Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

Originally Posted by Drake

Unreg,
You keep driving the point of applying the Bible LITERALLY throughout your post.
Do you believe we should apply Matthew 5:29-30 LITERALLY?
Drake

Drake

Answer: The reason I keep emphasizing to understand the Bible LITERALLY, is because due to my ignorance of not knowing anything about “Hermeneutics” or method of interpretation I got deceived, for many years, by the erroneous teaching of W. Lee who “allegorizes” the Bible in his interpretation. As I mentioned earlier: “allegorization is the license for inventing doctrine”, through allegorization, anyone can say what they want by making it fit with the verses.

ALLEGORICAL-------------------HERMENEUTICS-----------------LITERAL

In the chart from above (I am using a dear brother’s chart) you can see the more you go to the “right” (Literal), the better you understand what the Bible is trying to tell us. The more you go to the “left” (allegory), the more you can say whatever you want to say. Having said what is above, it is important to understand that the Bible tells us when the Bible is using “allegory” (example: Gal 4:24), or when the Bible is using “metaphors” (example: 2Cor 3:18, mirror), or when the Bible is using “similes” (example: 1Thes 5:2, “like” a thief), another simile: Mt 10:16 (“as” sheep). There are over 200 literary figures of speech in the Bible that we need to seriously pay attention to: like, as, appearance, look like, resembles, etc, etc, etc,….

Using Mt 5:29, 30. We need to understand in the “context” of the Bible, meaning according to the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). If we “literally” pluck our right eye, we will still want to watch those things that we shouldn’t be watching, because the eye is ONLY a vehicle to watch things we shouldn’t be watching. So, what is the real problem? It is not the eye, but what is in our heart, what is in our mind. The Lord Jesus Himself said: Mt 15:17-20. 17“Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? 18“But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20“These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.” In this case, we realize that the Bible is telling us don’t pluck out your eye “literally”. But in MOST of the Bible, the meaning is LITERAL, because “the Bible says what it means and means what it says” except when the Bible tells us otherwise. This is the reason why we need to look at the Bible with magnifying glasses paying attention to ALL the details of the Bible (Mt 5:17,18) ACCORDING to the WHOLE counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

Also in Mt 23: 37. 37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. This verse doesn’t mean that the Lord Jesus is a “hen”.

I hope this explanation helps some, I don’t claim to know everything, but I try to do my homework and I ask “what does it mean?” to our dear Lord, since He is the Author of the Bible. Also, the goal is to learn from one another because “nobody” knows everything.

I would like to mention what I said at the beginning: “Don't believe anything I say, check it out for yourselves and come to your own conclusions, this is "TOO" important to trust somebody else with your spiritual destiny”.

A lover of Jesus and His Word.

[Evangelical]

Hi unreg..

Interestingly the Recovery version is one of the most literal bible versions around. Also many doctrines of Lee are from a strict literal interpretation. For example that the Lord Jesus is the Spirit is one such doctrine. That is word for word what the verse says. But many Christians interpret that verse according to a view of the Trinity and say Jesus cannot be the Spirit even though the verse literally says that.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi unreg..

Interestingly the Recovery version is one of the most literal bible versions around. Also many doctrines of Lee are from a strict literal interpretation. For example that the Lord Jesus is the Spirit is one such doctrine. That is word for word what the verse says. But many Christians interpret that verse according to a view of the Trinity and say Jesus cannot be the Spirit even though the verse literally says that.

I noticed that you are mixing W. Lee’s “interpretation” with the Biblical Text of the Recovery Version. I don’t have complaints against the Biblical Text of the Recovery Version. My complaint is against many of the “outlines” and “footnotes” being wrong because they go along with W. Lee’s major errors in his teaching. Also, I don’t have a problem with W. Lee’s teaching of Soteriology or Salvation.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I noticed that you are mixing W. Lee’s “interpretation” with the Biblical Text of the Recovery Version. I don’t have complaints against the Biblical Text of the Recovery Version. My complaint is against many of the “outlines” and “footnotes” being wrong because they go along with W. Lee’s major errors in his teaching. Also, I don’t have a problem with W. Lee’s teaching of Soteriology or Salvation.

