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. We need to return to rebuild the church, to recover the building of God's house on this earth...With the history of Israel we have the type, and with the situation of today's church we have the fulfillment.” In line with this, LSM’s local churches view themselves as the fulfillment of this recovery principle applied to the church. Return from Babylonian Exile— a “full, complete & entire” Recovery? In LSM’s application of the recovery principle, the Christians’ return to “stand on the ground of locality” as the “Church in [City X]” parallels the Jews’ return from Babylon to worship in the Jerusalem Temple. This assumes the Jews’ return from exile represents a full pattern of recovery. Here we ask: does the Old Testament provide such a “full, complete and entire type”? Was the Jews’ return from exile a complete recovery? Was the rebuilt Temple vindicated by God’s approval, by the manifestation of God’s glory? Did it usher in God’s extraordinary blessing? Or was the Jews’ return partial and incomplete, unaccompanied by signs of God’s approval? Put differently, is the principle of “recovery” as clearly established in Scripture as W. Lee claims it to be? It’s worth examining these issues, since if the Old Testament “type” is inadequate or incomplete, the ‘recovery principle’ is not established and its New Testament fulfillment is called into question. LSM claims that Christians “standing on the local ground,” as “the church in [city X],” corresponds to the Jews’ return from Babylon. But, if the Jews’ return was not an adequate recovery, if it was not accompanied by God’s manifest blessing and glory, the significance of today’s Christians “recovering the church’s local ground” is greatly diminished. W. Lee asserts God’s Glory filled the Rebuilt Temple W. Lee says Ezra and Nehemiah accomplished a recovery. He states,12 “According to the record of Nehemiah, the recovery was eventually accomplished, not only a recovery of the temple, but also a complete rebuilding of the city. Ezra records the rebuilding of the temple, and Nehemiah tells of the recovery of the city.” Yes, the Temple’s structure was inferior13 to Solomon’s, but (ignoring its inadequacies) Witness Lee asserts that God endorsed and approved the recovered Temple. Specifically he repeatedly asserts that God’s glory filled the rebuilt Jerusalem Temple. We find unambiguous statements to this effect more than ten times in W. Lee’s published writings. For example, he says,14 “We...know that God's glory was not in Babylon. His presence...was there with some person or persons, but His glory was not there. It was not until the destroyed temple was built in Jerusalem, even though it was not up to standard, that the glory of God filled it (Hag. 2:7, 9). The glory was not

3

in Babylon, but [the glory was] in Jerusalem with a poor group of people. This was entirely due to the ground. Do you think that when the temple was rebuilt on the proper ground and the glory of God manifested that it was due to the spiritual situation? Had the people's condition changed? No, it had not changed. It was still the same. But because a building was erected on the proper ground, even though it was under the standard, the Shekinah glory of God was manifested. This was not because the spirituality of the people had been greatly improved. That did not bring in God's glory. It was simply due to the fact that they came back and rebuilt the temple on the proper ground. Though their situation and condition were poor, yet their standing and their ground were right. God honored the ground they took and upon which they built.” In this paragraph W. Lee states three times that God’s glory was manifested, filling the rebuilt temple: 1. “It was not until the destroyed temple was built in Jerusalem...that the glory of God filled it (Hag. 2:7, 9).” 2. “When the temple was rebuilt on the proper ground...the glory of God manifested...” 3. “Because a building was erected on the proper ground...the Shekinah glory of God was manifested.” This claim is crucial to Witness Lee’s recovery principle; the return of God’s manifest glory indicates that the Temple’s rebuilding was vindicated by God and that Israel’s worship had been restored to the original state established by Solomon. Hence W. Lee says,15 “Those who actually returned to Jerusalem were not as good as Daniel was...Many poor Jews returned to the good land...they were in a pitiful situation. However, although they built a temple that was smaller in size, inferior in material, and different in design from Solomon's temple, because it was built on the proper site, God confirmed by His glory that it was the temple.” Here Witness Lee asserts that (despite the rebuilt Temple’s inadequacies) “God confirmed by His glory” that He accepted and vindicated the Temple’s recovery. Thus Witness Lee seeks to establish the recovery principle—the Temple was restored to its original condition (meeting the criterion for ‘recovery’), and endorsed by God’s visible glory. God’s Glory filled the Tabernacle/Temple Twice; No third Time The quotes above illustrate W. Lee’s repeated assertion that God’s glory returned and filled the rebuilt Temple. Due to its repetition this claim is an accepted ‘fact’ among LSM’s local churches— that God’s glory filled the rebuilt Temple, thereby vindicating it as an adequate recovery, accepted by God. But, what does the Scripture say? The fact is—there is no record in the Old Testament of God’s glory filling the rebuilt Temple! There is a record of God’s glory filling Moses’ Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple, but not the rebuilt Temple. Witness Lee summarizes Scripture’s earlier record of God’s glory first filling and later departing from both the Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple. He also relates this phenomenon to the Ark of the Covenant, saying,16 “In the history of the people of Israel, the glory of the Lord came to them twice and filled them. The first time was at Mount Sinai, when the tabernacle was erected (Ex. 40:34). The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle from that time until the time of Eli. During the time of Eli, the people of Israel fought against the Philistines with the ark in a superstitious way and were defeated (1 Sam. 4:3-10). The ark was captured, and the glory of the Lord left the tabernacle [1 Sam. 4:21-22]. This means that the Lord gave up the tabernacle. When the temple was built at the time of Solomon, the glory of the Lord returned to fill the temple (1 Kings 8:10-11). The glory of the Lord remained there until the time when Ezekiel saw it departing, leaving the temple and the city, resting on the Mount of Olives, and finally returning to the heavens.” We concur with this. But (contrary to Witness Lee’s assertions) the Old Testament has

4

no historical record of a third visitation of God’s glory to Israel’s Tabernacle /Temple. Ezra’s rebuilt temple witnessed no manifestation of God’s glory. Plus Ezekiel’s vision of God’s glory returning is a yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecy concerning a future Temple. As W. Lee states,17 “Most Bible students agree that Ezekiel's [Temple] vision was...a prophecy which will be fulfilled in the future.” Hence LSM is left with the embarrassing fact that there is no scriptural record of God’s glory filling Ezra’s rebuilt temple. The Ark’s Absence Scripture twice records God’s glory departing. Significantly, that event is linked to the Ark of the Covenant. When the Philistines captured the Ark, its absence from the Tabernacle meant the absence of God’s glory. W. Lee notes that, during Samuel’s time, when Eli’s daughter-in-law “learned that the ark had been captured...she bowed down and gave birth to a son. She named the child Ichabod, meaning ‘No glory,’ indicating that the glory had departed from Israel. Glory is God Himself. When God departed, the glory departed from Israel.”18 During that era, W. Lee asserts, the Ark, God’s glory and God Himself departed from Israel and the Tabernacle. Based on this historical precedent, we would expect the Ark’s absence to be linked with the absence of God’s glory. The Ark’s restoration was a prerequisite to the return of God’s glory. W. Lee notes that the abnormal “condition of the Ark being separated from the tabernacle continued until David came and there was a new recovery. As a man according to God's heart, David...brought the Ark of God into the city of David, which was on Mount Zion at the center of Jerusalem, and set the Ark in the tent which he had pitched especially for God.”19 There the Ark waited until Solomon’s Temple was completed and God’s glory returned. God’s manifested glory returned at the inauguration of Solomon’s temple (which had the Ark) and remained until Ezekiel saw it departing, leaving the temple (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4; 11:23), W. Lee says. At Ezekiel’s time, the Babylonians defeated Jerusalem, destroyed Solomon’s Temple, and took the Jews into captivity. At this point the Ark of the Covenant disappears from the Biblical record. W. Lee concurs, saying,20 “the children of Israel failed and were ultimately taken captive to Babylon...the Babylonians came to Jerusalem, and they destroyed the temple as well as the city and even brought all the vessels that were in the temple for the worship of God (except the Ark, which was not mentioned) to Babylon and put them in the temple of their idol.” He notes the Temple’s vessels were taken to Babylon, but not the Ark; the Ark’s disposition is shrouded in mystery due to Scripture’s silence. It’s not mentioned in the Biblical record after Solomon’s Temple was destroyed. Scriptures’ silence regarding the Ark encompasses the whole period of the second Temple, from Ezra to Herod (AD 70). What Happened to the Ark? What happened to the Ark when Solomon’s temple was destroyed? That is a perennial mystery (reflected for e.g. in Steven Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark). David C. Coldwell explains,21 “During the days of Jeremiah, the Ark of the Covenant vanished...When the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, the ark was not on the list of temple contents that they took to Babylon (Jer. 52:17-23). What happened to the ark? A legend arose that Jeremiah hid it! He ordered men to carry the ark to Mount Nebo, where Jeremiah hid it in a cave (2 Maccabees 2:1-7). No one has ever found the ark on Mount Nebo, but legends and fictional ideas continue.” We don’t know where the Ark went; but we do know it is never mentioned in the context of the rebuilt Temple. Jewish and Christian scholars agree that the Ark was absent from Ezra’s Temple; the Holy of Holies was empty. Reflecting this consensus, Unger’s Bible Dictionary says the Ark’s 5

absence meant the rebuilt Temple’s “Holy of Holies was empty, and on the spot where the Ark should have stood, a stone was set upon which the high priest placed the censor on the great Day of Atonement.”22 Concurring the Oxford Guide to the Bible states,23 “According to the Talmud (Yoma 21b), five things were missing from the Second Temple: the ark [of the Covenant], the sacred fire, the Shekinah [glory], the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Thummin.” So, Jewish Rabbinical writings indicate both the Ark and God’s Shekinah glory were absent from the rebuilt Temple. This matches the earlier absence of both the Ark and God’s glory at Eli’s time—a situation W. Lee acknowledges. The bottom line is that, contrary to W. Lee’s assertions, Bible scholars agree that both the Ark and God’s glory were absent from the rebuilt Temple from Ezra’s era to the time of Christ. Dennis R. Wilson writes,24 “After 70 years the [Jewish] people had returned and rebuilt the second Temple. But the new Temple never had an ark, nor the light of the Shekinah rising over the innermost altar. Since its construction first by king Zerubbabel, who led back a contingent from Babylon, and then after Herod’s remodel, during all the many years since the first temple, God’s glory over the altar had been absent...The second temple was desolate until Jesus appeared.” Tim LeHaye similarly reports that, in Rabbinic interpretations, “according to Tosefta Sotah 13:2, the second Temple...lacked both the Ark of the Covenant and the Shekinah (the divine presence).”25 On this issue LSM’s position—they assert that God’s glory filled the rebuilt Temple—deviates from most Bible scholars, yet LSM offers no rationale why their view ought to be preferred to the standard historical account. “I’ll fill this House with glory...” Regarding this topic, the Scripture which springs to the mind of most Local Church-members is Haggai 2:7-9. They recall the hymn stanza which says: “I’ll fill this house with glory, the Lord of hosts has said, And the desire of nations will be exhibited. Its glory will be greater than all that’s gone before, And we will share this glory forevermore.” [LSM, Hymns #1254, stanza 4]

