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 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.?

[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 ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Think how insidiously deceptive this is. You create this whole alternative reality universe that you are working in and it gives the the impression that you are more spiritual and scriptural than other Christian groups.

Teachings should be built on a solid foundation, and according to the Lord, and the apostle Paul the solid foundation for the church is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Clearly that revelation should begin with the gospels and the epistles. The allegories should be interior decorating.

Teaching that you can base your truths on allegories is really irresponsible and just one more example of how the LSM has left WN's teaching in the book "The Ministry of the Word".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Think how insidiously deceptive this is. You create this whole alternative reality universe that you are working in and it gives the the impression that you are more spiritual and scriptural than other Christian groups.

Allegorical interpretation should be considered the "fuel" to propel the tour bus of exclusivism and elitism. What was so often advertized as "fresh and new light from the ministry," was little more than speculative allegory to maintain an aura of greatness out in Anaheim.

I had to chuckle at Nigel Tomes ironical expression in this quote from page 4, "Since W. Lee excelled in allegorical exposition perhaps he should be designated the "Allegorizer of the Age." This tinge of sarcasm is perhaps the first I have noticed in his writings, and no doubt it will be noticed by "others."

This paper by Tomes goes to the root of LSM's publishing empire. By exposing their addiction to allegorical interpretations of scripture, the very motivation of exclusivism is removed. As a long time adherent of LSM, I know first hand how their teachings were designed to continually fuel the illusion, "we see things other Christians don't see."

[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.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As a long time adherent of LSM, I know first hand how their teachings were designed to continually fuel the illusion, "we see things other Christians don't see."

Special omniscience. That's what it should be called.

It's like a hot line to God that no one else has.

It's a ridiculous claim ...

If you fall for it you are a fool.

I know. I fell for it.

[Guest2]

Thanks for the information.

I went through a bit of it and will all of it at some point.

I know LSMers take the allegory figuratively speaking to the extreme.

However the bible does speak figuratively such as many of the parables Jesus taught.

Or the parable of the sheep and goats.

Being a Christian I am familiar with the parables in the Bible. But went I went to the local churches home meeting I was surprised at how many MORE parables and figurative messages they were drawing from the verses.

Correct me if Im wrong but a prime example that I just witnessed yesterday is.

Jesus is a greater Jonah.

They attributed Jonahs time spent in the fish as Jesus spent in "hades". Therefore Jesus is the greater jonah. Fine could be true but that sounds like reading too much into the text.

To me thats like saying God is a greater Jericho wall because they both took 7 days.

I often find their allegories don't really do anything for me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Leomon

Correct me if Im wrong but a prime example that I just witnessed yesterday is.

Jesus is a greater Jonah.

They attributed Jonahs time spent in the fish as Jesus spent in "hades". Therefore Jesus is the greater jonah. Fine could be true but that sounds like reading too much into the text.

To me thats like saying God is a greater Jericho wall because they both took 7 days.

I often find their allegories don't really do anything for me.

The one concerning Jonah is legit, straight from the Lord's own words.

Jonah is mentioned 9x in Matt and Luke. Look up the verses.

[Guest2]

ah,

ic

Gospel of Matthew, chapter 12 verses 39-41

thanks,

Although one could say Jesus is the greater isreal, greater john the baptist, greater fillintheblank.

I see the connection.

Thanks,

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

That's one example. Another is rebuilding the wall in book of Nehemiah.

One excerpt from Nigel's writing that has helped me is the distinction between allegory and typology.

"Typology vs. Allegory: Thirdly, we distinguish types from allegories. The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation states, 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, “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, “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."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Leomon

ah,

ic

Gospel of Matthew, chapter 12 verses 39-41

thanks,

Although one could say Jesus is the greater isreal, greater john the baptist, greater fillintheblank.

I see the connection.

Thanks,

In this case it is the Lord Jesus who is allegorizing Jonah, and there are definite limits to that allegory. Even though the Lord said he was a "greater Jonah," that only refers to his time spent in the heart of the earth, and we should not allegorize that Jesus was crucified "running away from Jehovah" as Jonah had done.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

That's one example. Another is rebuilding the wall in book of Nehemiah.

One excerpt from Nigel's writing that has helped me is the distinction between allegory and typology.

Terry, great point, but can you clean up that quote? Just delete those which carried over in your post.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Terry, great point, but can you clean up that quote? Just delete those which carried over in your post.

Ok did do. Does it read better?

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In this case it is the Lord Jesus who is allegorizing Jonah, and there are definite limits to that allegory. Even though the Lord said he was a "greater Jonah," that only refers to his time spent in the heart of the earth, and we should not allegorize that Jesus was crucified "running away from Jehovah" as Jonah had done.

Hello again dear ones, beloved of God,

Dear brother Nigel’s Magnum Opus has brought me back from my “self-imposed retirement”. I have a lot to say about what has taken place during the time since I last posted here, but that is a topic for another thread, probably my personal blog.

This latest work by Nigel definitely cuts much deeper into the heart of Living Stream Ministry’s false claims to superiority than any of his previous works. After reading this article and all of the footnotes, all I can say is: “Well done, dear brother Nigel, well done indeed.”

I believe it is extremely important to read and fully understand the portion of Nigel’s article entitled “Some Caveats” (this portion can be found right after the portions which discuss the Reformers' rejection of allegorizing). Nigel is being very careful and precise in his analysis of the use of allegorizing by Witness Lee and the Blended Brothers. Nigel is not saying that portions of the Scripture which were written as allegories (such as Song of Songs) should not be interpreted allegorically. And he is not saying that the New Testament fulfillment of Old Testament types should not be taught. What Nigel objects to is the many cases of unwarranted, and at times very arbitrary, usage of allegory employed by Witness Lee and the Blending Brothers, a usage of allegory which led the many to be dependent upon the one “Allegorizer of the Age”, and which tragically led to fleshly, unscriptural, and abusive treatment of fellow Christians.

Having said that, dear brother Ohio, I think we need to see Jonah’s three days and three nights in the belly of the big fish as a type of Jesus Christ’s three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. To keep things clear, it would be best to say that Jesus was applying the type of Jonah’s three days and three nights in the belly of the big fish to His upcoming three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, rather than saying that Jesus was “allegorizing Jonah”. Jesus was taking a literal Old Testament event and pointing toward this event’s New Testament fulfillment. This is exactly what typology is all about. This was not a case of Jesus allegorizing. I hope you do not see this as “nit-picking”, dear brother in Christ. I do believe this is an important distinction to make.

I hope this helps make things clearer to you, dear brother Leomon. We want to be fair in our critique of Witness Lee, Living Stream Ministry, and the Local Churches. The speaking you heard about Jonah was actually a very valid example of applying typology. (By the way - if the term “type” or “typology” are confusing to you, use the words “symbol” or “symbolism” or "foreshadowing" instead. It may help you to think of Jonah’s three days and three nights in the belly of the big fish as a "symbol" or a "foreshadowing" of Jesus’ three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. That may help you. Of course, if you hang out around here long enough, you will get used to our language!)

Finding Old Testament types and applying them to their New Testament fulfillment is not that hard. Bible Teachers from all branches of Christianity include examples of typology in their teaching. When an Old Testament type fits, it fits perfectly. Invalid uses of typology can easily be spotted because at least one important aspect of the original literal object or event does not fit the New Testament fulfillment. As dear brother Ohio pointed out, we can say that Jonah’s time in the belly of the big fish is a type of Jesus’ time in the heart of the earth, but we cannot say that Jonah’s ministry is a type of Jesus’ ministry because at least two details of Jonah’s ministry were not fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry. First of all, Jesus did not run away when God sent Him; rather, Jesus was always obedient to the Father. Secondly, Jesus did not get angry when the people he preached to actually repented! I hope this helps, dear brother Leomon.

Much grace to you all.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Leomon

Thanks for the information.

I went through a bit of it and will all of it at some point.

I know LSMers take the allegory figuratively speaking to the extreme.

However the bible does speak figuratively such as many of the parables Jesus taught.

Or the parable of the sheep and goats.

Being a Christian I am familiar with the parables in the Bible. But went I went to the local churches home meeting I was surprised at how many MORE parables and figurative messages they were drawing from the verses.

Correct me if Im wrong but a prime example that I just witnessed yesterday is.

Jesus is a greater Jonah.

They attributed Jonahs time spent in the fish as Jesus spent in "hades". Therefore Jesus is the greater jonah. Fine could be true but that sounds like reading too much into the text.

To me thats like saying God is a greater Jericho wall because they both took 7 days.

I often find their allegories don't really do anything for me.

The real problem arises when the teaching originates from the allegory. If you have a real teaching, such as Peter discussing Jesus taking a tour of Hades, and you want to "decorate" that teaching with some figurative story in the OT like Jonah in the big fish, then you can't get into much danger, but the truth has to be based on solid ground.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Having said that, dear brother Ohio, I think we need to see Jonah’s three days and three nights in the belly of the big fish as a type of Jesus Christ’s three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. To keep things clear, it would be best to say that Jesus was applying the type of Jonah’s three days and three nights in the belly of the big fish to His upcoming three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, rather than saying that Jesus was “allegorizing Jonah”. Jesus was taking a literal Old Testament event and pointing toward this event’s New Testament fulfillment. This is exactly what typology is all about. This was not a case of Jesus allegorizing. I hope you do not see this as “nit-picking”, dear brother in Christ. I do believe this is an important distinction to make.

Great point, and great to see you again!

Terry posted a quote about this very subject, which is worthy of further examination. That is a very important distinction to make about Jonah.

What I find so helpful about Nigel's latest paper is that he has done the research to answer some of my many suspicions about LSM's methods of exposition. The recent episodes with lepers and replastering sounded alarms that something was seriously askew, but never did I realize that WL had reverted back to old practices from the dark ages. Allegorization run amok can best describe LSM's doctrinal basis for Whistler.

[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....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

After reading this article and all of the footnotes, all I can say is: “Well done, dear brother Nigel, well done indeed.”

Hello,

I have a question about typology which has always bothered me, perhaps you or anyone else might be willing to help me with this.

Let's take Isaac, a well known type of Christ. It is kind of easy to see him and think that "God created" this type. Especially when He told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

But then, look at Joseph, another type of Christ. His entire life becomes a type. So then you wonder, is God sitting there manipulating all of these different events in his life for a type, or is Joseph merely the shadow of Christ. In the same way that 4 dimensional creatures like us leave a 3 dimensional shadow, Perhaps our lives and everything on earth is a shadow of God, and the spiritual realm.

Do you have any thoughts on the mechanism behind how lives and historical events recorded in the OT are shadows?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Hello,

I have a question about typology which has always bothered me, perhaps you or anyone else might be willing to help me with this.

Let's take Isaac, a well known type of Christ. It is kind of easy to see him and think that "God created" this type. Especially when He told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

But then, look at Joseph, another type of Christ. His entire life becomes a type. So then you wonder, is God sitting there manipulating all of these different events in his life for a type, or is Joseph merely the shadow of Christ. In the same way that 4 dimensional creatures like us leave a 3 dimensional shadow, Perhaps our lives and everything on earth is a shadow of God, and the spiritual realm.

Do you have any thoughts on the mechanism behind how lives and historical events recorded in the OT are shadows?

Yes. Types are illusions seen backwards....mirages invented in our heads...to suit whatever we like....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes. Types are illusions seen backwards....mirages invented in our heads...to suit whatever we like....

But Jesus said that Solomon and Jonah were both types of Him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes. Types are illusions seen backwards....mirages invented in our heads...to suit whatever we like....

awareness, I understand your disallusionment with those who would manipulate scripture for personal gain, but we have another matter here related to the sovereignty and eternity of an omniscient God. Do you believe that God has inspired O.T. writers to portray types of the coming Messiah, with or without their knowing it? That is the real question here.

Perhaps a simpler question would be this -- do you believe the Bible is God's word or simply a collection of writings?

[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...

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Hello,

I have a question about typology which has always bothered me, perhaps you or anyone else might be willing to help me with this.

Let's take Isaac, a well known type of Christ. It is kind of easy to see him and think that "God created" this type. Especially when He told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

But then, look at Joseph, another type of Christ. His entire life becomes a type. So then you wonder, is God sitting there manipulating all of these different events in his life for a type, or is Joseph merely the shadow of Christ. In the same way that 4 dimensional creatures like us leave a 3 dimensional shadow, Perhaps our lives and everything on earth is a shadow of God, and the spiritual realm.

Do you have any thoughts on the mechanism behind how lives and historical events recorded in the OT are shadows?

And hello to you as well, my dear brother ZNPaaneah. It is good to “see” you again.

Wow! You have obviously given these matters considerable thought and you have asked some very deep and weighty questions. I will certainly do my best to express my understanding of these matters. I must confess that a recent burden of mine has been to return to the simplicity which is in Christ by focusing much more on living a Christ-like life rather than focusing so much on teachings and doctrines. I still consider doctrine important, but I am much more focused on godly living.

With that being said, I do have some thoughts to share. I hope others will share as well. First of all, I definitely do not believe that God manipulated the lives of people like Isaac and Joseph just so that He could produce “types” to give His written Word internal consistency. Nor do I believe that God manipulated the lives of such people just to produce “types” in order for Bible Expositors to have some really cool things to say in their messages! Rather than some merely external reason, I believe that key is found in the unchanging heart and mind of God.

God’s heart and mind have never changed in the sense that, on the deepest level, what He desired and planned for in the Old Testament is the same as what He desired and planned for in the New Testament. What did change, of course, is the means He had at His disposal. In Old Testament times, God had a physical people, united by physical kinship, bearing a physical mark on their bodies (i.e. circumcision). This physical people shared the same physical land, in the midst of which was a physical city with a physical temple where physical sacrifices were offered. This physical people enjoyed God’s physical blessings. In contrast to this, God now has people whose spirits have been reborn, who are united by spiritual kinship, and whose circumcision is spiritual. This spiritual people form a spiritual habitation of God in the many places in which they dwell, and offer up spiritual sacrifices to God. This spiritual people enjoy God’s spiritual blessings.

God is love. That has never changed. In both the Old and New Testament times, God, who is love, desired and planned to have a holy and righteous people who live lives of self-sacrificial love. This desire has never changed. In Old Testament times, God had to work through a physical people and in New Testament times God now works through a spiritual people. Since the desire of God has remained the same, it makes sense that God would bring His physical Old Testament people through essentially the same experiences as His New Testament spiritual people. They really are the same experiences in essence, but they center on two different realms - first physical experiences in the physical realm in the Old Testament, and later spiritual experiences in the spiritual realm in the New Testament.

Take the example of Joseph in the Old Testament. God, the God of love, foresaw the seven terrible years of drought and He knew that multitudes would perish in that drought. Since God is not willing that any perish, He prepared Joseph as a “savior” (in a physical sense, of course) who would “save” many from perishing. In like manner, God is still not willing that any should spiritually perish, so He prepared His Son Jesus Christ as a Savior who would save many from perishing. Since the roles of Joseph and Jesus Christ are parallel, one being a "savior" in a physical sense and one being a Savior in a spiritual sense, it is to be expected that Joseph’s experiences foreshadow the experiences of Jesus Christ. God was sovereign to ensure that Joseph ended up right where he needed to be so that he could be betrayed and sold into slavery by his brothers. How else can we explain that mysterious man in Genesis 37:15-17 who “happened” to know just where Joseph’s brothers were and who “happened” to find Joseph wandering in the field? God definitely “steered” Joseph to his destiny – which was to be sold into slavery in Egypt so that he might rise in rank in Egypt, become Pharaoh's "right-hand-man" in Egypt, and save Egypt (and the surrounding nations) from the seven years of drought. In a similar way, God was sovereign to ensure that Jesus Christ ended up right where He needed to be (Jerusalem) at the right time (Passover) so that Jesus could be betrayed and killed, and then resurrected, thereby becoming “both Lord and Christ” at the right hand of God and a Savior to all who believe in Him.

These are my thoughts regarding the mechanism behind how lives and historical events recorded in the OT are shadows. It is the unchangeable God of love, whose heart and mind has not changed, that is the mechanism. Because His love, His heart, and His mind have not changed, His desire and His plan for His people have not changed. He has always desired and planned to have a holy and righteous people who live lives of self-sacrificial love. Since the goal has remained the same, the path to the goal is essentially the same. Thus, the experiences which His Old Testament people underwent in the physical realm are essentially the same experiences which His New Testament people undergo in the spiritual realm.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But Jesus said that Solomon and Jonah were both types of Him.

But when did the Queen of the South rise up in that generation?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

awareness, I understand your disallusionment with those who would manipulate scripture for personal gain, but we have another matter here related to the sovereignty and eternity of an omniscient God. Do you believe that God has inspired O.T. writers to portray types of the coming Messiah, with or without their knowing it? That is the real question here.

Perhaps a simpler question would be this -- do you believe the Bible is God's word or simply a collection of writings?

I gave up a magical Bible a long time ago.

And I can't tell you how many silly sermons I've heard using types from the OT.

So, if I never heard another sermon using types from the OT my life would be the richer for it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

And hello to you as well, my dear brother ZNPaaneah. It is good to “see” you again.

Wow! You have obviously given these matters considerable thought and you have asked some very deep and weighty questions. I will certainly do my best to express my understanding of these matters. I must confess that a recent burden of mine has been to return to the simplicity which is in Christ by focusing much more on living a Christ-like life rather than focusing so much on teachings and doctrines. I still consider doctrine important, but I am much more focused on godly living.

With that being said, I do have some thoughts to share. I hope others will share as well. First of all, I definitely do not believe that God manipulated the lives of people like Isaac and Joseph just so that He could produce “types” to give His written Word internal consistency. Nor do I believe that God manipulated the lives of such people just to produce “types” in order for Bible Expositors to have some really cool things to say in their messages! Rather than some merely external reason, I believe that key is found in the unchanging heart and mind of God.

God’s heart and mind have never changed in the sense that, on the deepest level, what He desired and planned for in the Old Testament is the same as what He desired and planned for in the New Testament. What did change, of course, is the means He had at His disposal. In Old Testament times, God had a physical people, united by physical kinship, bearing a physical mark on their bodies (i.e. circumcision). This physical people shared the same physical land, in the midst of which was a physical city with a physical temple where physical sacrifices were offered. This physical people enjoyed God’s physical blessings. In contrast to this, God now has people whose spirits have been reborn, who are united by spiritual kinship, and whose circumcision is spiritual. This spiritual people form a spiritual habitation of God in the many places in which they dwell, and offer up spiritual sacrifices to God. This spiritual people enjoy God’s spiritual blessings.

God is love. That has never changed. In both the Old and New Testament times, God, who is love, desired and planned to have a holy and righteous people who live lives of self-sacrificial love. This desire has never changed. In Old Testament times, God had to work through a physical people and in New Testament times God now works through a spiritual people. Since the desire of God has remained the same, it makes sense that God would bring His physical Old Testament people through essentially the same experiences as His New Testament spiritual people. They really are the same experiences in essence, but they center on two different realms - first physical experiences in the physical realm in the Old Testament, and later spiritual experiences in the spiritual realm in the New Testament.

Take the example of Joseph in the Old Testament. God, the God of love, foresaw the seven terrible years of drought and He knew that multitudes would perish in that drought. Since God is not willing that any perish, He prepared Joseph as a “savior” (in a physical sense, of course) who would “save” many from perishing. In like manner, God is still not willing that any should spiritually perish, so He prepared His Son Jesus Christ as a Savior who would save many from perishing. Since the roles of Joseph and Jesus Christ are parallel, one being a "savior" in a physical sense and one being a Savior in a spiritual sense, it is to be expected that Joseph’s experiences foreshadow the experiences of Jesus Christ. God was sovereign to ensure that Joseph ended up right where he needed to be so that he could be betrayed and sold into slavery by his brothers. How else can we explain that mysterious man in Genesis 37:15-17 who “happened” to know just where Joseph’s brothers were and who “happened” to find Joseph wandering in the field? God definitely “steered” Joseph to his destiny – which was to be sold into slavery in Egypt so that he might rise in rank in Egypt, become Pharaoh's "right-hand-man" in Egypt, and save Egypt (and the surrounding nations) from the seven years of drought. In a similar way, God was sovereign to ensure that Jesus Christ ended up right where He needed to be (Jerusalem) at the right time (Passover) so that Jesus could be betrayed and killed, and then resurrected, thereby becoming “both Lord and Christ” at the right hand of God and a Savior to all who believe in Him.

These are my thoughts regarding the mechanism behind how lives and historical events recorded in the OT are shadows. It is the unchangeable God of love, whose heart and mind has not changed, that is the mechanism. Because His love, His heart, and His mind have not changed, His desire and His plan for His people have not changed. He has always desired and planned to have a holy and righteous people who live lives of self-sacrificial love. Since the goal has remained the same, the path to the goal is essentially the same. Thus, the experiences which His Old Testament people underwent in the physical realm are essentially the same experiences which His New Testament people undergo in the spiritual realm.

Thanks for the careful and thoughtful response. I am not really getting the "physical" versus the "spiritual" concept. Here is what is giving me the hangup, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, so he loads up the wood and takes his son early to the mtn, and when his son asks where is the lamb he responds "God will provide the lamb". Now that to me is a huge exercise of your faith, which I feel is a spiritual exercise.

Likewise with Joseph interpreting the dreams. I think the dreams were a spiritual language that Joseph was able to understand. Not only did he have them but he could interpret them. But even so, I have always felt that Joseph truly excelled in reconciling his family. It is hard for us to talk about how we are spiritual and they were physical, yet we cannot reconcile the LRC family the way Joseph reconciled his. That to me is truly a huge exercise of faith on his part which again, I feel is a spiritual exercise.

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

[Cal]

Hey, KTS. It's so good to hear from you again. I've been thinking about you lately.

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I gave up a magical Bible a long time ago.

And I can't tell you how many silly sermons I've heard using types from the OT.

So, if I never heard another sermon using types from the OT my life would be the richer for it.

That didn't work out very well.

Next time I'll have to try something different.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I gave up a magical Bible a long time ago.

And I can't tell you how many silly sermons I've heard using types from the OT.

So, if I never heard another sermon using types from the OT my life would be the richer for it.

are you serious, what about the classic WL message about the vines sculpted into tabernacle. Eventually it is a tangled mess that even WL couldn't figure out so he said it typifies the interrelationships between all the saints and churches after marriages, migrations, etc. Now isn't your life richer for seeing this?

Greetings NB, stick around awhile. [/QUOTE]

greetings to you. I have been a leper a few times now. This is what I figured out the first time I was cast out of a church group.

2 Kings 6:25
[my observation]
When you are a leper in Samaria there is no use standing at the gate of the city wanting back in as there is a great famine in Samaria.

6:26 A woman (church is a woman?) cried out to him saying Help me, O my lord the king(type and shadow of Christ)


6:27 The King of Israel (type and shadow of Christ?) was passing on the wall and offered to help them. "From the threshing floor (His body?) or the winepress (His blood?)"

maybe literally was bread and wine but if I was offered literal bread and wine I would have took it instead of what comes next. [my opinion]

6:28 The king said to her, what is your trouble?

instead of responding to his question she says:

Give up your son that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.
so they boiled the son and ate him
6:29 And on the next day the King said to her, Give up your son that we may eat him, but she hid her son.

This shows she did not keep her end of the bargain after the King gave up his son

This shows that the woman (church) was not true to what she had agreed to.
The King tore his clothes and had sackcloth underneath (signifies great grief)
chapter 7 starting with verse 3

the lepers are at the gate thinking that if they sit there they will die.
( I had this kind of thinking each time I have been a leper).

next they thought if they went back into the city they would die
(I had this kind of thought too).

So they figured they might as well go into the enemy camp and take a chance that they might not kill them.
( I believe anyone who is being viewed as a leper and is being rejected would have these kind of thoughts).


so at twilight (first glimmer of light(truth))(smile I am just making fun, probably is literally twilight) they went to the enemy camp.

to summerize their experience and mine is there was no enemy to be found,, provisions were left behind (food,drink and clothing) (is not cool to be a naked leper)
chapter 7 vs 9
they go back to tell the kings household
and the king rose up in the night (signifies darkness)
and thought that the lepers were in cahoots with the enemy and were trying to trick them into leaving thru the gates of the city(church) so they could all be killed by the enemy.

This is also my experience when I tried to share with all those who were still starving.

am skipping to chapter 7 vs 20

So in conclusion don't stand in the gate when the people come trampling out of the starving city. [my opinion)

Lord Jesus thank you for healing us lepers.

Love You Ned

Brothers please forgive me for using all these allegories.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

are you serious, what about the classic WL message about the vines sculpted into tabernacle. Eventually it is a tangled mess that even WL couldn't figure out so he said it typifies the interrelationships between all the saints and churches after marriages, migrations, etc. Now isn't your life richer for seeing this?

What? Witness Lee acknowledged that he weaved a tangled mess?

There really was a repentance!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That didn't work out very well.

Next time I'll have to try something different.

You're a sweetheart bro Ohio.