Another example of Lee's literal interpretation is this one:

Isaiah 9:6 And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father

Lee says Jesus is the Father. Many Christians deny that Jesus is the Father. Lee can't be more literal than that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Another example of Lee's literal interpretation is this one:

Isaiah 9:6 And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father

Lee says Jesus is the Father. Many Christians deny that Jesus is the Father. Lee can't be more literal than that.

Heresy!!!!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Another example of Lee's literal interpretation is this one:

Isaiah 9:6 And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father

Lee says Jesus is the Father. Many Christians deny that Jesus is the Father. Lee can't be more literal than that.

Lee's ministry is in maroon:

In 2 Corinthians 3:17 Paul abruptly says that “the Lord is the Spirit.” Today our critics are most afraid of three Scripture verses: 1 Corinthians 15:45, 2 Corinthians 3:17, and Isaiah 9:6. First Corinthians 15:45 says, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” Some say that the Spirit in this verse is not the Holy Spirit; instead, they say that this verse speaks of Christ becoming a Spirit. However, the Spirit here is modified by life-giving, indicating that this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, because in the universe there is no other Spirit who gives life besides the Holy Spirit.

First of all it bothers me that Lee says his critics are "afraid" of three verses. No one is afraid of them.

I have read other threads that discuss 1 Cor. 15:45, showing the parallel in the preceding and succeeding verses between a physical body and then our spiritual bodies, and thus "became a life-giving Spirit" is talking about the kind of spiritual body the Lord had. As in, Spirit here is referring not to the third of the Godhead, but to the Lord's substance....i.e. God is Spirit.

Given the context, that makes more sense to me than "the life-giving Spirit is the Holy Spirit". If the LGS is referring to the Holy Spirit, then what we have is a verse saying that the last Adam, Jesus, became the Holy Spirit. The Son became the Spirit. Modalism. Sorry, nope.

Some say that the Lord in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is a general title of God and that it does not denote the Lord Jesus. However, according to the context, the Lord here should refer to Christ the Lord. Verses 14 and 16 of chapter 3 say, “The veil is being done away with in Christ...But whenever their heart turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” Verse 17 continues to say, “And the Lord is the Spirit.” Then in 4:5 Paul says, “We do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord.” Obviously, Lord here refers to Christ the Lord. Paul says that this Lord is the Spirit.

I can't say anything here. I've read various explanations and commentaries on this verse, and I haven't come to a conclusion yet.

Furthermore, Isaiah 9:6 says, “A Son is given to us;... / And His name will be called... / Eternal Father.” Some say that the Father here does not refer to the heavenly Father but to a Father of eternity. They say that eternal (an adjective) should be properly rendered “eternity” (a noun), just like saying that George Washington is the father of America and Thomas Edison is the father of electricity. However, the writer wrote this verse in the form of a couplet with child and Mighty God as a pair and with Son and Eternal Father as another pair. The child is the Son, and God is the Father. Since there is only one God, there is surely also only one Father. No one can twist this word and say that the Father here does not refer to the Father in the Godhead but to another Father. Furthermore, we must interpret any verse of the Bible according to the particular book in which the verse is found. In the entire book of Isaiah, Jehovah is referred to twice as our Father (63:16; 64:8), indicating that Eternal Father refers to God, who is our Father. Therefore, we cannot say that He is the eternal Father and not our Father.

The couplet argument is interesting just because I'd never heard it before, but I have to be honest that I don't see the couplet as an obvious parallel. Child and mighty God don't necessary go together, and then where is the couplet pairing for Wonderful Counselor and Prince of Peace? Am I missing the couplet thing? I think it's grasping at straws to draw that parallel (a hallmark of Lee's work I am coming to realize).

There are other verses in the Old Testament, one from Isaiah, that use the word "father" in the sense of "protector":

Isaiah 22:21 - And I will clothe him with your tunic, And I will strengthen him with your girding sash, And I will put your dominion into his hand; And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem And to the house of Judah.