This was Haggai’s prophecy motivating the returned exiles to build God’s Temple. The chorus, “Be strong, be strong, God’s dwelling place to build!” was spoken to their leader, Zerubbabel. When was this prophecy fulfilled? Witness Lee states that,26 “Haggai 2:1-23 is the prophecy concerning the house of Jehovah in the millennium and the promise of Messiah in the coming kingdom...This prophecy...was an encouragement to the building of Jehovah's house at Zerubbabel's time.” Yes, it motivated the rebuilding of the Temple, but its fulfillment—by God filling the Temple with greater glory than even Solomon’s Temple—(W. Lee says) awaits Christ’s future millennial kingdom. It was not fulfilled during the era of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, & Zechariah. Talking about ‘God’s Building,’ W. Lee says,27 “Israel traveled...from Babylon to Jerusalem...We can see from ...Ezra that the glory of the situation at that time apparently surpassed the glory...at the time when the temple was first built.” He also says28 “It was not until the destroyed temple was built in Jerusalem...that the glory of God filled it (Hag. 2:7, 9).” W. Lee asserts Haggai’s prophecy was fulfilled, that the glory of Ezra’s Temple exceeded that of Solomon’s; but no hard Biblical evidence is presented. However, when directly addressing the prophecy in Haggai 2, W. Lee concedes that it relates to Christ’s future millennial kingdom. No Glorious Recovery

6

The Jews’ return from Babylon did not initiate the glorious restoration depicted by the recovery paradigm; there was no glorious recovery. W. Lee claims that,29 “After the years of their captivity were ended, God called [the Jewish exiles] to go back to Jerusalem, back to the old ground, back to the original site, the unique place God had chosen for the rebuilding of His temple. A number did return, and they rebuilt the temple. Due to this, God's glory returned.” He also asserts (without any biblical basis) that30 “God confirmed by His glory that it was the temple.” But Scripture offers no support for these assertions. We conclude that neither Scripture, nor reputable Jewish or Christian scholars confirm W. Lee’s assertions that God’s glory filled the rebuilt Temple; rather they refute his claims. According to the Old Testament record, the return and rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple did not restore Israel’s worship to the original state existing at Solomon’s time; this ‘recovery’ was not vindicated by visible manifestations of God’s glory and presence. Evidently this recovery was inadequate, since it was not endorsed by God’s glory; it was (at best) partial31 and incomplete. Rather than confirming LSM’s recovery paradigm, the events surrounding the Jerusalem Temple’s rebuilding support J. N. Darby’s proposition that God never restores a failed dispensation. The prophetic promises of Haggai (e.g. 2:7-9) and Zechariah remained unfulfilled, awaiting the arrival of Messiah. As Dennis R. Wilson says, “God’s glory...had been absent...The second temple was desolate until Jesus appeared.” Returned Exiles—“Slaves in the land You gave our fathers” (Neh. 9:36) The “recovery books” of Ezra & Nehemiah indicate the recovery experienced by the returned remnant was incomplete. On returning to Jerusalem Ezra prayed, “For a brief moment favor has been shown by Jehovah our God to leave us a remnant to escape and...give us a little reviving in our bondage. For we are slaves, yet our God has not forsaken us in our bondage but has extended loving kindness...to give us a reviving, to raise up the house of our God & to repair its ruins, & to give us a wall in Judah & in Jerusalem.” (Ezra 9:8-9, RcV). Ezra declares, on behalf of the returned exiles, (despite their return) “we are slaves...in our bondage.” Martien Halvorson-Taylor, Religious Studies Prof. at the Univ. of Virginia, observes, “there is a sense that the condition of exile, conceived of not simply as geographic displacement, but also as enslavement to foreign rulers, has not been resolved by the return of Judeans from Babylon to [Israel]”32 Quoting Ezra 9:8-9, she continues,33 “Ezra expresses both the idea that exile is, in essence slavery...and the idea that exile has continued. Thus Israel can still be in exile even though the people have returned to the land.” A similar chord is struck in Nehemiah, the Levites’ prayer is poignant: “Here we are, slaves today; as for the land that You gave to our fathers...Here we are slaves upon it.” (Neh. 9:36, RcV) Slaves in their own land— does that sound like a glorious recovery? Regarding this Prof. Richard Baukham of St. Andrews University, Scotland, writes,34 “Continuing exile and subjugation...is how the books of Ezra and Nehemiah...speak of the returned exiles. ‘Slaves in the land that You gave our ancestors’ (Neh. 9:36; cf. Ezra 9:7-9). Restoration meant liberation from slavery and oppressive pagan rule as well as return from exile. That this [continuing exile and subjugation] is how many Jews...understood their present...is widely evidenced in the extant Jewish literature.” These scholars contend that (despite the remnant’s return to the land) Israel’s captivity continued; their situation amounted to an extended exile, even while living in the Promised Land. LSM’s Dogmatic Assertions vs. the Evidence LSM publications give the impression that no one (besides Witness Lee) ever asked if the Jews’ return from captivity was a ‘recovery (restoration).’ That misleading impression is due to LSM’s self- imposed isolation from Christian scholarship. Scholars have addressed these issues and arrived at 7

well-documented conclusions. But, LSM seldom interacts with rigorous Christian scholarship. Instead they accuse theological seminaries of being superficial, distorting the Bible and producing nothing of value!35 Rather than presenting evidence from history (e.g. Judaism from Ezra’s era to Christ) or evaluating the research of qualified scholars, LSM relies on dogmatic assertions unsubstantiated by factual evidence. Absent a biblical basis, W. Lee simply asserts that God’s glory returned to the rebuilt Temple, (supposedly) vindicating the recovery of Israel’s worship on the proper ground. LSM never inquires—did the Jewish worshippers at the rebuilt Jerusalem Temple consider it an adequate recovery? Stated differently, did 1st-century Jews (the returned exiles’ descendents) view themselves as experiencing a valid restoration? Would the Jews at Jesus’ time agree with Witness Lee’s assessment that God’s House and God’s City had been recovered in their midst? Answering these questions requires an analysis of Jewish literature, specifically evidence from the era between the Testaments—between Malachi and Matthew. “Most Jews...believed that...Israel’s exile was still in progress”—Prof. N. T. Wright In contrast to LSM, Christian scholars have analysed this literature and reached conclusions based on weighing the evidence. One striking finding is that around Jesus’ time most Jews, even those residing in Israel, who were the returned exiles’ descendents, viewed themselves as living in a period of extended exile. N. T. Wright, Research Professor of New Testament & Early Christianity at St. Andrews University, Scotland, has addressed these issues. Prof. Wright reaches conclusions which differ radically from LSM’s narrative. He deduces that,36 “The geographic return from exile, when it came about under Cyrus and his successors, was not accompanied by any manifestations such as those in Exodus 40, Leviticus 9, 1 Kings 8, or even Isaiah 6. Never do we hear that the pillar of cloud and fire that accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness has led the people back from their exile. At no point do we hear that Yahweh [Jehovah] has now gloriously returned to Zion. At no point is the house again filled with the cloud that veils His glory. At no point is the rebuilt temple universally hailed as the true restored shrine spoken of by Ezekiel. No new festival was invented to mark the start of the great new era.” Prof. Wright contends that the exiles’ return had none of the hallmarks of a glorious recovery. He asks rhetorically,37 “Would any serious-thinking 1st-century Jew claim that the promises of Isaiah 40–66, or of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Zechariah had been fulfilled?...That the long- awaited ‘new exodus’ had happened? That the second Temple was the true, final and perfect one? Or—in other words—that the exile was really over?” He asserts that no “serious-thinking 1st-century Jew” would “claim the exile was really over.” Prof. Wright concludes, based on extensive research of relevant Jewish literature, that,38 “Most Jews in the period, it seems, would have answered the question ‘where are we?’...We are still in exile. Most Jews in this period...believed that in all the senses that mattered, Israel’s exile was still in progress. Although she [Israel] had come back from Babylon, the glorious message of the prophets remained unfulfilled, Israel still remained in the thrall of foreigners; worse Israel’s God had not returned to Zion.” Yes, the exiles had returned from captivity in Babylon, yet many conditions characteristic of captivity continued, even in the land of Israel. So Wright states succinctly,39 “The exiles had returned, but the exile was not over. That paradox dominated the self-perception of many first- century Jews.” He asserts that many Jews in Jesus’ day were waiting for the time when “Israel would be released from the bondage that had begun with Babylon and that continued into Jesus’s own day. Nobody in Jesus’s day would have claimed that the visions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel had yet been fulfilled...Rather they expected the real ‘return from exile’...[which] would, of course, involve

