What ‘Recovery’? LSM’s Major Myth Debunked SUMMARY: This article debunks LSM’s foundational myth about ‘recovery.’ It makes 5 points: 1. The rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple is the Old Testament type of recovery. Witness Lee asserts that God’s glory filled Ezra’s rebuilt Temple, as it had Solomon’s Temple, vindicating this recovery. This is LSM’s major recovery myth. 2. Contrary to W. Lee, there was no glorious recovery; God’s glory never filled the rebuilt Temple, the Ark was absent; plus all the outward signs of God’s presence & glory were missing. This recovery was partial, inadequate & incomplete 3. LSM presents no factual evidence, only unsubstantiated dogmatic assertions, to validate their claim that the rebuilt Temple was a recovery, endorsed by God’s returning glory. Christian scholars have analysed relevant Jewish writings —the Jews at Jesus’ time did not regard the exile as over; physically they had returned, yet most Jews (even those in Israel) saw themselves as still living in a continuing captivity, awaiting a further recovery from their extended exile. 4. The great prophecies regarding the rebuilt Temple (e.g. Haggai, Zech.) remained unfulfilled until Jesus Christ came, inaugurating the NT dispensation. This supports John N. Darby’s view that God never restores a failed dispensation. 5. LSM’s ‘ground of locality’ doctrine is based on the false premise that the Jewish exiles’ return from Babylon to Jerusalem was a full recovery. It stresses position over spiritual condition, producing Laodicean pride & complacency. Introduction ‘Recovery’ is a crucial concept for the Local Churches linked with Witness Lee and Living Stream Ministry (LSM). LSM’s local churches self-identify as “the Lord’s Recovery;” their Bible translation is the “Recovery Version.” But what does this term mean? “When we speak of the recovery of the church”, W. Lee says,1 “we mean that something was there originally, that it became lost or damaged, and that now there is the need to bring that thing back to its original state. Because the church has become degraded through the many centuries of its history, it needs to be restored according to God's original intention. Concerning the church, our vision should be governed not by the present situation nor by traditional practice but by God's original intention and standard as revealed in the Scriptures.” In LSM’s view, degradation and recovery (restoration) is the central theme of Scripture and of Church history. The Local Church’s raison d’être is that God desires to restore the church to the original state depicted in the New Testament. Hence, W. Lee asserts,2 “We need to understand the recovery of the church in relation to God's intention...and Satan's work of destruction. The New Testament reveals that regarding the church God has a definite intention, purpose, and goal...First, God purposed and then He came in to accomplish His purpose...God's enemy came in to destroy what God had accomplished... Nevertheless, God is a...purposeful God, and once He has made up His mind to do something, nothing can change His mind or stop Him. Therefore, after Satan's destruction, God comes in to redo the things that He had done before. This redoing is His recovery.” The Jewish exiles’ return from Babylon to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem is presented as the major “type” (or pattern) of “recovery” in Scripture. Witness Lee states that,3 “the recovery of the church is typified by the return of the children of Israel from their captivity (Ezra 1:3-11).” Elaborating, he says,4 “The captivity of the children of Israel was due to their degradation...they were carried away to captivity in Babylon. The church also became degraded and eventually was brought into captivity by Babylon the great, Christendom, which is a prostitute in the eyes of the holy God. The recovery of the church, therefore, involves a return from the capturing and divisive ground signified by Babylon.” Church history, LSM claims, mirrors Israel’s Old Testament history of degradation, captivity and recovery. 1 LSM’s local churches claim they are the cutting edge of God’s current move to restore the church to its original state. They view themselves as fulfilling the ‘type’ of the restoration of Jerusalem and its Temple under Ezra and Nehemiah. This article asks—does the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s Temple by the returned Jewish exiles establish the principle of recovery? To members of LSM’s Local Churches the answer is obvious; they’ve been told countless times that the exiles’ return was indeed a full recovery, a restoration of Israel’s worship back to the original state God established. For example, W. Lee asserts that,5 “the people of Israel traveled in groups from Babylon [back] to Jerusalem. When