Job 29:16 - I was a father to the needy, And the cause of him whom I did not know I investigated.

Isaiah 63:16, which Lee mentions, is speaking of a father to a whole people, which strikes me as similar to Washington being the father of America. I also don't read Isaiah 64:8 to refer to the father of the Godhead.

I just can't get on board with the Son is the Father.

The Son as the Spirit is the embodiment of the Triune God. After completing all the processes, such as incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and glorification, He became “the Spirit” (John 7:39; Rom. 8:26-27; Gal. 3:2, 14) as the ultimate manifestation of the Triune God.

Since John 7:39 is listed here as a verse reference, I'll mention that I was going to bring in John 7:39 in trying to talk about 2 Cor. 3:17 in the portion above that I didn't comment on, because in John 7:39 I can see that "the Spirit" was not yet meaning the Lord was not yet spirit in substance, otherwise you have to read it as the Holy Spirit was not yet, which is patently false. To say the Lord "became the Spirit" as the ultimate manifestation of the Triune God and call it the Holy Spirit is again, to me, to say that God exists in modes.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Isaiah 63:16, which Lee mentions, is speaking of a father to a whole people, which strikes me as similar to Washington being the father of America. I also don't read Isaiah 64:8 to refer to the father of the Godhead.

I just can't get on board with the Son is the Father.

One thing that helped me was a commentary which showed that people gave their children names with "God" in them. That does not, of course, mean that the child is God, or has the attributes of the name in full, but that the child rather points to some aspect of the Source of all good.

A lot of names had "el" in them, meaning "God". But that person ( or angel - "Gabri-el" or "Micha-el" - was not God.) So if you had a name like "the Father is eternal" it didn't mean that you yourself were the eternal Father. One might meet someone on the street who introduced themselves as "the father who is of light" or "Who is like God" and that didn't mean they themselves were the Father, or God.

A larger point worth making, which came to mind in the "Body Christ" or "Corporate Christ" thread, is that every time Christ became something or other in the hands of the ministry of Lee, he became arguably less like the actual Jesus of the gospels. In theological suppositions, Jesus became more and more abstract, as the posited Pneumatic Christ, the Intensified Christ, the Body Christ and so forth.

Yet the actual Jesus "who went around doing good", as his close associate Peter told those in Cornelius' house... well we had little use for "dead works" in the LC. The Jesus who taught to "give to those who have no means to repay you in this age" - we had other teachings in the LC. Don't waste your time, we were told in the FTTA, rather go after "good building material." The Jesus who was no respecter of persons (also echoed in James' writings, later) was superseded by a system, a Corporate Christ, built on nothing but respecting men (not women - their time was in the 1920s and 30s). "Can we honour our brother too much" asked one leader (who was ejected years later for not showing sufficient honour to the replacement Top Dog in Anaheim).

It became a farcical system holding to abstract ideals and teachings but bearing little resemblance in any actuality to the person whose life, teachings, journey, behaviours, death, and resurrection started it all. The system behind the abstractions became little different from the worst of the "Christanity" it so loudly and constantly despised. That was the real process, the real becoming.

[Cal]

Lee never made it very clear why it was so important to think that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit.

I believe that at some level that must be true--because all three are God and there is only one God. But why did Lee have to beat everyone over the head with it?

I've given my opinion on the matter. I think the Trinity is the result of the inner life of a self-conscious, all-knowing Person. He knows himself completely. This produces a perfect image in his own mind of himself, which is ever before him and is so complete it is also a "person"--the Son. The Father and the Son have a relationship, that is the Spirit. Each are completely the one God, yet each are distinct. So in a sense, each are the others. Yet, they are still distinct. Mysterious. Yet if you look at your relationship with yourself, you can see a faint shadow of it.

But Lee never explained why it was better to see them as one. I personally felt his view was helpful, because it was easier to experience God if you weren't always trying to divide him up in your mind, and just let it flow. But to Lee it seemed to be a point where he got to be argumentative about something and show how he was smarter than everyone else. That's where I think he went wrong. And he went wrong that way a lot.