Plus, we're not Jews. At least I'm not. And Jesus, a Jew, came to the house of Israel, and the writers of the New Testament were Jews.

So they're not going to use Hindu references. They were speaking to Jews.

And so why do we treat holy writ like the Jews treated their Torah, and Tanakh? We're not even Jewish Christians, like the Nazarenes, like the church of Jerusalem.

If we were we would be speaking of the Talmud out here.

Originally Posted by awareness

You're a sweetheart bro Ohio.

Plus, we're not Jews. At least I'm not. And Jesus, a Jew, came to the house of Israel, and the writers of the New Testament were Jews.

So they're not going to use Hindu references. They were speaking to Jews.

And so why do we treat holy writ like the Jews treated their Torah, and Tanakh? We're not even Jewish Christians, like the Nazarenes, like the church of Jerusalem.

If we were we would be speaking of the Talmud out here.

Maybe you only have one eye open, as the Jews are the root that the Gentiles are grafted into. Interesting Balaam only could see with one eye.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're a sweetheart bro Ohio.

Plus, we're not Jews. At least I'm not. And Jesus, a Jew, came to the house of Israel, and the writers of the New Testament were Jews.

So they're not going to use Hindu references. They were speaking to Jews.

I'm glad I was able to communicate my real attitude, without something getting lost in the translation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ned Beck

Greetings NB, stick around awhile.

greetings to you. I have been a leper a few times now. This is what I figured out the first time I was cast out of a church group.

Hey, I enjoy tea at the Mad Hatter's tea party as much as the next fellow...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ned Beck

Brothers please forgive me for using all these allegories.

Hey Ned,

Yeah Allegory is a bad word these days, but we are trying to be a little more tolerant on this forum to other posters than we were back in the LC's.

Sometimes that don't always work out, so your past experience as a "leper" may actually help you out here.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hey Ned,

Yeah Allegory is a bad word these days, but we are trying to be a little more tolerant on this forum to other posters than we were back in the LC's.

Sometimes that don't always work out, so your past experience as a "leper" may actually help you out here.

Sorry I am not trying to be offensive, please forgive me. I see I am ready to pull the trigger too quickly or as I remember hearing someone say kill someone with a sword.
Again so so sorry.
Thank you and I appreciate being able to post here.
love you ned

[RollingStone]

WL in his footnotes commented on the churches descibed in Revelations as having attributes that were reflected in present day churches. He compared the "Recovery" to the church in Philadelphia. The church in Thyatira to the Catholic church. vs 20 foot note 2. In chapter 3 verse 1 footnote 1 he states that as a sign the church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant church. And WL in 3:14 footnote 1 "As a sign the church in Laodicea prefigures the degraded recovered church. In Rev 2:1 footnote 1 he refers to the suffering church under the persecution of the Roman empire as the church in Smyna.

The church in Pergamos in verse 1 footnote 1 WL only says that Pergomos was pre symbolizing the worldly church and does not tie it to a group, (ie Protestant, Catholic, Recovered, degraded Recovered) He attributes the Pergomos church to the time from Constantine until the papal system.

(my opinion) For the Recovery to compare themselves to the church in Philadelphia (brotherly love) I haven't been feeling the love part.

WL places these churches in a timeline one after another.
Lets consider brother that John wrote these letters to the seven churches that were in these locations at a certain time describing positive and negative attributes as to what the Spirit was saying to the churches.

Didn't these attributes exist there at that time and exist and have been growing since them. I believe that the Catholic Church has the attributes of what is described in the letter to the Church in Thyratira BUT doesn't it also have attributes that are expressed in the letter to the church in Pergamos. Does the Catholic Church have teachings of Balaam and the Nicolaitans? In 2:20 the negative thing is expressed. "But I have something against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel she who calls herself a prophetess and teaches and leads My slaves astray to commit fornication and to eat idol sacrifices. Can it be that this negative didn't manifest itself until the Catholic Church manifested as WL expresses in his footnotes? In that case the Church in Thyratira would have thought John was out of line for accusing them of being a bunch of Jezabels.

It is probably more likely that some in Thyratira would have understood what was meant by John.s letter.

Maybe WL used these footnotes to identify the "Recovery" as the approved church and identified with the positive aspects of the Church in Philadelphia to keep the sheep gathered in one place. I don't know and that is another subject as i want to focus on the church that he doesn't identify other than being the one that was worldly. Where in 2:14 the negative that is pointed out as that you have some there who hold onto the teachings of Balaam, who taugh Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel.

In WL 2:14 footnote 1 he states, In these epistles the Lord desired according to God's economy, that we eat Him as the tree of life (v.7), the hidden manna (v.17), and the rich produce of the land (3:20; see note 7 footnote 5 in this chapter); but the worldly church turned from life to mere teachings, thus distracting the believers from enjoying Christ as their life supply for the fullfillment of God's purpose. The enjoyment of Christ builds up the church, whereas teachings issue in a religion.

Isn't this what Living Stream doing? They are focusing on 1 teaching and calling it the oneness in the body.

Isn't Living Stream being critical of those enjoying Christ a strategy to keep the focus on their teaching?

They have become a religion. (My opinion)

footnote 15:1
Have they not become Balaam? distracting the believers from the person of Christ to idoatry. Don't they manifest the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Issued forth teachings that have destroyed the function of the believers as members of the Body of Christ.

They have idolized LSM, LSM materials, Witness Lee to the point of accepting nothing else.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS REJECTED.

They have expressed that they already have everything and have no need.

They are in love with LSM traditions and customs and reject anything else.


The following is included in a wikippedia desciption for Moabite:


Balaam was a Gentile priest who could hear from God who lived with the Moabites next to the Israelites. They had the same history as being decendants of Lot who left Sodom with Abraham.

they have the same ancestry and history, they had the same language, they had the same thoughts and understanding as the Israelites. But what were their teachings as mentioned in the letter to the Church in Pergomos.

Could it be they taught that they could hear from the most High and didn't need anything from the Israelites? They didn't give them anything either as when meeting them they don't give you food and drink and were taught to curse you. (haven't we been quaranteed, called lepers)( I have been called a "smelly brother" as I have been near the Great Lakes brothers so we are all stinky I guess)(should we make a list of all the curses that have come our way?) I am sure cursing has gone both ways. Maybe you will be mad at me for calling you a Moabite and your leadership that is controling you Balaam. Like the Moabites you have become exclusive from everyone elses worship. My hope is that i am a jackass that is speaking about what direction that you are heading with the hope thatyou can go another way.
Ned
Wikipedia :Moabite
[edit] Moabite and Israelite Relations
According to Genesis, the Moabites were relatives of the Israelites, both peoples tracing their descent back to a common ancestor, Terah. Terah's son Haran fathered Lot, whose son Moab was born after an incestuous relationship between Lot and his eldest daughter (Genesis 19:37). The Moabites descended from Lot's son Moab.
The Moabites were friendly with the Egyptians, having kinship ties with them through Joseph[citation needed]. The principal shrine in Moab was Beyt-baal-me’on, which means “house/shrine of the baal/master/god of On.” The principal shrine of On was in the sacred city of Heliopolis in Egypt and Joseph married one of the daughters of the high priest of On. Mesha, the King of Moab, built a reservoir at Beth-baal-me’On (II Kings 3). On the Moabite or Mesha Stone (discovered in 1868 at Dibon) it is recorded that King Mesha “reigned in peace over the hundred towns which he had added to the land. And he built Medeba and Beth-diblathen and Beth-baal-me”On, and he set there the … of the land.” The stone is defaced at this point so we do not know what the King set up, but it was likely an image of his god, Ashtar-Chemosh.
The Moabites welcomed Egyptian protection provided by a chain of border fortresses that enabled Egypt to control the Sinai. One of these forts was at Ir-Moab, on the Arnon River. During Joseph’s era Egypt traded with Damascus, moving goods through Moab.
The Moabites were to be excluded from the assembly of worshipers, because: “They did not come to meet you with food and drink when you were on your way out of Egypt, and even hired Balaam, son of Beor, to oppose you by cursing you.” (Deuteronomy 23:3-5) The Israelites were allowed to harass Moab, but were forbidden to wage war on them, so they defeated Midian as a result of the advice that Balaam gave that led to a plague in punishment for the worship of idols at Baal Peor. Only the men of Moab and Ammon were forbidden to marry into the Israelite nation, but the women were permitted to convert without restriction. That is why King David who descended from Ruth could be king and the mother of his grandson Rehoboam son of Solomon was from Ammon. This issue was covered in the Talmud and attributed to Doeg the Edomite.
[edit] Biblical narrative (through the conquest by Israel)

According to Genesis 19:30-38, Moab was the son of Abraham's nephew Lot by his elder daughter, while Ammon was Moab's half-brother by a similar union of Lot with his younger daughter after the destruction of Sodom. The close ethnological affinity of Moab and Ammon which is thus attested[9] is confirmed by their subsequent history, while their kinship with the Israelites is equally certain, and is borne out by the linguistic evidence of the Moabite Stone. They are also mentioned in close connection with the Amalekites,[10] the inhabitants of Mount Seir (the descendants of Esau),[11] the Edomites,[12] the Canaanites,[13] the Sethites[14] and the Philistines.[15] The story of Moab's incestuous conception may be intended to relegate the Moabites to a lesser status than that of the Israelites. Although, given that Abraham's nephew Lot was the founding father of the Moabites and was spared in Sodom for upholding righteous virtues, the Moabites were clearly derived from similar stock of pious principles as the Israelites.
The Moabites first inhabited the rich highlands at the eastern side of the chasm of the Dead Sea, extending as far north as the mountain of Gilead, from which country they expelled the Emim, the original inhabitants,[16] but they themselves were afterward driven southward by warlike tribes of Amorites, who had crossed the river Jordan. These Amorites, described in the Bible as being ruled by King Sihon, confined the Moabites to the country south of the river Arnon, which formed their northern boundary.[17]
The Israelites, in entering the "promised land", did not pass through the Moabites, (Judges 11:18) but conquered Sihon's kingdom and his capital at Heshbon. After the conquest of Canaan the relations of Moab with Israel were of a mixed character, sometimes warlike and sometimes peaceable. With the tribe of Benjamin they had at least one severe struggle, in union with their kindred the Ammonites and the Amalekites.[18] The Benjaminite shofet Ehud ben Gera assassinated the Moabite king Eglon and led an Israelite army against the Moabites at a ford of the Jordan river, killing many of them.
The story of Ruth, on the other hand, testifies to the existence of a friendly intercourse between Moab and Bethlehem, one of the towns of the tribe of Judah. By his descent from Ruth, David may be said to have had Moabite blood in his veins. He committed his parents to the protection of the king of Moab (who may have been his kinsman), when hard pressed by King Saul. (1 Samuel 22:3,4) But here all friendly relations stop forever. The next time the name is mentioned is in the account of David's war, who made the Moabites tributary.[19] Moab may have been under the rule of an Israelite governor during this period; among the exiles who returned to Judea from Babylonia were a clan descended from Pahath-Moab, whose name means "ruler of Moab".
After the destruction of the First Temple, the knowledge of which people belonged to which nation was lost and the Moabites were treated the same as other gentiles. As a result, all members of the nations could convert to Judaism without restriction. The problem in Ezra and Nehemiah occurred because Jewish men married women from the various nations without their first converting to Judaism.
[edit] Reassertion of independence


Map of the southern Levant, c.830s BC. Kingdom of Judah
Kingdom of Israel
Philistine city-states
Phoenician states
Kingdom of Ammon
Kingdom of Edom
Kingdom of Aram-Damascus
Aramean tribes
Assyrian Empire
Kingdom of Moab
Arubu tribes
Nabatu tribes



At the disruption of the kingdom under the reign of Rehoboam, Moab seems to have been absorbed into the northern realm. It continued in vassaldom to the Kingdom of Israel until the death of Ahab, when the Moabites refused to pay tribute and asserted their independence, making war upon the kingdom of Judah.[20]
After the death of Ahab the Moabites under Mesha rebelled against Jehoram, who allied himself with Jehoshaphat, King of Kingdom of Judah, and with the King of Edom. According to the Bible, the prophet Elisha directed the Israelites to dig a series of ditches between themselves and the enemy, and during the night these channels were miraculously filled with water which was as red as blood. Deceived by the crimson color into the belief that their opponents had attacked one another, the Moabites became overconfident and were entrapped and utterly defeated at Ziz, near En Gedi,[21] which states that the Moabites and their allies, the Ammonites and the inhabitants of Mount Seir, mistook one another for the enemy, and so destroyed one another). According to Mesha's inscription on the Mesha Stele, however, he was completely victorious and regained all the territory of which Israel had deprived him. The battle of Ziz is the last important date in the history of the Moabites as recorded in the Bible. In the year of Elisha's death they invaded Israel.[22] and later aided Nebuchadnezzar in his expedition against Jehoiakim.[23]
Although allusions to Moab are frequent in the prophetical books[24] and although two chapters of Isaiah (xv.-xvi.)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Hello,

I have a question about typology which has always bothered me, perhaps you or anyone else might be willing to help me with this.

Let's take Isaac, a well known type of Christ. It is kind of easy to see him and think that "God created" this type. Especially when He told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

But then, look at Joseph, another type of Christ. His entire life becomes a type. So then you wonder, is God sitting there manipulating all of these different events in his life for a type, or is Joseph merely the shadow of Christ. In the same way that 4 dimensional creatures like us leave a 3 dimensional shadow, Perhaps our lives and everything on earth is a shadow of God, and the spiritual realm.

Do you have any thoughts on the mechanism behind how lives and historical events recorded in the OT are shadows?

Here's a relevant theory for you. Both Joseph and Jesus are examples of the hero archetype which is embedded in the collective unconscious of the human psyche. Archetypes are probably based on the neurological structure of the human brain. Consequently archetypes appear in dreams and in the mythologies of many different cultures and times. This is not to deny that Jesus was an historical person. He more or less fulfilled the archetypal pattern that was projected on him by messianic expectation which is a subgroup of the Hero archetype. In many ways he did not literally fulfill the expectation but fulfilled it paradoxically. For example, the messiah was expected to be a king, but Jesus was not literally a king, quite the opposite in terms of social status.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's a relevant theory for you. Both Joseph and Jesus are examples of the hero archetype which is embedded in the collective unconscious of the human psyche. Archetypes are probably based on the neurological structure of the human brain. Consequently archetypes appear in dreams and in the mythologies of many different cultures and times. This is not to deny that Jesus was an historical person. He more or less fulfilled the archetypal pattern that was projected on him by messianic expectation which is a subgroup of the Hero archetype. In many ways he did not literally fulfill the expectation but fulfilled it paradoxically. For example, the messiah was expected to be a king, but Jesus was not literally a king, quite the opposite in terms of social status.

And Joseph's brothers were also filling some psychological archetype to be villains? How about Potipher, or Potipher's wife, of the Pharoah, or the baker, or the butler? Sorry, I believe that any observations that would seem to correspond with this theory are because we have a human spirit, not learned mythology.

[Indiana]

Larry Isitt, my older brother, shares the following.

Thanks for the Tomes’ article. Thorough and helpful. I’ve been doing writing on John Milton’s Arianism, his notion that the Son is not co-eternal, nor co-equal, nor co-essential with the Father in the Godhead, and to that end have read all of the writings of the main defender of Nicaea, Athanasius. Though not a matter of allegorizing, Arius selectively ignored verses such as Heb 1:3 and John 1:1 that the Nicaeans interpreted as referring to the Son’s equal essence. One thing the allegorists such as Lee have to their credit is their desire to know God; but equally so, to their demerit is their presumption that they can see more deeply into the Word and even past the intention of the author as that intention may be discernable in ordinary meanings of words in their normally taken sense. Two allegorists on the same passage and coming to differing “insights” would only be able to pour contempt on the blindness of one another to the “true” meanings. The presumption-arrogance of Lee and his adherents makes Tomes’ fine efforts fruitless so far as making inroads into their thinking. It is much the same with any other group rejecting evidence in favor of private emotional associations. Democrats are not likely to become Republicans nor vice versa because to travel from one company to the other is not a matter of evidence, but goes far deeper into the psychology of each that makes the one or the other what they are. An allegorist cannot switch to the other side because they are no longer (if ever they were) capable of examining evidence for itself. To return to the political analogy: a Democrat loves big government and justifies that position emotionally by telling himself that big government is more capable than individual initiative and the marketplace of providing for citizens; therefore, in examining the outlook of the Republicans whose value lies in the belief that small government is best, a roadblock is set up automatically, a blinder, that does not allow penetration. And supplementing this on either side of the political aisle in Congress is simple party loyalty. We know that on many issues coming up for vote, that the parties stay together and the vote comes down on party lines, despite evidence that should show the way to switching votes were the issues themselves kept in mind. My sympathy for Nigel is that I suspect his efforts are not fruitful simply because of the automatic blocking and party loyalty of the allegorist camp. They cannot imagine why Nigel prefers his blindness, as they see it. Why would anyone deny that God can hide deeper meanings in the smallest words. There is no doubt a freedom they find in not being bound by ordinary grammatical rules which, were they to apply allegorizing to their day-to-day existence would soon make chaos of their lives. No allegorist would willingly fly with the airline pilot who they know to be allegorizing the pre-flight checklist, or submitting to the surgeon’s knife who allegorizes his strict training at med school just as he is going to operate on a patient, or rely on the lawyer who imagines his precedents to be wrong and his briefs to be something other than traditional law allows. What the allegorist does not allow his neighbor, his surveyor, his doctor, his friends—the willful misuse of words—he freely allows his pastor.

Larry

[ZNPaaneah]

I find this very troubling. It does not have to be either or. I think everyone, all Christians, agree that parts of the Bible are allegorical and therefore this is certainly one way in which God speaks. By allegory I mean metaphors, parables, and other forms of imagery.

On the other hand, using allegory as the basis for teaching, creating a teaching based on an allegorical understanding of the word, opens the door for all sorts of abuse and misuse of the word.

To illustrate this either or approach LI used references to republicans and democrats. But it doesn't have to be so black and white, for example is it true that the majority of democrats are for "big govt" or rather "govt with a conscience". Likewise are republicans all concerned with small govt or is the key concept that Govt is very poor at handling money in a responsible way, so the less money we give govt the better everyone is. I think history shows us that throughout all time govt has been corrupt, big govt is corrupt in a big way, small govt is corrupt in a smaller way. So if you are for smaller govt but with a conscience does that make you a democrat or a republican?

My point is that everyone seems so unbalanced. One bad allegorical teaching and all allegories are wrong. I would say that teachings are on several levels. Some teachings trump all others, others help expand teachings that we already have that are solid.

For example, the Samaritan man. Someone asked the Lord what they needed to do to inherit eternal life, and He asked what the law said, he responded to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. This is the clear teaching that trumps all else. But he then asked "who is my neighbor".

This is a question where a parable, or some other figurative speech is much more helpful. If you ask a lawyer to define neighbor you will 10 pages of impenetrable gibberish. But this little story is clearer to read and easier to apply than those 10 pages ever would be. If you cross paths with a man that needs your help, then that is your neighbor. What do you owe that man? According to the Law you need to love him as you love yourself. Again, instead of 10 pages of legalese we have a story that illustrates exactly what loving someone as you would love yourself means.

Now at the end of the story Jesus says "go and do likewise". That would be hypocritical if the Lord Himself did not go and do likewise. So surely there is a basis to apply this parable to the life of Jesus.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hey, KTS. It's so good to hear from you again. I've been thinking about you lately.

And "Hey" to you as well, dear brother Igzy!

Lately, I found myself thinking about you and all the ones here "fighting the good fight". This release of dear brother Nigel's Magnum Opus was the final event which brought me back.

I have mixed feelings about the new version of the "Bereans". We will see what God does with that . For now, I do feel a definite burden to be more involved around here.

It looks like this critique of LSM's allegorizing is already striking a deep chord. The axe is finally starting to be applied to the root of LSM's unhealthy teaching and ungodly behavior.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Thanks for the careful and thoughtful response. I am not really getting the "physical" versus the "spiritual" concept. Here is what is giving me the hangup, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, so he loads up the wood and takes his son early to the mtn, and when his son asks where is the lamb he responds "God will provide the lamb". Now that to me is a huge exercise of your faith, which I feel is a spiritual exercise.

Likewise with Joseph interpreting the dreams. I think the dreams were a spiritual language that Joseph was able to understand. Not only did he have them but he could interpret them. But even so, I have always felt that Joseph truly excelled in reconciling his family. It is hard for us to talk about how we are spiritual and they were physical, yet we cannot reconcile the LRC family the way Joseph reconciled his. That to me is truly a huge exercise of faith on his part which again, I feel is a spiritual exercise.

Hello again, dear brother ZNPaaneah,

I am sorry that my "physical" vs. "spiritual" language may have confused the issue. My "physical" vs. "spiritual" language was not meant to imply anything beyond the normal distinction between "Old" and "New" which we use everyday when we say "Old Testament" and "New Testament". I certainly did not mean to imply that God's Old Testament people never had any spiritual experiences or that they never exercised faith. Hebrews chapter 11 certainly makes it very clear that there are lots of examples of the exercise of faith in the Old Testament.

I also did not mean to imply that God's New Testament people do not have a very real physical existence on this earth. I was trying to highlight the fact that God's mind and His purpose for His people in both Old Testament times and New Testament times has not changed. What did change, of course, was the means God has at His disposal to accomplish His goal. I believe that God has always desired to have a holy and righteous people who live lives of self-sacrificial love.

If you would, please re-read my original post with this in mind. I hope this will help things, but my original post may still not work for you. That's OK. Please understand that I thought you asked a very heartfelt question and I did my best before the Lord to provide an answer. If my answer is inadequate, and it very well may be, then I pray that someone else will supply the answer you are seeking.

I hear what you are saying about Joseph reconciling his family. It pains my heart to think that the situation with LSM will not be resolved until the Lord returns. One thing LSM has in abundance which I do not see in Joseph's brothers is a terrible spirit of religious jealousy. Both the Bible and Church History show us that dealing with such a terrible spirit is a very, very, difficult thing. May we be those who weep and mourn.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I find this very troubling. It does not have to be either or. I think everyone, all Christians, agree that parts of the Bible are allegorical and therefore this is certainly one way in which God speaks. By allegory I mean metaphors, parables, and other forms of imagery.

On the other hand, using allegory as the basis for teaching, creating a teaching based on an allegorical understanding of the word, opens the door for all sorts of abuse and misuse of the word.

Hello again dear brother ZNPaaneah,

I believe that it cannot too be stressed too much that all of us must keep dear brother Nigel's three caveats in mind while reading or discussing this article. I would remind everyone to please take time to read and understand the section of Nigel's article entitled "Some Caveats". This section made me aware of how careful and precise Nigel is being in his critique.

If I may, here is my paraphrase of Nigel's three caveats:

1. Portions of the Bible which were written as allegories (such as Song of Songs) should be interpreted allegorically. The danger lies in allegorizing, which is the practice of trying to decipher a hidden meaning behind portions of Scripture which were not written as allegories.
2. In Galatians 4:24 Paul did allegorize a historical account from the book of Genesis. This is, however, not a license for a "free-for-all"; rather, this minimal use of allegorizing in the New Testament shows that the practice of allegorizing Scriptures which not written as allegories should be kept to a minimum.
3. Finding and applying Old Testament types to New Testament events was used by both Jesus Christ and His apostles. The actual history of the Old Testament event is very important in applying typology, which makes the application of typology very different from allegorizing.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

WL in his footnotes commented on the churches descibed in Revelations as having attributes that were reflected in present day churches....

Hello dear RollingStone. Welcome to our discussion forum.

Over the years, I have come to many of the very same conclusions that you have. If we allow that the Local Churches in the late 1960's and early 1970's did indeed have "life" and "love" on the "ground of locality", the incredibly sad irony is that they sacrificed all these things for the sake of oneness with a specific set of teachings, i.e. Witness Lee's ministry.

For the sake of being "absolute" for Witness Lee's ministry, the Local Churches loyal to Living Stream Ministry have become very exclusive and sectarian "ministry-churches". They have violated their own principles in regard to the "ground of locality". The emphasis now is very much on teachings and the ability to respeak those teachings. The LSM-loyal churches do not comprise some special "Recovery"; rather, they have fallen into exactly the same trap as many groups which preceded them. For all practical purposes, another denomination has been born. These facts should humble those who are still involved in the LSM-loyal churches. May they come to a full repentance.

I too had to question why the LSM-loyal churches had so little love when they claimed so adamantly to be today's "Philadelphia" (i.e. "brotherly love"). It is a really hard thing to try to come up against such an arrogant and elitist attitude. All things are in God's hands, so I trust that He gained something for His purpose by having my family in the LSM-loyal LC as long as he did. It was an eye-opening experience in many ways. I am sadder but wiser, that is for sure, and I am also very, very, thankful that He led us out of the LSM-loyal LC and that we followed Him.

May we continue to "look away unto Jesus". May God have mercy on us all.

[RollingStone]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Hello dear RollingStone. Welcome to our discussion forum...