8

the return of YHWH [Jehovah] to Zion. Prophet after prophet says so; nowhere in Second-Temple literature does anyone claim that it has actually happened...,”40 says Wright. If Wright is Right, Witness Lee is Wrong! These conclusions differ radically from LSM’s position; to put it bluntly, if Professor Wright is right, then W. Lee is wrong! To say that “in the self-perception of many first-century Jews,” “the exile was not over,” means that a valid recovery had not occurred, that Israel’s restoration was inadequate and incomplete; Israel had not been restored to its original condition—a necessary condition for ‘recovery.’ Prof. Wright’s conclusions clearly contradict LSM’s recovery paradigm. If he is correct their premier ‘type’ of recovery is disproven; it is a myth. Biblical Basis for Israel’s Extended Exile? Scholars (Wright & others) appeal to Scripture to support the idea of Israel’s extended exile. They point out that God’s answer to Daniel’s prayer (in Dan. 9) regarding Israel’s 70-year captivity was the prophecy of “70 weeks.” Ronald W. Pierce, Old Testament Professor at the Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, CA., argues there was a41 “postponement of the expected restoration caused by the poor spiritual condition of the remnant at the close of the exile. In the brief announcement by [the Angel] Gabriel, the exile...is extended from the 70 years originally intended (Jer. 25:1–13; 29:1–14), to 70 weeks of years, that is, 490 years.” In his view, the promised end of Jeremiah’s 70-year captivity was conditioned on Israel’s attitude towards Jehovah. Prof. Pierce suggests “Daniel’s priestly prayer reveals a concern over...the general spiritual failure of the exilic remnant. Daniel [refers] to this conditional element in his assertion that God ‘keeps His covenant…for those who love Him & keep His commandments’ (Dan. 9:4)’...[Yet] he sees this generation [the exiles, as] a reluctant remnant, unconvinced of restoration possibilities, unfit to rebuild God’s house.”42 Due to “their stubbornness the promise sent through Jeremiah is not fully realized in 536 BC as anticipated. Further, the message of [the Angel] Gabriel is not a positive one of a glorious hope, but rather a bittersweet answer to Daniel’s fervent prayer. In sad contrast to [the exiles’] expectations, the time of Gentile oppression is extended to 70 weeks of years and the 70 years of captivity ends in return, but not in genuine spiritual restoration,”43 says Dr. Pierce. Likewise John S Bergsma states that,44 “Gabriel’s message is...a declaration that, the 70 years having expired, the anticipated restoration will be delayed by a factor of seven due to the impenitence of the people.” Professor Michael Knibb of Kings College, London, UK., also argues that,45 “For the author of Daniel 9, the [70-year] period of the Babylonian exile was just the first phase of a much longer exilic period,”—“the 70 weeks,” i.e. 490 years. Concurring, Peter Walker says,46 “in Daniel 9 (an oft-quoted chapter in 1st-century Judaism according to Josephus) the '70 years' of exile predicted by Jeremiah have been explicitly extended to 70 'weeks of years'—here is the Bible making plain that the exile was not truly over in the 6th century BC!” Prof. Wright explains that,47 “Daniel in exile in Babylon asks God whether it isn’t time now for Jeremiah’s prophecy to be fulfilled, the prophecy that the Babylonian exile would last for 70 years. Back comes the answer: not 70 years, but 70 times 7 years...490 years...That is the hope that sustained the Israelites in the...centuries before the time of Jesus.” Daniel’s “70 weeks” are the period of Israel’s “extended term of exile.”48 This view doesn’t deny that Jeremiah’s 70-year-captivity was fulfilled when the Persian king, Cyrus, sent the Jewish exiles back to Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1); it recognizes, however, that the exiles’ return did not exhaust God’s discipline of Israel, nor complete His purposes regarding them (hence the prophecy of “70 weeks”). It takes God’s answer to Daniel’s inquiry—“Is the 70-year captivity over?”—to mean

9

“Yes...but,” or “Yes...(and no).”49 “Yes” the Jews’ physical displacement is over, but other aspects of God’s discipline continue. So there is return, but no real restoration/recovery. Prof. Wright deduces that,50 “many 1st-century Jews thought of the period they were living in as...late on within the ‘continuing exile’ of Daniel 9,” Daniel’s ‘70 weeks of years.’ W. Lee agrees with that time-line, yet (paradoxically) he doesn’t relate God’s answer (the prophetic ‘70 weeks’—490 years) to Daniel’s question—“Is the 70-year exile over?”51 This view may explain the paradox52 (in LSM’s view)—why Daniel remained in Babylon—because he realised the exile was extended, and real recovery hadn’t arrived! Real Exile vs. Mere Geographic Exile Prof. Wright maintains that,53 “The geographic ‘exile’ ended, in a sense, when the captives returned from Babylon. They came back, rebuilt Jerusalem and the temple, and started up life once more. Some...hailed this as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s 70 years. But...the glorious promises had not been fulfilled...Israel was ‘enslaved’ to foreign overlords and their pagan culture and customs.” The returned exiles cried to God, ‘Behold, we are slaves this day; in the land that You gave to our fathers...” (Neh. 9:36-37). Wright continues, citing extra-biblical Jewish literature,54 “Similar statements can be found in a variety of literature of the time, from Qumran to Tobit, from...Baruch to...2nd Maccabees, and into rabbinic literature. Malachi55...makes the same point: Israel has returned to the land, but things are far from satisfactory, the great prophecies have not yet been fulfilled, and in particular YHWH [Jehovah] Himself has not yet returned to the temple...The exile (the real exile, as opposed to the merely geographic exile) is still continuing.” W. Lee focuses exclusively on the Jewish exiles’ physical return from Babylon to God’s chosen ground of Jerusalem; he claims that the return under Ezra & Nehemiah ended the exile and achieved a divinely-endorsed recovery. This simplistic view, focussing exclusively on geographic location, is roundly rejected by scholars, based on Scripture and Jewish writings from the era between Ezra and Christ—the “second Temple period.” In contrast to W. Lee, scholars argue that the end of exile involved more than mere physical return from Babylon to Jerusalem. Prof. Martien Halvorson-Taylor argues that Jewish writings from the period maintain56 “that the Babylonian exile endured beyond the returns and restoration of the late 6th-century B.C....Exile was not limited to its geographic dimension, exile persisted despite repatriation; it was a condition that could not be resolved simply by returning to the land.” As long as God’s great promises remained unfulfilled, so long as Israel was subjugated by foreign powers and until Israel’s scattered tribes were ingathered—Israel remained in extended exile. Real return involved God fulfilling His promises, Israel regaining its sovereignty and prosperity, and God re- gathering Israel’s dispersed tribes. Robert Stewart explains,57 “A crucial factor...is to understand that ‘exile’ is not primarily a geographical term, specifying a particular location, but rather a sociological and theological term, referring to a particular condition, namely political/military bondage under pagan nations (Babylon, Rome). Israel may be in Palestine and worship regularly in the temple, but nevertheless still in exile.” Travis Tamerius elaborates,58 “Jewish self-understanding in the second- temple period looks something like this: We are the people of the one, true God...We are geographically in the holy land, centered in Jerusalem, the city of Zion. Theologically, however, we are still in exile—as the promises have yet to be fulfilled, forgiveness has yet to occur, the wrong rulers are still in power, the age of messianic blessing has been delayed, and YHWH [Jehovah] has yet to act in a decisive way in our history.”

10

For centuries following their return from Babylon, the Jews were ruled by a succession of foreign powers, including Persia, Greece, Syria, and Rome. Foreign domination was viewed as continued captivity. Professor N. T. Wright says,59 “The exiles had returned, but the exile was not over...There was a common sense that the destruction of Babylon had not, after all, been the end of exile...New ‘Babylons’ had arisen: Persia, Egypt, Syria. Another false dawn had come and gone in the Maccabean uprising...Since [Jerusalem’s conquest by Roman general] Pompey in 63 BC, the Romans had taken the place of the traditional enemy.” Seyoon Kim, NT Professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, concurs with Wright that,60 “there was a widespread perception in 2nd-temple Judaism that despite the return from Babylon, the Jewish people were still in exile. So long as they remained under foreign domination, while the national independence and prosperity predicted by the prophets did not materialize, they thought that the exile continued, so they longed for...the Messiah.” This view has been incorporated into theology texts. In his textbook, The Story of Israel: A Biblical Theology, Marvin Pate, Professor of Christian Theology at Ouachita Baptist University, AR., says,61 “Two reasons combined to give the impression to most second-temple Jews that the...exile continued...First, the glorious Old Testament expectations of national restoration had not yet materialized...The non-occurrence of a full and glorious restoration in the sixth century [caused] most Jews to push their hopes into the future and view themselves as living in an extended exilic situation. Second,...the invasion and control of Israel by foreign powers, especially the Greek king Antiochus IV (171 BC) and the Roman generals Pompey (63 BC) and Titus (AD 70), reinforced in the minds of many that divine judgment still resided on [the] nation [of Israel].” Michael E. Fuller, Professor of Early Jewish & Biblical Studies at Lee University, TN., concurs, saying,62 during “the period after the sixth-century [BC] return...the divine punishment associated with the exile was not entirely revoked. Israel still remains under...the Gentile nations. Thus shortly after the return Israel is once more submitted to excessive punishment by...the Gentiles... [Therefore] the period after the restoration of the second Temple is described according to the language of exile.” All these writers argue that Israel remained in ‘extended exile’ despite their return from Babylonian captivity. Again Professor Philip S. Alexander of the Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Manchester, UK., explains this (apparent) paradox.63 “‘Exile’ is a complex idea that is not to be equated simply with physical expulsion from the Land. Rather it relates primarily to the loss of sovereignty and statehood. Thus it is possible to live in the land [of Israel] and still be in a kind of ‘internal exile’ and that exile cannot end until the kingdom is restored to Israel and Zion receives back her scattered children [the dispersed Jewish tribes, Israel & Judah].” In addition to restored national sovereignty and prosperity, many Jews anticipated the in-gathering of Israel’s dispersed tribes as an indicator their exile was really ended. Prof. Michael Knibb of Kings College, London, UK., concludes that,64 “for many Jews living in the Hellenistic period, the ‘exile’ referred not to a past epoch, but rather was a lived reality. As long as there was a Jewish Diaspora [Dispersion], the Jews remained in exile. Many Jews looked forward to a time when foreign oppressors would be defeated...and Jews would come streaming from all parts of the globe to return to their homeland. Until these decisive events occurred Israel remained for all intents and purposes, in ‘captivity’.” Scholars Support Wright’s View of Extended Exile