But in general, complete orthodoxy or agreement on the Trinity is unnecessary; and, since it is such a mystery, impossible anyway, because who is to say what is perfectly orthodox? So those who say don't over-analyze the Trinity, just enjoy it, have a strong point.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

...those who say don't over-analyze the Trinity, just enjoy it, have a strong point.

I write a lot, but also agree with the "don't overthink it" school. I write because I enjoy writing, not because I alone have the truth and I'm endeavouring to bludgeon a recalcitrant world into submission.

For some reason I've come to tremendously appreciate the simplicity and power of Peter's gospel. "This Jesus God has raised up, and made both Lord and Christ". The Jesus who in Lee's hands became the sevenfold intensified pneumatic processed Father Christ doesn't impress me as much as "this Jesus" that Peter speaks of in Acts 2. We can either say that possibly Peter didn't get all those Local Church extras, or maybe Peter got everything.

The Jesus that Peter saw every day, to me beats the "Christ who became" this and that via Lee's mental machinations. But that's just my subjective enjoyment. Lee had his, I have mine.

[UntoHim]

Great post Unregistered Guest! Please consider taking a couple of minutes and registering for the Forum. Then your posts will not have to go through the moderation queue and will appear immediately, instead of that annoying delay. Just shoot an email to LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com requesting registration, along with your desired UserName, and then we'll shoot you back an email with a temporary password.

Thanks for your consideration.
-

[Drake]

Unreg, "Using Mt 5:29, 30. We need to understand in the “context” of the Bible, meaning according to the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). If we “literally” pluck our right eye, we will still want to watch those things that we shouldn’t be watching, because the eye is ONLY a vehicle to watch things we shouldn’t be watching."

Ok Unreg,

We agree that Matt 5:29-30 should not be taken literally. Context matters.

Do you also agree that the woman in revelation 12 is not a literal woman?

And yes, please register as UntoHim requested.

Drake

Answer: If you can read carefully the explanations, it will help…. I would like to repeat again: But in MOST of the Bible, the meaning is LITERAL, because “the Bible says what it means and means what it says” EXCEPT when the Bible tells us otherwise. This is the reason why we need to look at the Bible with magnifying glasses paying attention to ALL the details of the Bible (Mt 5:17,18).

Also in Mt 23: 37. 37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. This verse doesn’t mean that the Lord Jesus is a “hen with feathers”. Or Jn 1:29 says: “……Behold the Lamb of God…..” This verse doesn’t mean that the Lord Jesus “has 4 legs”. Please, read the first paragraph.

Related to Rev 12:1-5. Again, read the first paragraph…. If you want to talk about the book of Revelation, you have to understand that this book is the conclusion of the whole Bible and it shows the catastrophic end of this age, therefore Revelation itself tells us in Rev. 1:1: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and “signified” it by his angel unto his servant John”. Notice that this verse it says that the book of Revelation is a book of “SIGNS”, please check in the Greek. Therefore, Rev 1:1, is telling us that the woman in Rev 12, is a SIGN or SIGNIFIES the nation of Israel. This is exactly what I am mentioning in the first paragraph.

I would like to repeat myself, I am not trying to convince anybody. In fact, don't believe anything I say, check it out for yourself and come to your own conclusions, this is "TOO" important to trust somebody else with your spiritual destiny.

A lover of Jesus and His Word.

[Evangelical]

I believe many Christians and even many popular pastors, and I realized this while I was still in denominations, take a narrow approach to scripture. They interpret snippets of passages without realizing the context of verses or paragraphs before. Some of this can be attributed to the flawed chapter and verse numbering system which no modern bible versioners to my knowledge have bothered to correct. It can also be attributed to a mistaken belief that every verse in the bible is standalone, and then individual verses take on a life of their own, and diverge from the author's and God's intended meaning. "Words or verses for today" and such have not helped in this respect, only contributing to this mistaken , but popular view. In part, it is due to the modern idea of convenience - fast food, fast internet, fast scripture. Just give me a "word for today" and I have fed my soul with God's Word. I know people who are great at remembering facts and details of scripture, but are completely lost on the spiritual meaning and broader perspective.