Amen,, thank you for responding as I was feeling super sad after bringing up a lot of memories. I paid a price to be part of LSM as I chose them over my wife. I started meeting with the Recovery in 94. After meeting for about 2 yrs. she knew something was not right but couldn't figure out what it was. I thought she was trying to prevent me from being with the body of Christ. I was mad at Christianity at the time and thought that God was blessing me with all the riches and miraculously I had found the real church.
Looking back I am happy that I have been taken out against my will.

amen may God have mercy. what a life lesson.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

It looks like this critique of LSM's allegorizing is already striking a deep chord. The axe is finally starting to be applied to the root of LSM's unhealthy teaching and ungodly behavior.

For some reason, I personally need solid irrefutable evidence to dislodge long held belief systems. Someone could scream the c-word at me for months with little result than to harden my resolve. Years ago, during the Mindbender controversy, I had even psychologically prepared myself for kidnapping and deprogramming, as it seemed almost an inevitable certainty at the time.

Documents, such as John Ingalls account and Nigel Tomes' recent article, have done for me what no amount of so-called "persecution" could ever do. As KisstheSon said, this article has taken the "axe to the root" to undermine WL's authority and integrity as a minister. It was not just teachings like the "ground of the church," or practices like "calling on the word," that caught my attention regarding the uniqueness of the "Recovery," but also the numerous allegorical expositions of the word of God, many of which singled out WL as "special." I began in the Recovery believing that WL's allegorizing ministry was divine inspired by the Head.

I found it just unbelievable that the allegorizing method of Bible exposition was used by Rome to enslave God's people prolonging the dark ages, and that the reformers ushered in the dawning day by categorically rejecting the methods of allegorizing. What I once viewed, with so many other saints, to be fresh anointing on the ministry of WL, turns out to be nothing more than age-old speculative devices, begun by Origen, and long discarded by Reformers and Christian scholars alike.

[awareness]

Allegorizing is used to develop mass hysteria like that seen at the Salem witch trials.

Allegorizing allows the imagination to go wild, and to appear to be based upon scripture when it ain't.

And yes, Witness Lee used allegory to enhance his standing above others, by appearing to see deeper things in scripture than was there, and looking like he had special omniscience that others didn't have.

Allegorizing is a tool of con men ...

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For some reason, I personally need solid irrefutable evidence to dislodge long held belief systems. Someone could scream the c-word at me for months with little result than to harden my resolve. Years ago, during the Mindbender controversy, I had even psychologically prepared myself for kidnapping and deprogramming, as it seemed almost an inevitable certainty at the time.

Documents, such as John Ingalls account and Nigel Tomes' recent article, have done for me what no amount of so-called "persecution" could ever do. As KisstheSon said, this article has taken the "axe to the root" to undermine WL's authority and integrity as a minister. It was not just teachings like the "ground of the church," or practices like "calling on the word," that caught my attention regarding the uniqueness of the "Recovery," but also the numerous allegorical expositions of the word of God, many of which singled out WL as "special." I began in the Recovery believing that WL's allegorizing ministry was divine inspired by the Head.

I found it just unbelievable that the allegorizing method of Bible exposition was used by Rome to enslave God's people prolonging the dark ages, and that the reformers ushered in the dawning day by categorically rejecting the methods of allegorizing. What I once viewed, with so many other saints, to be fresh anointing on the ministry of WL, turns out to be nothing more than age-old speculative devices, begun by Origen, and long discarded by Reformers and Christian scholars alike.

Your experience matches my experience, dear brother Ohio. I was always enthralled by all the "riches" Witness Lee could extract from the Bible by allegorizing. Surely we in the Local Churches had special access to riches hidden in the Word of God that the rest of Christianity knew so little about!

This article by dear brother Nigel is a "game-changer". While properly limiting the scope of his article in the section entitled "Some Caveats", Nigel proceeds to demonstrate how excessive, and how often arbitrary, was WL's approach to allegorizing. Nigel is ripping out a whole section of the bottom layer of LSM's "house of cards".

Probably the most sobering aspect of this article is that it reveals how close are the results of Rome's allegorizing and WL's allegorizing. I have often heard Roman Catholics claim that they have a Scriptural basis for their church's organized hierarchy and their various practices. We can all see that a plain reading of the Scriptures does not support this claim. But, once allegorizing of the Scripture is freely allowed, Rome can produce some really fanciful "proofs" which rely on hidden meanings dug out of the Scriptures by their learned "Doctors of the Church".

How scary it is to see the parallels between the results of Roman Catholic allegorizing and Witness Lee's allegorizing. Ironically, Rome is actually more consistent in its use of allegorzing!

May Nigel's efforts be examined by all who have an open heart and mind to truly consider these things in the light of God's presence. May this article serve as a healing balm to some troubled souls. May some be truly set free.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

Amen,, thank you for responding as I was feeling super sad after bringing up a lot of memories. I paid a price to be part of LSM as I chose them over my wife. I started meeting with the Recovery in 94. After meeting for about 2 yrs. she knew something was not right but couldn't figure out what it was. I thought she was trying to prevent me from being with the body of Christ. I was mad at Christianity at the time and thought that God was blessing me with all the riches and miraculously I had found the real church.
Looking back I am happy that I have been taken out against my will.

amen may God have mercy. what a life lesson.

You are free, of course, to do as you feel led by the Spirit of God, dear RollingStone, but I would like to hear more of your testimony. Would you consider opening up a new thread in the "Introductions" section or perhaps starting your own personal "blog" here?

Whatever you decide to do, may God richly bless you.

[UntoHim]

Welcome to the forum RollingStone!

And a hearty welcome back to my friend kisstheson (or "smooch the Savior" as I think you were called in that parody somebody once did)

Leave it to another provocative piece by professor Tomes to get the juices running again! I've been in communication with Nigel about writing an in depth piece concerning 1 Corinthians 15:45 & 2 Corinthians 3:17, even providing him with a boatload of ammunition, but he won't indulge me. He better reconsider quick before I take on the task myself - Yikes...what a train wreck that could be! For the few of you out there who aren't already P.O'd at me that will probably put you over the edge for sure.

Hey Harold, buddy, friend, chief contrarian...

Allegorizing is used to develop mass hysteria like that seen at the Salem witch trials.
Allegorizing allows the imagination to go wild, and to appear to be based upon scripture when it ain't.

So ALL allegorizing leads to mass hysteria? Really? Like that seen at the Salem witch trials? What about the allegorizing that was done by the Lord Jesus...did that lead to mass hysteria or to witch trials? Of course not. Did the allegorizing done by the apostle Paul lead to mass hysteria or to witch trials? Of course not. The mass hysteria and witch trials were/are the production of sinful men totally apart from the instruction and inspiration of God and His Word.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Your experience matches my experience, dear brother Ohio. I was always enthralled by all the "riches" Witness Lee could extract from the Bible by allegorizing. Surely we in the Local Churches had special access to riches hidden in the Word of God that the rest of Christianity knew so little about!

This article by dear brother Nigel is a "game-changer". While properly limiting the scope of his article in the section entitled "Some Caveats", Nigel proceeds to demonstrate how excessive, and how often arbitrary, was WL's approach to allegorizing. Nigel is ripping out a whole section of the bottom layer of LSM's "house of cards".

Yes, brother KisstheSon, you mention Nigel's section entitled "Some Caveats", which is indeed necessary for his document, but not really for me. Having been thoroughly indoctrinated in his "allegorizing ways," my pendulum has only moved from its extreme position back towards center. Many WL allegories like "leprosy in the house" I had long rejected, but last night, possibly in a dream, I was rehashing the old WL method of allegorizing from Exodus? -- "Here we have the number 96, which is 8 times 12. The number 8 means this and the number 12 mean that. It is also 6 times 16. The number 6 is such and the number 16 is such and such ..."

In the WL scheme of things, nothing in the Bible was what was actually written down. It all needed proper "interpretation." It was all coded language, supposedly hidden in scripture by the Economical God who wanted it all encoded by the latest MOTA during these final days of His "recovery." Much of this "coded language" in the scripture had never yet been "seen" in church history, with the few exceptions like dear brother Athanasius.

The paper mentions Origen as the "origin" of Biblical allegorizing, and Romanism as the "allegorizing-Nazis" in church history, but he leaves out the exclusive Brethren. Their liberal use of "hate-allegorizing" launched into overdrive with George Muller. Listening to George V. Wigram (a 19th century type of Benson Phillips and Ray Graver) et. al. one might think that every story in the O.T. was written with Muller in view. Amassing the volumes of exclusive rhetoric against Muller, one might think he was the most condemned man in all church history. How dare the Lord answer any of his prayers!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey Harold, buddy, friend, chief contrarian...
So ALL allegorizing leads to mass hysteria? Really? Like that seen at the Salem witch trials? What about the allegorizing that was done by the Lord Jesus...did that lead to mass hysteria or to witch trials? Of course not. Did the allegorizing done by the apostle Paul lead to mass hysteria or to witch trials? Of course not. The mass hysteria and witch trials were/are the production of sinful men totally apart from the instruction and inspiration of God and His Word.

Now now buddy, friend, brother, defender of the faith, please don't tell me you are defending Lee's misuse of allegory of the Bible.

And I know you're not defending the Catholic Church's misuse and abuse of allegorizing of the Bible during the long dark ages.

You read Nigel's opus on misuse of allegory. And you know that difference between allegory in scripture, and allegorizing of scripture, where it isn't found in scripture.

As far as the mass hysteria remark, how can you deny it, that the local church was a type of mass hysteria?

You act like I wasn't there. But I was. I remember all the crazy public calling on the lord in the streets between meetings at conferences. I remember driving from west Detroit to downtown Detroit, for work, calling all the way there and back. And going to a conference from the C. in Ft. Lauderdale to Atlanta, having to call on the lord every time we passed a "call box" along the freeway. I remember even some meetings where all we did was call on the lord ; and the shouting and screaming that drove the neighbors crazy.

That was a type of mass hysteria. Maybe people weren't literally hung like at the Salem witch trials, but many were hung out to dry.

See it for what it was bro UnToHim. It was too a type of mass hysteria.

[RollingStone]

just contemplating that there is something within me that really enjoys allegory as I was thinking about one of my favorite movies that is full of allegory called "Being There"

I enjoy this movie as i see it is full of allegory and many themes can be related to and parallel themes in the the bible and Jesus Christ. Here is a url where you can watch a trailer from the movie http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi489947929/
I enjoyed this movie as it tells a story about a man who outwardly appears one way, you are led to believe that people are seeing his outward appearence and forming opinions based on what they see. He speaks in a simple way and they apply deep meaning to what he says and in the end it is revealed who he really is and what we are led to believe is not who we were thinking he was based on the movie. This is similar to our lives as many perceive us based on our outward appearence, sometimes people then make a judgement about us and attribute different things about what we say and still do not know the real person that is hidden inside.

I enjoyed this movie long before reading WL.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And Joseph's brothers were also filling some psychological archetype to be villains? How about Potipher, or Potipher's wife, of the Pharoah, or the baker, or the butler? Sorry, I believe that any observations that would seem to correspond with this theory are because we have a human spirit, not learned mythology.

The human spirit doesn't explain the use of typology, allegory, analogy, and metaphor in the Bible. The theory of archetypes does. Jesus fulfilled, sometimes paradoxically, the messianic expectation of Judaism. The messiah is a sub-category of the hero archetype which is found throughout world mythology. The hero-savior-messiah obviously fills a deep seated universal human need.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

just contemplating that there is something within me that really enjoys allegory as I was thinking about one of my favorite movies that is full of allegory called "Being There"

I enjoy this movie as i see it is full of allegory and many themes can be related to and parallel themes in the the bible and Jesus Christ. Here is a url where you can watch a trailer from the movie http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi489947929/
I enjoyed this movie as it tells a story about a man who outwardly appears one way

Another great con man preacher movie is : Elmer Gantry
Click here -> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/

It's also on youtube. I watched the whole movie on youtube ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

As far as the mass hysteria remark, how can you deny it, that the local church was a type of mass hysteria?

You act like I wasn't there. But I was. I remember all the crazy public calling on the lord in the streets between meetings at conferences.

I don't see how WL's misuse of allegorizing scripture could lead to mass hysteria by calling on the name of the Lord. First of all, his abuse of allegorizing scripture, at worst, could be accounted for excessive fear holding us in bondage. This hysteria talk should probably be in a new thread.

The excesses of "calling" were more due to superstitions about entering the Lord's presence, and I attribute most of that to the 60's, with a youthful culture very conducive to craziness of all forms, coupled with drug-damaged emotional instabilities. I knew one brother who was in NoCal and he actually climbed into a dumpster to scream louder. We have to understand these strange events in the context of the day. Young people were far more "trusting" in those days and willing to "experiment" with every new thing that came from Calif. I knew other Christians who suddenly left all to move to some west coast commune after getting saved. All kinds of weird stuff happened, both within and without the Recovery. Campuses were filled with Nam-protesters and the ghettos were filled with burnt out projects. Wild times, yes, but the Spirit of God had a way to bring many young people to genuine salvation. Thank the Lord for that!

I screamed and shouted too, wearing gospel robes with the saints on marches, yelling at people to repent, and for a while the Lord was in it. Eventually, it became time to move on, and grow up.

[awareness]

Good post bro Ohio.....

.

[zeek]

I don't see how WL's misuse of allegorizing scripture could lead to mass hysteria by calling on the name of the Lord.

I don't either. Metaphorical interpretation is unavoidable to some extent. If anyone thinks WL's interpretation was wrong or evoked bad behavior then show us what it was. Blanket condemnation of allegorizing is stupid. Even guys who censured it, like Martin Luther, used it sometimes. Metaphorical concepts permeate language. Biblical literalism as applied by fundamentalists presents problems of its own. Besides, Lee's teaching regarding calling on the Lord didn't involve allegory. It was strictly literal. Did we get hysterical about it? Yes. But that must have been due to factors other than allegory.

[Ohio]

Good post here Zeek.

Very troublesome to me has been how WL and the Blendeds allegorized stories like Noah and Ham for self-serving coverups of criminal and unrighteous actions at LSM. Since WL was allegorized as today's Noah, his every failure was to be covered and not seen or made public. All the saints and workers at LSM were continually threatened with the curses of Ham lest any should open their mouth. Thus all the Recovery was gripped in fear, that even the knowledge of "death" could inflict them with God's wrath.

Warnings from scripture were coupled with TC's attitude which pervaded the GLA, basically "whether my spiritual father makes a mistake or not is none of my business." I don't believe any of the serious topics of this forum could be reduced to the level of mere "mistakes." Because of policies like this in the Recovery, one Cleveland area sister, who was never warned of the dangers of working with "The Office," ended up molested by PL. The policy of "I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing" sounds real fine and spiritual until people start getting hurt.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Your experience matches my experience, dear brother Ohio. I was always enthralled by all the "riches" Witness Lee could extract from the Bible by allegorizing. Surely we in the Local Churches had special access to riches hidden in the Word of God that the rest of Christianity knew so little about!

This note from Nigel's caught my attention. Notice how fundamental WL sounds, nothing like the "Allegorizer of the Age" he later became.

41. ... 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]

This quote is exactly the kind of thing that conflicts many a reader. WL preached fundamental Bible exposition ... at times, yet often times he practiced something all together different. He covered all bases. When necessary, WL could appear totally harmless and fundamental to hush critics. Other times, WL could develop elaborate speculations to wow his followers. When things got heated up, he could allegorized himself as today's Moses, and woe to him who "rebels," who like Miriam would be stricken with leprosy.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good post here Zeek.

Very troublesome to me has been how WL and the Blendeds allegorized stories like Noah and Ham for self-serving coverups of criminal and unrighteous actions at LSM. Since WL was allegorized as today's Noah, his every failure was to be covered and not seen or made public. All the saints and workers at LSM were continually threatened with the curses of Ham lest any should open their mouth. Thus all the Recovery was gripped in fear, that even the knowledge of "death" could inflict them with God's wrath.

Warnings from scripture were coupled with TC's attitude which pervaded the GLA, basically "whether my spiritual father makes a mistake or not is none of my business." I don't believe any of the serious topics of this forum could be reduced to the level of mere "mistakes." Because of policies like this in the Recovery, one Cleveland area sister, who was never warned of the dangers of working with "The Office," ended up molested by PL. The policy of "I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing" sounds real fine and spiritual until people start getting hurt.

Well let's see. That isn't really an allegorical interpretation. It's applying a story about covering Noah's nakedness as an ethical principle. The question arises, how far can you carry the principle? If Noah had committed murder would it have been a good thing to cover it up? Noah's "sin" was only against himself i.e. to his own shame. He didn't harm anybody else. The story doesn't claim that covering up Noah's offense would be ethically defensible if he had commited it against a person other then himself. Therefore, if the Noah story involves a principle, it should not be used to justify covering up a leader's sins when those sins are against someone other then himself.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The human spirit doesn't explain the use of typology, allegory, analogy, and metaphor in the Bible. The theory of archetypes does. Jesus fulfilled, sometimes paradoxically, the messianic expectation of Judaism. The messiah is a sub-category of the hero archetype which is found throughout world mythology. The hero-savior-messiah obviously fills a deep seated universal human need.

First of all, the discussion was quite specific and focused on what mechanism is operating that a person's life in the OT would be a type of Christ. I was not discussing allegory, analogy or metaphor.

Second, I am well aware of the theory of "The Messiah" as an archetype which is found throughout mythology.

The question I raised was how is it that the life of a man like Joseph, who lived long before Jesus did be such a precise type of Christ? And I do not believe that Joseph and all of the other characters involved in his life were creative fiction, rather I believe the OT is a fair representation of history. That is my belief, you are free to believe what you will.

I am well aware of how mythology, not just ancient, but especially recent comic books, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc. use these archetypes, resurrection, salvation, messiah, "chosen one", etc. If you would like to start a thread on that, believe me, I would have a lot to say, but I am not sure it would be on topic for this forum.

But I do not view the OT as mythology, sorry. I find it very misleading to try and characterize the OT as Mythology when that term is equated with fantasy, regardless of how one tries to bend the definition. There is no reason why one wouldn't use the term history other than to imply that it is not in fact an accurate history. I do not view prophecies of the Messiah as a work of fiction, nor do I consider the stories of David, or Joseph, or Moses etc are fiction. There was no OT writer who was using an archetype to fashion or mold his stories, in my opinion.

So the question was, by what mechanism does Joseph have these dreams, these experiences, this life, that becomes such a beautiful type of Christ, even to the experience of his bones after death? Ultimately I believe that it is probably something akin to a shadow. So Christ is the reality, and many of these lives are merely shadows of this reality, which is why they look so much like the reality.

Instead I would argue that the use of Archetypes by all of these fiction writers is a demonstration of what Paul said "Every knee shall bow at that great name". Why do all of these stories have to use resurrection? Because there is no greater story. Why do they talk of redemption and sacrificing oneself to save others, because Jesus has been given the highest name. Jesus did not get that name by following the Fiction writers formula for a masterpiece. He got that because He worshipped God in spirit and reality.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't either. Metaphorical interpretation is unavoidable to some extent. If anyone thinks WL's interpretation was wrong or evoked bad behavior then show us what it was. Blanket condemnation of allegorizing is stupid. Even guys who censured it, like Martin Luther, used it sometimes. Metaphorical concepts permeate language. Biblical literalism as applied by fundamentalists presents problems of its own. Besides, Lee's teaching regarding calling on the Lord didn't involve allegory. It was strictly literal. Did we get hysterical about it? Yes. But that must have been due to factors other than allegory.

This discussion is very confusing because the term "allegorizing" seems to be impossible to define. First, everyone admits that some parts of the Bible are to be understood allegorically. So it is fundamentally sound to look at many parts of the Bible as allegories. Second, it is also clear that even history can be seen allegorically as based on Paul's word in Galatians concerning Hagar.

What does happen is Christian teachers can go off the deep end with allegories seeing everything as an allegory. For example, WL was very big on what numbers in the Bible mean. I always felt that was extremely tenuous, and they bring out a good example of "the five husbands of the Samaritan woman". What do these 5 husbands represent in contrast to the man she is now with who is not her husband?

If you were to create a spectrum and put OBW on one end, I would certainly be on the other side of the midpoint of that spectrum on this. I see no harm in trying to determine what the 5 husbands are, and I feel it can be a profitable exercise in a kind of creative study of the word.

But as Awareness has pointed out, there are many unstable loonies in Christendom and this practice, taken in excess is like a drug. And like Ohio has pointed out, these allegories were used to create non NT teachings so justify covering up gross sins. And as Nigel pointed out this practice of allegorizing everything can be used to discourage saints from getting into the word and also enabling Christian leaders to abuse the flock.

So I think the thing to realize is that in the end, if the teaching originates from and is based on some allegory, it is a teaching without a solid foundation.

[kisstheson]

You make some really good points in your post, dear brother ZNPaaneah. Back in the section of dear brother Nigel's article entitled "Some Caveats", a good working definition of "allegorizing" was provided (emphasis mine in the quotation below):

"One scholar defines, 'allegorizing [as] the interpretive practice of turning into allegory what was not intended to be allegory.'”

Allegorizing is "the interpretive practice of turning into allegory what was not intended to be allegory." I find that to be a very helpful definition because it simultaneously allows an allegorical interpretation of portions of Scripture which were originally written as allegories while it also causes me to be cautious about allegorizing the historical accounts and the plain teachings recorded in the Bible.

There is the one lone use of the Greek word for "allegory" in Galatians 4:24, so the point seems to be that allegorizing historical passages and plain teachings should be kept to a minimum. In 1 Cor. 10:6 & 11, Paul makes it very clear that the historical accounts of the children of Israel in the desert were written as warnings for us, for our instruction. Warnings and instruction are the types of things we want to draw from the Bible's historical accounts and plain teachings. These warnings and instructions should be readily discerned by all who love God and fear Him. May we turn and become like little children in all simplicity, not looking to an elite "Allegorizer of the Age" to provide us a steady stream of hidden esoteric teachings. As Nigel's article clearly mentions and as you also pointed out, a too heavy use of allegorizing allows for the introduction of many ungodly teachings and practices amongst God's people.

I really like your closing words: "So I think the thing to realize is that in the end, if the teaching originates from and is based on some allegory, it is a teaching without a solid foundation." Amen and amen!

Dear Lord, save us from going beyond what is written. Save us from desiring special teachings that puff us up and make us feel superior to our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Save us from all man-made systems of error. Dear Lord, have mercy on us all.

Much love to you all in Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Allegorizing is "the interpretive practice of turning into allegory what was not intended to be allegory." I find that to be a very helpful definition because it simultaneously allows an allegorical interpretation of portions of Scripture which were originally written as allegories while it also causes me to be cautious about allegorizing the historical accounts and the plain teachings recorded in the Bible.

There is the one lone use of the Greek word for "allegory" in Galatians 4:24, so the point seems to be that allegorizing historical passages and plain teachings should be kept to a minimum.

Yes, I saw this definition but I am not a fan of it. First, who decides what was and was not intended to be an allegory? If I was the one that said that Hagar was an allegory of the Old Covenant OBW would have been all over me saying that is conjecture, yet Paul said it, and it is now part of the NT. So what I would say is that the allegory has to be consistent with the plain word. We know from the word we have two covenants, and we know from various places that these covenants are compared to a covenant God has with his people as a husband would have with his bride. So although the reference in Galatians is quite remarkable, it is very much consistent with the plain word of God. So to my mind I don't feel anyone has the authority to say what was and was not intended to be an allegory. But you do have the authority to say what is and is not supported by the truth.

Also, you can say that Paul's limited use of this approach suggests that we also should use it sparingly. But that is a conjecture. What is fact is that Paul's use of this approach and its subsequent canonization gives this approach credibility.

Personally, I think that when you try to allegorize it forces you to look at many passages, teachings, etc. You have to look at each verse, consider it, try to put together a puzzle, and maybe realize your approach is not working, so lets try something new. So to me the process is really quite beneficial in helping you read the word and perhaps get a different view. You need to realize that 90% of what you do will need to be discarded, but 100% of the time spent is profitable. When I was younger I did this a lot, as I have aged I have lost my interest in doing this.

For example, what about the 12 precious stones in the NJ? Do you think that they might be allegorical and shed light on the concept of Christians being transformed into the image and glory of God? I remember when I had only been in the LRC for about 2 years I asked a professor at Rice this, I gave him the list of the 12 stones and asked him what he could tell me about the way in which they were metamorphosed / formed. His response was that this list "covered the entire gamut of the way in which precious stones form". He was not a Christian, and I don't think he recognized the list, but I found that to be a very interesting comment. So I did a very detailed study of the precious stones, I think at one point I wrote a 30 page report on them (could have been longer, I don't really remember) that was given to WL.

I will say this, some of the things I learned about these stones really blew me away. I don't want to get off track, but Emerald is considered the most valuable and beautiful of all the precious stones, next to an emerald in the NJ is a Sardonyx, a semiprecious stone that looks like an oreo cookie (a layer of white sandwiched between two layers of black onyx). When I first looked at that stone I laughed, how could this stone stand next to an Emerald. Well it took some searching but I discovered how that stone was able to stand. Now that study was all allegory, but I treasure it. Another stone, Chrysolite, was at one point my favorite stone. It is the only stone in the NJ that suffers heat and pressure on the same scale as a diamond, but it has a secret. So when I was in Irving on the stone crew I put the sign of Chrysolite on all of our planters.