11

On this issue Prof. Wright’s thesis of an extended Jewish exile has gained considerable support. Steven M. Bryan of the Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology states that it is now a “well- established fact that many first-century Jews believed themselves to be in bondage and longed for the fulfillment of prophetic promises of restoration...Captivity to foreign powers and the hope of restoration are both closely tied to exile.”65 Professor Craig A. Evans of Acadia Divinity School, Canada, surveyed Jewish writings from the period—the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tobit, Baruch, Josephus, etc. He deduces that,66 “The evidence suggests that many Jews believed that Israel had never truly escaped exile.” Prof. Evans views the militant independence movements within Judaism around the time of Christ as evidence “that many Jews regarded Israel as in a state of bondage, even exile. A new conquest of the Promised Land presupposes the assumption that the people really did not possess the land. They had been dispossessed of their land—by foreigners, such as the Greeks and later the Romans, and by their own leaders who collaborate with the foreigners—and now they hope to repossess it.”67 Based on an extensive review of primary sources, Prof. Evans concludes that,68 “The evidence...is such that we should agree with N. T. Wright who has recently argued forcefully that for many Jews the exile of Israel had not ended and would not end until God redeemed his people...[Until then] Israel remains in a state of exile.” Popular Christian writers are now propagating this view. Timothy Keller of Redeemer Church, NYC, the best-selling author of The Reason for God, writes:69 “During the Babylonian exile, the prophets of Israel predicted a great return and homecoming through the grace of God. Eventually the people of Israel were given permission to leave Babylon and return to their homeland. Only a minority of the Jews actually returned to Palestine, and there they continued to be under the domination of Persia. Then...Greece, then Syria, and finally Rome. The people were still oppressed...[The Jews’ return] failed in the end to deliver the final and full homecoming the prophets promised and everyone longed for...By the time of Jesus’s ministry, many in Israel realized that despite the return from Babylon, the nation was still in exile. Injustice and oppression, loss and affliction still dominated national life. The final homecoming had not yet happened...Then Jesus appeared...” Conclusion—What Recovery? ‘Recovery’ means “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.” LSM presents the Jewish exiles’ return from Babylon and their rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple as the premier ‘type’ of recovery. Witness Lee repeatedly asserts that God’s glory filled Ezra’s rebuilt Temple, as it had Solomon’s Temple, vindicating this recovery; this is LSM’s major myth. Examining Scripture and scholarship leads us to reject these notions as myths. The Bible never says God’s glory filled Ezra’s rebuilt Temple. Most Bible scholars agree with Jewish Rabbinical sources that the Ark, God’s glory and all outward signs of God’s presence were absent from the rebuilt Temple. Hence Israel’s worship was never restored to “its original state;” so this case doesn’t meet the criterion of ‘recovery.’ Additional evidence against LSM’s recovery myth is provided by Prof. N. T. Wright who argues forcefully and convincingly that, for most Jews, Israel’s exile did not end with the repatriations under Ezra and Nehemiah. Based on primary sources, Prof. Wright argues that70 “Most Jews in this period...believed that in all the senses that mattered, Israel’s exile was still in progress. Although she [Israel] had come back from Babylon, the glorious message of the prophets remained unfulfilled, Israel still remained in the thrall of foreigners; worse Israel’s God had not returned to Zion.” Scholars examining Jewish literature in the light of Wright’s thesis confirm that,71 “The evidence

12

suggests that many Jews believed that Israel had never truly escaped exile.” Hence there is now a consensus regarding the “well-established fact that many first-century Jews believed themselves to be in bondage and longed for...restoration...”72 These findings imply most 1st-century Jews would reject LSM’s contention that the rebuilt Jerusalem’s Temple was a valid recovery endorsed by God; most Bible scholars also repudiate that notion as a myth, unsubstantiated by either Scripture or rigorous scholarship.

This conclusion—that (contrary to W. Lee’s repeated assertions) God’s glory never filled Ezra’s rebuilt Temple and therefore the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s Temple does not establish the principle of recovery—might seem like a ‘bitter pill’ for local church adherents to swallow. They have been taught for decades that this Old Testament ‘type’ validated, beyond all reasonable doubt, the Scriptural principle of ‘recovery.’ However, on examination that claim is seen to be fiction and not fact; it is LSM’s myth and not Biblical truth. At this point we should remember Watchman Nee’s dictum:73 “The Bible is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the pure Word of the Bible, even if men oppose; but if it is not the Word of the Bible, we could never agree even if everyone approved.” In this context, he also says, “What we believe in and preach is nothing other than the Bible. We do not want to adopt anything from human tradition.”74 Today, do we have the courage to apply these principles with the same unswerving tenacity? Or will we retain “the Recovery’s” own extra-biblical traditions under the guise of preserving our “distinct heritage,” our “unique identity,” or some similar label?

What does this mean for the recovery paradigm? Does it mean the concept of recovery should be repudiated, rejected outright? Not necessarily. It does mean that LSM’s premier example, the Old Testament ‘type’ of recovery—“exhibit A” in their argument that ‘recovery’ is a self-evident biblical principle, ought to be rejected as invalid. It is still possible to maintain that God wants to restore the Church to its original pristine state described in Scripture. This position has a long history, preceding the “Lord’s Recovery.” However, the biblical basis for such a recovery paradigm is much more tenuous than LSM asserts, so adherents ought to re-examine its validity in the light of Scripture. Plus the implications LSM draws from the Old Testament ‘type’ of recovery should be challenged. This applies particularly to claims about the “ground of locality.” W. Lee argued the local church’s recovery of the “ground of oneness” is equivalent to the Jewish exiles’ return to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple on the God-chosen site. God vindicated the rebuilt Temple with His visible glory, W. Lee claimed; therefore (he guaranteed) LSM’s local churches are assured of God’s abundant blessing due to their recovery of the local church’s ground. Yet clearly, if God did not endorse the rebuilt Temple with His manifest presence, then LSM’s guarantee of God’s abundant blessing on churches’ ‘local ground’ is dubious, at best; in that case the ‘local ground’s’ vaunted benefits are based on a man-made myth and not the solid rock of God’s Word.75

Nigel Tomes, Toronto, CANADA. August, 2013

13

Notes: As always the views expressed here are those of the author alone. They should not be attributed to the believers, elders or churches with whom he is associated. Thanks are extended to those who commented on earlier drafts. 1. W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (#221-239), Chapter 10, Section 1. 2. W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (#221-239), Chapter 10, Section 1. As such the Recovery/ Local Church belongs to a line of restoration movements, including the Stone-Campbell, Disciples /Churches of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren. Concerning the Stone-Campbell movement, Douglas A. Foster writes, “With roots in British and American endeavors to restore apostolic Christianity, the Stone- Campbell Movement drew its inspiration from the independent efforts of 19th-century religious reformers Barton W. Stone and the father-son team of Thomas & Alexander Campbell. The union of these two movements in the 1830s and the growth of the new body thrust it into a place of significance in early nineteenth-century America, and it quickly spread to other parts of the English-speaking world. Today it encompasses 3 major American communions — Churches of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and Christian Churches/ Churches of Christ.” For more information see Douglas A. Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Eerdmans, 2004)] 3. W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (#221-239), Chapter 10, Section 1. On another occasion, W. Lee says, “The latter part of the Old Testament concerns the recovery...Recovery means that in the midst of today's confusion and division the Lord is calling out a remnant of His people to return to the original ground, to come back to the original standing. After their 70-year captivity, a small number of Jews returned to Jerusalem and rebuilt the temple. Although this temple was inferior to the original temple built by Solomon, the site, the ground, of the temple was the same. That is the Lord's recovery. [W. Lee, Young People's Training, Chap. 15, Section 4] 4. W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (#221-239), Chapter 10, Section 2. 5. W. Lee, Vision of the Building of the Church, Chapter 9, Section 1, emphasis added 6. For e.g. in his presentation of Church History, W. Lee says, “the Lord began His recovery at the time of the Reformation with Martin Luther... [However,] the doctrine of the church was largely inadequate until 1829. If we read the history of the church, especially the history of the Lord's recovery, we will see that it was from 1829 that the British Brethren, under the leadership of John Nelson Darby, became clear concerning the doctrine of the church.” [W. Lee, Seven Spirits for the Local Churches, Chapter 2, Section 3] W. Lee also credits John Nelson Darby with an important formative influence on himself and Watchman Nee. He says, “In the early days of the Lord's recovery in China, Brother Watchman Nee was greatly influenced by Brethren teachings. He greatly admired John Nelson Darby. When I went to Shanghai to visit him in 1933, he gave me Darby's synopsis of the entire Bible. I received much help from those volumes.” [W. Lee, Way to Practice the Lord's Present Recovery, Chapter 3, Section 1, also in Elders' Training, Book 9: The Eldership and the God-Ordained Way (1), Chapter 9, Section 2] 7. J. N. Darby, 'The Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations,' Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 2, Ecclesiastical No. 1. William Kelly, ed. (Stow Hill Bible & Trust Depot, 1962). pp. 124-130 8. Raymond L Gannon, The Shifting Romance with Israel, quoting J. N. Darby (no page numbers) 9. Watchman Nee’s statement (in context) reads: “Alas, the church has become almost fully degraded and desolated from the beginning! What a solemn thing this is! This is true in all generations. How long did man's ancestor remain in Eden? What about mankind before the flood? What about the descendants of Noah? What about the Israelites in the wilderness, and what about them after they had entered Canaan? The day the priesthood was established, it was defiled. The first king died on the battlefield. The builder of the temple was also the builder of idol sanctuaries. Those who waited for the Messiah were the ones who crucified the Son of God on the cross. The special grace that God bestowed on the church only made her degradation all the more pitiful. Has God ever made up for the failure of the fallen ones? No, instead He turns and creates something new. Can the church be an exception to this rule? As far as the organization of the church is concerned, God has rejected the church already. Now His eyes are turned to the kingdom. This is fully shown in every epistle. When we realize this, we 14