Most Christians are bad at interpreting the bible because there is a view that on becoming a Christian, the Spirit will teach everything and every person is qualified to interpret the bible correctly because they have the Spirit. But even Christ had to study and learn the scriptures, which as a young boy he did. It is something Christians do not receive training in unless they have undertaken biblical studies of some kind themselves. It is something that many churches do not offer. I suspect that biblically trained members in a church would threaten the denominational systems that rely upon specially trained and qualified pastors or priests. If everyone could interpret the bible well, there would be less need for a theologically trained pastor or priest.

To appeal to popularity, the sermons of many pastors/priests in denominations are merely copied from the internet anyway, with a few funny pictures inserted for humor and "life lessons", rather than solid training in biblical exegesis. People may feel they are receiving some benefit, but they do not improve their ability to understand the bible for themselves.

A classic example which has popped up on this forum, is the idea that gathering of two or three people is a church based upon an isolated reading of Matthew 18:20. Examination of the surrounding passages, particularly verses 16 and 17, reveal that the statement by Christ is about telling ones grievances to the church, and telling two or three people is the next step after telling the person you have issue with. This is according to the principle of two or three witnesses. Context reveals it is not about defining a church as two or three people, at all.

The context is set by verse 16 and 17:

16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

It is saying to tell the person you have issue with, if they don't listen, then take along two or three, and then if the two or three don't convince them, make it public in the church. It is not saying that any gathering of two or three Christians are a church. Why would verse 16 say take along two or three, and then verse 17 say tell it to the church of two or three? Doesn't make sense. So the church must be something larger than just two or three.

Another example is the prosperity gospel which is built upon a few verses that when read in isolation seem to appear that God wants us to be financially rich. Many churches believe in this idea and the congregation accepts it because all they have to do is literally read the verse that says God wants us to prosper, and then take that to its logical conclusion that God wants us to be rich.

But Lee does not take individual verses and try to explain them in isolation. Instead, Lee employs the principle of first mention. The dominant meaning comes from the first mention of the theme and carries through the rest of the bible. This is why sometimes we compare Lee's footnote with the verse and find it does not match so well if read in isolation. The reason is that he has connected it with the first mention.

Lee often talks of "lines" in the bible. A line of this and a line of that. They are dominant themes that weave from Genesis through to Revelation. Reading the bible in this way has provided great insight and simplification of the bible as a whole, leading to greater understanding. It based upon the idea that the bible is not merely a collection of daily verses, but a complete message, a story which God wants to reveal to humanity. We can think of the bible as a tree with branches rather than as a collection of standalone verses.

To my knowledge the principle of first mention is a sound approach for biblical interpretation. Catholics would disagree of course, stating that the principle of reading scripture is by way of "sacred tradition". But in Protestant circles, the principle of first mention is solid.

Therefore Christians who take what shall I say, a naive approach, to reading the bible - reading each verse in isolation, and trying to squeeze as much meaning out of it as possible, even by taking it to its literal extreme, may find it confusing when the stated meaning of the passage by Lee, differs from the isolated, strict and literal interpretation they expect.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But Lee does not take individual verses and try to explain them in isolation. Instead, Lee employs the principle of first mention. The dominant meaning comes from the first mention of the theme and carries through the rest of the bible. This is why sometimes we compare Lee's footnote with the verse and find it does not match so well if read in isolation. The reason is that he has connected it with the first mention.

Lee often talks of "lines" in the bible. A line of this and a line of that. They are dominant themes that weave from Genesis through to Revelation. Reading the bible in this way has provided great insight and simplification of the bible as a whole, leading to greater understanding. It based upon the idea that the bible is not merely a collection of daily verses, but a complete message, a story which God wants to reveal to humanity. We can think of the bible as a tree with branches rather than as a collection of standalone verses.

To my knowledge the principle of first mention is a sound approach for biblical interpretation. Catholics would disagree of course, stating that the principle of reading scripture is by way of "sacred tradition". But in Protestant circles, the principle of first mention is solid.

