Challenging Lee’s Good Samaritan interpretation

[JJ]

According to Witness Lee in Luke 10:24-37 Jesus is
“Portraying Himself as the Good Samaritan
with the Highest Morality” (words in quotes are the Recovery version’s header, see https://online.recoveryversion.bible...ers.cfm?cid=54)

Here is Berean’s Literal translation of Luke 10 for reference https://biblehub.com/blb/luke/10.htm

If Lee’s interpretation is right, why:

1) did Jesus answer the question about “what should I do to inherit eternal life?” with “what does the law say.” (Lee says he wrongly assumed he had to do something)
2) didn’t Jesus correct him when he quoted from the law?
3) when he quoted from the law did Jesus say “you have answered correctly, having done this you will live”
4) did Jesus answer the question “who is my neighbor” with a story about “a certain Samaritan” that had compassion on the robbed, beaten, naked, and half dead traveller and went out of his way to help him? Jesus wasn’t Samaritan.
5) did Jesus end his discussion with “now you go and do the same”.

I realized today how much I was robbed by believing Lee’s interpretation, and how much others have been as well!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

According to Witness Lee in Luke 10:24-37 Jesus is “Portraying Himself as the Good Samaritan with the Highest Morality” (words in quotes are the Recovery version’s header, see https://online.recoveryversion.bible...ers.cfm?cid=54)

This goes back to how Lee purposely confused "good works" and "dead works." I am convinced this was no accident.

Heb 9.13-15 makes it abundantly clear that the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament are "dead works" made useless by the blood of Christ. Any and all religious activity expended to appease God for our sins was henceforth a total waste of time.

Good works, however, can be broadly classified as any act of love or service towards our neighbors. Jesus then in His parable makes it clear who are neighbors are.

Through his errant and self-serving teachings, W. Lee directed all our energies inwards to his many programs. Loving or serving those outside of the Recovery (in the world or poor, poor Christianity) had now become "dead" works. Loving him, his ministry, his teachings, his meetings, his programs, his books, and his followers were all, by definition, "good" works.

In this regard WL took his queue from the exclusive Brethren. They were great at "finding Christ" all throughout the Bible, in every story, parable, type, figure, and shadow, but also at finding fault with every other Christian and church.

[JJ]

Once again Ohio makes a good connection back to the exclusive brethren! Very insightful! Results have been similar too.

[JJ]

I’m reading Matthew 25:31-40 https://biblehub.com/blb/matthew/25.htm and Luke 14:12-14 https://biblehub.com/blb/luke/14.htm in a Mariners “Rooted” book and it’s as if I never really read or applied them to my life before. Again I’m thinking Lee never preached properly on these either.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

why did Jesus answer the question “who is my neighbor” with a story about “a certain Samaritan” that had compassion on the robbed, beaten, naked, and half dead traveller and went out of his way to help him? Jesus wasn’t Samaritan.

Why did Jesus end his discussion with “now you go and do the same”?

These questions hint at how much was missing. As you say, we were robbed. But as we restore others , God in turn restores us. We were beaten & left for dead (spiritually speaking). As we help others heal & recover, God does the same to us. Praise the Lord.

[byHismercy]

Yes, I see zero relationship between Lees' headline/summation and the actual passage of scripture. You are right to challenge it, JJ.

Ohio, reading your post just turned on a lightbulb in my head. It is so very simple. Works are useless to impude righteousness to us and have nothing to do with our salvation or our 'qualifying as worthy' to be saved. But God is love and He wishes us to pour out the abundant life He gives us as love into our neighbors. To 'be' their neighbor. Whoever is in need of a neighbor. And what better testimony of Christ could there be? I want to pray about this. I want Him to get His way. Praise the Lord.

[Trapped]

Wow, JJ, yes, I just read the verses and then read some of Lee's "interpretation" in the Life-Study. It is a shockingly bad reading of the passage.

Lee says "In the parable that follows, the Lord answered the lawyer by showing him that he [the lawyer] did not need a neighbor to love. Instead, he needed a neighbor to love him. Because he is not able to love, he needs someone to love him. As we shall see, this neighbor is the good Samaritan."

That is the dead opposite of what Jesus is saying!! Jesus is SAYING the lawyer needs to love his neighbor! But Lee says that the lawyer didn't need a neighbor to love because he isn't able, and so the Lord was trying to show the lawyer that the lawyer needed someone to love him instead. I literally don't even understand......did Lee stand on his head when reading these verses?

Lee says, "The “certain man” in verse 30, in the Savior’s intention, signified the self-justified lawyer as a sinner fallen from the foundation of peace (Jerusalem) to the condition of curse (Jericho)......The words “going down” indicate falling from the city of the foundation of peace to the city of curse. Therefore, the certain man in this parable was falling from the foundation of peace to a place of curse."