will know how we ought to be faithful." [W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 4, pp. 337-338, emphasis indicates quote in the main text.] Note that, in this brief paragraph, Watchman Nee alludes to successive dispensations, from Adam to the Church. 10. J. N. Darby, “On the Formation of Churches,” quoted by James Patrick Callahan, Primitivistic Piety: The Ecclesiology of the early Plymouth Brethren, p. 205. Callahan notes that Darby’s view (also held by the majority of early Brethren leaders) was characterized by “anti-restorationism [which] is the [product] of a dispensational hermeneutic. For those who rigidly apply a dispensational and anti- restorationist view of Christian history the notion of there being a complete restoration of the primitive church is an impossibility. The ruin of the church, like the ruin of every other dispensation, prohibited that interpretation.” (James Patrick Callahan, Primitivistic Piety: The Ecclesiology of the early Plymouth Brethren, p. 234.) For e.g. Darby asserted that “In every instance [dispensation], there was a total and immediate failure as regarded man, however the patience of God might tolerate and carry on by grace the dispensation in which man has thus failed in the outset; and further, that there is no instance of the restoration of a dispensation afforded us, though there might be partial revivals of it through faith.” [John N. Darby, 'The Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations.'... emphasis added] 11. W. Lee, Enjoying the Riches of Christ for the Building Up of the Church as the Body of Christ, Chapter 16, Section 1 12. W. Lee, Vision of God's Building, Chapter 12, Section 3. The quote, in context, reads: “According to the record of Nehemiah, the recovery was eventually accomplished, not only a recovery of the temple, but also a complete rebuilding of the city. Ezra records the rebuilding of the temple, and Nehemiah tells of the recovery of the city. The temple signifies the expression of God, while the city signifies the authority or kingdom of God. The city protected the temple; the kingdom is the protection of God's expression.” [W. Lee, Vision of God's Building, Chapter 12, Section 3, emphasis added] 13. Regarding the comparison of Ezra’s Temple to Solomon’s Temple (& to Ezekiel’s vision of a future Temple), W. Lee says, “Historically, between the time of Solomon's temple and this temple seen by Ezekiel, another temple [Ezra’s] was recovered by the Israelites who had returned to Jerusalem. The captivity of the Israelites occurred in 606 B.C., and Ezekiel saw the vision of God's recovery in 574 B.C. The recovery of the temple by the Israelites after their captivity was accomplished in 536 B.C. Ezekiel witnessed a full recovery of God's building in the spirit. That recovery was begun according to Ezra's record, but the recovery of the destroyed temple has not yet been fully accomplished. In Ezra's account of the recovered temple there were no measurements given, but Ezekiel saw the measurements of the temple in his vision. We have previously indicated that in God's recovery there is always an enlargement. In the recovery of Solomon's temple there was a very apparent enlargement. But in the records of Ezra and Nehemiah, there is no apparent enlargement. But if we have foresight to see things through to the end, we will realize that this recovery of God's temple has not yet been fully accomplished. It is still in process. The temple built during Ezra's time was replaced by Herod's temple, which was built in 46 years (John 2:20). The Lord Jesus came to the earth during the historical period of Herod's temple. But neither the temple in Ezra's day nor the temple of Herod's time was the full recovery of the temple Solomon had built. The temple of Ezekiel's vision, however, is the more than full recovery of Solomon's temple, which had been destroyed. Most Bible students agree that Ezekiel's vision was to some degree a prophecy which will be fulfilled in the future.” [W. Lee, Vision of God's Building, Chapter 12, Section 3, emphasis added] Note that W. Lee says “neither the temple in Ezra's day nor the temple of Herod's time was the full recovery of the temple Solomon had built.” Nevertheless, the important point is that W. Lee asserts that Ezra’s Temple was an adequate recovery in the sense that it was endorsed, approved & honored by God in that God’s glory filled the rebuilt Temple (according to W. Lee). This latter assertion is made repeatedly by W. Lee in his writings (see the following footnote). 14. W. Lee, Practical Expression of the Church, Chapter 6, Section 1, emphasis added. Other examples of W. Lee’s repeated assertion that God’s glory filled the rebuilt Temple are: • “Regardless of how spiritual the Hebrews were, in the captivity they never had the Lord's glory. After the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, however, the glory of Jehovah filled the temple. ...Whether one is

15

spiritual or not spiritual in Babylon makes little difference, but whether or not he returns makes a great difference. With the return there is the rebuilding of the temple. With the return there is the glory coming down to the earth.” [W. Lee, Enjoying the Riches of Christ for the Building Up of the Church as the Body of Christ, Chapter 15, Section 5, , emphasis added] • “In the 70 years of captivity, the glory was absent from the center of Jerusalem. But when the children of Israel returned to Jerusalem, the glory also returned. Although Joshua and Zerubbabel were godly, many of the others who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon were not. Nevertheless, in the sight of God, their return was a glory." [W. Lee, Life-Study of Zechariah, Chapter 3, Section 3, emphasis added] • “After the years of their captivity were ended, God called them to go back to Jerusalem, back to the old ground, back to the original site, the unique place God had chosen for the rebuilding of His temple. A number did return, and they rebuilt the temple. Due to this, God's glory returned. Many of the children of Israel remained in the place of their captivity ...Those who had returned to Jerusalem would reply, ‘Yes, you are the people of God, just as much as we are. But ...We have God's presence in His temple, but you do not have it.’ Yes, we admit that all real Christians throughout the world are truly the people of God. But so many of them are still in captivity and do not have the church life. Hence, they are not the temple with God's presence and God's glory. If we see this matter clearly, then we shall know where we are and what the Lord's recovery is today. Hallelujah, we are in the Lord's recovery! The Lord's recovery is to bring us back to the original ground that His temple might be built so that we may have His presence in His glory for our enjoyment. Today we are enjoying this glory.” [W. Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 12, Section 4, emphasis added] • “Those who actually returned to Jerusalem were not as good as Daniel was...according to Ezra and Nehemiah, so many poor Jews returned to the good land. It seemed that they were in a pitiful situation. However, although they built a temple that was smaller in size, inferior in material, and different in design from Solomon's temple, because it was built on the proper site, God confirmed by His glory that it was the temple.” [W. Lee, Young People's Training, Chap. 15, Section 4, emphasis added] • “Not everyone who left Babylon to return to Jerusalem was a spiritual person...However, as far as their ground was concerned, they were approved by God. With such a ground they could build the temple. No matter how poor their situation was, their ground was still the right ground. When the temple was built, God's glory filled the house.” [W. Lee, Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Book 1: The Vision and Definite Steps for the Practice of the New Way, Chapter 3, Section 5 Also W. Lee, Vision of the Age, Chapter 3, Section 6, emphasis added] • “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.” [W. Lee, Vision of the Building of the Church, Chapter 9, Section 1, emphasis added] • “Today the Lord is not concerned merely for individual spirituality. Even if many spiritual people such as Daniel had been raised up in Babylon, the glory of the Lord would not have gone there to fill them. The Lord's glory did not return to Daniel; rather, it returned to the temple after it was rebuilt.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Ezekiel, Chapter 24, Section 1, emphasis added] 15. W. Lee, Young People's Training, Chap. 15, Section 4, emphasis added 16. W. Lee, Life-Study of Ezekiel, Chapter 14, Section 2 17. W. Lee, Vision of God's Building, Chapter 12, Section 3. Plus, W. Lee says, “literally, the visions concerning God’s holy building in [Ezekiel] chs. 40-48 will be fulfilled in the restoration, when the restored Israel will rebuild the temple and the city of Jerusalem ...in the millennium.” [W. Lee, Ezek. 40:1, note 1, RcV] Along the same lines LSM’s Truth Lessons say, “What Ezekiel saw concerns Israel in the restoration.” LSM, Truth Lessons, Level 4, Vol. 2, Chapter 13, Section 6] 18. W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 & 2 Samuel, Chapter 3, Section 4 19. W. Lee, Vision of the Building of the Church, Chapter 5, Section 2. Along the same lines, W. Lee also says, regarding the separation of Ark from Tabernacle/Temple—“The situation was indeed abnormal: the tabernacle with the altar was in Shiloh, but the ark was in Kirjath-jearim. The content was separated from the vessel, and the vessel was left empty. This situation prevailed until a full recovery was realized by the people of Israel. The ark must be in the tabernacle. If we would have a normal church life, we must have Christ, the ark, in the church, the tabernacle. All these events in the history of Samuel, Saul, and David occurred with only one object and purpose in view—God's building.” [W. Lee, Vision of God's Building, Chapter 10, Section 1, emphasis added] Note that Witness Lee calls the reunion of the