Therefore Christians who take what shall I say, a naive approach, to reading the bible - reading each verse in isolation, and trying to squeeze as much meaning out of it as possible, even by taking it to its literal extreme, may find it confusing when the stated meaning of the passage by Lee, differs from the isolated, strict and literal interpretation they expect.

Answer: I agree that some or many Christian groups have problems with interpreting the Bible properly, prosperity gospel, etc., etc., etc.,…. But we need to be careful not to “generalize” by looking down on everybody and saying “poor Christianity” because not everyone is like that. This problem of looking down to everybody is typical of those who meet with W. Lee’s local church groups due to their ignorance, wrong teaching (already mentioned at first in more detail) and wrong practices (cult-like).
As I mentioned in my original post, W. Lee’s teaching has MAJOR errors:
• Replacement Theology
• Importance of Israelology (83% of the Bible is related to Israel)
• Wrong Eschatology (33% is Prophecy in the Bible)
• Wrong Ecclesiology (result of NOT knowing Israeology)

With all these major problems (see my original post for more details), it is impossible to have a correct interpretation of the Bible.

I would like to point out a few wrong allegories that W. Lee makes in his teaching:

1) Boiling a young goat in the mother’s milk (Exo 23:19; 34:26; Deut 14:21) 19“You shall bring the choice first fruits of your soil into the house of the LORD your God. “You are not to boil a young goat in the milk of its mother”.
W. Lee’s explanation in his Life Study is: “Now we come to the last condition, a condition that may seem very strange: “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (v. 26b). You may be surprised at the significance of the requirement not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk. This requirement indicates or typifies that we should not seethe young believers with the milk of the word; that is, we should not “boil” them with the word of life that is for nourishment (1 Pet. 2:2).
In ancient times some people probably did have the practice of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk. This may have been regarded as a delicious dish. As we have indicated, we should not use the milk of the word to seethe young believers. This is to use the milk of the word, which is for life- nourishment, to kill the young ones. The point here is that the milk of the Word of God is for nourishment”(1Pet 2:2; Heb 5:12, 13; 1Cor 3:2).

W. Lee in his explanation above gives his “free allegory” made up by himself, additionally he gives references (1Pet 2:2; Heb 5:12, 13; 1Cor 3:2) that have NOTHING to do with the subject verses (Exo 23:19; 34:26; Deut 14:21), except ALL these verses have the word “milk” in common.

The “correct” Biblical way to understand “Boiling a young goat in the mother’s milk” is that it refers to the superstitious custom of the Canaanites at harvest time in which a young goat was boiled in its mother’s milk as a charm to increase the fruitfulness of their crops.
God didn’t want His people copying the pagan fertility rituals instead of trusting Him to bless their harvest. This commandment is the basis for the present Jewish custom of not mixing milk products with meat.

This is according to Israelology, Jewish culture, because the Bible is a Judeo-Christian book and 83% of the Bible, is related to Israel. Also Jesus Himself is Jew.

2) Eating poisonous gourds (2King 4:38-41)
38When Elisha returned to Gilgal, there was a famine in the land. As the sons of the prophets were sitting before him, he said to his servant, “Put on the large pot and boil stew for the sons of the prophets.” 39Then one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine and gathered from it his lap full of wild gourds, and came and sliced them into the pot of stew, for they did not know what they were. 40So they poured it out for the men to eat. And as they were eating of the stew, they cried out and said, “O man of God, there is death in the pot.” And they were unable to eat. 41But he said, “Now bring meal.” He threw it into the pot and said, “Pour it out for the people that they may eat.” Then there was no harm in the pot.

Do you think this portion of the word says that many of today's Christian writings are "poisonous gourds"?

