Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

Evangelical · 07-02-2017, 07:21 PM

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.

07-04-2017, 01:15 AM

Quote:

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.

07-02-2017, 07:21 PM	#1
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	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.