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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Even if you say it does mean that it is literally concerning God demanding us to remain in our position as servants, it does not also suggest that there is something that is service to the Lord and something else that is not.

Fair enough. But that's not what you said. You said that the idea that Luke 17:7-10 is about us serving the Master dinner before we have dinner is a "difficult postion to support," when in fact that's exactly what it's about.

Then he comes Luke 17:7-10 which he insists is about God having his servants (us) serve him his dinner before we get to eat ours. In context, this is a difficult position to support. It is immediately following an assertion that our faith can tell a tree to be replanted in the sea. Reading these next verses as relating, without reference to God insisting on us doing our work, then coming in and preparing his meal and serving him before we eat is based upon something not actually found in the passage. And since he makes no effort to explain how he came up with it, I find that it is virtually without support and can therefore be rejected.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Fair enough. But that's not what you said. You said that the idea that Luke 17:7-10 is about us serving the Master dinner before we have dinner is a "difficult position to support," when in fact that's exactly what it's about.

You are correct. It is what I said.

But whether I was right before (probably not) or you are right now (possibly) it really doesn't change the nature of the lack of support for Nee's assertions about it.

And while the example is about serving the master dinner before we eat our own, I don't think that the meaning is that we have to serve the master dinner before we get our own. It is that the master has the right to order it to be that way. And it is the servant's duty to obey.

It is actually phrased as "suppose any one of you has a servant . . . " It is probably reasonable to assume that the intent is to refer back to God as the one with the servant. But it doesn't necessarily have to be so to make the point it seems to actually make.

The point I see in it is that a servant is a servant full time. Just because they plowed for the day, service is not over when the sun gets too low. It continues on (and on and on). The master determines when the servant can take time for himself. Of course a righteous master does not demand all of the time and no provision to eat or sleep. But he does set the schedule for it.

And no matter who is the master in these verses, there is nothing about them that makes the cooking of the dinner special or primary. It is all part of the tasks assigned.

And in the same way, we are servants full-time. And if not, it is due to disobedience. Our only true choice in the matter is whether to obey or to disobey. Plow or sleep. Cook the master's dinner or eat our own. Do the tasks assigned or go into town for a drink at the local pub to complain about our task-master.

I'm sure that there was something going on inside me that saw there was no true support for Nee, but wanted to make it more severe than it actually was. I didn't go about that willfully, but nevertheless I did it.

[OBW]

Further to my last post, if it is true that the point is about a master having a servant and therefore having authority over him/her, then the portion actually does link back somewhat to the verse before talking about ordering the tree to be uprooted and replanted in the sea. If we have been given authority, then we have the authority to make it so. As much with the tree as with a servant.

Now someone will assert that it must not be so because they haven't seen any trees uprooted and replanted in the sea recently.

Or they will go out determined to see it happen.

How does one register?

I find no Registration link at the top of page.

Thank you.

Cross Reference