Witness Lee Sanitized - LSM's Life-Study Radio Broadcast Examined

[zeek]

Does anyone actually teach that this woman in Matthew 13:13 is a prophecy of Jezebel in Revelation 2? Besides Lee? And what do so many "teachers of the Bible" that we consider "sound" say about the woman in Matthew 13? Do they really see and teach a parallel?

Lee's teaching is not than different than Scofield's, except that he named names in the recovery version which are censored by the Living Stream as a tactic in their bait and switch method for consumption by the general public:

Here's an excerpt from Scofield for comparison:

That interpretation of the parable of the Leaven (Mt 13:33) which makes (with variation as to details) the leaven to be the Gospel, introduced into the world ("three measures of meal") by the church, and working subtly until the world is converted ("till the whole was leavened") is open to fatal objection:

(1) it does violence to the unvarying symbolical meaning of leaven, and especially to the meaning fixed by our Lord Himself. Mt 16:6-12 Mk 8:15 See "Leaven," Gen 19:3. See Scofield Note: "Mt 13:33".

(2) The implication of a converted world in this age ("till the whole was leavened"), is explicitly contradicted by our Lord's interpretation of the parables of the Wheat and Tares, and of the Net. Our Lord presents a picture of a partly converted kingdom in an unconverted world; of good fish and bad in the very kingdom-net itself.

(3) The method of the extension of the kingdom is given in the first parable. It is by sowing seed, not by mingling leaven. The symbols have, in Scripture, a meaning fixed by inspired usage. Leaven is the principle of corruption working subtly; is invariably used in a bad sense (see "Leaven," See Scofield Note: "Gen 19:3"), and is defined by our Lord as evil doctrine. Mt 16:11,12 Mk 8:15. Meal, on the contrary, was used in one of the sweet-savour offerings Lev 2:1-3. and was food for the priests Lev 6:15-17. A woman, in the bad ethical sense, always symbolizes something out of place, religiously, See Scofield Note: "Zech 5:6". In Thyatira it was a woman teaching (cf). Rev 2:20 17:1-6. Interpreting the parable by these familiar symbols, it constitutes a warning that the true doctrine, given for nourishment of the children of the kingdom Mt 4:4 1Tim 4:6 1Pet 2:2 would be mingled with corrupt and corrupting false doctrine, and that officially, by the apostate church itself 1Tim 4:1-3 2Tim 2:17,18 4:3,4 2Pet 2:1-3.

[4] Leaven

Summary:

(1) Leaven, as a symbolic or typical substance, is always mentioned in the O.T. in an evil sense Gen 19:3, See Scofield Note: "Gen 19:3".

(2) The use of the word in the N.T. explains its symbolic meaning. It is "malice and wickedness," as contrasted with "sincerity and truth" 1Cor 5:6-8, it is evil doctrine Mt 16:12 in its three-fold form of Pharisasism, Sadduceeism, Herodianism Mt 16:6 Mk 8:15. The leaven of the Pharisees was externalism in religion. Mt 23:14,16,23-28, of the Sadducees, scepticism as to the supernatural and as to the Scriptures Mt 22:23,29, of the Herodians, worldliness--a Herod party amongst the Jews Mt 22:16-21 Mk 3:6.

(3) The use of the word in Mat 13.33 is congruous with its universal meaning.

Scofield, who's commentary became the fundamentalist standard, may have identified the apostate church with the Roman Catholic Church but he didn't put it in his Bible commentary like Lee did. Lee might well have approved of omitting anti-Catholic references on radio broadcasts. After all bait-and-switch tactics were common in the way we were taught to present the gospel at Love Feasts and gospel outreach efforts. It was OK to practice deception when you were robbing Pharaoh of his money or Jezebel or one of her harlot daughters of souls.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Lee's teaching is not than different than Scofield's, except that he named names in the recovery version which are censored by the Living Stream as a tactic in their bait and switch method for consumption by the general public.

Here's an excerpt from Scofield for comparison:

(omitted)

Scofield, who's commentary became the fundamentalist standard, may have identified the apostate church with the Roman Catholic Church but he didn't put it in his Bible commentary like Lee did.

While Lee surely had some original teachings on a lot of things, he also tended to like where the Brethren teachings went with a lot of it. The kinds of teachings here would be clearly within the kind Lee liked.

And while I acknowledge that Lee was not alone in his "woman = bad, leaven = bad" theology, when I read the snippet you provided from Schofield, it would appear that he is trying to fight off a significant interpretation already in existence.