16

Ark with the Tabernacle a “full recovery.” This suggests that the absence of the Ark from the Tabernacle/temple implies an incomplete &/or inadequate recovery. 20. W. Lee, Vision of the Building of the Church, Chapter 6, Section 4, emphasis added. 21. David C. Coldwell, Jeremiah's God, p. 42 22. R. K. Harrison (ed.), The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, p. 1262 23. Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan (eds.), Oxford Guide to the Bible, p. 733 24. Dennis R. Wilson, From Israel with Love: the Book of Revelation, p. 104, emphasis added 25. Tim LeHaye, Bible Prophecy, pp. 359-60 26. W. Lee, Life-Study of the Minor Prophets, Chapter 31, Section 3. The quote (in context) reads: “Haggai 2:1-23 is the prophecy concerning the house of Jehovah in the millennium and the promise of Messiah in the coming kingdom. A. The Prophecy concerning the House of Jehovah in the Millennium, as an Encouragement to the Building of Jehovah's House at Zerubbabel's Time [Heading] “In verses [chapter 2] 1 through 9 the prophet Haggai was charged to speak to the people concerning the house of Jehovah. ‘For thus says Jehovah of hosts, Yet once more—it is but a little while—I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; and I will shake all the nations, and the Desire of all the nations will come; and I will fill this house with glory, says Jehovah of hosts. The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine, declares Jehovah of hosts. The latter glory of this house will be greater than the former, says Jehovah of hosts; and in this place I will give peace, declares Jehovah of hosts’ ([Haggai 2] vv. 6-9). This prophecy concerning the house of Jehovah in the millennium was an encouragement to the building of Jehovah's house at Zerubbabel's time.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of the Minor Prophets, Chapter 31, Section 3] 27. W. Lee, Vision of the Building of the Church, Chapter 9, Section 1, emphasis added. The quote in context reads: “Thus, the people of Israel traveled in groups from Babylon to Jerusalem. When they arrived at Jerusalem, they gathered together as one man and endeavored in one accord to rebuild the temple. Before rebuilding the temple, they rebuilt the altar, because the altar was for offering sacrifices. This meant that before the building of the temple could begin, there had to be an act of consecration. The main reason for the consecration of God's people was not that they would offer their goods but that they would place themselves in the hand of God. 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.” 28. W. Lee, Practical Expression of the Church, Chapter 6, Section 1. The quote in context reads: ““We also know that God's glory was not in Babylon. His presence, in a sense, was there with some person or persons, but His glory was not there. It was not until the destroyed temple was built in Jerusalem, even though it was not up to standard, that the glory of God filled it (Hag. 2:7, 9). The glory was not in Babylon, but [the glory was] in Jerusalem with a poor group of people.” Note the reference to Haggai 2:7, 9, suggesting Haggai’s prophecy was fulfilled. 29. W. Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 12, Section 4, emphasis added 30. W. Lee, Young People's Training, Chap. 15, Section 4, emphasis added 31. As Professor Craig A Evans says “The inferiority of the second Temple symbolizes the incompleteness of Israel’s partial post-exilic recovery. Restoration will not finally be realized ‘until the times of the ages are completed’.” [Craig A Evans, “Aspects of Exile & Restoration,” in Bruce David Chilton & Craig A Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity & Restoration, p. 275, emphasis added] 32. Martien Halvorson-Taylor, Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible, p. 6. This monograph argues that in the Jewish literature of the period, exile became “a metaphor for problems that could not be resolved by a return to the land— and [later] gave rise...within Judaism and Christianity [to] the motif of the ‘enduring exile’.” 33. Martien Halvorson-Taylor, Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible, p. 7, emphasis added. 34. Richard Baukham in James M. Scott (ed.), Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish & Christian Perspectives, p. 437 17

35. Consider the following illustrative quotes (emphasis added): • “Today's seminaries train their people to study all the old publications. They study church history, the historical study of theology, and the writings of the church fathers. They have degrees in theology, Hebrew, Greek, church history, and other items. The seminaries give people doctor's degrees, but these degrees are in the old things. What they are actually doing is holding the Lord back. Today's theological teachings hold the Lord back from going on in His recovery. I am not saying that all the books in the past are not good. Some of them may be good, but they are old. Some of you who graduated from a seminary can testify that you did not receive anything advanced or improved there. All you received were the old things.” [W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 4: Other Crucial Matters Concerning the Practice of the Lord's Recovery, Chapter 1, Section 3] • “The seminaries all teach Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek. This is good because both of these languages are useful. However, the seminaries do not teach classes that are according to the divine truth.... Some believers think that the identity of the author of the book of Hebrews is still undetermined, but we are clear that Paul wrote Hebrews. These points show that Christianity is poor because it does not teach people to enter into the truth and revelation of the Bible.” [W. Lee, 3 Crucial Matters for the Increase & Building Up of the Church, Chapter 9, Section 1] • “In the Lord's recovery we care only for the revelation of the Bible. We strongly disagree with the way of theological seminaries, which distorts the understanding of the Bible.” [W. Lee, Proper Aggressiveness of the Lord's Serving Ones, Chap. 2, Sect. 2] • “Today's Christian theological seminaries teach theology but do not touch the deep truths of the Bible. They touch only the superficial things related to the Bible, such as the number of books and authors of the Bible, how many years it took for the Bible to be written, and where each book was written. They teach only shallow matters, such as the creeds and decisions made by the councils, biblical history, and biblical geography.” [W. Lee, Vessels Useful to the Lord, Chapter 8, Section 2] • “I am speaking these things to stimulate you so that you would stop thinking about getting help from theological seminaries. A theological seminary can teach you only to be a man with mediocre ability. If you want to be only a man with mediocre ability, then you may go to a seminary to be taught.” [W. Lee, Vessels Useful to the Lord, Chapter 4, Section 4] • “No books of value have been published in the whole of Christianity during the last few decades, other than certain Greek and Hebrew lexicons, glossaries, and word studies. This is the case not only in the English-speaking world of Christianity but also in the Chinese-speaking Christian world... In the past few decades since the Second World War, Christianity has not published a single book of great spiritual value...” [W. Lee, Bearing Remaining Fruit, Vol. 2, Chapter 3, Section 1] 36. N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is, p. 104. Prof. N. T. Wright has adopted controversial positions on some other theological issues (e.g. the rapture). It should be noted that the present writer’s citing or endorsing Prof. Wright regarding Israel extended exile ought not to be taken as an endorsement of his position on other issues. (This same caveat applies to every scholar & writer whose works are quoted here.) 37. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. xvii–xviii. The quote in context reads: “Would any serious-thinking 1st-century Jew claim that the promises of Isaiah 40–66, or of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Zechariah had been fulfilled? That the power and domination of paganism had been broken? That YHWH had already returned to Zion? That the covenant had been renewed, and Israel’s sins forgiven? That the long-awaited ‘new exodus’ had happened? That the second Temple was the true, final and perfect one? Or —in other words— that the exile was really over?” (N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. xvii–xviii.) 38. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the People of God, pp. 268-9, emphasis added 39. N. T. Wright, JERUSALEM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (Originally published in Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God. P. W. L. Walker, ed., pp. 53–77 (2nd ed. 1994) The quote in context reads: “The exiles had returned, but the exile was not over. That paradox dominated the self-perception of many first-century Jews. As we see clearly in the Scrolls, but equally in various other writings of the period, there was a common sense that the destruction of Babylon had not, after all, been the end of 18

exile, the fulfilment of the great promises of what Israel’s God would do for his people in the end. New ‘Babylons’ had arisen: Persia, Egypt, Syria. Another false dawn had come and gone in the Maccabean uprising, the Hasmonean dynasty (the last independent Jewish state before 1948). Now, since Pompey in 63 BC, the Romans had taken the place of the traditional enemy. And, at a local level, the Herodian dynasty simply projected the ambiguity of Israel’s situation on to a monarchical screen...” [N. T. Wright, JERUSALEM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (Originally published in Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God. P. W. L. Walker, ed., pp. 53–77. (2nd ed. 1994.)] 40. N. T. Wright, The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology, Sewanee Theological Review, vol. 39, 1996 41. Ronald W. Pierce, “Spiritual Failure, Postponement, and Daniel 9,” Trinity Journal vol. 10, #2 (Fall 1989) p. 211. Prof Piece has his own interpretation of how Daniel’s 70 weeks ‘map’ into Israel’s history. That ‘mapping’ is a separate issue, distinct from the points which we cite—that (1) the termination of Jeremiah’s 70-year captivity was conditional on Israel’s spiritual situation and (2) that Daniel’s ‘70 weeks of years,’ are an extension of Jeremiah’s 70-year captivity. 42. Ronald W. Pierce, “Spiritual Failure, Postponement, and Daniel 9,” Trinity Journal vol. 10, #2 (Fall 1989) p. 220 43. Ronald W. Pierce, “Spiritual Failure, Postponement, and Daniel 9,” Trinity Journal vol. 10, #2 (Fall 1989) p. 221. 44. John S. Bergsma (Franciscan University of Steubenville) “The Persian Period as Penitential Era: The ‘Exegetical Logic’ of Daniel 9:1-27,” in Gary N. Knoppers, Lester L. Grabbe, & Deirdre N. Fulton (eds.) Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian & Persian...p. 59. Bergsma reaches essentially the same conclusion as Ronald Pierce (above). He says, in answering Daniel’s prayer, “God is now revealing to Daniel through Gabriel that—since the condition for the fulfilment of Jeremiah’s oracle (namely, the repentance of the people) has not been met—the fulfilment will be postponed, but not indefinitely...” It has been “delayed by a factor of seven, because of the impenitence of the people of Israel.” [John S. Bergsma “The Persian Period as Penitential Era: The ‘Exegetical Logic’ of Daniel 9:1- 27,” in Gary N. Knoppers, Lester L. Grabbe, & Deirdre N. Fulton (eds.) Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian & Persian...p. 56] 45. The quote is from Martien Halvorson-Taylor, Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible, p. 9, who is summarizing Michal Knibb’s thesis. 46. Peter Walker, The End of Exile? Peter Walker also explains, that in the perspective of N. T. Wright, “The Jews of Jesus' day longed for this new age to dawn. Wright argues that first-century Judaism would have seen itself as still 'in exile'. They might be back in the Land and not literal 'exiles', but the exilic state of pagan domination was frustratingly obvious. They longed for an end to exile, a new exodus, a new age - for God to fulfil the outstanding 'eschatological' promises of the OT... Jesus was...speaking to Israel an urgent word...The exile is over, but not in the expected manner. The Kingdom of God is at hand...” (Peter Walker, Lifelines: The Historical Jesus Part 11 - The Contribution of Tom Wright, ANVIL Volume 19, No 3, 2002, pp. 200-1) Plus Walker explains Wright's contention that, “Isaiah 52 had associated the end of exile with Israel witnessing the Lord's 'return to Zion' (52: 8). Zion (Jerusalem with its Temple) had known the presence of God in her midst before the exile, but Ezekiel had had a vision of this glorious Shekinah departing from the Temple (Ezek. 11:22-3); Nothing thereafter in Israel's history suggested that her God had yet returned to his appointed residence. When and how would this come to pass? When would the 'Lord return to Zion'? Wright argues that Jesus' last journey to Jerusalem consciously evoked this tradition. His sitting on a donkey deliberately evoked the prophecy in Zechariah (9:9) that Zion's King would enter the city on a colt.” (Peter Walker, Lifelines: The Historical Jesus Part 11 - The Contribution of Tom Wright, ANVIL Volume 19, No 3, 2002, p. 205) 47. N. T. Wright, How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels, p. 48. N. T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision, p. 58 49. Watchman Nee appears to concur with this view when he points out that, in chapter 9 “Daniel prayed for his people and his holy city. Therefore when God answered his prayer, He mentioned only "your people" and "your holy city." Let us not be mistaken. "Your people" refers to Israel, and "your holy city" refers to Jerusalem. They do not refer to other people or to another holy city. God is saying that after 70