[Cal]

Paul could allegorize because he was an apostle and could write scripture. Allegorizing to produce a new truth that is not echoed in plain scripture is the job of an apostle. Since there haven't been any apostles since the first century that option is closed.

Why can't we be content with what the Bible actually says? Why do we feel the need to read things into it which may or may not be there?

Take the Song of Songs. People including Nee have allegorized the heck out of that. Either Nee or Lee even taught that the shulamite's breasts signified faith and love, and that our faith and love should be equally strong because a woman's breasts should be the same size. (No word on what happened to hope, but never mind.) I mean, whatever....

Why not just take Song of Songs at face value, that God treasures and validates romantic love? Does every word picture have to have a hidden meaning?

[RollingStone]

Ye must be born again to see the kingdom of God KJV in John chapter 3

If everything was taken literally we would be scratching our heads as Nicodemus did when he was thinking how does a man crawl back in his mothers womb.

There are some gentleman in West Virginia that take Mark 16:18, literally! I haven't seen any allegories for that one but I am happy not to take it literal.

It says something about Ye picking up serpents and drinking poison.

I am satisfied to consider the serpents as something to do with or related to demons that are in the preceding verse or not to be afraid of the demons and be brave just as if you are picking up serpents when you cast out demons and speak in tongues.

Even though Paul was bit by one and didn't die Acts 28 3-5

I did try casting a demon out of my wife once and that experience literally was a lot like picking up a snake and drinking poison.

Lord have mercy on us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul could allegorize because he was an apostle and could write scripture. Allegorizing to produce a new truth that is not echoed in plain scripture is the job of an apostle. Since there haven't been any apostles since the first century that option is closed.

Why can't we be content with what the Bible actually says? Why do we feel the need to read things into it which may or may not be there?

Take the Song of Songs. People including Nee have allegorized the heck out of that. Either Nee or Lee even taught that the shulamite's breasts signified faith and love, and that our faith and love should be equally strong because a woman's breasts should be the same size. (No word on what happened to hope, but never mind.) I mean, whatever....

Why not just take Song of Songs at face value, that God treasures and validates romantic love? Does every word picture have to have a hidden meaning?

"Paul could allegorize because He was an apostle and could write scripture". I cannot see any basis for this "truth" anywhere in scripture.

"Allegorizing to produce new truth" -- Paul did not do that, everything he said about Hagar did not produce a new truth. I don't think anyone can do that. Peter said that no verse is of its own interpretation so I don't believe that option of "allegorizing to produce truth" was ever open.

"Lets take the Song of Sons at face value" --

4:1b your hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

Is this a compliment? You have goat hair!? Why mount Gilead? Here is how I allegorize this to make sense for myself:

Mount Gilead is where Jacob and Laban made a contract over Laban's daughters. These two men were "goats". Our hair signifies our being under submission. Anyone could be under submission to the God of the prosperity gospel, but to be under submission to a goat, that is truly beautiful.

4:2 Your teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.

This is even better, what is being said here? This woman's teeth are like sheep right after they have had all their hair shaved off, they have been driven through a river to wash them off, and everyone is trying to find their baby lambs, and by the way, all them have twins?! Are you serious? How can you possibly understand this to look like teeth without allegorizing?

Here is how I understand this verse:

You see someone's teeth when they open their mouth to speak. Take Miss America, cut all her hair off on National TV, and at that moment what do you think will come out of her mouth when she speaks? Will it be a double blessing and no curse? Well, that is true beauty.

I shared this in an English class in Taiwan when I was in the FTTT. One woman asked "what about the Man?" I responded, "the man is Jesus, He gave his life for us, all we do is give our hair (our glory), it will grow back".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What does happen is Christian teachers can go off the deep end with allegories seeing everything as an allegory. For example, WL was very big on what numbers in the Bible mean. I always felt that was extremely tenuous, and they bring out a good example of "the five husbands of the Samaritan woman". What do these 5 husbands represent in contrast to the man she is now with who is not her husband?

First, no offense in characterizing our perspectives.

I consider that in reading scripture, we have primarily what is written. The plain words. If they are clearly something like a parable or fiction provided to make a point, then there is quite possibly something to alegorize. And at some level it has been done for us. Not that the solution is clearly given, but the direction as to its place as meaning more than simply the raw narrative. But few argue over where those are.

But if we come to the Samaritan woman, we can see so much that is simply the narrative. Yes, there is a little bit of nuance when they get into things like the "place" to worship and Jesus basically says it is not about place. That is the kind of statement that seems out of place — at least at first. But when we get to the 5 husbands, there is a point. She is a serial marryer. She is just committing adultery in stages.

Yet I would not have much problem with a preacher who wanted to spring from the 5 husbands to, say, 5 ways that we ignore God, or whatever. But these are always couched in terms of using one thing — 5 husbands — as a springboard to something else. They don't try to make the 5 into something concrete as if suggested by the narrative. That is where I would draw a line.

Anyone trying to say that there is anything suggested in the narrative as a meaning for each of the 5 husbands immediately gets my antennas up. How is there anything metaphorical here suggesting 5 specific things? Where did these come from? Where is he going with this? And why is he trying to make it out to be certain when it is not?

Now if we were talking about reading the Song of Songs, then my thoughts are quite different. I'm sure that there are things that some people get of of that book that probably are not there. But at least you come to it with the understanding that it is intended to be metaphorical. Rich in inference and meaning that is not directly stated.

I do not deny that we may find rich meaning in other places beyond what is simply written. But if the first place we should be looking is to what is there. Not what it not. Allegorizing what is not provided as allegory needs many caveats. Saying "the 5 husbands means" and then rattling off 5 different specific things is not supported, or supportable, based on what is there to read. On the other hand, to say, "we could treat these 5 husbands as . . ." can provide a springboard to something that is admittedly not within the passage, but is useful in Christian living and may be found in other, unrelated passages.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I see no harm in trying to determine what the 5 husbands are

But how do you propose to determine what the 5 husbands are? On what basis do you conclude that you have found the 5 and have linked them to this passage?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But as Awareness has pointed out, there are many unstable loonies in Christendom and this practice, taken in excess is like a drug.

And this is more than true. The scary thing is that there are many who do not appear to be "unstable loonies" who are busy doing the same thing. Go to work and look around you. There is probably someone literally on drugs who does not exhibit any signs. There are functioning alcoholics. But, in reference to the allegory addicts, they are just as errant as the unstable loonies.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, no offense in characterizing our perspectives...

Reading this post I was in shock that we have found common ground on which we agree, perhaps totally.

As to the question of what value it is to try and figure out what these 5 husbands are it is like a Biblical brain teaser. At MIT and other schools they give problems to students that have no solution, or at least have not been solved. Personally I have always thought that the Samaritan woman with her 5 husbands and one that is not has a nice correlation with the ook of Ecclesiastes. So, as you suggested, if I do hit on this I use it to jump to Ecclesiastes.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why can't we be content with what the Bible actually says? Why do we feel the need to read things into it which may or may not be there?

Take the Song of Songs. People including Nee have allegorized the heck out of that. Either Nee or Lee even taught that the shulamite's breasts signified faith and love, and that our faith and love should be equally strong because a woman's breasts should be the same size. (No word on what happened to hope, but never mind.) I mean, whatever....

Why not just take Song of Songs at face value, that God treasures and validates romantic love? Does every word picture have to have a hidden meaning?

Why do we have to have fiction writers, why can't all books be non fiction? Why do we need artists? Why not just take the Shaker's approach, everything is functional and anything more that that is sin, vanity, whatever? Poetry? Does anyone really need that? WL wrote songs and didn't need to use poetry, so why should anyone else? Of course I am being sarcastic, I think that God's ways are higher than ours.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why do we have to have fiction writers, why can't all books be non fiction? Why do we need artists? Why not just take the Shaker's approach, everything is functional and anything more that that is sin, vanity, whatever? Poetry? Does anyone really need that? WL wrote songs and didn't need to use poetry, so why should anyone else? Of course I am being sarcastic, I think that God's ways are higher than ours.

I do have not problem with poetry and symbolism. I have a problem with thinking we can define the meaning of every symbol in the Bible and be certain what each one means. Trying to take every little image in the Song of Songs an wring meaning out of it seems extreme.

You've read some interpretations of songs and poems, the original artists often marvel at what listeners and readers come up with. As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I do have not problem with poetry and symbolism. I have a problem with thinking we can define the meaning of every symbol in the Bible and be certain what each one means. Trying to take every little image in the Song of Songs an wring meaning out of it seems extreme.

You've read some interpretations of songs and poems, the original artists often marvel at what listeners and readers come up with. As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Sometimes Picasso is just a six year old kid scrawling on the wall.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Paul could allegorize because He was an apostle and could write scripture". I cannot see any basis for this "truth" anywhere in scripture.

"Allegorizing to produce new truth" -- Paul did not do that, everything he said about Hagar did not produce a new truth. I don't think anyone can do that. Peter said that no verse is of its own interpretation so I don't believe that option of "allegorizing to produce truth" was ever open.

When I say "new truth" I mean something that had not yet been revealed. The NT clearly says there are certain truths that were hidden until NT times. Paul could allegorize Hagar because he saw the truth of the new covenant, which had been hidden.

That doesn't mean the only reason Hagar exists in the Bible was to produce that allegory. Paul, in my opinion, just saw a parallel, and used it to paint a picture. Since he was an apostle his picture became scripture.

You or I could paint pictures, too. But what we write isn't going to become scripture. That's what I meant.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

First of all, the discussion was quite specific and focused on what mechanism is operating that a person's life in the OT would be a type of Christ. I was not discussing allegory, analogy or metaphor.

Second, I am well aware of the theory of "The Messiah" as an archetype which is found throughout mythology.

The question I raised was how is it that the life of a man like Joseph, who lived long before Jesus did be such a precise type of Christ? And I do not believe that Joseph and all of the other characters involved in his life were creative fiction, rather I believe the OT is a fair representation of history. That is my belief, you are free to believe what you will.

I am well aware of how mythology, not just ancient, but especially recent comic books, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc. use these archetypes, resurrection, salvation, messiah, "chosen one", etc. If you would like to start a thread on that, believe me, I would have a lot to say, but I am not sure it would be on topic for this forum.

But I do not view the OT as mythology, sorry. I find it very misleading to try and characterize the OT as Mythology when that term is equated with fantasy, regardless of how one tries to bend the definition. There is no reason why one wouldn't use the term history other than to imply that it is not in fact an accurate history. I do not view prophecies of the Messiah as a work of fiction, nor do I consider the stories of David, or Joseph, or Moses etc are fiction. There was no OT writer who was using an archetype to fashion or mold his stories, in my opinion.

So the question was, by what mechanism does Joseph have these dreams, these experiences, this life, that becomes such a beautiful type of Christ, even to the experience of his bones after death? Ultimately I believe that it is probably something akin to a shadow. So Christ is the reality, and many of these lives are merely shadows of this reality, which is why they look so much like the reality.

Instead I would argue that the use of Archetypes by all of these fiction writers is a demonstration of what Paul said "Every knee shall bow at that great name". Why do all of these stories have to use resurrection? Because there is no greater story. Why do they talk of redemption and sacrificing oneself to save others, because Jesus has been given the highest name. Jesus did not get that name by following the Fiction writers formula for a masterpiece. He got that because He worshipped God in spirit and reality.

Well sure. We are all entitled to our opinions and I don't expect you to accept mine. It seems reasonable to me to base my opinion on knowledge otherwise I feel like I'm just whistling in the wind. To the best of my knowledge, there is no historical evidence for Joseph whatsoever. So the Biblical account is uncorroborated. I'm not saying that it didn't happen exactly the way it is written. I'm saying there is no way to KNOW one way or the other if it did or not. An allegoric interpretation is essentially agnostic about the issue. It doesn't matter if the actual event occurred or not. What is essential to an allegorical interpretation is the MEANING of the text not it's historical accuracy.

Be that as it may, it does not rule out the possibility that real historical persons live out archetypal patterns to some extent. Archetype refers a universally understood symbol or term or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. According to the Gospel of John, Christ is the Logos, the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. If the Logos is a divine prototype, godly persons may more or less live out the the prototype of which Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth is the full realization.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I do have not problem with poetry and symbolism. I have a problem with thinking we can define the meaning of every symbol in the Bible and be certain what each one means. Trying to take every little image in the Song of Songs an wring meaning out of it seems extreme.

You've read some interpretations of songs and poems, the original artists often marvel at what listeners and readers come up with. As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Igzy, you must be on shaky ground to invoke Freud.

Obviously, the matter of allegorizing can be taken to extremes in either direction. I suppose each one of us has to find his own "allegory comfort zone" within acceptable limits. When the Reformers came along, the situation with Rome was so out of control that serious Biblical literalism was called for by the Spirit and was indeed justified. Perhaps our exodus from the "Allegorizer of the Age" warrants similar measures for a season. This is an area where WL just refused to accept any balance, taking allegorizing to new heights, or should I say new depths.

If WL had only allegorized scripture for the edifying of others, then perhaps we would not be having this discussion, but his motives included the extremes of self-exaltation. Where scriptures were silent, he allegorized in a vain attempt to connect his own personal ministry with the divine record. In this regard, his early days with the Brethren were not an asset to him.

Tomes' paper says allegorizing is "redundant," and page 6 says, "Hence scholars assert that allegory’s “role, hermeneutically speaking, is parasitic,” it extracts its significance from the rest of the Bible, yet contributes nothing in return. I'm not sure if I totally agree with this assertion. Certain points in scripture are stressed redundantly for emphasis, using plain words, types, pictures, prophecies, etc. Allegorizing, thus, enhances the message in richer terms. I should think that the strictest of literalism would preclude the church from even the singing of songs and writing of commentaries.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Reading this post I was in shock that we have found common ground on which we agree, perhaps totally.

Let's celebrate and have a party. :justlurking:

[awareness]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

Ye must be born again to see the kingdom of God KJV in John chapter 3

If everything was taken literally we would be scratching our heads as Nicodemus did when he was thinking how does a man crawl back in his mothers womb.

There are some gentleman in West Virginia that take Mark 16:18, literally! I haven't seen any allegories for that one but I am happy not to take it literal.

It says something about Ye picking up serpents and drinking poison.

I am satisfied to consider the serpents as something to do with or related to demons that are in the preceding verse or not to be afraid of the demons and be brave just as if you are picking up serpents when you cast out demons and speak in tongues.

Even though Paul was bit by one and didn't die Acts 28 3-5

I did try casting a demon out of my wife once and that experience literally was a lot like picking up a snake and drinking poison.

Lord have mercy on us.

From Mark 16:9 to the end is a later add on to Mark, and does not appear in the early manuscripts....apparently some later scribe didn't like that Mark ended with : "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sometimes Picasso is just a six year old kid scrawling on the wall.

Recently I was touring the Guggenheim Museum in "the city" gazing at an artwork exhibition entitled "early 20th century abstract cubism." It was, as Igzy has said, art experts trying to find meaning when perhaps there was none to be found. Being an engineer, I found the museum exhibits extremely boring since I have no interest or background in "art," especially the abstract varieties.

The museum, however, was truly fascinating, and worth the price of admission. Designed by famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright, it is really unique. The only artwork I happened to appreciate was one huge room off the central spiral, plastered with 100,000 one dollar bills. That was neat. I could relate to that "art." I "sneaked" a picture of that room.

Sorry to take this off topic .....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Allegorizing to produce new truth" -- Paul did not do that, everything he said about Hagar did not produce a new truth. I don't think anyone can do that. Peter said that no verse is of its own interpretation so I don't believe that option of "allegorizing to produce truth" was ever open.

In an earlier post I mentioned this allegory from Galatians. For Paul to equate the concubine Hagar with earthly Jerusalem was monumental. This was "new truth," if ever there was some, and the Jewish believers were infuriated, no doubt. Yes, the Lord spoke prophetically about the destruction of Jerusalem while on the earth, but I have to believe statements like this by the Apostle caused him to be on the "most wanted" list in Jerusalem. This statement, at least to me, was ten-fold more striking than his stance on circumcision. Had they known this during the Acts 15 summit, the course of history might have been altered.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

From Mark 16:9 to the end is a later add on to Mark, and does not appear in the early manuscripts....apparently some later scribe didn't like that Mark ended with : "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

I agree with this.

I still remember the time over 30 years ago that Philip Comfort shared this in a class on campus. The way he shared this in no way discredited my belief that the Bible was divinely inspired by the God of the universe who became our Savior.

[awareness]

Inventing new allegory produces an infectious meme, that is a contagion. If it's in the Bible, accept it. If not, run like hell from it, even if it be a salacious compelling picture story ... actually, run especially if such.

If ya got a allegory itch, go read some Si-Fi .... At least that's honest ... unlike dishonest pretend Bible preachin' Bible allegorizers .... like AOTA Witless Lee ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well sure. We are all entitled to our opinions and I don't expect you to accept mine. It seems reasonable to me to base my opinion on knowledge otherwise I feel like I'm just whistling in the wind. To the best of my knowledge, there is no historical evidence for Joseph whatsoever. So the Biblical account is uncorroborated. I'm not saying that it didn't happen exactly the way it is written. I'm saying there is no way to KNOW one way or the other if it did or not. An allegoric interpretation is essentially agnostic about the issue. It doesn't matter if the actual event occurred or not. What is essential to an allegorical interpretation is the MEANING of the text not it's historical accuracy.

Be that as it may, it does not rule out the possibility that real historical persons live out archetypal patterns to some extent. Archetype refers a universally understood symbol or term or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. According to the Gospel of John, Christ is the Logos, the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. If the Logos is a divine prototype, godly persons may more or less live out the the prototype of which Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth is the full realization.

That is also my point as well. Jesus is the prototype. According to the Archetype theory Jesus should come first, not Joseph. So for Joseph's life to be recorded in such detail as a type of the "Archetype" is not part of the theory. That theory, whether they admit it or not, says that the writer of history embellishes, adjusts, and erases to make his character fit the archetype. Joseph preceded Jesus so that no writer could have used Jesus as the archetype in writing that history.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Tomes' paper says allegorizing is "redundant," and page 6 says, "Hence scholars assert that allegory’s “role, hermeneutically speaking, is parasitic,” it extracts its significance from the rest of the Bible, yet contributes nothing in return. I'm not sure if I totally agree with this assertion. Certain points in scripture are stressed redundantly for emphasis, using plain words, types, pictures, prophecies, etc. Allegorizing, thus, enhances the message in richer terms. I should think that the strictest of literalism would preclude the church from even the singing of songs and writing of commentaries.

Yes, this is something else I find poorly defined or expressed. I would agree that Allegories role is not to add meaning but to extract it from the rest of the Bible. I disagree that this is "parasitic. Instead I would say that a good allegory, or a good parable can convey a lot of truth in a very brief way. For example, you could ask a bunch of rabbi's to define "who my neighbor is" or you could ask a bunch of lawyers or scribes to do this. I doubt any of them could come up with a more elegant, concise and helpful definition as the Lord did in His parable of the Good Samaritan.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In an earlier post I mentioned this allegory from Galatians. For Paul to equate the concubine Hagar with earthly Jerusalem was monumental. This was "new truth," if ever there was some, and the Jewish believers were infuriated, no doubt. Yes, the Lord spoke prophetically about the destruction of Jerusalem while on the earth, but I have to believe statements like this by the Apostle caused him to be on the "most wanted" list in Jerusalem. This statement, at least to me, was ten-fold more striking than his stance on circumcision. Had they known this during the Acts 15 summit, the course of history might have been altered.

Monumental and knee buckling, true, but you could back this up with other verses in the Bible, so saying that there were two covenants, one of the law and one of the spirit, and that the Jewish religion had embraced the covenant of the law, could be pieced together completely without the allegory, however, the allegory is so much more elegant and concise and easier to understand.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is also my point as well. Jesus is the prototype. According to the Archetype theory Jesus should come first, not Joseph. So for Joseph's life to be recorded in such detail as a type of the "Archetype" is not part of the theory. That theory, whether they admit it or not, says that the writer of history embellishes, adjusts, and erases to make his character fit the archetype. Joseph preceded Jesus so that no writer could have used Jesus as the archetype in writing that history.

Brother Z, you sound like you are in a loop ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Inventing new allegory produces an infectious meme, that is a contagion. If it's in the Bible, accept it. If not, run like hell from it, even if it be a salacious compelling picture story ... actually, run especially if such.

If ya got a allegory itch, go read some Si-Fi .... At least that's honest ... unlike dishonest pretend Bible preachin' Bible allegorizers .... like AOTA Witless Lee ...

AOTA??????

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Z, you sound like you are in a loop ...

took you long enough to joint the fray, isn't this your favorite theory as well?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Tomes' paper says allegorizing is "redundant," and page 6 says, "Hence scholars assert that allegory’s “role, hermeneutically speaking, is parasitic,” it extracts its significance from the rest of the Bible, yet contributes nothing in return. I'm not sure if I totally agree with this assertion. Certain points in scripture are stressed redundantly for emphasis, using plain words, types, pictures, prophecies, etc. Allegorizing, thus, enhances the message in richer terms. I should think that the strictest of literalism would preclude the church from even the singing of songs and writing of commentaries.

I agree with this.

I think common sense tells us to emphasize the literal and let allegory take a secondary role of support and perhaps enhancement.

Lee seemed to almost think allegory was more important than the literal. Much of the strangeness of the LRC swings on these "hidden" teachings. (e.g. Noah and his sons, Miriam, Saul being the anointed, plastering leper's houses, one trumpet, fine flour "mingled" with oil, and on and on.)

Lee seemed to think there was a "hidden" message in the Bible which was for a few select "faithful" ones to understand. Of course, his movement was right in the middle of that select company.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

AOTA??????

Allegorizer of the Age

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Take the Song of Songs. People including Nee have allegorized the heck out of that. Either Nee or Lee even taught that the shulamite's breasts signified faith and love, and that our faith and love should be equally strong because a woman's breasts should be the same size. (No word on what happened to hope, but never mind.) I mean, whatever....

Why not just take Song of Songs at face value, that God treasures and validates romantic love? Does every word picture have to have a hidden meaning?

Song of Songs 4:5 talks of the woman's breasts as two young roes, twins of a deer, feeding among the lilies. This picture is full of hope, lilies don't grow in a drought or a flood, deer don't have twins in a famine. How can anyone look at this picture and feel hopeless?

[zeek]

We should call the language police, because allegory is an extended metaphor and language is rife with metaphors.

I commend Tomes for calling WL & LSM on cherry picking and contradiction. They claim that allegorizing is a long standing tradition in one place and then state they don't care for traditions of the historic church. If they don't care for tradition then to be consistent, don't use tradition to support what you are doing.

But then he goes on to condemn allegorization. He prefers the meaning intended by the author. That begs the question what does the author mean? If we knew that there really wouldn't be a problem would there? And there must be one meaning only. Really? Were the authors of the Bible dumber then modern authors and poets, movie makers, etc. who intend multiple meanings in their writings? I mean Christians do think God speaks through the Bible right? But God can only have one meaning if only we could find it. Obviously we haven't. If we had there would be only one church and not one on every corner.

Now Paul did extensive allegorizing of the Hebrew Bible in the course of supporting his gospel message. So do we or don't we follow his method? No. Too dangerous?

I submit that the entire Book of Revelation is an allegory. How are we to understand it if we do not allegorize?

The Reformers had a problem with the official Roman Catholic practice of allegorizing. They believed that the ordinary Christian could interpret the Bible. What if the ordinary Christian allegorizes?

I submit that typology is a subcategory of allegory. So if we are not to allegorize we should throw out typology. Joseph is not a type of Christ after all. The writer of Genesis never explicitly states that he is so Christians are just reading that into the narrative.

If someone has a problem with a teaching of WL or LSM name what it is. Certainly there may be allegorical interpretations of the Bible that are unfounded, or don't make sense, or are silly or evil. But blanket rejection of the method results in the contradiction that we cannot employ a method that was used by the very writers that we are trying to understand when we read the Bible.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Song of Songs 4:5 talks of the woman's breasts as two young roes, twins of a deer, feeding among the lilies. This picture is full of hope, lilies don't grow in a drought or a flood, deer don't have twins in a famine. How can anyone look at this picture and feel hopeless?

When I read it I just think of a woman's breasts.

Sorry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree with this.

I think common sense tells us to emphasize the literal and let allegory take a secondary role of support and perhaps enhancement.

Lee seemed to almost think allegory was more important than the literal. Much of the strangeness of the LRC swings on these "hidden" teachings. (e.g. Noah and his sons, Miriam, Saul being the anointed, plastering leper's houses, one trumpet, fine flour "mingled" with oil, and on and on.)

Lee seemed to think there was a "hidden" message in the Bible which was for a few select "faithful" ones to understand. Of course, his movement was right in the middle of that select company.