The following is what Witness Lee says in his Life Study about this:
Many of the teachings in today's Christianity are "poisonous gourds." Some Christian books are good, but many are not pure. We have recommended certain writings by Andrew Murray, Madame Guyon, Brother Lawrence, and others. We have especially recommended Andrew Murray's masterpiece The Spirit of Christ, as well as God's Plan of Redemption by Mary E. McDonough and Life on the Highest Plane by Ruth Paxton. Among us we also have the ministry of Brother Nee. Brother Nee's ministry was rejected by the Western missionaries in his youth, but today his ministry is known by seeking Christians throughout the world. By the Lord's mercy and grace, in the last seventy years nearly all the crucial, important revelations of the Bible have been covered in Watchman Nee's ministry and my ministry. I would urge you to pay attention to these pure and healthy things and not waste your time collecting "poisonous gourds".

Again, W. Lee in his explanation above gives his “free allegory” made up by himself, and he recommends himself by saying that “in the last seventy years nearly ALL the crucial, important revelations of the Bible have been covered in Watchman Nee's ministry and my ministry”.

The “correct” Biblical way to understand this section (2King 4:38-41), is to realize that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. Always, we should check with the commentaries of the theologians; NOT just ONE author, but 3 or 4. And try to understand why the interpretations differ. We need to do our homework and NOT blindly believe the commentaries, learn from the Berean believers (Act 17:10,11). By the way, “nobody” knows everything in the Bible. Even the Apostle Paul who wrote 14 epistles in the New Testament, he did not conclude the Bible, the Apostle John did it. This is because every believer, is simply a “member” of the Body of Christ.

[least]

Hi Unregistered Guest
I read through your long post. Many things were said. I'll like to read more posts from you.
Jesus Is Lord.

[Drake]

HI Unreg,

Thanks for your response. Your base note appeared as an extreme position on taking the Bible LITERALLY (emphasis yours). Yet, since we agree that the woman in Revelation 12 is not a literal woman but a sign and Matthew 5 29-30 is not to be taken literally but must be interpreted in context then I think you must not hold an extreme view on "LITERALLY ". Obviously, as you point out, the Lord is not literally a hen.

Which takes us to the other end of your scale: Allegory

First I will agree with you. Allegory can be misused. It may be used in such a way to convey things that are not really biblical truths. And so when allegory such as typological allegory is used it must be validated by the rest of scripture. So the Bible must interpret itself. However allegory is used extensively in the Bible. Jesus's parables are allegorical. Paul uses allegory. God uses allegory. Allegory in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It is a method to communicate deeper truths in a simple format. Not every truth is easy to understand literally or logically. God uses the means of communication that man uses and that includes allegory.

Therefore the argument about the allegory used in any Bible teaching is not whether allegory was used but whether it was properly used in the context and framework of that particular teaching in the Bible. Your argument and your scale seem to suggest that allegory should not be used unless an allegory is specifically mentioned in the Bible. But there is no prohibition in the Bible about using allegory and in fact it appears to be encouraged. I think if we were as Christians to take an extreme view of not using allegory in our understanding the Bible or in our explanation of the Bible we would be limiting the Holy Spirit's ability to unveil many deeper truths in the Bible.

For instance, John the Baptist said "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". John was specifically conveying to his audience that Jesus was not a literal lamb but the lamb of the sin offering. Having set the precedent that Jesus was the Old Testament sin offering it is reasonable to extend that revelation to Jesus as all the offerings. He is not just a sin offering, but he is also the burnt offering, the peace offering, the wave offering Etc. So we can also look throughout the Gospel of John and see the Lord presenting himself in various circumstances as all the offerings. Now if you were to look literally at the text in the Gospel of John, for instance, you would not necessarily see it say something like "behold the peace offering of God." That is where the eyes of our heart need to be enlightened by the speaking of the Holy Spirit to show us where in the scripture we may see the deeper truths below the literal text. And if that is in alignment with the rest of scripture then it is useful and proper allegory.

We can also see similar typological pictures regarding the church. The apostles used the temple in the Old Testament to describe the dwelling place of God in the church and it's building. They used the priesthood to describe the universal priesthood of the believers. Or the story of Adam and Eve are used as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church. Or concerning the coming Kingdom we see in allegory in Jude where the pseudepigrapha non-canon Book of Enoch is used to convey the deeper truths of the Lord's establishment of the physical kingdom of God on earth. Typological allegory is used throughout Scripture.

