of course, stating that the principle of reading scripture is by way of "sacred tradition". But in Protestant circles, the principle of first mention is solid. Therefore Christians who take what shall I say, a naive approach, to reading the bible - reading each verse in isolation, and trying to squeeze as much meaning out of it as possible, even by taking it to its literal extreme, may find it confusing when the stated meaning of the passage by Lee, differs from the isolated, strict and literal interpretation they expect.