I may be wrong, having not actually discussed this with Nigel, but it seems to me that the background, or in LC'ese the "black-ground," of this paper by Nigel is the LSM training sessions which were held in various locations in greater Toronto by Minoru Chen and others, in which techniques were discussed with dissident locals how to "tear down the house," i.e. the church in Toronto using allegorical nonsense from the book of Leviticus.

Not to change the subject, but it really surprises me that TC has never publicly distanced himself from WL, the source of all "disgusting" allegory at LSM, especially those that address the so-called quarantines, both past and present. I have to believe that this is no more than "playing politics" for personal gain. Because of his abrasive straight-forward attitude, most of TC's most ardent followers, at least in my "neck of the woods," boasted for decades that he alone was above politics, all the time pointing out the flaws of those hovering around Anaheim. There is no way TC can maintain the old paradigm of "good WL, bad blended," and still maintain credibility, at least in the GLA. Perhaps this is why many leaders have distanced themselves, or have become like the "ostrich."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Song of Songs 4:5 talks of the woman's breasts as two young roes, twins of a deer, feeding among the lilies. This picture is full of hope, lilies don't grow in a drought or a flood, deer don't have twins in a famine. How can anyone look at this picture and feel hopeless?

Coming back from hiking in the the dog park the other night, I saw two fawns crossing the road ahead of me which appeared quite hopeless.

I guess at the time I had forgot to view them allegorically, and decided to hit my brakes.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Song of Songs 4:5 talks of the woman's breasts as two young roes, twins of a deer, feeding among the lilies. This picture is full of hope, lilies don't grow in a drought or a flood, deer don't have twins in a famine. How can anyone look at this picture and feel hopeless?

I for one never feel hopeless when gazing at "twin roes."

[Cal]

I'm not trying to be saucy, I'm just making the point in that I think some people allegorize the Song of Songs because they don't want to talk about what it's plainly about, which is romantic love and sexual attraction. We are uncomfortable that the Bible devotes a whole book to this subject so we try to spiritualize it.

Solomon is grasping for words to describe his feelings about the woman, she is doing the same. They come up with all kinds of embarrassing things to say. If you've never done that you've never been in the rapture of love (and sex).

How would you like some of the things you've said to your spouse during periods of intense intimacy to get allegorized by a bunch of over-spiritualized Christians? Lord save us from the doctrines produced from that.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, this is something else I find poorly defined or expressed. I would agree that Allegories role is not to add meaning but to extract it from the rest of the Bible. I disagree that this is "parasitic. Instead I would say that a good allegory, or a good parable can convey a lot of truth in a very brief way. For example, you could ask a bunch of rabbi's to define "who my neighbor is" or you could ask a bunch of lawyers or scribes to do this. I doubt any of them could come up with a more elegant, concise and helpful definition as the Lord did in His parable of the Good Samaritan.

I think that the tendency to be looking for allegory rather than looking at the narrative and eventually realizing that there is an allegory involved is where it gets parasitic. If we come to scripture holding to a few pet themes for which we scour scripture trying to find any faint resemblance to the pattern so we can declare an allegory or metaphor in play, then we are being parasitic. We may point to other scripture in the process. But if there is really nothing in the source scripture to link to the secondary scripture, then the forcing of an allegory or metaphor on it to make that link to the secondary scripture is parasitic relative to the first scripture. It takes from what is in that scripture and gives it to another. It deflects and ignores the meaning of the first scripture.

This was one of Lee's greatest sources of error. He did not seem to have much care for the primary narrative in so many parts of the OT. If he could find any way to layer on "Christ and the church," "the ground of the church," "God's economy," or whatever, that was all it was about. Conclusions from his reading of the NT we used to reformulate OT passages into allegories of the NT for the purpose of underpinning the importance of his NT position. For example, he pushes the ground of the church, using the presumed metaphor of Jerusalem as being the church and the synagogues being Christianity. But you don't automatically arrive at the conclusion that there was something errant in synagogues unless you start with the presumption that it is somehow an anomaly based on an overlay of "the right place" that ends with a doctrine of church ground.

My complaint is not that we should not sometimes take opportunities to teach more than is in a particular passage. It is in the insistence that the thing added is because of some special link hidden between the lines, or in the shadows of its metaphorical meaning when there is no such meaning. Better to admit no link but say you are going somewhere else anyway. It at least gives the reader/listener an opportunity to assess the secondary statements on their own rather than trying to make the two fit together as if written to be so. This is Lee's error. And his falsehood.

It is true that a good parable or good allegory can provide a lot of truth. But that does not suggest that there are a lot of parables or allegories in the whole of scripture. Surely there are some. But so many of the ones that Lee found just weren't there. He went searching for patterns to force into an allegory to support a position. That is parasitic. It takes from scripture and the only thing it gives back is the waste product it pushes out the back end. Synagogues go in, and out the back comes a declaration that scripture abhors them like Lee abhors Christianity. But scripture never abhorred synagogues. That is the excrement of a false allegory. It took away from scripture and gave nothing scriptural in return.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not trying to be saucy, I'm just making the point in that I think some people allegorize the Song of Songs because they don't want to talk about what it's plainly about, which is romantic love and sexual attraction. We are uncomfortable that the Bible devotes a whole book to this subject so we try to spiritualize it.

Solomon is grasping for words to describe his feelings about the woman, she is doing the same. They come up with all kinds of embarrassing things to say. If you've never done that you've never been in the rapture of love (and sex).

How would you like some of the things you've said to your spouse during periods of intense intimacy to get allegorized by a bunch of over-spiritualized Christians? Lord save us from the doctrines produced from that.

Amen, Amen, and Amen. (System doesn't like just one "Amen.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not trying to be saucy, I'm just making the point in that I think some people allegorize the Song of Songs because they don't want to talk about what it's plainly about, which is romantic love and sexual attraction. We are uncomfortable that the Bible devotes a whole book to this subject so we try to spiritualize it.

Solomon is grasping for words to describe his feelings about the woman, she is doing the same. They come up with all kinds of embarrassing things to say. If you've never done that you've never been in the rapture of love (and sex).

I'm not buying.

How could a guy with 300 wives and 700 concubines get so excited about that "one special girl?" I'm just sayin' ... tremendous incentive to make this "song" a little "bigger than life."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not buying.

How could a guy with 300 wives and 700 concubines get so excited about that "one special girl?" I'm just sayin' ... tremendous incentive to make this "song" a little "bigger than life."

Maybe she was early on in the series. And the fact that Solomon had so many women shows he was very interested in them. He probably idolized women. I'm sure each one of them was initially very special to him in their own ways, or he wouldn't have chosen them. But, alas, interest wanes, as we all know, and it's on to the next shulamite.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Maybe she was early on in the series. And the fact that Solomon had so many women shows he was very interested in them. He probably idolized women. I'm sure each one of them was initially very special to him in their own ways, or he wouldn't have chosen them. But, alas, interest wanes, as we all know, and it's on to the next shulamite.

I'm sure any further speculation along these lines will just get me into "trouble."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm sure any further speculation along these lines will just get me into "trouble."

Let me bail you out then by saying that it is not wrong to see God in the Song of Songs, because God created sex and said it was "good." And God is expressed in his creation. So love and sex express God. So the Song of Songs can be a spiritual book. This is much like seeing God in a sunset or mountain range. In one sense it's just nature, on the other hand it expresses God.

But I doubt very much that Solomon intended his poem to be interpreted as an allegory of God and his people. It may have been in the back of his mind, but I'm pretty sure he was writing mostly about his human feelings. But just as creation expresses God, a poem about something he created shows him forth as well. All good things glorify God, because he's the source of all good.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I submit that the entire Book of Revelation is an allegory. How are we to understand it if we do not allegorize?

How about the possibility that we'll never understand the book of Revelation, with any degree of certainty. The Preterists may have it right, that it deals only with the apostolic age.

If someone has a problem with a teaching of WL or LSM name what it is. Certainly there may be allegorical interpretations of the Bible that are unfounded, or don't make sense, or are silly or evil. But blanket rejection of the method results in the contradiction that we cannot employ a method that was used by the very writers that we are trying to understand when we read the Bible.

And therein lies the problem. Of course if we want to allegorize the scripture for our own benefit, what matters what anyone thinks.

But when preachers see allegory in scripture some think, 'allegory is the way to best understand the scriptures,' and then begin to go hog-wild with it, and possibility subject their flock to wild imaginations of their own making, and non-scripture meanings, that are nothing but illusions.

And if it involves a preacher-man like Witness Lee, that requires we give our whole life to his ministry, then is reason for thoughtful caution, concerning HIS allegories.

[zeek]

According to Tomes interpretation of the biblical text should lead to only one valid meaning—that intended by the author. What about Paul’s interpretation of the Hebrew Bible? Is that a hermeneutical principle that Paul practiced? For example in Galatians 3 he says:

15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ,that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.

In Genesis God told Abraham that the blessings are for him and his “seed”. 14And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
16And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

Paul notes that “seed” is grammatically singular. But how can a single seed be as “the dust of the earth”? Wasn’t the writer of Genesis using “seed” as a collective noun to mean” descendents” or “offspring” ? Paul interprets the passage to mean Abraham and his one seed—Christ. If the author of Genesis had intended seed to be singular, why did he say that the seed would be as the dust of the earth?

In Romans 4 Paul demonstrates that he knows the word “seed” is collective when he states: 18"Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.” Seed here refers to the nations.

So, wait a minute. What is the intention of the author of Genesis seed singular or seed plural? According to Tomes interpretation of the biblical text leads to only one valid meaning—that intended by the author. How can then can “seed” have different meanings in different letters according to Paul? It seems bizarre to me Tomes and his "most evangelical scholars" expect that when we interpret the Bible we are supposed to reject practices of interpretation that were used by the writers of the Bible themselves.

[awareness]

I'm not touching this exegesis question. I'm staying on Ohio's good side ... and that of others out here. You bro Zeek, are perchance a troublemaker.....

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me bail you out then by saying that it is not wrong to see God in the Song of Songs, because God created sex and said it was "good." And God is expressed in his creation. So love and sex express God. So the Song of Songs can be a spiritual book. This is much like seeing God in a sunset or mountain range. In one sense it's just nature, on the other hand it expresses God.

But I doubt very much that Solomon intended his poem to be interpreted as an allegory of God and his people. It may have been in the back of his mind, but I'm pretty sure he was writing mostly about his human feelings. But just as creation expresses God, a poem about something he created shows him forth as well. All good things glorify God, because he's the source of all good.

Hello dear brothers Igzy and Ohio,

I just found out something really shocking about Song of Songs! In the back of the Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, published by the United Bible Societies (i.e. the so-called USB4 version of the Greek New Testament), there are two tables. One lists all the passages from the Old Testament quoted by the New Testament. The other lists all the passages from the Old Testament for which there are allusions or parallels in the New Testament.

What I found out is that Song of Songs is the ONLY book in the Old Testament which is not quoted or alluded to by the authors of the New Testament! Even short little books like Obadiah and Nahum are alluded to at least once in the New Testament! All that rich allegorical imagery in Songs of Songs and both Jesus and His apostles never referenced it and certainly never tried to interpret it.

Maybe you both already knew this, but I just found this out and I was quite shocked!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Tomes interpretation of the biblical text should lead to only one valid meaning—that intended by the author...

1st, the author of our faith is Jesus Christ, and we call it the word of God for a reason. So, since God spoke through man this criteria (of what the human author intended) creates too much of a restriction to be able to prove that the human author intended a certain meaning. Instead, I would argue that we need to use Peter's criteria that no verse is of its own interpretation, and that any revelation from the word of God needs to be supported by other verses in the word of God.

2nd, Igzy pointed out that the revelation is unfolding, even as Paul said, in ways that the OT saints had never seen.

3rd, the Holy word is complete. As Igzy said, no one is to add to or take away from this word. No one can justify their teaching as something entirely new to be added to the Bible or to trump the Bible. Even Jesus didn't come to annul but to fulfill.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Hello dear brothers Igzy and Ohio,

I just found out something really shocking about Song of Songs! In the back of the Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, published by the United Bible Societies (i.e. the so-called USB4 version of the Greek New Testament), there are two tables. One lists all the passages from the Old Testament quoted by the New Testament. The other lists all the passages from the Old Testament for which there are allusions or parallels in the New Testament.

What I found out is that Song of Songs is the ONLY book in the Old Testament which is not quoted or alluded to by the authors of the New Testament! Even short little books like Obadiah and Nahum are alluded to at least once in the New Testament! All that rich allegorical imagery in Songs of Songs and both Jesus and His apostles never referenced it and certainly never tried to interpret it.

Maybe you both already knew this, but I just found this out and I was quite shocked!

What! Were these guys eunuchs?

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What! Were these guys eunuchs?

They were clearly made of stronger stuff than me!

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1st, the author of our faith is Jesus Christ, and we call it the word of God for a reason. So, since God spoke through man this criteria (of what the human author intended) creates too much of a restriction to be able to prove that the human author intended a certain meaning. Instead, I would argue that we need to use Peter's criteria that no verse is of its own interpretation, and that any revelation from the word of God needs to be supported by other verses in the word of God.

2nd, Igzy pointed out that the revelation is unfolding, even as Paul said, in ways that the OT saints had never seen.

3rd, the Holy word is complete. As Igzy said, no one is to add to or take away from this word. No one can justify their teaching as something entirely new to be added to the Bible or to trump the Bible. Even Jesus didn't come to annul but to fulfill.

Good points, dear brother ZNPaaneah. It is also good to keep in mind that dear brother Paul was a very deep dude under a heavenly vision. From what I can see, Paul is using the title "Christ" in Galatians 3:16 to refer to Christ as both Head and Body. Paul is certainly known in his letters to think of Christ in this "composite" or "corporate" way. A lot of the verses surrounding Galatians 3:16 speak of Christ as spiritually united with His believers:

"In order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles" (Gal. 3:14a)

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Gal. 3:27)

"For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28b)

"And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:29)

That last verse, Galatians 3:29, makes me think that Paul is thinking of a "composite" or "corporate" seed of Abraham. This seed is the man Jesus Christ along with His Body, those who belong to Him, all of whom are joint heirs with Jesus Christ.

Interestingly, in Gal. 4:25 the single woman Hagar is used to represent the city of Jerusalem, which is certainly a "composite" entity.

[RollingStone]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Tomes interpretation of the biblical text should lead to only one valid meaning—that intended by the author...

The seed is Christ, In Galations chapter 3 Paul is explaining that the law given by Moses was a child conducter until the time that the seed would come. v23 -24 (seed is singular as Christ was planted in the ground like a seed) In Genesis 22:17 seed is singular as it is refering to the one seed refering to Christ, not all the children that sprung from Abraham's loins would produce the seed other than the ones that Jesus can trace his ancestry biologically to Abraham as we see in chapter 1 of mathew with all the begats. Then in Gal 3:29 "And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed (still singular) heirs according to promise. then Paul explains 4 v 6-7 that we are sons, "God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts" "So then you are no longer a slave (to law) but a son ( you have the same life in you as Jesus thru the Spirit of his Son); and if a son an heir also through God.

John 12:24 Jesus says "Truly Truly, i say to you, Unless the grain of wheat (seed) falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone, but if it dies, it bears much fruit. So we can see that when Jesus was the seed and was planted in the ground, died to bear much fruit. So instead of having one son God now has many son's a great multiplication of Christ Gen 22:17
I will surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heaven of the heaven and like the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. Could the many nations just be consisting of the many sons spread over the whole earth in time and space? Even though Abraham had other children ( 1 of them was Ishmael) the seed did not come through them otherwise we could include them if it was more than one seed or stated as seeds.

[Cal]

I thought Esther was not quoted in the NT either.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I thought Esther was not quoted in the NT either.

Truth is even the scriptures are ineffable....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Truth is even the scriptures are ineffable....

How can you be incapable of describing words in words?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me bail you out then by saying that it is not wrong to see God in the Song of Songs, because God created sex and said it was "good." And God is expressed in his creation. So love and sex express God. So the Song of Songs can be a spiritual book. This is much like seeing God in a sunset or mountain range. In one sense it's just nature, on the other hand it expresses God.

I think it's "good" too. Now where's that verse at?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not touching this exegesis question. I'm staying on Ohio's good side ... and that of others out here. You bro Zeek, are perchance a troublemaker.....

It's not like you to shy away from controversy, bro awareness.

And I'm not sure which side of me is "good."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me bail you out then by saying that it is not wrong to see God in the Song of Songs, because God created sex and said it was "good."

I thought He said it was very good?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Hello dear brothers Igzy and Ohio,

I just found out something really shocking about Song of Songs! In the back of the Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, published by the United Bible Societies (i.e. the so-called USB4 version of the Greek New Testament), there are two tables. One lists all the passages from the Old Testament quoted by the New Testament. The other lists all the passages from the Old Testament for which there are allusions or parallels in the New Testament.

What I found out is that Song of Songs is the ONLY book in the Old Testament which is not quoted or alluded to by the authors of the New Testament! Even short little books like Obadiah and Nahum are alluded to at least once in the New Testament! All that rich allegorical imagery in Songs of Songs and both Jesus and His apostles never referenced it and certainly never tried to interpret it.

Maybe you both already knew this, but I just found this out and I was quite shocked!

Interesting point, KisstheSon. I only have the UBS3 version which also has both indices, which unfortunately I have never really noticed. Thankyou for your research here.

As I have said, I'm not an artsy, poetic, romantic, gushy sort of guy, so all the flowery word pictures in the Song of Songs have done little for me. Most of the many allegorical interpretations of the book by WN, WL, or TC seemed to go right over my head.

At this point, I am finding it extremely difficult to reconcile WL's overly lofty and deep speculative allegory from SofS, with his inability to avoid even the basics of human corruption like nepotism, honesty, financial impropriety, false witness, etc. In like manner, how do I harmonize TC's "romantic" views of the full-time serving life with his repeated abuses of his fellow workers?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I thought Esther was not quoted in the NT either.

In my index from UBS3, neither were Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations ...

KisstheSon, can you look more closely at your index from UBS4.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I thought He said it was very good?

Apparently Solomon thought so, too.

[Cal]

According to this eight OT books are not quoted in the NT. These eight Books are Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum and Zephaniah.

Not sure if quoted includes "referred to."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

How about the possibility that we'll never understand the book of Revelation, with any degree of certainty. The Preterists may have it right, that it deals only with the apostolic age.

And therein lies the problem. Of course if we want to allegorize the scripture for our own benefit, what matters what anyone thinks.

But when preachers see allegory in scripture some think, 'allegory is the way to best understand the scriptures,' and then begin to go hog-wild with it, and possibility subject their flock to wild imaginations of their own making, and non-scripture meanings, that are nothing but illusions.

And if it involves a preacher-man like Witness Lee, that requires we give our whole life to his ministry, then is reason for thoughtful caution, concerning HIS allegories.

We may never understand the Apocalypse of John, but unless you think he was talking about a literal lamb there I think we can agree that the book is an allegory. As such it requires allegorization if it is to be understood at all, be that understanding preterist or futurist.

Beyond that I agree that any particular allegorization may be questionable. Certainly some of the WL interpretations cited by Tomes are.

[zeek]

1st, the author of our faith is Jesus Christ, and we call it the word of God for a reason. So, since God spoke through man this criteria (of what the human author intended) creates too much of a restriction to be able to prove that the human author intended a certain meaning.

I was just quoting Tomes. If God is the author, then by Tomes' definition, there is only one valid meaning of the biblical text--that intended by God.

Instead, I would argue that we need to use Peter's criteria that no verse is of its own interpretation, and that any revelation from the word of God needs to be supported by other verses in the word of God.

Well then, if Paul allegorized in the Bible, it's OK by that criteria.

2nd, Igzy pointed out that the revelation is unfolding, even as Paul said, in ways that the OT saints had never seen.

Is that an argument against interpreting the Hebrew Bible according to the intentions of the "OT saints?" So then you disagree with Tomes?

3rd, the Holy word is complete. As Igzy said, no one is to add to or take away from this word. No one can justify their teaching as something entirely new to be added to the Bible or to trump the Bible. Even Jesus didn't come to annul but to fulfill.

Right. Did someone suggest that? I think it would be pointless to add to it since it has already been posited. Of course, there are disputes among Christians about what books should be included in the Bible that we have inherited along with it. So Christians don't necessarily agree on what addition or subtraction to it would entail.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

The seed is Christ, In Galations chapter 3 Paul is explaining that the law given by Moses was a child conducter until the time that the seed would come. v23 -24 (seed is singular as Christ was planted in the ground like a seed) In Genesis 22:17 seed is singular as it is refering to the one seed refering to Christ, not all the children that sprung from Abraham's loins would produce the seed other than the ones that Jesus can trace his ancestry biologically to Abraham as we see in chapter 1 of mathew with all the begats. Then in Gal 3:29 "And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed (still singular) heirs according to promise. then Paul explains 4 v 6-7 that we are sons, "God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts" "So then you are no longer a slave (to law) but a son ( you have the same life in you as Jesus thru the Spirit of his Son); and if a son an heir also through God.

John 12:24 Jesus says "Truly Truly, i say to you, Unless the grain of wheat (seed) falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone, but if it dies, it bears much fruit. So we can see that when Jesus was the seed and was planted in the ground, died to bear much fruit. So instead of having one son God now has many son's a great multiplication of Christ Gen 22:17
I will surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heaven of the heaven and like the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. Could the many nations just be consisting of the many sons spread over the whole earth in time and space? Even though Abraham had other children ( 1 of them was Ishmael) the seed did not come through them otherwise we could include them if it was more than one seed or stated as seeds.

So you're going with Christ as the one seed of Abraham. Therefore, in Genesis the seed of Abarahm is never plural referring to the natural descendents of Abaraham, it is always singular referring to Christ?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I thought Esther was not quoted in the NT either.

I find much more interesting the books that were referenced in the Old Testament that have been lost. And the Book of Enoch referenced in the New Testament (Jude 4,6,13,14-15, 2 Peter 2:4;3:13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-can...d_in_the_Bible

[RollingStone]

Originally Posted by zeek

So you're going with Christ as the one seed of Abraham. Therefore, in Genesis the seed of Abarahm is never plural referring to the natural descendents of Abaraham, it is always singular referring to Christ?

his other descendents didn't get planted in the ground to become the seed. By Christs death, burial and resurrection and becoming the Spirit he caused a multiplication of Himself as the Son of God to produce the many sons of God. The many sons are produced in spirit not in the flesh.
John 3:6

6Flesh and blood give birth to flesh and blood, but the Spirit gives birth to things that are spiritual.

Romans 8:16



16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.

1 Corinthians 2:12

12Now, we didn’t receive the spirit that belongs to the world. Instead, we received the Spirit who comes from God so that we could know the things which God has freely given us. (This relates to galations when Paul talks about sons and being heirs by the Spirit)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was just quoting Tomes. If God is the author, then by Tomes' definition, there is only one valid meaning of the biblical text--that intended by God.



Well then, if Paul allegorized in the Bible, it's OK by that criteria.



Is that an argument against interpreting the Hebrew Bible according to the intentions of the "OT saints?" So then you disagree with Tomes?



Right. Did someone suggest that? I think it would be pointless to add to it since it has already been posited. Of course, there are disputes among Christians about what books should be included in the Bible that we have inherited along with it. So Christians don't necessarily agree on what addition or subtraction to it would entail.

I would say that I do not agree with the article. I do agree that there is an issue with much of WL interpretation. But I am using the word issue, not problem. I think OBW is much more strident than I am on WL and would characterize much of his interpretation as error where I would say that I take issue with it.

What I strongly disagree with is the solution. I think it is completely unworkable to say that "things not intended to be allegorized should not be allegorized". To quote the immortal George Bush, who is "the decider" as to what was intended to be allegorized and what wasn't.

Also, to quote OBW, you should not say something is there in the word that isn't there. I find nothing in the word that says we should "limit" our allegorizing. Now if you want to use Paul's limited use of this as an example to imitate I can understand that and appreciate that. But you are not basing your teaching on Paul's teaching, only on what you perceive to be his example which is based on very limited data (I expect that the letters of Paul are no more representative of his speaking and growth in life as anyone else's would be).

I think the key principle was provided by Peter, no verse is of its own interpretation.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I thought Esther was not quoted in the NT either.

I think KTS said "quoted or alluded to." So a mention of something without direct quotation is included in this. I have no idea what those allusions are.

KTS. Can you supply some hint as to what they include on those few books that do not seem to be quoted?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Also, to quote OBW, you should not say something is there in the word that isn't there. I find nothing in the word that says we should "limit" our allegorizing.

I have to presume that you are not saying that you use a literal interpretation of the whole of scripture to evidence that you don't have to use a literal interpretation of any of scripture. (Couldn't resist that one ) But it is true that scripture does not provide a stated limit to allegorizing. Actually, besides having some allegory revealed as such by certain writers, it makes no statement about it at all that I am aware of.