I am not advocating only allegory or allegory as a standalone method of interpretation. However I am refuting the notion that allegory has no place in interpreting deeper truths below the literal text. Allegory is color in a coloring book. Sometimes it is needed to bring out those deeper truths or to explain them. Your broadbrush approach to dismissing typological allegory is unfounded and your reason for disregarding it, though commendable, is misplaced.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by least

Hi Unregistered Guest
I read through your long post. Many things were said. I'll like to read more posts from you.
Jesus Is Lord.

Amen.

Two things touched me in particular. First is the peril, and loss, of ignoring the Jewish background of the texts, both OT and NT. For example, a Jewish Christian once showed me that Jesus' brother was not named James! Can you believe that!? If you look in the interlinear, his name was Iacov. Jacob. I was absolutely astounded, and appalled.

None of this changes the salvation of Christ, and the contents of our faith. But over time I began to truly sense our collective ignorance ( I speak as a card-carrying Baptist pew-sitter). We know so little, and contentedly imagine that we know so much.

Secondly, the remedy was alluded to by the poster. There are pockets of supply out there, in some of the unlikeliest of places. All we need to do is humble ourselves, and turn.

[Nell]

MAJOR ERRORS OF W. LEE'S TEACHING
Table of Content In Order Of Importance
· Replacement Theology
· Importance of Israelology (83% of the Bible is related to Israel)
· Wrong Eschatology (33% is Prophecy in the Bible)
· Wrong Ecclesiology (result of NOT knowing Israeology)

I've read your original post several times and I would also like to hear more from you. I think this is the best deconstruct of WL's ministry that I've heard. What makes it valuable is that these same points can be applied to the speaking of any Christian teacher, preacher, minister, or poster on a forum such as this.

This forum is named Local Church Discussions, so of course, much has been said about the "ground of the church." It seems that many of the topics, regardless of the subject, somehow find their way back to "the ground of the church."

You make the point:

"Wrong Ecclesiology" – As a result of the above (Replacement Theology, ignoring Israelology, Wrong Eschatology); W. Lee’s ecclesiology is also wrong. There is so much emphasis on the “church” in W. Lee’s teaching, that he makes the church the center of everything in the Bible. Emphasis added.

The first questions new forum members often ask is what church, what kind of church, they should be attending. Because we have been pounded over and over by Lee's "church" teaching, we lose sight of the fact that the church is not the "center of everything in the Bible." It's most important that we have a walk with the Lord and as Paul said "That I may know him...". As we follow him, he will lead us to other believers who are following the Lamb also. It's not up to us to "find a church". It's up to us to follow the Lamb.

This is an excellent point:

I agree that they follow the biblical way of not taking a name, but with their unhealthy attitude (not Biblical) that I mentioned above, they make it "worse" than the other Christian groups with names.

I appreciate it too that you are not trying to cram anything down our throats.

I am not trying to convince anybody, I am simply sharing my "personal testimony". In fact, Don't believe anything I say, check it out for yourselves and come to your own conclusions, this is "TOO" important to trust somebody else with your spiritual destiny.

I think a good moniker for you would be "Berean".

Blessings to you--
Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Amen.

Two things touched me in particular. First is the peril, and loss, of ignoring the Jewish background of the texts, both OT and NT. For example, a Jewish Christian once showed me that Jesus' brother was not named James! Can you believe that!? If you look in the interlinear, his name was Iacov. Jacob. I was absolutely astounded, and appalled.

None of this changes the salvation of Christ, and the contents of our faith. But over time I began to truly sense our collective ignorance ( I speak as a card-carrying Baptist pew-sitter). We know so little, and contentedly imagine that we know so much.

Secondly, the remedy was alluded to by the poster. There are pockets of supply out there, in some of the unlikeliest of places. All we need to do is humble ourselves, and turn.

Its even more appalling when we consider that the deliberate translation to James was because of anti semeticism in medieval England. Yet imagine the uproar if bible versioners were to correct this. Especially KJV only advocates.