they arrived at Jerusalem, they gathered together as one man and endeavored in one accord to rebuild the temple...We can see from the record in the book of Ezra that the glory of the situation at that time apparently surpassed the glory of the situation at the time when the temple was first built.” Here W. Lee asserts that God vindicated the Jewish exiles’ return from Babylon, because (as Haggai promised, Hag. 2:7-9) the visible glory of the rebuilt Temple surpassed the glory when Solomon’s Temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8). According to LSM, this is the prime example, “exhibit A,” firmly establishing beyond any reasonable doubt, the principle of recovery from the Old Testament Scriptures. We ask: are these claims valid? “God never restores a failed dispensation”—John N. Darby LSM contends that God’s recovery work is clearly seen in Scripture, for e.g., in Israel’s restored worship in the rebuilt Jerusalem Temple. Eminent Bible expositors vehemently disagree. John Nelson Darby (1800-82) is a prime example. Despite being acclaimed by LSM as a key figure in God’s recovery program,6 Darby rejected any notion of recovery; he contends that God is not a God of recovery. For J. N. Darby biblical history demonstrates that in each successive dispensation God’s people failed and that God never restores a failed dispensation. He asserts,7 “there is no instance of the restoration of a dispensation” in Scripture. Darby contends that,8 “God has never restored previous dispensations to their original condition. [Rather] God would provide a new beginning, a new dispensation, to perpetuate His program of salvation history.” In this view salvation history is linear, progressing in a forward direction—man’s failure causes God to inaugurate a new era; salvation history is not cyclical, God never “turns back the clock,” restoring a failed arrangement. Darby’s teaching directly contradicts LSM’s notion of “recovery,” which asserts God wants to “bring the thing back to its original state.” Darby rules out recovery, saying “God has never restored...dispensations to their original condition.” The contrast between W. Lee and J. N. Darby on this point is stark! At times Watchman Nee espoused Darby’s view. For e.g. he says,9 “Alas, the church has become almost fully degraded...This is true in all generations...Has God ever made up for the failure of the fallen ones? No, instead He turns & creates something new.” The last statement echoes Darby. Darby and others maintain that the Jews’ return to Jerusalem from Babylon demonstrates the impossibility of recovery—the Ark of the Covenant was absent, the Davidic Kingship was not restored and the rebuilt Temple never equalled Solomon’s Temple. Thereafter, “things went from bad to worse.” When Jesus walked the earth, the Holy of Holies was empty, the Ark was absent, Herod (an Edomite) was “king of the Jews” and Sadducees controlled the High Priesthood (Acts 5:17). More generally, Darby asserts,10 that it is wrong to assume “it is according to the will of God to re-establish the...dispensation on its original footing after it has failed.” This raises the question—is W. Lee’s Old Testament ‘type of recovery,’ in which he claimed God’s glory filled the rebuilt Jerusalem Temple, valid? Does Israel’s history prove the principle of recovery (as W. Lee claimed)? Or does it demonstrate the impossibility of recovery (as J. N. Darby alleged)? Degradation, Captivity & Recovery 2 W. Lee repeatedly invokes this Old Testament type to demonstrate recovery. For example, he says,11 “The entire history of Israel was a full, complete, and entire type of the church life. [In] the history of Israel there was a captivity, and after the captivity there was the return...At the time of Solomon the temple was built, the glory of God filled the temple, and all the people of Israel were one to worship God...However, the day of degradation came, and the enemy came from Babylon to destroy the city, burn the temple, capture the people, and carry away all the vessels of the house of God to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar even put all the things of the worship of God into the idol temple. This was the captivity. Then after 70 years the Lord came in and told the people to go back. The people returned, and...they rebuilt first the altar and then the temple...We must...see what this typifies. The day of Pentecost was the day of glory. The temple in the New Testament, which is the church, was built, and the glory of God filled the church. However, that did not last very long. The day of degradation came in once again, and the church was damaged, destroyed, and scattered into captivity...We praise the Lord that at the end time the Lord has come back to recover and to call His people to return to today's Jerusalem.