What I have been trying to say (and I think you get) is that loosely allegorizing almost anything can give hints, indications, even reasonable fillers. But the certainty as to meaning is always fuzzy unless the one providing the allegory gives its clear interpretation. And using allegory to create teachings that are not otherwise contained in scripture is quite troublesome. It seems to me that from what I can recall, the existing allegories, while creating impressions that clarify what is already directly said, do not break new ground. For example, the reference to Hagar and Sarah do not cause there to be something teachable that was not already there. There was a covenant. The child born to Hagar was not of the covenant. This is not really news. And using it to underscore something already on the table being discussed is the purpose for which it was mentioned. It was not used to state something about the present that was not already said and pretty well established.

But to do as Lee did and take many different passages and create meaning that is not there for the purpose of creating teaching that is not otherwise given anywhere directly is a problem. Lee was constantly reading into scripture and declaring it to have come out of scripture. In other words representing eisegesis as exegesis.

When we had our little back and forth concerning Jesse, I considered it to be somewhere in between these extremes, although more toward the side of what I consider safe allegorizing. (I know. Hard to tell at the time.) My only real complaint there was the appearance of a need to say that Jesse definitely did any specific thing when there is no record of it. Suggest away all day long and all is well. I'm sure that there will be times that it seems I don't apply my own "rules" very evenly. What you are missing is the labyrinth of stuff through which I view things. (In other words, my colored glasses that I constantly try to say I do not have.)

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think KTS said "quoted or alluded to." So a mention of something without direct quotation is included in this. I have no idea what those allusions are.

KTS. Can you supply some hint as to what they include on those few books that do not seem to be quoted?

Yes, dear brother OBW, you are correct, I did say "quoted or alluded to". Just to clarify matters, here is the relevant portion from my original post (Post # 117) (new emphasis added by me):

"In the back of the Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, published by the United Bible Societies (i.e. the so-called USB4 version of the Greek New Testament), there are two tables. One lists all the passages from the Old Testament quoted by the New Testament. The other lists all the passages from the Old Testament for which there are allusions or parallels in the New Testament.

What I found out is that Song of Songs is the ONLY book in the Old Testament which is not quoted or alluded to by the authors of the New Testament!"

According to the table at the back of USB4 which lists all the OT quotations which appear in the NT, I count 15 OT books which are not quoted in the NT (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah). I am not sure how this list reconciles with the list of 8 OT books discussed in the link provided by dear brother Igzy - perhaps the discrepancies are due to the differences between the Greek Septuagint text and the Hebrew Masoretic text.

Anyway, there is a second table in the back of the USB4 which lists all the "Allusions and Verbal Parallels" of OT verses found in the NT. Since this is an "Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels", this list is quite a bit longer than the list of direct OT quotations. Obviously, in the NT there are lot more allusions to OT verses and parallels with OT verses than there are direct quotations from the OT. When I examine this "Index of Allusions and Parallels", the only book missing from this list is Song of Songs. The other 14 books which were not directly quoted in the NT have at least one "Allusion or Verbal Parallel".

To give a specific example, let's examine an entry for the book of Esther since dear brother Igzy brought up Esther. The "Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels" indicates some kind of similarity between Esther 7:2 and Mark 6:23. Here are those two verses from the NASB:

"And the king said to Esther on the second day also as they drank their wine at the banquet, 'What is your petition, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? Even to the half of the kingdom it shall be done.'" (Esther 7:2)

"And he swore to her, 'Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my kingdom.'" (Mark 6:23)

Certainly a clear example of a "Verbal Parallel". Here is another example, this time from the book of Obadiah. The "Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels" indicates some kind of similarity between Obadiah 21 and Revelation 11:15. Here are those two verses from the NASB:

"The deliverers will ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau, and the kingdom will be the LORD's." (Obadiah 21)

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there arose loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.'" (Revelation 11:15)

I am not sure if this counts as an "allusion" or as a "verbal parallel", but I can see a parallel here. I hope these two examples help clarify what qualifies an OT verse to be included in the "Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels". I still find it very shocking that Song of Songs is the only OT book which does not show up in this Index. Neither Jesus nor His apostles made any noticeable allusions to Song of Songs!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do agree that there is an issue with much of WL interpretation. But I am using the word issue, not problem. What I strongly disagree with is the solution. I think it is completely unworkable to say that "things not intended to be allegorized should not be allegorized".

I agree with with some of this.

I almost view allegorizing as a "privilege" and not a "right" of ministers and expositors. Once the minister crosses the line and uses his allegories for self-serving purposes, then his "privileges" are removed and even his "acceptable" allegories are suspect. This is why the Reformers took their extreme position. With Romanism gone wild, every single allegory was discarded and the Spirit of God demanded a literal translation of every verse as a way to purge the leaven of centuries of abuse.

Paul was a called and proven Apostle. Thus he had "privileges" in expounding scripture which obviously others do not have. None of his allegories ever damaged the church. By making himself the one unique MOTA, the "acting God," and even "today's Paul," WL attempted to usurp Apostolic privileges which were not rightfully his.

There is no doubt that WL and the Blendeds have abused their "privileges." They have now allegorized the "right to destroy churches," based on obscure renderings of Levitical leprosy. Because of their careless, abusive, self-serving ways, all of their allegories are now suspect. Every LSM book is suspect. At this point, it's almost impossible to develop acceptable guidelines for allegorizing which everyone would agree with. Nigel's article proposed the strictest guidelines, returning to the days of the Reformers, because of his background with LSM, and witnessing first hand their back-stabbing hypocrisy in Toronto.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But to do as Lee did and take many different passages and create meaning that is not there for the purpose of creating teaching that is not otherwise given anywhere directly is a problem. Lee was constantly reading into scripture and declaring it to have come out of scripture. In other words representing eisegesis as exegesis.

I would agree that WL did not use this approach in moderation, and as a result you could argue that he abused this approach. But I don't find that as justification to condemn the use of this approach.

I know that some of the abuses (either by WL or the BBs) involve creating meanings that are offensive and perhaps clearly not true. But the literalists are the ones that would have refused Ruth an entrance into the nation of Israel based on her being a Moabitess. So I feel that abusive teachings can come from both literalists and allegorizers.

If this was an easy road to walk the Lord wouldn't have said it is a narrow way and that few there be that find it.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At this point, I am finding it extremely difficult to reconcile WL's overly lofty and deep speculative allegory from SofS, with his inability to avoid even the basics of human corruption like nepotism, honesty, financial impropriety, false witness, etc. In like manner, how do I harmonize TC's "romantic" views of the full-time serving life with his repeated abuses of his fellow workers?

So maybe even spiritual-sounding talk is cheap?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

I am not sure if this counts as an "allusion" or as a "verbal parallel", but I can see a parallel here. I hope these two examples help clarify what qualifies an OT verse to be included in the "Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels". I still find it very shocking that Song of Songs is the only OT book which does not show up in this Index. Neither Jesus nor His apostles made any noticeable allusions to Song of Songs!

Could Paul's word in Ephesians "This mystery is great but I speak in regards to Christ and the Church" be an oblique parallel since both are using the same metaphor?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

So maybe even spiritual-sounding talk is cheap?

The cheapest.

In fact, "spiritual-sounding" is something that bothers me constantly. I've heard so much junk couched in spiritual terms over the years (and not just from the LRC) that when people start talking with too much piety and spirituality in their language, I probably get a little overly wary. I just figure there has to be an ordinary way to say things and that the "turn on" of the spiritual mumbo jumbo is to mask a lack of spirituality or even trick us to ignore error.

I must confess that I even have a hard time reading KTS at times even though I actually trust him almost implicitly. (KTS: Don't take it personal. It's me, not you.) And when the thing we are truly combating is so much junk from Lee that was always buried in spiritual terminology, it is hard to let your guard down when there is real spirituality in play.

God knows our hearts. He knows what is true. We can't fool him. Why should we put on airs when we speak to each other. It seems that if we feel a need to talk one way to one group of people and another way to others (our "spiritual" group) then I have to wonder how genuine our interaction is in that sanitized, jargonized, role-playing game in which we are engaged.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

When we had our little back and forth concerning Jesse, I considered it to be somewhere in between these extremes, although more toward the side of what I consider safe allegorizing. (I know. Hard to tell at the time.) My only real complaint there was the appearance of a need to say that Jesse definitely did any specific thing when there is no record of it. Suggest away all day long and all is well. I'm sure that there will be times that it seems I don't apply my own "rules" very evenly. What you are missing is the labyrinth of stuff through which I view things. (In other words, my colored glasses that I constantly try to say I do not have.)

I came to the conclusion, that to be very precise about it, the two chapters in 1Samuel do not say that Jesse "trained" David.

They say that Samuel would find the next king from among Jesse's sons. I interpret that to mean that David was "the product" of Jesse. And David says "I am the son of Jesse" which I interpret the same way.

I believe that Saul and Abner's interest in who David's father is can be considered as equivalent to asking "Where did he come from?" But according to the letter of the word you do not have to understand that to mean anything more than biologic offspring.

I also think that the term Father includes the charge that "Fathers are to teach their children". This may not apply to all fathers, but it should certainly be understood of Jesse based on 16:1.

I also believe that the commandment "honor your father and mother that it may be well with you" is a law in much the same way that we have laws of nature or science. The fact that it was well with David, is to my mind, evidence or a direct result, of his honoring his father and mother.

I think from the book of Proverbs it can be said that this commandment to honor your father and mother carries with it the meaning to honor the teaching and training that they gave you.

I think David's refusal to use Saul's armor because he had not tested it first is a window into his training process, but I do agree that this does not specifically state that Jesse trained David. I don't agree that it implies that David was untrained. I feel that this statement by David proves he has learned key principles that he adheres to but it doesn't prove that Jesse was the one that taught these principles to him. Adhering to key principles regarding warfare is one kind of training. I believe the statement also proves that David had tested his sling prior to going into this battle and that also is part of training.

I think that Saul's referral to Goliath as a man of war from his youth meant that Goliath is trained as a warrior and that David was not. David's response that he had killed a bear and a lion is a response to Saul saying he has not trained for war. But again the implication that it was Jesse who oversaw this training is conjecture.

I think that David's playing the musical instrument and being nationally famous is one example of training, and that it is very reasonable to assume that Jesse was partly responsible for his learning this instrument. But it is not stated, it is merely a reasonable and logical assumption.

I think that the Psalms David wrote are evidence of a well educated man. Likewise his success as a King and a warrior are also evidence of a well educated man. And of course, his skill at playing a musical instrument is clearly evidence of a well educated man. Since he was a shepherd that was charged with tending the flock I assume that David was home schooled, but again, this is not stated. Still, I find any other idea almost implausible.

I consider, based on the record concerning Abraham passing on his faith to his children, and according to the NT record of the faith in Timothy's grandmother being passed on to him, and according to the keen interest in the genealogy of David from Boaz, Ruth, down to Jesse that David is an example of the faith of his parents and grandparents dwelling first in them and now in him. But this is never stated directly concerning David and Jesse, only that this principle is a Biblical principle and one that God and the apostle's consider. This may add a shade of meaning and importance to 16:1.

However, I do find it interesting that the Bible does not state unequivocally that Jesse trained David, even though I feel the weight of evidence is very compelling.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

It seems that if we feel a need to talk one way to one group of people and another way to others (our "spiritual" group) then I have to wonder how genuine our interaction is in that sanitized, jargonized, role-playing game in which we are engaged.

OBW, this is just the kind of thing I was thinking about when we discussing...a certain disucssion we were having recently, you can infer what I'm referring to.

I don't want to resurrect the discussion. But I do want to mention that sometimes I feel this way on this board, that I'm trying to present a sanitized version of myself, just like I did too much of back in my LRC days.

But what can you do...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Could Paul's word in Ephesians "This mystery is great but I speak in regards to Christ and the Church" be an oblique parallel since both are using the same metaphor?

Could be. But it would seem quite oblique since there is not really a parallel of thought or terminology, but only a comparison of topic. In fact, if there is a parallel, it would seem to be in the actual discussion of the relationship of the husband and wife since that is the parallel. There is nothing in the portion you quote that parallels at all. It is the thing that Paul appended it to that parallels.

And you might be able to argue some kind of parallel. But relative to the others mentioned, you probably need something more directly similar. In any case, Paul didn't start talking about husbands and wives to refer to the SofS. Saying "half my kingdom" is directly similar. But the Obadiah to Revelation reference is at least a little less direct.

My first thought would be to consider it a plausible notion. But the lack of such consideration by anyone else before now would make me hesitant.

One of the things that I believe should underscore the level of error in Lee and the LRC is the declaration that they are getting all this new light. I'm convinced that the only thing truly new since the first century is the nature of the culture(s) into which the gospel must reach. Each change is a new challenge. The latest is one of the most difficult. There is a growing belief in spirituality but less belief in anything of substance behind it. There is less inclination to acknowledge that there is wrong or a lack. People just do as they feel and expect it all to work out OK. I recently read an article in which someone with no higher credentials than being a movie critic declared that the randomness of evolution comforted him. He would rather be human than a cat (I'd rather be a sparrow than a snail) so he could contemplate it all, but in the end he just dies and it is over (in so many of his own words).

But there are no lost doctrines. Nothing needing "recovery." And for this reason, I would tend to think that if no one whose life is given to the study and preaching of the word has come up with an "allusion or parallel" between Song of Songs and Ephesians, then I admit that I am not inclined to buy it as something new.

I see what you are seeing. And there is a parallel — a weak one at best. But it seems too broad to be what they are talking about. Otherwise you could say that any speaking about husband and wife would definitionally be an oblique reference to the Song of Songs no matter how far that was from the writer's thoughts.

And I admit that the Obadiah to Revelation parallel is beginning to stretch it a little (at least to me).

[Cal]

One major allegory we have failed to mention is Lee's elaborate equating of the Babylonian captivity and subsequent return to Jerusalem with the Church being "captive" in Christianity and triumphantly returning to the local ground.

One basic problem with this kind of allegorization is that it makes it very easy to prompt the Bible to echo what you already believe.

Returning to Jerusalem could just as easily be equated to returned to "spirit and truth" since that's where Jesus said the "place" God approved of would be.

The problem with any potentially allegorical passage is since the allegorical meaning is so removed from the actual words if the interpretation seems to "work" then those predisposed to believe it are going to run with it, whether it is correct or not.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, I do find it interesting that the Bible does not state unequivocally that Jesse trained David, even though I feel the weight of evidence is very compelling.

I understand you. And it would be difficult to suggest that Jesse had no part in David's training.

But once you get to specific things, and at specific points in what was then David's somewhat young life, I consider the certainty greatly reduced.

I know that I always thought that the account of how Saul's armor did not fit him indicated how small he was. But I was not thinking about the fact that Saul was described as standing a head above almost everyone. It wouldn't have fit very many people — even the future king.

But David was somewhat young. If he was the youngest among several and not the only one left at home, then I suspect that he was generally below expected fighting age. And therefore the amount of training in fighting would probably not be very certain.

Not saying he couldn't have been well trained. But there is no evidence of it.

This is how I am thinking of the account I can read. I do not give the same meaning to identifying yourself as Jesse's son as you do. It seemed almost commonplace, therefore not able to convey anything more than heritage as a certainty.

I will comment directly on one of your points that I have ignored before. When you get into the notion of honoring your father and mother, you are bringing an "A causes B" concept into play but using it in reverse. Can't remember the fancy name for it. Honoring your father and mother means it will be well with you — according to the promise. But the fact that something goes well with you does not evidence the honoring of the father or mother. And even if you are honoring your father and/or mother, that does not convey any knowledge about what they taught you.

And, once again, since David gave the honor (the credit) for the killing of the bear and the lion, and ultimately of Goliath, to God, then there is nothing bringing his father into the picture (even if he did teach him something about the ways to face such tough opponents). That is not a dishonor to Jesse. It is a giving of the rightful honor to God.

I do not find the notion that David was other than "home schooled" as being implausible. That is, if you mean that home schooled means that his mother and/or father were the primary educators. If Jesse were of significance in the community, he probably could have someone help in that department. More like private school.

I'm not trying to say that this is the correct analysis. You suggested such a lack of plausibility when I have reason to think it quite plausible. Neither of us are clearly right. And that has always been my point.

Then you get to faith, and I would have to agree. In a world in which you are mostly with your family, if your parents don't have faith, it would be hard for you to arrive at any kind of serious faith. So that one is probably more than plausible. Even today when we are around so many other people, the presence, or lack of, faith in our parents or other very close relatives is often a significant factor in arriving at your own faith.

I noted this weekend when my son visited from Washington that there is much of the intangibles of our family dynamic of faith, morality, etc., that is deep in him. He has not had the same kind of drive to find a Christian fellowship since moving to the Portland area (although he has finally done so). But when something came up about Rob Bell's Love Wins, he expressed no doubt in the truth of the Bible in the issues surrounding that book. Never heard it from his own mouth before. And he didn't need to impress us or anything.

It is not a certainty, but if you see someone with strong faith, there is usually strong faith close by in the family, typically one or two generations before.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

One major allegory we have failed to mention is Lee's elaborate equating of the Babylonian captivity and subsequent return to Jerusalem with the Church being "captive" in Christianity and triumphantly returning to the local ground.

One basic problem with this kind of allegorization is that it makes it very easy to prompt the Bible to echo what you already believe.

Returning to Jerusalem could just as easily be equated to returned to "spirit and truth" since that's where Jesus said the "place" God approved of would be.

The problem with any potentially allegorical passage is since the allegorical meaning is so removed from the actual words if the interpretation seems to "work" then those predisposed to believe it are going to run with it, whether it is correct or not.

I note that God's command to the Israelites to settle-down was so complete that many ultimately did not go back.

I have recently heard a discussion in which it was suggested that the Babylonian exile did two things. First, blatant idolatry was eliminated. We can argue about the "in the heart" kinds of things, but there was never another ashteroth (sp?) pole again.

The second was that the exile served as a way to disperse the Jews all over the world. If they were to "bless" everyone, then they needed to meet them. Recall that when whichever prophet it was spoke for God to say "settle down and have a business, have sons and daughters, give them in marriage" etc., he also told them to pray for the prosperity of the heathen around them because their prosperity relied on it. And Babylon prospered. And the world prospered as they went out.

And there were synagogues all over the Roman empire into which Paul could bring the gospel as a kindling for the next church of gentiles.

I also recall that it was Nehemiah (I think) that left Babylon/Persia to build the walls and was given a time to do it and a requirement to return to his post as cup bearer for the king. No indication that he asked for asylum in Jerusalem.

In fact, based on this reading, Lee's "ground of oneness" seems to be contradictory to the basic premise of the original covenant. That was to be a blessing to the world. That may have been most clearly/ultimately realized in Christ, but it began with Jews in Babylon.

And consistent with that first exile, the destruction of Jerusalem pushed the Jews further into the world. Until 1948 they had no choice but to be among the nations. And there is no command even now for every good, orthodox Jew to return to Israel. It just doesn't exist. It is a declaration of a false prophet. All those rants about the number of Jews in NYC being more than in Israel are meaningless.

[zeek]

What I strongly disagree with is the solution. I think it is completely unworkable to say that "things not intended to be allegorized should not be allegorized".

I agree and made the same argument below.

Also, to quote OBW, you should not say something is there in the word that isn't there. I find nothing in the word that says we should "limit" our allegorizing.

True

Now if you want to use Paul's limited use of this as an example to imitate I can understand that and appreciate that. But you are not basing your teaching on Paul's teaching, only on what you perceive to be his example which is based on very limited data (I expect that the letters of Paul are no more representative of his speaking and growth in life as anyone else's would be).

I think Paul allegorized extensively, moreso if one considers typology to be a kind of allegory as I do.

I think the key principle was provided by Peter, no verse is of its own interpretation.

I don't know what that means.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will comment directly on one of your points that I have ignored before. When you get into the notion of honoring your father and mother, you are bringing an "A causes B" concept into play but using it in reverse. Can't remember the fancy name for it. Honoring your father and mother means it will be well with you — according to the promise. But the fact that something goes well with you does not evidence the honoring of the father or mother. And even if you are honoring your father and/or mother, that does not convey any knowledge about what they taught you.

Suppose I was a hitting coach on a MLB team. I might say there are a couple of key principles to follow in order to hit well. Now is the fact that some player on that team hits a home run evidence that he is following those principles? No. Likewise, if David killed Goliath with one lucky shot that also would not be evidence of following certain key principles.

But I am looking at David's entire life, not just Goliath. For example, consider Tiger Woods. At one point it was considered a lock that he would break Jack Nickelaus record. But when you look at Tiger Wood's whole life (at least to this point) it becomes clear that success in life is not merely a matter of talent but also of character. I would wager that his recent troubles actually began when he stopped honoring his father and mother's teaching. I think the same thing can be said of Mike Tyson if you consider that Gus D'amato was his "father" (I understand he was an orphan, but Gus was a father figure to him).

Going back to the baseball analogy, all the great hitters followed key principles, that is why they became key principles. In the Hall of Fame of faith David plays a very prominent role, and one of the key principles of faith is that you "honor your father and mother that it may be well with you". Therefore, I feel it does apply. The question is not "does everyone who hits a home run follow key principles of hitting?", no the question is "are all the immortal great hitters in the hall of fame those that followed the key principles of good hitting?" To me, the answer is yes. (Now I know you are going to want to wax lyrical about Derrick Jeter, and how all these Yankee hitters are doing so well under the Yankees hitting coach, but lets try to keep this on topic).

[kisstheson]

Hello dear ones,

I want to return to something I said in a much earlier post:

"I must confess that a recent burden of mine has been to return to the simplicity which is in Christ by focusing much more on living a Christ-like life rather than focusing so much on teachings and doctrines. I still consider doctrine important, but I am much more focused on godly living."

Over the last year and a half I have found it to be much more blessed to take the words of our Lord Jesus seriously and soberly and as literally as possible. Jesus Christ made it abundantly clear that He will judge us based upon what we have done and what we have failed to do. That is super clear from the New Testament. To be honest, I have yet to come across an example of allegorizing by any Christian author/teacher that has inspired me to "love and good works". And yet a plain reading of the Scriptures in a spirit of humility will inspire me to repentance and "love and good works" almost every time. My experience inside and outside the LRC has been that allegorizing typically leads to puffed-up heads, not to a Christ-like spirit.

If someone wants to treat allegorzing the Bible as a kind of hobby, go for it. I imagine that it could bring someone closer to God during this times of private devotions with the Lord. I have yet to see, however, any real benefits to the Body of Christ from ministries that extensively use allegorizing. To enter into the Kingdom, we need to turn and become like little children. We don't need to ignore the Lord's way and end up swollen-headed with pride.

I can not help but notice from Christian history that those groups who took the words of our Lord the most seriously and soberly and as literally as possible (i.e. the early church, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists) had by far the most oneness and the most love. They were also the most persecuted and, by and large, they were willing to be "faithful unto death". In contrast, those groups who have majored on accumulating Bible knowledge have had the most divisions, the least love, and were the least willing to lay down their lives.

I am simply judging allegorizing by it's fruits and its fruits are putrid! When I examine the groups who have used allegorizing the most (i.e. the medieval Roman Catholic Church, the Exclusive Brethren, and Witness Lee's Local Church), I see hate-speak, intolerance, sectarianism, hypocrisy and unrepented sins. No thank you!

I will take hearing the words of our Lord and doing them any day of the week over spending time to listen to some "high-peak" allegorizing mush. Hearing the Lord's words and doing them is what constitutes those who wisely build on the solid rock. As for me any my household, building on the solid rock is what we choose.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Going back to the baseball analogy, all the great hitters followed key principles, that is why they became key principles. In the Hall of Fame of faith David plays a very prominent role, and one of the key principles of faith is that you "honor your father and mother that it may be well with you". Therefore, I feel it does apply. The question is not "does everyone who hits a home run follow key principles of hitting?", no the question is "are all the immortal great hitters in the hall of fame those that followed the key principles of good hitting?" To me, the answer is yes. (Now I know you are going to want to wax lyrical about Derrick Jeter, and how all these Yankee hitters are doing so well under the Yankees hitting coach, but lets try to keep this on topic).

I was following along real well with this baseball analogy hoping to hear about former Clevelander Jim Thome, a real class act, but instead you acted like a NYC "homer" and had to bring up Jeter.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was following along real well with this baseball analogy hoping to hear about former Clevelander Jim Thome, a real class act, but instead you acted like a NYC "homer" and had to bring up Jeter.

I'm sorry, my mistake. One homer doesn't prove you are hitting according to the key principles, but 600 homers does. No doubt, Jim Thome is a real class act.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Hello dear ones, I want to return to something I said in a much earlier post:....

Good word bro KTS. Right on!

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good word bro KTS. Right on!

Thank you for your "Amen", dear brother awareness. Living the Word, and not just hearing the Word, is such a clear burden in the New Testament.