But we have already been over the parables in Matt 13, and it would seem that there was no single parable for any particular thing, such as the spreading of the gospel, but rather several different points made through different means. And, ignoring this particular parable, there is at least one other place where leaven is given a positive part to play. I believe that it is in one of the sacrifices. There may be others. But then even if there are, there is a collection of teachers that have to make leaven simply bad no matter what. So they will require that the reading be twisted to support that position.

The meaning of the leaven in all of the passages combined is something that permeates something else and cannot be extricated. But each use has a specific meaning in addition to that. It does not simply mean evil.

And when set up against the idea of evil, it is difficult to understand leaven as meaning evil within the story of the Exodus. Of course, some have layered on meaning that is not recorded in the account. But it would appear that it was something about being focused and ready to go. Not needing to wait for the bread to rise.

And even when Jesus said to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, he was pointing to the things that were being slipped into their teachings that were not of God. Yes, it is simple to jump to an "it's about evil" conclusion. But again, the point is not that being leaven is evil, but that what is being slipped in is evil.

And when you read a parable that likens the kingdom of heaven to leaven, then conclude that the leaven is evil (which requires that the actual structure of the parable be ignored) then I would suggest that you have started with the conclusion that leaven is evil and did everything in your power to align everything to reach that conclusion. Schofield is sold on "universal meaning" and insists that "first use" controls use forever. Where is that written?

I note that Schofield's exposition introduces a presumption that is not necessarily correct, but which would bolster his position. Since the leaven is worked throughout the flour, clearly changing the nature of the dough, it is presumed that it would have to mean that the entire world becomes Christian as the result of the "leaven" gospel, and since that cannot be true, then the leaven cannot be the gospel. But the parable does not mention the preaching of the gospel, but the spread of the kingdom. And who would assert that the spread of the church has not affected the entire world, even those parts that try to keep the church out? Here in America, we can see some evidence that when we live the kingdom and be and preach the gospel, the nation benefits, yet when we try to force the kingdom's positions on the country, it does not seem to have much real effect. Possibly even a backlash against it.

And how is it that the first parable in the chapter becomes, by definition, THE metaphor for the spread of the gospel? Has no one noted that Jesus could take a large picture, and look at small parts of it and find yet another analogy that, if you force them all together into one, you get a confusion of symbols and types? For example, the whole series on the sheep pen, the gate, the hireling, the shepherd, the gate, the pasture . . . . If you push all of those together into one unified you cannot arrive at the totality of what he taught. It is as if he starts with one smal portion, makes a point, then another small portion to make a point, etc., and you begin to see the totality of what he is trying to say. But the totality is not that he is the gateshepherdpasture conglomeration.

Here is the same. Each parable shows a nuance about the kingdom.

BTW. What does Schofield say about the mustard seed?

[Paul Cox]

Our thanks to brother Nigel Tomes for being faithful to expose the inconsistencies of the Living Stream Church. The current leadership is in fear and trembling, but not for the danger of not expressing Christ, as was Paul. Their fear and trembling is of daring to say anything that throws the cover back off of their organization.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

BTW. What does Schofield say about the mustard seed?

The parable of the Mustard Seed prefigures the rapid but unsubstantial growth of the mystery form of the kingdom from an insignificant beginning Acts 1:15; 2:41; 1 Corinthians 1:26 to a great place in the earth. The figure of the fowls finding shelter in the branches is drawn from Daniel 4:20-22. How insecure was such a refuge the context in Daniel shows.

Again, he may be hinting at the problematic growth of Christendom which Lee explicated. But, the passage is too sketchy for certainty IMO.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Again, he may be hinting at the problematic growth of Christendom which Lee explicated. But, the passage is too sketchy for certainty IMO.

As I expected. Another bad position taken by a Brethren teacher used by Lee to demean Christianity. He clearly had an agenda that was looking for support.

But the problem for both Lee and Schofield is that they did not know what they were talking about. In that region, mustard plants actually grow just like Jesus described. (And we've been through this before fairly recently.) So there was nothing presumed to be unusual or problematic in it. They knew that the smallest seed actually grew to such a great height, with birds resting in its branches. It was Schofield's ignorance of horticulture, coupled with an expected outcome that drove him to make such negative comments.

And Lee loved it because it was another opportunity to paint everything outside the LRC meeting halls as errant and un-Christ-like.