19

weeks the transgression of Israel and Jerusalem will be finished, their sins will be ended, their iniquity will be reconciled, and their everlasting righteousness will be brought in. Has this been fulfilled? Not yet. Israel is still "Loammi"—not my people (Hosea 1:9). Therefore, her recovery and reestablishment are still in the future. Before these things come to pass, this prophecy of 70 weeks cannot be fulfilled. When the Lord Jesus comes again, this prophecy will be fulfilled.” (Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 3, Chapter 9, Section 18, p. 159, emphasis added) Note that here W. Nee says, Israel’s "recovery and reestablishment are still in the future" and links it to the completion of the 70-weeks. 50. N. T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision, p. 61 51. According to LSM’s Recovery Version [Notes on Dan. 9 RcV] Christ’s crucifixion occurs at the 69th week of Daniel’s ‘70 weeks.’ Hence LSM would agree with the statement that “many 1st-century Jews thought of the period they were living in as...late on within the ‘continuing exile’ of Daniel 9,” Daniel’s ‘70 weeks of years.’ However, LSM focuses attention of the “gap”—the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24)— between the 69th and the 70th weeks of Daniel’s 70 weeks. Yet, the subject of Daniel’s prayer and God’s answer is not the Gentiles, but Israel, as Watchman Nee states. W. Nee wrote: “Daniel prayed for his people and his holy city. Therefore when God answered his prayer, He mentioned only ‘your people’ and ‘your holy city.’ Let us not be mistaken. ‘Your people’ refers to Israel, and ‘your holy city’ refers to Jerusalem. They do not refer to other people or to another holy city.” [Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 3, Chapter 9, Section 18, p. 159, emphasis added] Plus, since Daniel’s inquiry was about the exile, God’s answer—the 70 weeks—should also be related to Israel’s exile/captivity; LSM’s exposition does not make this connection. 52. W. Lee says, “Among those who returned to Jerusalem...there was very little spirituality...But Daniel was in Babylon, and he was a spiritual giant. Why should anyone go to Jerusalem to be with those poor, pitiful ones who took heathen wives? It seems that it would be much better to stay in Babylon with Daniel...There was real spirituality with Daniel, but Daniel was not in Babylon for Babylon. He opened his window toward Jerusalem and prayed 3 times a day (Dan. 6:10). He was so desirous to go back, but under God's sovereignty he had to stay. He had to stay not for Babylon, but for Jerusalem.” [W. Lee, Practical Expression of the Church, Chapter 6, Section 1] Plus W. Lee writes, Daniel remained in Babylon even after the year Cyrus issued the decree ordering the captives to return to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 36:22; Dan. 1:21; 10:1). Prior to that time, he prayed daily with his windows opened toward Jerusalem. This indicates that Daniel desired to go back to Jerusalem; however, he was not given the opportunity to do so.” [W. Lee, Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 10, Section 11] W. Lee offers no explanation or evidence for his assertions that Daniel “was not given the opportunity to” “go back to Jerusalem,” and “but under God's sovereignty he had to stay [in Babylon].” These assertions look like ex post rationalizations. 53. N. T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision, p. 60 54. N. T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision, p. 60. Neither we, nor Prof. N. T. Wright, are suggesting that extra-biblical Jewish literature is divinely inspired or on par with the Scriptures. The point is that Jewish literature from the time the period between the testaments (e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, the writings of Tobit, Baruch, & the Maccabees, etc.) provide insights into the views of various Jewish groups—did they regard the captivity as over or continuing? Did they view themselves as participating in a glorious recovery or in an extended exile? 55. Concerning the last OT book of prophecy, Malachi, Dr. G. Hugenberger describes the setting: “Malachi’s ministry took place nearly 100 years after the decree of Cyrus in 538 BC., which ended the Babylonian captivity and allowed the Jews to return to their homeland and rebuild the temple (2 Chron. 36:23). This was some 80 years after Haggai and Zechariah encouraged the rebuilding of that temple with promises of God’s blessing, the engrafting of the nations, prosperity, expansion, peace, and the return of God’s own glorious presence (cf. Haggai 2; Zech...). To Malachi’s disillusioned contemporaries, these predictions must have seemed a cruel mockery. In contrast to the glowing promises, the harsh reality was one of economic privation...(Mal. 3:10ff). After the return from exile, Judah remained an almost insignificant territory of about 20 by 30 miles (32 by 48 km), inhabited by a population of perhaps 150,000. Although they enjoyed the benefits of Persia’s...religious toleration and limited self-rule, the

20

Jews acutely felt their subjugation to a foreign power (Neh. 1:3; 9:36), and they suffered persistent opposition from their neighbors (Ezra 4:23; Dan. 9:25). Judah was no longer an independent nation and was no longer ruled by a Davidic king. Worst of all, in spite of the promises of the coming Messiah and God’s own glorious presence (e.g., Zech...), Israel experienced only spiritual destitution...The postexilic books of Ezra, Nehemiah, & Esther are remarkably candid in their description of Judah as generally lacking miraculous evidences of God’s presence. In contrast to both Solomon’s temple and the prophetic promise of the restored temple (Ezek. 40-43), the actual postexilic temple was physically and spiritually inferior. As Mal. 3:1 implies, the Most Holy Place in this second temple had no visible manifestation of the glory of God.” [ESV Study Bible, “Introduction to Malachi," pp. 1771-2, emphasis added. ESV Notes on Malachi were contributed by Gordon P. Hugenberger, PhD, College of St. Paul & Mary, Oxford Centre of Postgraduate Hebrew Studies.] Note that through Malachi Jehovah says, “I am about to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me; and suddenly the Lord, whom you seek, will come to His temple....” (Mal. 3:1, RcV). The promise, “the Lord...will come...,” suggests that up ‘til that point the Lord had not come to His Temple. The glorious return of Jehovah to His Temple promised by Haggai and Zechariah was not fulfilled during the Old Testament era; it had been postponed, awaiting the arrival of Jesus the Messiah, who would be preceded by “My messenger,” John the Baptist. 56. Martien Halvorson-Taylor, Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible, p. 1 57. Robert Stewart, N. T. Wright’s Hermeneutic, part 2, The Churchman, pp. 235-66. Stewart references: Wright, New Testament People of God, pp. 215-23; Wright, Jesus & the Victory of God, pp. 126-31. 58. Travis Tamerius, Sounding the Alarm: N.T. Wright & Evangelical Theology, emphasis original. 59. N. T. Wright, Jerusalem in the New Testament, in P. W. L. Walker (ed.), Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God, p. 53 60. Seyoon Kim, Paul & the New Perspective, p. 136. 61. C. Marvin Pate, et. al., The Story of Israel: A Biblical Theology, p. 20 62. Michael E. Fuller, The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering & the Fate of the Nations, p. 67 63. Philip S. Alexander, Targum of Lamentations, The Aramaic Bible 17b, p. 32 64. Thomas R. Blanton, Constructing a New Covenant, p. 82 Blanton is summarizing the conclusions of Michael Knibb. The quote in context reads: “Michael Knibb has shown that for many Jews living in the Hellenistic period, the ‘exile’ referred not to a past epoch, but rather was a lived reality. As long as there was a Jewish Diaspora [Dispersion], the Jews remained in exile. Many Jews looked forward to a time when foreign oppressors would be defeated...and Jews would come streaming from all parts of the globe to return to their homeland. Until these decisive events occurred Israel remained for all intents and purposes, in ‘captivity’.” 65. Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Restoration, p. 13, emphasis added 66. Craig A Evans, “Aspects of Exile & Restoration,” in Bruce David Chilton & Craig A Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity & Restoration, p. 270. 67. Craig A Evans, “Aspects of Exile & Restoration,” in Bruce David Chilton & Craig A Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity & Restoration, p. 269 68. Craig A Evans, “Aspects of Exile & Restoration,” in Bruce David Chilton & Craig A Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity & Restoration, p. 276, emphasis added. 69. Timothy Keller, The Prodigal God, (2011) pp. 110-112, emphasis added 70. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the People of God, pp. 268-9, emphasis added 71. Craig A Evans, “Aspects of Exile & Restoration,” in Bruce David Chilton & Craig A Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity & Restoration, p. 270. 72. Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Restoration, p. 13, emphasis added 73. W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 7: The Christian (5), Chapter 32, Section 6. Note that the first phrase of this statement--“The Bible is our only standard” –was displayed prominently on the “concernedbrothers.com” webpage 74. W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 7: The Christian (5), Chapter 32, Section 6. Concerning tradition vs. truth, Witness Lee says, “Christians may admit that certain matters are found in the Word, but, being 21

