Nee's 'Ministry to the House or to the Lord'

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think we can all agree that Eze 44 and the story of Mary and Martha are both very much related to the service of the Lord.

And this is why there is controversy over the teachings of Nee and Lee, and of looking at things in ways that spring from that even for those of us who have rejected their ministries.

It is the need to first assert that we have disagreement with the things that are pushed out front as “all agreed” that is such a problem. It makes one into a “naysayer” or “opposer.” But if we would start with just the passages rather than an assertion about them we might arrive at something that we actually do agree about.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In Eze 44 God makes it very clear that there are levites that serve Him at a distance, and then there are levites that come into His inner sanctuary and serve Him directly. It is also very clear that these are not two equal options in the service, but rather a lower calling and a higher calling.

This is an interesting overlay on the verses.

First, the comments about what the priests do is stated in a manner as if they simply chose one or the other. Some chose to come near and some chose to stay at a distance. This is far from what the account actually portrays.

I will agree that these are not two equal options in service. But the most important part of that statement is not that they are not equal, but that they are not options. These priests had no current ability to choose. I have not taken the time to dig into the history behind this passage, but either they or their ancestors at some prior time took actions when there was no thought of an “option” that could be the outcome of those actions. Some chose righteously and some did not. The way the previous choosing “shook out,” one clan chose righteousness while the others, in general, chose the unrighteousness of idols.

But in the time frame of Ezekiel’s record, there was no choice. Some got one assignment and some another. That basically scuttles any discussion of “choice” in terms of service.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What helped me the most with understanding the story of Martha and Mary is John 12:3-8 where Jesus says that Mary anointed him beforehand for the burial. Combine that with Luke 10 and He says something amazing "wherever the gospel is preached what she has done will be spoken of for a memorial for her"

But the account in John does not deal with the issue of choosing preparations or sitting at Jesus’ feet. If you read Luke 10:38-42, you will find nothing about anointing or service on the part of Mary.

It describes Martha as “distracted by the preparations that had to be made.” So we would equate the service of the priests to the people as a distraction? As something that is not the “one needed thing”? It is obvious that their service was very much needed. It was ordained by God and was an important task of the priests.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did we see Mary sweat? I didn't.

Truly irrelevant.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Suppose the Lord had not found a single person to actually hear what He was saying and respond as Mary did? It would be as though "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son and no one cared". Her response was proof of our ability to receive the gospel.

So sure, Martha did a lot of service, but without Mary would the gospel really be "good news" or an indictment on how far we had fallen? Isn't it the same thing with the house of Zadok?

This qualifies as taking something out of its context and making something entirely different out of it. Mary’s “service” was not required to establish the gospel as “good news.” Mary did not have to do what she did for God loving the world to be responded to by anyone.

And the main thing in all of this is that these two stories are not similar. They are not about the same thing. Neither is built on top of the other. And, the best I can see, neither is the lens through which the other should be read.

And even more important, none of them establish a "first" and "second" order of "service." That means that the meat of Nee's little booklet is scripturally meaningless. At least as far as these particular passages are able to support. He might have been onto something. But if that is true, then there is another passage or two that will actually support it. Find that one and we can talk about it. Otherwise, Steve's "pearl" is, as Igzy would say, developed from "whole cloth." (I really need to dig into the origins of this phrase. I know what it is intended to mean, but how it got that meaning is not so clear.)