"The kingdom is like the mustard seed . . ." does not direct me to conclude that Jesus is talking about a false kingdom. Or the negative aspects of the kingdom (if there can actually be such a thing).

I would suggest that Lee's penchant for character assassination of virtually anything Christian that was not in his group lead him to look for similar teachings. And from what quarter did it come? From a Brethren source — a source that cut itself off from even others of its own sect if they didn't toe every line drawn in the sand. And if they were anything like Lee, they drew line after line, forcing their followers to step deeper and deeper into their separatism while creating bigger and bigger gulfs between themselves and most other Christians.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

As I expected. Another bad position taken by a Brethren teacher used by Lee to demean Christianity. He clearly had an agenda that was looking for support.

But the problem for both Lee and Schofield is that they did not know what they were talking about. In that region, mustard plants actually grow just like Jesus described. (And we've been through this before fairly recently.) So there was nothing presumed to be unusual or problematic in it. They knew that the smallest seed actually grew to such a great height, with birds resting in its branches. It was Schofield's ignorance of horticulture, coupled with an expected outcome that drove him to make such negative comments.

And Lee loved it because it was another opportunity to paint everything outside the LRC meeting halls as errant and un-Christ-like.

"The kingdom is like the mustard seed . . ." does not direct me to conclude that Jesus is talking about a false kingdom. Or the negative aspects of the kingdom (if there can actually be such a thing).

I would suggest that Lee's penchant for character assassination of virtually anything Christian that was not in his group lead him to look for similar teachings. And from what quarter did it come? From a Brethren source — a source that cut itself off from even others of its own sect if they didn't toe every line drawn in the sand. And if they were anything like Lee, they drew line after line, forcing their followers to step deeper and deeper into their separatism while creating bigger and bigger gulfs between themselves and most other Christians.

Scofield was apprarently right about the parable being an allusion to Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel chapter 4:

10 “These were the visions of my head while on my bed:

I was looking, and behold,
A tree in the midst of the earth,
And its height was great.
11 The tree grew and became strong;
Its height reached to the heavens,
And it could be seen to the ends of all the earth.
12 Its leaves were lovely,
Its fruit abundant,
And in it was food for all.
The beasts of the field found shade under it,
The birds of the heavens dwelt in its branches,
And all flesh was fed from it."

That was the positive side of Nebuchanezzar's dream, the negative being:

13 “I saw in the visions of my head while on my bed, and there was a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven. 14 He cried aloud and said thus:


‘ Chop down the tree and cut off its branches,
Strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit.
Let the beasts get out from under it,
And the birds from its branches.
15 Nevertheless leave the stump and roots in the earth,
Bound with a band of iron and bronze,
In the tender grass of the field.
Let it be wet with the dew of heaven,
And let him graze with the beasts
On the grass of the earth.
16 Let his heart be changed from that of a man,
Let him be given the heart of a beast,
And let seven timespass over him.
17 ‘ This decision is by the decree of the watchers,
And the sentence by the word of the holy ones,
In order that the living may know
That the Most High rules in the kingdom of men,
Gives it to whomever He will,
And sets over it the lowest of men.’

Jesus only appropriates the positive part of the dream in his parable, so I agree with you reading evil into it as Scofield and Lee did seems unjustified. They were reading into the parable their own opinions of Christendom. Do we really have sufficient reason to suppose that Jesus saw the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven as anything other than an unambiguous good?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Scofield was apprarently right about the parable being an allusion to Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel chapter 4:

How are we so certain than "birds resting in branches" means that this is a reference to this dream? It might be. But this "once a term is used its meaning is fixed for the entirety of scripture" has a questionable basis. Lee seemed to like it because all he had to do was find a first reference, preferably in an unclear place, and make it into whatever he wanted.

I have no quarrel with the idea that this particular passage could refer to Nebuchadnezzar's dream (the first part) because it describes a very positive thing. But I don't recall Lee actually mentioning that anyway. He seemed to focus on the [incorrect] assumption of an anomaly of size for a mustard plant coupled with an assertion that birds simply are evil (again one of those presumed positions that is not established as true). So the parable (in his theology) has to be a condemnation of something. But the kingdom??

[Paul Cox]

Witness Lee Sanitized

Let me take the LSM side for the moment and put forth this argument: The LSM brothers were not being deceitful in their sanitation of the Life-study messages. They were only following the Lord's directive when he said that we should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. After all, didn't the Lord seem a little deceitful in his dealing with the two disciples on the road to Emaus?

Oh where, oh where is Bilbodog when you need him?

P.C.