As Drake used to say, Nnn...nnnoo....nooo. The wounded man is NOT the laywer, and the origin and destination do NOT have that significance in the story. Another, in my opinion, much, much better non-Lee analysis of that I have come across says:

"Jericho was one of the priestly cities, so that there would be frequent travellers on ecclesiastical errands. The priest was ‘going down’ {that is from Jerusalem}, so he could not plead a ‘pressing public engagement’ at the Temple. The verbal repetition of the description of the conduct of both him and the Levite serves to suggest its commonness. They two did exactly the same thing, and so would twenty or two hundred ordinary passers by. They saw the man lying in a pool of blood, and they made a wide circuit, and, even in the face of such a sight, went on their way. Probably they said to themselves, ‘Robbers again; the sooner we get past this dangerous bit, the better.’ We see that they were heartless, but they did not see it. We do the same thing ourselves, and do not see that we do; for who of us has not known of many miseries which we could have done something to stanch, and have left untouched because our hearts were unaffected? The world would be a changed place if every Christian attended to the sorrows that are plain before him."

This makes much more sense. An even further level-headed commentary says this (it recognizes that Jesus Himself binds up our wounds, but that He is the example for us to follow, NOT that we are not to love our neighbor as Lee seems to be saying!): "It is not spiritualising this narrative when we say that Jesus is Himself the great pattern of the swift compassion and effectual helpfulness which it sets forth. Many unwise attempts have been made to tack on spiritual meanings to the story. These are as irreverent as destructive of its beauty and significance. But to say that Christ is the perfect example of that love to every man which the narrative portrays, has nothing in common with these fancies. It is only when we have found in Him the pity and the healing which we need, that we shall go forth into the world with love as wide as His."

Lee keeps going: "The man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho fell among robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. These robbers signify the legalistic teachers of the Judaic law (John 10:1), who used the law (1 Cor. 15:56) to rob the lawkeepers like the self-justified lawyer. The word “stripped” signifies the stripping by the law misused by the Judaizers. The Greek word translated “beat” literally means “laid blows upon.” This beating signifies the killing by the law (Rom. 7:9-10). Furthermore, the robbers leaving the man half dead signifies the Judaizers’ leaving the lawkeeper in a dead condition (Rom. 7:11, 13).All the Pharisees, legalistic teachers of Judaism, are here likened to robbers. The lawyer is likened to the one going down from Jerusalem to Jericho who fell among these robbers and was stripped and beaten by them. The legalistic teachers of the Jewish religion stripped people and beat them and then left them half dead. This was the situation of the lawyer, although he did not realize that he was in such a condition."

HOLY READING BETWEEN THE LINES BETWEEN THE LINES BETWEEN THE LINES, BATMAN!! I think a more level-headed explanation is literally that THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT ROAD DURING THAT TIME!! People were literally beaten and stripped because it was a dangerous stretch of road, and there was no additional significance to it! The beaten up guy is just a beaten up guy who needs help!

To finish, I like what another non-Lee commentary also said:
"The story is not, properly speaking, a parable, or imaginary narrative of something in the physical world intended to be translated into something in the spiritual region, but it is an illustration {by an imaginary narrative} of the actual virtue in question. Every detail is beautifully adapted to bring out the lesson that the obligation of neighbourly affection has nothing to do with nearness either of race or religion, but is as wide as humanity."

As an aside, when I was young and tried to read the Bible (recovery version with footnotes, as I was a church kid), I literally always found it impossible to follow because I would read the footnotes to help me understand, but each footnote always lead me down all these unrelated paths I didn't understand. Now as an adult using my mind, I see that the problem wasn't me.........

Trapped

[JJ]

Well said Trapped and others before him.

[Ohio]

Lee's exposition of the Good Samaritan puts on full display the pattern developed by Exclusive authors. They are never content with the plain words of scripture, or even those of Jesus Himself. They must find hidden meanings, truths that no one else can see, but them. It fits all too well into their Recovery narrative -- they alone called by God to recover long lost truths -- elevating them to special status.

Remember it was Rome (Catholics) that preceded both London (Exclusives) and Anaheim. Once each headquarters convinced their people that their interpretations superseded the scripture, the downward spiral started and became unending.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee's exposition of the Good Samaritan puts on full display the pattern developed by Exclusive authors. They are never content with the plain words of scripture, or even those of Jesus Himself. They must find hidden meanings, truths that no one else can see, but them. It fits all too well into their Recovery narrative -- they alone called by God to recover long lost truths -- elevating them to special status.

Remember it was Rome (Catholics) that preceded both London (Exclusives) and Anaheim. Once each headquarters convinced their people that their interpretations superseded the scripture, the downward spiral started and became unending.

Ohio, who are ''London(Exclusives)''? Are they the Brethren group that you relate the LC to?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Ohio, who are ''London(Exclusives)''? Are they the Brethren group that you relate the LC to?

Yes, they are the spiritual forebears of the Recovery movement. Both insiders and outsiders have agreed to this.

John Darby and his followers who initially excommunicated Benjamin Newton, George Mueller, Henry Craik, and so many other men of God who stood up to their power grab, much the same as those in the subsequent century who stood up to W. Lee's power grab.

Both the Darby Exclusive Brethren in early nineteenth century Great Britain, and Nee and Lee in the early twentieth century China began by attracting seeking believers to leave organized denominations and return to the pure teachings of the New Testament church in the book of Acts. Both were very fruitful initially, taking advantage of the contemporary political climate of their times. They offered freedom of spirit and liberty of conscience to seek the Lord and His plans for them. Eventually their power ambitions became apparent to all. As these gifted leaders slowly took over complete control of their movements, their contemporaries resisted the domination, clinging to the ideals of liberty initially espoused by the movement, necessitating expulsions and quarantines which have so identified exclusive movements.