The Anabaptists are one of the groups which I mentioned who "took the words of our Lord the most seriously and soberly and as literally as possible" and who lived out the words of the Lord. I just read something about the Anabaptists along these very lines which really touched me (emphasis in the original):

"For the Anabaptists, learning, remembering, and repeating the words of Scripture was a means to a practical end: it was living the Bible continually that really counted."
(from C. Arnold Snyder, Following in the Footsteps of Christ: The Anabaptist Tradition, p. 116)

May we be those whom our Lord finds as "doers of the Word", and not hearers only. May we take His commands and His warnings seriously. May we not explain away His clear words with our clever allegorizing.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

To be honest, I have yet to come across an example of allegorizing by any Christian author/teacher that has inspired me to "love and good works". And yet a plain reading of the Scriptures in a spirit of humility will inspire me to repentance and "love and good works" almost every time. My experience inside and outside the LRC has been that allegorizing typically leads to puffed-up heads, not to a Christ-like spirit.

You have put words to something that was rummaging around inside of me. If you have been reading my posts over the past year or so, it should be pretty obvious that I believe that simple obedience is one of the most missing items in so much of Christianity, but more so in the more "spiritual" groups like inner-life groups of which the LRC is a part. I do not say that the spiritual stuff is pointless. But if you have to despise the book of James to keep from getting hit between the eyes, then you probably are missing the mark.

While the book of John has more "spiritual" things than the other gospels, it still contains many references to obedience and to doing. It even says that belief and obedience come before abiding. And all put together, Jesus said much more about how we live life than what we think about or even what specifics we believe. At least if the combined gospels are to be accepted as the touchstone. And even eliminating the duplications from the three synoptics, although the fact that we get much of it three times says something to me about the importance of what is duplicated (triplicated?).

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by OBW

You have put words to something that was rummaging around inside of me...

Amen, dear brother OBW. Amen and Amen. It seems that our Lord has been working on this matter of obedience in both of us. Your testimony is a big encouragement to me and I thank you for sharing it.

You are absolutely right about the book of James. When Witness Lee did his hatchet job on James in 1995, that should have been a major signal to all those remaining in the LRC that WL and LSM had run off the rails. But, as you say, it is not just the book of James which stresses obedience. In certain portions, Jesus, Paul, Peter and John all stress obedience too.

Jesus definitely said much more about how we are to live than what we are to believe. From my amateur study of Church History, it appears that the Council of Nicaea was the turning point. Up until Nicaea, a Christian was known by how he lived. After Nicaea, Christians became known more and more by what they believed. Witness Lee and the LRC have certainly not reversed that trend.

Here is an interesting point. New Testament scholars like to try to point to different "flavors" of theology seen in the various NT authors. So they talk about "Pauline theology" or "Peterine theology" or "Johannine theology". Interestingly, they have never come up with a term for the theology of Jesus. There is no such thing as "Jesusine theology", because Jesus was much, much, more concerned with our living than with fine points of belief and doctrine. Jesus was NOT a theologian! Neither were the apostles for that matter, but Jesus was even less so.

You actually did me a big favor, brother OBW, and I have never thanked you. About a year and a half ago, I posted a list on the Bereans showing all the authors I had read since leaving the LRC. (If I remember correctly, good ol' Bilbodog was accusing me of being solely for Stephen Kaung, and I was showing that I partook of many, many, other ministries besides Stephen Kaung.) I listed around 91 authors. You pointed out that my list was almost exclusively "Inner Life" teachers and Plymouth Brethren teachers. I have to admit, at first I was very offended by that, as I was priding myself on how "widely read" I was. Over time, however, I realized that you were right and I began to see how narrow I had been. I then began to actively seek out the writings of other "branches" of Christian thought besides "Inner Life" and "Plymouth Brethren". I found so many marvelous examples of Christian practice that were utterly unknown to Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the Blended Brothers. I discovered some incredibly irenic, peace-loving, self-sacrificing, faithful-unto-death branches of Christianity. The obedience, the faith, and the love shown by these Christian groups was incredible. I am so glad that I went beyond those ministers and those groups normally associated with "The Lord's Recovery". Witness Lee, Living Stream Ministry, and the LRC do not have any kind of monopoly on what is pleasing to God's heart - far from it.

Here is a great quote from one of the pre-Nicene "Church Fathers" named Marcus Minucius Felix written approximately 200 A.D.:

"We don't speak great things - we live them!"

AMEN!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Here is a great quote from one of the pre-Nicene "Church Fathers" named Marcus Minucius Felix written approximately 200 A.D.:
"We don't speak great things - we live them!"
AMEN!

And Amen, amen! Living is the real reality....what happens while we're playing around in our heads...with silly religious mental play toys ...

I'm one of the worst..... a habit, perchance, from my local church days...caught up with Lee ministry concept toys ... hard habit to kick ... obviously ... but I got to be special, and superior to most, those outside specially, the LC ... oh what fun that fantasy was ... while it lasted.

But is living suppose to be like churchin in the LC?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

I then began to actively seek out the writings of other "branches" of Christian thought besides "Inner Life" and "Plymouth Brethren". I found so many marvelous examples of Christian practice that were utterly unknown to Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the Blended Brothers. I discovered some incredibly irenic, peace-loving, self-sacrificing, faithful-unto-death branches of Christianity. The obedience, the faith, and the love shown by these Christian groups was incredible. I am so glad that I went beyond those ministers and those groups normally associated with "The Lord's Recovery". Witness Lee, Living Stream Ministry, and the LRC do not have any kind of monopoly on what is pleasing to God's heart - far from it.

I have intentionally left out any reference to what was before. It is where we go that matters.

My studies are not as profound as yours. I read somewhat limitedly. Partly because lengthy reading has been difficult due to allergies and a general dislike of the reading glasses that I should be using. But my reading — mostly of a collection of blogs that give interesting insights into many things, including many books — has me realizing that even those long-despised liturgies and times given to a deliberate "walk" through such a "traditional" thing are rich with meaning. And it gives such time for contemplation. Something that more lively meetings do not allow for. They still are not my preference. But I no longer presume that they are "dead" because of their form. A contemplative life is a rich and rewarding life. Surely there are those who simply do rituals. But to presume that upon everyone is as great an error as saying that the LRC's odd-ball version of the trinity is so heretical that they are a "cult of Christianity."

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have intentionally left out any reference to what was before. It is where we go that matters.

My studies are not as profound as yours. I read somewhat limitedly. Partly because lengthy reading has been difficult due to allergies and a general dislike of the reading glasses that I should be using. But my reading — mostly of a collection of blogs that give interesting insights into many things, including many books — has me realizing that even those long-despised liturgies and times given to a deliberate "walk" through such a "traditional" thing are rich with meaning. And it gives such time for contemplation. Something that more lively meetings do not allow for. They still are not my preference. But I no longer presume that they are "dead" because of their form. A contemplative life is a rich and rewarding life. Surely there are those who simply do rituals. But to presume that upon everyone is as great an error as saying that the LRC's odd-ball version of the trinity is so heretical that they are a "cult of Christianity."

Hello again dear brother OBW,

I fully agree with you. While they are not my preference either, some of the liturgies are really rich with meaning. The last time my family attended a a meeting of the Moravian church, it happened to be "Trinity Sunday" according to the liturgical calendar. The liturgy that was being used for "Trinity Sunday" had been written by Count Zinzendorf himself back in the mid-1700's. I was very much impressed with the insights expressed by Zinzendorf in his liturgy and by the sermon given on the topic of the Trinity by the Moravian pastor.

There are lots of profound riches scattered throughout documents like the various "Apologies" of the "Church Fathers", the Westminster Confession, the various versions of the Anglican/Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer, etc. etc.

I think we are all familiar with the first point of the "Westminster Shorter Catechism" written in the 1640's:

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

[kisstheson]

Hello dear brothers Igzy and Ohio,

Is everything good between us regarding Song of Songs and which OT books are not quoted in the NT vs. which OT books are not quoted, alluded to, or contain verbal parallels with the NT? I hope all is good between us and I hope we are all reconciled on this point.

I was referencing the "Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels" in the back of the USB4. According to this Index, Song of Songs is the only OT book which is neither alluded to in the NT nor contains any verbal parallels with any passages in the NT. As the example from the book of Obadiah showed, the scholar(s) who complied this index were fairly liberal regarding what constitutes an "allusion or verbal parallel". In spite of this fact, there are no entries for Song of Songs in this index. All that rich, poetic, symbolism and allegory in Song of Songs and neither Jesus nor His apostles ever touched it!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Hello dear brothers Igzy and Ohio,

Is everything good between us regarding Song of Songs and which OT books are not quoted in the NT vs. which OT books are not quoted, alluded to, or contain verbal parallels with the NT? I hope all is good between us and I hope we are all reconciled on this point.

I was referencing the "Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels" in the back of the USB4. According to this Index, Song of Songs is the only OT book which is neither alluded to in the NT nor contains any verbal parallels with any passages in the NT. As the example from the book of Obadiah showed, the scholar(s) who complied this index were fairly liberal regarding what constitutes an "allusion or verbal parallel". In spite of this fact, there are no entries for Song of Songs in this index. All that rich, poetic, symbolism and allegory in Song of Songs and neither Jesus nor His apostles ever touched it!

There never was anything but good between us. I only asked for clarification on your post since I have UBS3 and you have the later UBS4, which has another index which mine does not have.

Igzy brought up the point that SofS was just romantic in nature, and why should it be anything more. I am not sure either way, but since none of us is poetically fluent in the ancient Hebrew language, we really can't appreciate the song for what it is. Neither do we have the musical accompaniment, which, knowing Solomon, might have been symphonic with opera-like singers.

Since their is no N.T. mention, do you know how long it has been since the church has first interpreted the SofS allegorically?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There never was anything but good between us. I only asked for clarification on your post since I have UBS3 and you have the later UBS4, which has another index which mine does not have.

Igzy brought up the point that SofS was just romantic in nature, and why should it be anything more. I am not sure either way, but since none of us is poetically fluent in the ancient Hebrew language, we really can't appreciate the song for what it is. Neither do we have the musical accompaniment, which, knowing Solomon, might have been symphonic with opera-like singers.

Since their is no N.T. mention, do you know how long it has been since the church has first interpreted the SofS allegorically?

Here's an interesting site on allegory of SofS, before and after Christianity.....
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_...fSongs-GTJ.pdf

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There never was anything but good between us. I only asked for clarification on your post since I have UBS3 and you have the later UBS4, which has another index which mine does not have.

Igzy brought up the point that SofS was just romantic in nature, and why should it be anything more. I am not sure either way, but since none of us is poetically fluent in the ancient Hebrew language, we really can't appreciate the song for what it is. Neither do we have the musical accompaniment, which, knowing Solomon, might have been symphonic with opera-like singers.

Since their is no N.T. mention, do you know how long it has been since the church has first interpreted the SofS allegorically?

Hello dear brother Ohio. Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your reply.

From my understanding, there were two Pre-Nicene "Church Fathers" who interpreted Song of Songs. The first was the partial commentary (perhaps most has been lost over the centuries??) by Hippolytus, written approx. 200 A.D.. Hippolytus viewed SofS as a kind of "love triangle" between Israel, Jesus Christ, and the Church. The second was a commentary by Origen, written approx. 240 A.D.. If I understand correctly, Origen was the first one to compose a commentary on the whole Bible. He would speak his messages, and his friends would write down what he said. Origen viewed SofS from much more of a mystical viewpoint, seeing a love story between a soul and Jesus Christ. If I understand correctly, Origen was the first to state that SofS should only be studied by those who are "spiritually mature" and that "immature" Christians could be harmed by studying SofS. While the interpretation of Hippolytus shows up here and there throughout Church History, it seems that Origen's interpretation has largely prevailed.

The well-known Eastern Orthodox "Church Father" Gregory of Nyssa published a series of 15 messages on Song of Songs in approx. 370 A.D.. Gregory appears to have followed the interpretation of Origen, that SofS is a love story between a soul and Jesus Christ.

Extremely influential for the Medieval Roman Catholic Church was the series of messages on SofS by Bernard of Clairvaux, spoken (and also written down) over a long span of years, 1135 - 1153 A.D. (If I remember correctly, some other Cistercian monks completed Bernard's series of messages.). I have read some of these sermons in the book Bernard of Clairvaux: Selected Works, which is part of the "Classics of Western Spirituality" series published by Paulist Press, and Bernard brings out some really rich points here and there. Interestingly, Bernard used the SofS as a kind of "springboard" to reflect on various current events, his own personal experiences, human life in general, and the importance of loving God.

Another collection of messages on SofS which I am familiar with is the series written by Teresa of Avila in approx. 1570 A.D., found in The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila, Vol. 2. She also followed the basic interpretation of Origen, seeing SofS as a love story between a soul and Jesus Christ, with her own unique emphasis on the culmination of this love story being the bliss of "spiritual marriage". I also have found many rich points in Teresa's messages, but I would warn readers that due to Teresa's Medieval Roman Catholic background, there are lots of references to "The Blessed Virgin Mary".

We all know about the interpretations of SofS by WN and WL. The interpretation of SofS from a "Protestant" viewpoint that I enjoyed the most is the one by Hudson Taylor in the short book Union and Communion, written in 1893. Another interpretation of SofS which I enjoyed was the one written by H.A. Ironside, consisting of messages spoken in 1931 and 1932.

I see that dear brother awareness has posted a link. I am sure that there is a ton of information out on the web regarding the history of the interpretation of the SofS by both Jewish and Christian authors.

I hope this helps, dear brother! Much grace, peace, and love in Christ be with you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

I see that dear brother awareness has posted a link.

Here's something especially interesting, from that site :

A specimen of such allegory is found in Mekilta (Exodus),
Shirata, Beshallal:t, § 3:
R. Akiba said: I will speak of the beauty and praise of God before all
the nations. They ask Israel and say, 'What is your beloved more than
another beloved that "thou dost so charge us' (Cant. V, 9), 'that you die
for Him, and that you are slain for Him' as it says, 'Therefore till death
do they love Thee' (a pun on Cant. I, 3), and 'For thy sake are we slain
all the day' (Ps. XLIV, 22). 'Behold,' they say, 'You are beautiful, you
are mighty, come and mingle with us.'


Apparently, the Jews believed in mingling.....don't know if it is meant "mingle in our spirits," or, "come and party among us."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

I was referencing the "Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels" in the back of the USB4. According to this Index, Song of Songs is the only OT book which is neither alluded to in the NT nor contains any verbal parallels with any passages in the NT. As the example from the book of Obadiah showed, the scholar(s) who complied this index were fairly liberal regarding what constitutes an "allusion or verbal parallel". In spite of this fact, there are no entries for Song of Songs in this index. All that rich, poetic, symbolism and allegory in Song of Songs and neither Jesus nor His apostles ever touched it!

Dear Brother,

I don't think we can come to this conclusion based on allusions or verbal parallels. Jesus said that He was the greater Solomon. This was said in the context of the Queen of Sheba coming to hear the wisdom of Solomon. When we talk of the wisdom of Solomon I see no basis to exclude his writings, particularly his "Song of Songs".

In chapter 5 of Ephesians Paul talks of the walk for both Singles and the married couples and concludes saying "this mystery is great but I speak with regards to Christ and the Church". Therefore, speaking of romantic love and marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church is a NT sanctioned metaphor and something that the Apostle Paul did touch. To apply that same metaphor to Song of Songs is clearly within the boundary of what the Apostles taught.

The Apostle John referred to the church as the Bride of Christ and said that she had made herself ready. So here is another Apostle that touched this figure of speech with regards to Christ and the Church. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone looking for this metaphor in the OT would overlook Song of Songs. Why isn't the phrase "she has made herself ready" a verbal parallel with SofS since it clearly describes this woman making herself ready?

Jesus also used this analogy, saying that He was the bridegroom and talked about the marriage of the Bride and groom.

So that list of verbal allusions and parallelisms may be interesting, but I don't see that it in any way can be used to say that the SofS is not touched on by Jesus or the Apostles.

While thinking on this I was reminded of an experience I had when I was 12 years old that left an indelible mark on my brain. I was on a Pee Wee football team, we were playing the last game of the regular season, we were undefeated and our opponent was undefeated, so this game would decide the conference champion. We had been the conference champion the previous year, but the newspaper was predicting we would lose this year. Their reasoning was simple, they put a side by side comparison up of the score from every game showing that our opponent had done equally well, if not better against every other team in the conference. Also, they pointed out that their linemen were, on average, bigger than our linemen. Pee Wee football is all about the running game, so this also seemed to be a very relevant observation. I read this article and I realized that their facts were accurate, their reasoning was logical, and the article was complete trash. I felt, why didn't this guy take 5 minutes to talk to anyone on the team, I could easily have made it clear that the whole article was complete rubbish.

So we played the game, every single possession our 1st string offense scored a touchdown, and our 1st string defense held them to negative total yards. It was such a blowout that the coach pulled the first string out at the end of the 1st quarter. The final score was something like 45-0 (I think they might have scored a touchdown against our third string, I can't remember).

Here is what the writer missed -- During the entire season our 1st string had never played in the second half, and for most games we hadn't played in the 2nd quarter. Also, as far as their linemen being bigger, I was the smallest lineman on the first string, I weighed 97 pounds and the weight limit was 99. Everyone else on the starting team ran around in sweats all week to make sure they made weight. So because the guy across from me is 2 pounds heavier, that is their advantage? Statistics cannot replace common sense or research.

[kisstheson]

Hello dear brother ZNPaaneah. Thank you for your post. I appreciate your insights and I enjoyed your football testimony. That is a very timely testimony considering the fact that football season is upon us once again.

I am certainly comfortable saying “All that rich, poetic, symbolism and allegory in Song of Songs and neither Jesus nor His apostles ever directly touched it or made a clear-cut allusion to it." If we extend the definition of “allusion or verbal parallel” used by the scholar(s) who compiled the list in the USB4 to make the phrase more generous and more inclusive, then we could certainly find some “allusions or verbal parallels” to Song of Songs in the NT. No doubt about it - by broadening our definition of "allusions or verbal parallels", we could find some "allusions or verbal parallels" to SofS. The problem with extending the definition of “allusion or verbal parallel”, however, is that the term would be so generous and inclusive that we could never be certain which OT verse is being alluded to by an NT verse, since in almost every case multiple OT verses would exist which could to be linked an NT verse.

In the case of Song of Songs, there are so many other portions of the OT which contain clear examples or images of romantic love/marriage/husband-and-wife, that it would be impossible to know exactly which OT passage is being referred to by an NT verse. An NT verse using the language of romantic love/marriage/husband-and-wife might be alluding to SofS, but it could also be alluding to Adam and Eve as “the man and his wife” in Genesis 2, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Rachel, the bridal imagery between God and Israel in the books of Moses, the bridal imagery in the prophetic books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, etc.), Psalms like Psalm 45, etc.

For example, take your discussion of the phrase "this mystery is great but I speak with regards to Christ and the Church" in Ephesians chapter 5. This phrase is found in Eph. 5:32. The verse right before this one, Eph. 5:31, is a direct quote from Genesis 2:24, from a portion speaking about Adam and Eve. While I cannot definitively say that Paul did not have SofS somewhere back in the far recesses of his mind when he wrote Eph. 5:32, the clear context to the phrase “this mystery is great but I speak with regards to Christ and the Church” is Adam and Eve (called “the man and his wife” in Gen. 2:25). A direct quotation from Genesis 2 is right there in black and white in the verse before Eph. 5:32, so there is no absolutely no need to go looking to SofS in this case when Genesis 2 is the obvious source.

Regarding your discussion of the phrase “the Bride of Christ had made herself ready” from Revelation 19:7, there is once again no clear-cut tie to SofS. If there is an OT passage being alluded to here, that OT passage could very easily be Psalm 45 instead of SofS. Part of the Hebrew title for Psalm 45 translates to “A Song of Love”. Also, look at Rev. 19:8, the verse right after Revelation 19:7. Rev. 19:8 speaks of the clothing of the wife of the Lamb, and, in a parallel manner, Psalm 45:13 & 14 also speak of bridal garments. Furthermore, Psalm 45:6 & 7 are plainly identified with Jesus Christ in Hebrews 1:8-9 since these verses in Hebrews are clearly speaking about the Son of God. Since the author of Hebrews has already made such a definitive link between Psalm 45 and Christ, I can more confidently speak of “Christ and the Church” in Psalm 45 compared to SofS.

Of course, some verses in Psalm 45 have parallels to verses in SofS. For example, Psalm 45: 9 & 14b somewhat parallel SofS 6:8, Psalm 45:14 somewhat parallels SofS 1:4a, etc. While SofS could have been in John’s mind when he wrote “His wife has made herself ready” in Rev. 19:7, this is not necessarily the case. If there is indeed an OT passage being alluded to in Rev. 19:7, Psalm 45 is at least as strong a candidate as SofS. Due to the link with Hebrews 1:8-9, Psalm 45 actually appears to be an even stronger candidate, than SofS.

It could even be the case that John had in mind the words spoken by Jesus in Matthew 24:44 or 25:10 when he wrote the words “His wife has made herself ready” in Rev. 19:7. In other words, there may not even be an OT allusion behind the words regarding the wife making herself ready! Matthew 25:10 seems like the most appropriate verse to link to the second half of Revelation 19:7 out of all the verses in the Bible. I see no OT passage which links to the second half of Revelation 19:7 as much as Matthew 25:10 does. In this case there is most likely no need to go to SofS since the words of Jesus are what is being alluded to.

In summary, it seems to me that your links between the NT and SofS are rather strained and forced, not because they are necessarily wrong, but because they function at too high a level and because they do not take into account other possible OT sources. If we follow the criteria laid down by the scholar(s) who compiled the “Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels” in the USB4, then there are no allusions or verbal parallels to SofS in the NT. If we extend the meaning of “Allusions and Verbal Parallels”, we may indeed find some links to SofS, but the NT verses in question will not necessarily link only to SofS – other OT passages will also emerge as likely candidates. Since SofS is definitely not quoted by Jesus or His apostles, and since there are no clear-cut allusions in the NT which necessarily link back solely to SofS, I repeat my statement from my opening paragraph: “All that rich, poetic, symbolism and allegory in Song of Songs and neither Jesus nor His apostles ever directly touched it or made a clear-cut allusion to it.”

Thank you for the discussion, dear brother. I appreciate your comments because they helped me to further clarify my position on this matter.

[ZNPaaneah]

Thank you, I think that cleared things up for me as well. If I understand correctly you are not saying that they didn't touch SoS but rather they didn't touch the language or expressions of SoS

[awareness]

The Song of Songs can't be used to allude to Christ and the Church because as admitted Witness Lee took her virginity.....

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Thank you, I think that cleared things up for me as well. If I understand correctly you are not saying that they didn't touch SoS but rather they didn't touch the language or expressions of SoS

You got it, dear brother ZNPaaneah. You nailed it. That is exactly what I am saying and what the index in the USB4 is saying: It is not that Jesus and His apostles did not touch SofS, but rather they didn't touch the language or expressions of SoS. Well said.

I love it when we end on the same page!!

SofS was definitely part of the spiritual heritage of Jesus and His apostles, so SofS, like all of the OT, was always there in the background. SofS contributes greatly to the "lovey-dovey, touchy-feely, smoochy-woochy" collection of OT passages, so whenever Jesus or His apostles employ imagery along these lines, SofS is definitely part of the background - even though the language and expressions of SofS are never directly utilized.

[OBW]

KTS mentioned this one passage from the rather lengthy Q&A that is the Westminster Catechism. (Not sure how long the "shorter" version is, but it is quite a thing to behold in its entirety.)

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

This particular passage has begun to bother me, at least a little. I understand "glorify God" because if we undertake the task of bearing the image of God, and of replenishing, subduing, caring for, etc., the earth, and for each other, then God will get much glory.

But I have never had anyone state where they got "and to enjoy him forever" in a manner that was as connected to anything that was constant and ongoing. I'm not saying that we are not intended to "enjoy God." But I don't find anything that we are to do that looks like "enjoy him forever."

Maybe the problem is that our understanding of "enjoy" is not the same as when this thing was written.

I come to this because I read the account of the creation of man and his charge. And I see the effort that God has gone to over the centuries to encourage man to return to that charge, ultimately providing a better way for that return. But while there are mentions of enjoyment along the way, I fail to see any kind of charge that makes it a "chief end" that compares to the one that clearly brings glory.

What am I missing?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Apparently, from this point of view, big God big ego...The ultimate narcissist .... a needy black hole, that requires everyone to worship Him forever.... Clearly man's conception....

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by awareness

And Amen, amen! Living is the real reality....what happens while we're playing around in our heads...with silly religious mental play toys ...

I'm one of the worst..... a habit, perchance, from my local church days...caught up with Lee ministry concept toys ... hard habit to kick ... obviously ... but I got to be special, and superior to most, those outside specially, the LC ... oh what fun that fantasy was ... while it lasted.

But is living suppose to be like churchin in the LC?

Amen dear brother awareness! "Living is the real reality" - very well said.

For those who have just got to be special, who just have got to be superior to most, and who just have got to be the greatest thing around, Jesus Christ offers a simple and complete, albeit radical, cure: Humble yourself, become like a slave, and start serving all the people around you. A word of heartfelt love to all those entangled in the Living Stream Ministry churches: Jesus' cure would be a great first step for you to take.