afraid of man, they may not have the boldness to stand for the truth. Because of the influence of tradition, they do not stand fully for the truth.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 68, Section 1] Also he says, “The way of the Lord's recovery today is altogether according to the Bible and not according to the 2,000 years of Christian tradition... The Lord's recovery...is different. We declared from the beginning that we were absolutely not according to tradition...We have come back to the pure word of God. ” [W. Lee, Vessels Useful to the Lord, Chapter 3, Section 2] 75. This point is elaborated upon in the following “Appendix A”

22

APPENDIX A: The Jews’ Jerusalem equals the Church’s Ground of Locality The Jews’ return to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple is the fulcrum on which W. Lee’s recovery principle turns from the Old Testament “type” to the New Testament fulfillment in LSM’s local church. A crucial element is the “ground of locality” doctrine which maintains that that every city should have only one church, under one eldership. W. Lee contends that this arrangement—one church, one city, one eldership—is a God-ordained pattern applicable in all times and places to maintain oneness. This, he contends, is the New Testament equivalent of the Jerusalem Temple as God’s chosen place of worship in the Old Testament era. W. Lee says, “...Regarding the ground of the church...The children of Israel were allowed to build the temple only on one particular site, on Mount Moriah, where Abraham had offered his son Isaac...A temple constructed in Babylon could not have been the center of oneness. On the contrary, [it] would have been a center of division. All those who returned from captivity were required to go back to the ground of oneness, to Mount Zion, where the temple was rebuilt. Hence, the temple on Mount Zion was built on the ground of oneness. This portrays the genuine oneness of [Christian] believers today, a oneness on the proper ground, on the ground of locality.”a W. Lee appeals to the Jewish exiles’ return from Babylon and their restoration of Temple-worship to justify the recovery of the local church—one church, one city. Based on this parallel, W. Lee asserts that, “Many of today's Christians are like Jews who have not returned to the land of Israel. Only those Jews who have returned to the original ground of oneness, to the land of their fathers, are part of the nation of Israel. In the same principle, to be part of the local church one must not only be a Christian, but must also be a Christian on the ground of oneness. Only those believers who have forsaken every divisive ground and have come back to the ground of oneness constitute the church. No matter how few they may be in number, those who have returned...are the church in their locality.”b Note that this is an exclusive definition of the church— “Only those believers who...have come back to the ground of oneness constitute the church.” Based on this reasoning W. Lee charges today’s Christians to forsake “Babylonian” denominations & free groups and return to “Jerusalem,” by joining LSM’s local churches which ‘stand on the ground of oneness in each locality.’ The incentive to do so is the blessings of God’s glory and presence which accompany recovery. W. Lee’s logic is straight-forward—God vindicated the returned Jews who rebuilt the Temple with His glory and presence; God will also bless and vindicate believers who return to the Local Church’s ground of oneness with His glory and presence. Thus W. Lee says, “We have seen that the people of God were degraded...During the captivity, they did not have the ground for the building of God's temple. After the years of their captivity were ended, God called them to go back to Jerusalem, back to the old ground, back to the original site, the unique place God had chosen for the rebuilding of His temple. A number did return, and they rebuilt the temple. Due to this, God's glory returned. Many of the children of Israel remained in the place of their captivity, unwilling to pay the price to return to Jerusalem...Those who remained in Babylon, Egypt, & Syria (might have) said, “You say that you are the temple of God and that we are not. But are we not the people of God?” Those who had returned to Jerusalem would reply, “Yes, you are the people of God, just as much as we are. But there is a difference between us. We have returned...We have God's presence in His temple, but you do not have it.” Yes, we admit that all real Christians throughout the world are truly the people of God. But so many of them are still in captivity and do not have the church life. Hence, they are not the temple with God's presence and God's glory. ...Hallelujah, we are in the Lord's recovery! The Lord's recovery is to bring us back to the original ground that His temple might be built...Today we are enjoying this glory. We have the boldness to say that the church is here. You cannot find the church life in denominations and free groups because the Christians there have lost the ground and are still in captivity.”c Note the elitist, ‘Laodicean,’ attitude 23

portrayed and condoned—“We have God's presence in His temple, but you do not...Today we are enjoying this glory.” Note also that this argument assumes that God’s glory and presence filled the rebuilt Temple. But this is LSM’s myth. Scripture never says God’s glory filled Ezra’s Temple; Jewish literature indicates that the Ark was absent, the Holy of holies was empty, and there was no manifestation of the Shekinah glory. Hence the returned exiles could not boast to their fellow-Jews remaining in Babylon, “We have God's presence and God's glory; but you do not!” Moreover, scholars have documented the sense of an extended exile which characterized the Jews who returned from Babylon. Based on this the Jews who physically returned should have adopted a humble attitude towards their brothers, saying, “Yes, we've returned physically to Jerusalem, but we sense that we’re still in captivity. God's glory and manifest presence haven't filled the Temple; we remain under the oppression of foreigners. God hasn't yet fulfilled His great promises, so let us all humble ourselves and repent.” LSM: Position trumps Condition In the context of LSM’s foundational recovery myth, position (standing on the proper ground) trumps spiritual condition. Hence W. Lee asks, “Do you think that when the temple was rebuilt on the proper ground and the glory of God manifested that it was due to the spiritual situation? Had the people's condition changed? No, it had not changed. It was still the same. But because a building was erected on the proper ground, even though it was under the standard, the Shekinah glory of God was manifested. This was not because the spirituality of the people had been greatly improved. That did not bring in God's glory. It was simply due to the fact that they came back and rebuilt the temple on the proper ground. Though their situation and condition were poor, yet their standing and their ground were right. God honored the ground they took and upon which they built.”d Here, W. Lee asserts that position trumps condition; he alleges that, “Though their situation & condition were poor, yet their standing & their ground were right. God honored the ground they took...,” by manifesting His glory. This claim is based on the counter-factual assertion about the divine glory. The implication is that (regardless of spiritual condition) God will honor and bless those Christians whose “standing and ground are right,” who stand on the ground of locality. Hence W. Lee asserts that, “It is one thing to be spiritual, and it is another thing to have the proper ground of the church. Spirituality has to do with our personal condition. The ground of the church, on the other hand, is a corporate ground; it is the corporate standing that we take. Not everyone who left Babylon to return to Jerusalem was a spiritual person. Neither was everyone who remained in Babylon necessarily unspiritual. In fact...some had married Gentile wives. However, as far as their ground was concerned, they were approved by God. With such a ground they could build the temple. No matter how poor their situation was, their ground was still the right ground. When the temple was built, God's glory filled the house.”e I have argued elsewhere that LSM’s doctrine treats the ground of the church as a sacrament.f Now I would add the further objection that it is based on LSM’s myth regarding recovery—that “God's glory filled the house.” This assertion is the basis for the claim that “God honored the ground they took,” and “they were approved by God.” Once we recognize the fact that God's glory did not fill the rebuilt Temple, LSM’s argument is undercut—there is no basis for asserting that Christians “standing on the ground of locality” have a special claim to God's presence, and glory, compared with Christians not “standing on the ground.” In the New Testament era, God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), nor a respecter of the local ground. Standing on the ground of locality as the “Church in [City X]” does not entitle believers to claim propriety rights over God's blessing. 24

What has been the fruit of LSM’s myth regarding recovery? Hasn’t it produced an elitist attitude and Laodicean pride? Consider the sectarian attitude—“us & them,” “we & you”—engendered by equating “the local ground” with Ezra’s recovered Temple: “’Yes, you are the people of God, just as much as we are. But there is a difference between us. We have returned to the land of our forefathers, but you still remain in captivity in the Gentile world. We have God's presence in His temple, but you do not have it.’ Yes, we admit that all real Christians throughout the world are truly the people of God. But so many of them are still in captivity and do not have the church life. Hence, they are not the temple with God's presence and God's glory...Hallelujah, we are in the Lord's recovery! The Lord's recovery is to bring us back to the original ground...so that we may have His presence in His glory for our enjoyment. Today we are enjoying this glory. We have the boldness to say that the church is here. You cannot find the church life in denominations and free groups because the Christians there have lost the ground and are still in captivity.”g Again note the proud, elitist attitude expressed by “We have returned ...but you still remain in captivity...We have God's presence in His temple, but you do not have it.”

a. W. Lee, Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 10, Section 8 b. W. Lee, Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 10, Section 12 c. W. Lee, Young People's Training, Chap. 12, Section 4, emphasis added d. W. Lee, Practical Expression of the Church, Chapter 6, Section 1, emphasis added e. W. Lee, Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Book 1: The Vision and Definite Steps for the Practice of the New Way, Chapter 3, Section 5 Also W. Lee, Vision of the Age, Chapter 3, Section 6, emphasis added f. See my piece “LSM’s Sacrament...” g. W. Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 12, Section 4

25