May God have mercy on us all.

If you liked what I wrote in Post #161, and especially if you liked the quote from dear brother Marcus Minucius Felix, I think you will also like these quotes:

"A fully functioning fellowship of love demonstrates the truth of the gospel far better than apologetic arguments over abstract ideas." (Charles Moore)

"Christian truth is ultimately to be judged by the richness of moral character and the authenticity of relationship it generates." (Charles Moore)

"What is [most] crucial is not that Christians know the truth, but that they be the truth." (Stanley Hauerwas)

"All people will know that you are my disciples if you love one another." (Jesus Christ, John 13:35)

What the world needs most is not more words, but more real living! What is desperately needed is Christians whose lives are marked by obedience, faith, and love.

May Christ be with you, dear brother awareness.

[awareness]

Real living running springs and waters of life.... thanks bro KTS...

May the Lord help us all ... we all need it ... me especially...

[RollingStone]

I have had this question in my mind for several years now since the time at the beginning of the quarantines as to how does Living Stream keep publishing new books and ascribing them to Witness Lee after his death.
I understand they have volumes of his speakings and writings but the Holy Word for Morning Revivals and other books surely seem to be someone elses creations maybe sprinkled with some of what Witness Lee said or wrote.
As far as an analogy or allegorizing the one word that bothers me the most is equating the word trumpet with publication. How can that possibly be? There was no publications at the time of the writing of the books of the Bible. The first publication was when Gutenberg published the Bible around 1450. Gutenberg should have come up with this concept of one trumpet equals one publication and we would be limited to Gutenberg Bibles today to his benefit.
One of the scriptures they quote and use and I have heard when discussing this to justify their being the only publication is 1 Corinthians 14:8
For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?
Can we use Revelation 8:2 to justify at least 7 publications on earth?

Rev:8:2
And I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and to them were given seven trumpets.

Seriously though how do they keep printing new books and puting Witness Lee's name on them?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

I have had this question in my mind for several years now since the time at the beginning of the quarantines as to how does Living Stream keep publishing new books and ascribing them to Witness Lee after his death.

I understand they have volumes of his speakings and writings but the Holy Word for Morning Revivals and other books surely seem to be someone else's creations maybe sprinkled with some of what Witness Lee said or wrote.

This is one of LSM's hypocrisies which TC addressed before the quarantine -- why do only the blendeds get to publish their books, but TC and others are not allowed.

I am just as convinced now as I was during the quarantine, that none of the published articles by either side ever addressed the actual reason for the quarantine -- it was simply a power struggle for control of the Recovery post-WL.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

As far as an analogy or allegorizing the one word that bothers me the most is equating the word trumpet with publication. How can that possibly be? There was no publications at the time of the writing of the books of the Bible. The first publication was when Gutenberg published the Bible around 1450. Gutenberg should have come up with this concept of one trumpet equals one publication and we would be limited to Gutenberg Bibles today to his benefit.

The basis for this grossly absurd hyperbole of "one trumpet" was the Feb. 1986 Elders' Training. WL rammed a number of these "extrapolations" down the throats of his followers. BP and RG collaborated by forcing the signatures of all attendants on that pathetic "Letter of Allegiance."

Why did they accept the "one trumpet" is the same as "one publication?" WL said it, that's why! He also said a number of other wild speculations which help to lay the groundwork for that training.

Those who rejected that nonsense have long since departed, or should I say were expelled via quarantine. Which poses another question, similar to yours, "How can that possibly be?" How could they believe that John Ingalls et. al. were rebellious lepers deserving quarantine? WL said so, that's why!

[zeek]

I am just as convinced now as I was during the quarantine, that none of the published articles by either side ever addressed the actual reason for the quarantine -- it was simply a power struggle for control of the Recovery post-WL.

A plausible hypothesis.

[zeek]

As an alternative to the historical-factual method of interpretation that Tomes seems to be advocating, why not consider an historical-metaphorical reading such as Marcus Borg describes as follows?

■ The Bible is a human product, not a divine product. It is the product of two ancient communities. The Jewish Bible—what Christians call the Old Testament—is the product of ancient Israel. The New Testament is the product of the early Christian movement. To see the Bible as the work of human beings does not deny the reality of God, or the reality that the Bible was divinely inspired. But the Bible is not a divine product. Rather, it’s a collection of writings by our spiritual ancestors, the biblical ancestors of the Christian tradition. It tells us how they experienced the sacred, saw the world, told their stories, and understood what life with God involved.
■ The Bible is not to be interpreted literally, factually, and absolutely. Its language is often metaphorical, and its primary concern is not factual reporting. Its laws and ethical teaching are not absolutes relevant to all times and places, but are the products of those ancient communities and address their time and place. This does not mean that its laws and ethics are irrelevant to our time. But they cannot simply be directly transferred to the twenty-first century.
■ Seeing the Bible this way does not deny its status as Christian sacred Scripture. Instead, this viewpoint holds that Scripture is sacred not because of its origin, but because our spiritual ancestors canonized it—that is, declared it to be sacred. As sacred Scripture, the Bible is, along with Jesus, the foundation of Christian understanding and identity. It is also a way that the Spirit of God continues to speak to us today. Thus the Bible is sacred scripture in its status and function, but not in origin—not because it comes from God as no other book does.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

I understand they have volumes of his speakings and writings but the Holy Word for Morning Revivals and other books surely seem to be someone elses creations maybe sprinkled with some of what Witness Lee said or wrote.

I'm not sure where you got this impression. I have in front of me right now the newest version of "The Holy Word for Morning Revival" - "Chrystallization-Study of the Psalms Volume One - Witness Lee"
On page v, in the Preface:

"2. The entire content of this book is taken from Crystallization-study Outlines: The Psalms (1), the text and footnotes of the Recovery Version of the Bible, selections from the writings of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, and Hymns, all of which are published by Living Stream Ministry"

In perusing this booklet it is exactly as described in the statement above. (except for the fact that there is little to nothing directly from the writings of Watchman Nee). Basically the whole thing is just a reprinting of the "Life-Study of the Psalms" (Witness Lee) and "Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms" (Witness Lee). Although this is supposed to be "a limited review of the summer training held July 4-9, 2011, in Anaheim, California" I see nowhere that there is anything actually spoken by the speakers (usually Ed Marks, Andrew Yu, Minoru Chen, Benson Phillips and others).

On an interesting side note - It is my understanding that many, if not most, of the "Hymns" (One Hymn published at the end of each of the six weeks) were CO-WRITTEN by Witness Lee AND John Ingalls, yet Ingalls is not credited anywhere that I can see. Can you imagine if Ingalls published something of the LSM and not credit Witness Lee? The ink wouldn't be dry before Ingalls would be served with a lawsuit.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

As an alternative to the historical-factual method of interpretation that Tomes seems to be advocating, why not consider an historical-metaphorical reading such as Marcus Borg describes as follows?

I think the issue that has been raised is the abuse done as a result of creating bogus teachings based solely on wild allegories. We have to remember that a literal reading of the Bible was used to abuse the saints at the time of Paul. The Judaizers, which he referred to as the concision, were pushing for all the converted saints to embrace the OT laws. Paul pointed out, through the use of the Hagar analogy in Galatians, that the law had its place and was useful in the same way a nanny is useful in raising a kid. But in the end, the goal is maturity, at some point you no longer need a nanny. Through this allegory he pointed out that there is a circumcision of the heart which is much more effective than what he called the concision.

Likewise, at the time of Ruth a literal translation of the Bible created a conundrum. Was Ruth a Moabitess and therefore marrying her would mar your inheritance. Or, as Boaz pointed out, was she the widow of an Israelite, and according to the law the next of kin was to marry her? Boaz judged according to the heart. This to me is much more effective principle than outlawing the use of allegories or calling literalists purveyors of the dead word.

The heart of the NT is salvation, and mercy and love. That to me is sufficient to debunk the erroneous and self serving teachings of the LSM.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm not sure where you got this impression. I have in front of me right now the newest version of "The Holy Word for Morning Revival" - "Chrystallization-Study of the Psalms Volume One - Witness Lee"...

Hey dear brother UntoHim,

From everything I have seen over the decades, your analysis is 100% correct. Every once in a blue moon, a "Holy Word for Morning Revival" booklet would hit on a point which Watchman Nee had covered in great detail. In those rare cases, that particular HWFMR book might contain anywhere from 5% to 10% of it's material from WN. On the other hand, some HWFMR books contained 100% Witness Lee, especially when the topic being discussed was particularly "high peaky". I have not done a scientific study of this, but I am sure a long-term analysis over the decades would yield results that HWFMR material has been composed of around 97% Witness Lee material and around 3% Watchman Nee material.

John Ingalls?? Who is he?? He co-wrote hymns with WL?? He worked on the original RcV translation?? Not according to my shiny new LSM books! I only see Lee, Lee, Lee and a very rare reference to "The Editorial Section, Living Stream Ministry".

Here is an interesting historical tid-bit that those who left the LC in the late 1980's and those who are new-comers may not be aware of:

Witness Lee became very ill in the early spring of 1997. WL spoke at the 1997 Chinese New Year Conference and that was the last conference he spoke at. The "Blended Brothers To Be" covered for WL at the Elders' Training in April, 1997. The "Blended Brothers To Be" also covered for WL at the 1997 Memorial Day Conference. WL, of course, died shortly after Memorial Day, 1997.

I do not know about the 1997 April Elders' Training, but for the HWFMR book which covered the 1997 Memorial Day Conference, the actual words spoken by the "Blended Brothers to Be" was used as the text for HWFMR, and not ministry material from WL. The howls of protest from the "Lee-onlyists" were loud and clear!! The "saints" were NOT going to "prophecy" the words of the BB's in the "prophecying" meetings!! Only the words of WL were suitable to be the basis of prophecying!! (With an occasional nod to the actual Scriptures listed for each day in the HWFMR.) From that day forward, HWFMR books have only included ministry material from WL (with the small smattering of material from WN mentioned above).

Interestingly, it was this same "ultra-conservative" wing in the LSM-loyal churches who protested loud and clear to the BB's about Titus Chu. If you listened closely to Dan Towle at Whistler, he clearly mentioned how the BB's in the 1990's originally wanted the BB's to be a rather large and inclusive group. Some in the LC's, however, remembered some of the negative things WL had said privately about TC and they insisted to the BB's that TC not be allowed to speak at the trainings and conferences. The BB's caved in to this pressure.

[RollingStone]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm not sure where you got this impression. I have in front of me right now the newest version of "The Holy Word for Morning Revival" - "Chrystallization-Study of the Psalms Volume One - Witness Lee"...

My apologies, I do not have a current copy or any recent ones,, I was giving WL some benefit of the doubt since he has passed. The last several times I attended a LSM type meetings I left with tears in my eyes. The last conference I attended was in Washington DC about 4 yrs ago and I wept for hrs deeply afterwards. I heard a lot of ambition and a lot of telling people what they had to do to be in the next move of God. "since they had everything" "the ministry of the age" "They need nothing cause they had everything" I remeber sitting there thinking I was in Laodicia. Just as the Recovery version footnotes descibed Laodicia I experienced it first hand. There were threats made about those who were publishing other things. They told us that they needed a lot of the saints to migrate to different parts of the world. To me it sounded like they just needed to have the saints go all over to get people to use and purchase LSM books and materials. It wasn't about sharing Christ It was about doing a work to bring Christ back and that those following LSM were the ones that were going to do it. I still want to believe that WL works are being twisted or taken out of context somehow to promote the views and concepts of the BB and to take those following them down a different path. Am I wrong about this too? Ned

With love in my heart

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

My apologies, I do not have a current copy or any recent ones,, I was giving WL some benefit of the doubt since he has passed. The last several times I attended a LSM type meetings I left with tears in my eyes. The last conference I attended was in Washington DC about 4 yrs ago and I wept for hrs deeply afterwards. I heard a lot of ambition and a lot of telling people what they had to do to be in the next move of God. "since they had everything" "the ministry of the age" "They need nothing cause they had everything" I remeber sitting there thinking I was in Laodicia. Just as the Recovery version footnotes descibed Laodicia I experienced it first hand. There were threats made about those who were publishing other things. They told us that they needed a lot of the saints to migrate to different parts of the world. To me it sounded like they just needed to have the saints go all over to get people to use and purchase LSM books and materials. It wasn't about sharing Christ It was about doing a work to bring Christ back and that those following LSM were the ones that were going to do it. I still want to believe that WL works are being twisted or taken out of context somehow to promote the views and concepts of the BB and to take those following them down a different path. Am I wrong about this too? Ned

With love in my heart

Hello dear RollingStone,

I feel for you and I understand your tears and your weeping. I have experienced those same tears and that same weeping for LSM and the LC. I wish I could say that Witness Lee left behind a legacy that was without reproach and that it is only the Blending Brothers who have deviated from that legacy. Alas, such is not the case, dear one.

If you go one step further back from WL in the history of the Local Church movement, you will come to Watchman Nee. While all of us here agree that WN made some serious errors in his teachings, especially in the areas of "The Work" and "Deputy Authority", WN's standard for Christians and for churches was a very high standard and WN at least lived what he preached. A prime example of this is WN's book The Normal Christian Church Life. If we skip over the chapter which talks so much about "The Work", we can see a really beautiful standard set forth in this book regarding matters such as churches being open to all Christian ministries, no one group of workers exercising world-wide control over churches, elders being raised up only from local men, brothers and sisters being open to fellowship with all other Christians, etc.

Compared to this standard, and compared to the way WN did not allow the brothers and sisters to speak much about him, we can see that things definitely got seven times worse under Witness Lee than they were under Watchman Nee. WL compromised and violated many of WN's high standards. Even worse, the BB's have made things seven times worse then they were under WL. In some key areas where WL showed restraint, the BB's have cast off that restraint. This has resulted in the sad Laodicean situation which you experienced first-hand. You now have brothers motivated by a terrible spirit of religious jealousy for WL trying to spread their mis-guided devotion to WL to others.

I weep with you, dear one. May the BB's forsake the terrible spirit of religious jealousy which motivates them and allow the Spirit of God to lead them into a deep experience of repentance. May this experience of deep repentance pervade the LSM-loyal churches all over the globe.

May God have mercy on us all, dear RollingStone.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Interestingly, it was this same "ultra-conservative" wing in the LSM-loyal churches who protested loud and clear to the BB's about Titus Chu. If you listened closely to Dan Towle at Whistler, he clearly mentioned how the BB's in the 1990's originally wanted the BB's to be a rather large and inclusive group. Some in the LC's, however, remembered some of the negative things WL had said privately about TC and they insisted to the BB's that TC not be allowed to speak at the trainings and conferences. The BB's caved in to this pressure.

I find this difficult to believe. IF WL did say some things privately about Titus Chu, it is more plausible the audience was informal. I had never heard Witness Lee say anything negative about Titus Chu. Has anyone on this board? So when I read references to things allegedly spoken by Witness Lee, I refer to Ron Kangas' speaking from 2007, "There is a statement made about Brother Lee; you can’t ask Brother Lee about it." Of course not. Brother Lee isn't among us to affirm or deny what he said about Titus Chu.
Where's the documentation?
Talk about caving into pressure. Where is the pressure? I never heard of any. If the blended brothers was meant to be inclusive, how come some were joyful when Gene Gruhler left Anaheim for Denver?

[kisstheson]

Hello dear brother Terry,

As far as this information is concerned, this comes directly from Dan Towle's speaking at Whistler. Dan Towle definitely said all of this.

In at least one of the letters which Titus Chu wrote to the BB's, he mentioned that Witness Lee had clearly spoken negative things about some of the BB's as well. TC specifically mentioned that WL stated that Ron Kangas was very proud. I have heard from multiple sources that the legalistic college-age work which WL spoke so strongly against in his 1996 book entitled A Word of Love was the college-age work headed up by Minoru Chen at UC Irvine. At the final message to the 1996 Summer Training, WL ripped into a lot of the BB's and exposed what poor shepherds of the "saints" they were. So, I can believe that WL would have said some negative things about TC since he said so many other negative things about his other co-workers. We should always remember how disappointed and disgusted WL was with the condition of the LRC just before he died.

Apparently, some heard this word about TC and would not let it go and they put pressure on the core BB's to not allow TC to speak at the "Seven Feasts" conferences and trainings.

[TLFisher]

Yes, Kisstheson. We have covered at length the disappointment and disgust of brother Lee in the year prior to his death. The soon to be blended brothers at the time said all the right words, but it did not measure into reality. Just words. Back to your post, okay. I have read A Word of Love. Even if Witness Lee spoke a word concerning Titus Chu, other elders and co-workers were not exempt.
Kisstheson, since you did bring up the "seven feasts", I'll conclude with a word from Exodus.

Three times a year you shall celebrate a feast to Me. Exodus 23:14

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

....At the final message to the 1996 Summer Training, WL ripped into a lot of the BB's and exposed what poor shepherds of the "saints" they were. So, I can believe that WL would have said some negative things about TC since he said so many other negative things about his other co-workers. We should always remember how disappointed and disgusted WL was with the condition of the LRC just before he died....

Como un espejo, eh?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I find this difficult to believe. IF WL did say some things privately about Titus Chu, it is more plausible the audience was informal. I had never heard Witness Lee say anything negative about Titus Chu. Has anyone on this board? So when I read references to things allegedly spoken by Witness Lee, I refer to Ron Kangas' speaking from 2007, "There is a statement made about Brother Lee; you can’t ask Brother Lee about it." Of course not. Brother Lee isn't among us to affirm or deny what he said about Titus Chu.
Where's the documentation?
Talk about caving into pressure. Where is the pressure? I never heard of any. If the blended brothers was meant to be inclusive, how come some were joyful when Gene Gruhler left Anaheim for Denver?

TC battled with some of the Blendeds for decades. None of this was ever made public. GLA leaders always attributed this to religious jealousies and politicking for power. Sometimes WL tried to reconcile differences, and other times he fueled the controversies. No one has ever said that TC is easy to work with, and we also know how much back-biting thrives at LSM.

During one time period, I believe the early 90's, TC was really in the pressure cooker. I don't know the exact details why, but he was inches away from giving up his ministry in Cleveland due to overwhelming pressure from various blendeds. He even discussed his relocation plans. I have also mentioned how TC was abusive at times to other brothers in the GLA. Abuse is just a way of life for LC leaders -- be a lackey or be abused.

This forum has been a real eye opener into the backroom dynamics at LSM. The most valuable info does not come from scoffers who cry the c-word, but those snippets of actual accounts by those who witnessed them. I have concluded that LSM is a cesspool of politics, much the same as we see in our capital.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

TC battled with some of the Blendeds for decades. None of this was ever made public. GLA leaders always attributed this to religious jealousies and politicking for power. Sometimes WL tried to reconcile differences, and other times he fueled the controversies. No one has ever said that TC is easy to work with, and we also know how much back-biting thrives at LSM.

During one time period, I believe the early 90's, TC was really in the pressure cooker. I don't know the exact details why, but he was inches away from giving up his ministry in Cleveland due to overwhelming pressure from various blendeds. He even discussed his relocation plans. I have also mentioned how TC was abusive at times to other brothers in the GLA. Abuse is just a way of life for LC leaders -- be a lackey or be abused.

This forum has been a real eye opener into the backroom dynamics at LSM. The most valuable info does not come from scoffers who cry the c-word, but those snippets of actual accounts by those who witnessed them. I have concluded that LSM is a cesspool of politics, much the same as we see in our capital.

I was privy to a lot of backbiting concerning TC, especially in Taipei. I gave that a nod in my response letter to his excommunication when I pointed out that if WL was aware of all these things concerning TC, as the BBs allege, yet didn't feel to excommunicate him, why are the BBs?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

In at least one of the letters which Titus Chu wrote to the BB's, he mentioned that Witness Lee had clearly spoken negative things about some of the BB's as well. TC specifically mentioned that WL stated that Ron Kangas was very proud. I have heard from multiple sources that the legalistic college-age work which WL spoke so strongly against in his 1996 book entitled A Word of Love was the college-age work headed up by Minoru Chen at UC Irvine. At the final message to the 1996 Summer Training, WL ripped into a lot of the BB's and exposed what poor shepherds of the "saints" they were. So, I can believe that WL would have said some negative things about TC since he said so many other negative things about his other co-workers. We should always remember how disappointed and disgusted WL was with the condition of the LRC just before he died.

Dear brother KisstheSon, occasionally you seem almost sympathetic to WL about how disappointing things had turned out in the Recovery. Perhaps I am wrong here. I too used to take WL's fellowship to heart concerning his frustrations with other brothers.

After reading many others' accounts of events which transpired, I can no longer be sympathetic. WL created a monster of his own doing. WL was abusive to other leaders and totally intolerant to the ideas of other leaders. He forced his followers to become absolutely one with him, absolutely one with his work, and absolutely one with his "office," Phillip Lee, his son. Those who were otherwise minded were expelled, their reputations destroyed, and the rest of the Recovery was properly "educated" about the matter.

And then WL is surprised that the LC's are no different from Laodicea. WL is surprised when the churches are barren? WL is surprised when the campus work under MC, his most ardent lackey, is legalistic? WL is surprised when RK is proud, kind of like his mentor? WL is surprised that TC is so difficult to work with, just like his "spiritual father?" WL is surprised when his closest adherents, personally trained by him for for decades, are such poor shepherds, spending so little of their time actually caring for people?

Is this not hypocrisy? Or perhaps it could be more rightly called insanity -- doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Como un espejo, eh?

"Como un espejo, eh?" - "Like a mirror, eh?"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was privy to a lot of backbiting concerning TC, especially in Taipei. I gave that a nod in my response letter to his excommunication when I pointed out that if WL was aware of all these things concerning TC, as the BBs allege, yet didn't feel to excommunicate him, why are the BBs?

TC was never a threat to WL, only to the Blendeds. WL could abuse TC, privately and publicly, and he just took it. He took it from the Lord. TC, however, had zero tolerance for them blendeds.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear brother KisstheSon, occasionally you seem almost sympathetic to WL about how disappointing things had turned out in the Recovery. Perhaps I am wrong here. I too used to take WL's fellowship to heart concerning his frustrations with other brothers.

After reading many others' accounts of events which transpired, I can no longer be sympathetic. WL created a monster of his own doing. WL was abusive to other leaders and totally intolerant to the ideas of other leaders. He forced his followers to become absolutely one with him, absolutely one with his work, and absolutely one with his "office," Phillip Lee, his son. Those who were otherwise minded were expelled, their reputations destroyed, and the rest of the Recovery was properly "educated" about the matter.

And then WL is surprised that the LC's are no different from Laodicea. WL is surprised when the churches are barren? WL is surprised when the campus work under MC, his most ardent lackey, is legalistic? WL is surprised when RK is proud, kind of like his mentor? WL is surprised that TC is so difficult to work with, just like his "spiritual father?" WL is surprised when his closest adherents, personally trained by him for for decades, are such poor shepherds, spending so little of their time actually caring for people?

Is this not hypocrisy? Or perhaps it could be more rightly called insanity -- doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results.

Amen, dear brother Ohio. Your points are well spoken and I receive them. It is indeed hypocrisy. The LRC whole thing was, and is, such a huge mass of deviation from anything related to the heart and mind and God.

I don't know what gets into me at times - sometimes I still weep over it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Amen, dear brother Ohio. Your points are well spoken and I receive them. It is indeed hypocrisy. The LRC whole thing was, and is, such a huge mass of deviation from anything related to the heart and mind and God.

I don't know what gets into me at times - sometimes I still weep over it.

Blessed are those who mourn ... they shall be comforted.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

TC battled with some of the Blendeds for decades. None of this was ever made public. GLA leaders always attributed this to religious jealousies and politicking for power. Sometimes WL tried to reconcile differences, and other times he fueled the controversies. No one has ever said that TC is easy to work with, and we also know how much back-biting thrives at LSM.

So when Kisstheson brought out what Dan Towle spoke at whistler; that being the blended brothers being meant to be a broad an inclusive group, I consider Dan may have been speaking for himself and I also consider it may have been a placating word. To give a view of inclusiveness. I reiterate, what about Gene Gruhler? Well Ohio, I think there was inclusiveness, but only towards those and for those who can be counted upon. Maybe like Gene, Titus could not be counted upon.

[zeek]

On previous post I meant to say: As an alternative to the literal-factual method of interpretation that Tomes seems to be advocating, why not consider an historical-metaphorical reading ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

So when Kisstheson brought out what Dan Towle spoke at whistler; that being the blended brothers being meant to be a broad an inclusive group, I consider Dan may have been speaking for himself and I also consider it may have been a placating word. To give a view of inclusiveness. I reiterate, what about Gene Gruhler? Well Ohio, I think there was inclusiveness, but only towards those and for those who can be counted upon. Maybe like Gene, Titus could not be counted upon.

Counted on to do what? TC is a minister and LSM is supposedly a publishing house. What should a publishing house count on a minister to do?

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 ....

[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]

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.

[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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

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

Welcome to the forum, Steve!

Where anything you post can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

Btw, great testimony about being jailed for passing out gospel tracts.

[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 ...