Search
At this point we need to spend some time to be brought into the New Testament ministry so that we may see this ministry from the beginning to the end of the New Testament. It is crucial for us to see what the New Testament ministry is. We have already pointed out that the New Testament ministry began with John the Baptist. However, we should not consider his ministry a separate, individualistic ministry. The ministry of John the Baptist was a part of the New Testament ministry. It was a service of the New Testament ministry, even the first service of that ministry. We need to look into this ministry in a particular way to pick up a crucial point.
When we come to the Lord’s appraisal of His forerunner’s ministry in Matthew 11, we can see that even that first service, that first part of the New Testament ministry, was a unique ministry. John’s ministry of repentance, the way of repentance, was a very striking ministry that drew the line between the Old Testament and the New Testament. That ministry was a landmark in God’s economy. Nevertheless, John’s ministry should not be considered as a separate, independent, individualistic ministry. If you had such a consideration, you would become what the Gospels call the disciples of John.
In Matthew 9 the disciples of John came to question the Lord Jesus, and they included the Pharisees along with themselves in their question (v. 14). According to Luke 5, it was the Pharisees who did the questioning (v. 33), and according to Mark 2, it seems that the disciples of John and the Pharisees questioned the Lord together (v. 18). Before that time the Pharisees were one sect, and there was another sect, a heretical sect, called the Sadducees. However, at the time of Matthew 9 the disciples of John became yet another sect. From this we can see that probably not more than two or three years after John began to preach, his service caused trouble and became a rivalry to the Lord’s ministry.
God did not intend that John’s service would become a separate ministry. In God’s intention John’s service was simply the beginning of the New Testament ministry, a recommending service that initiated the Lord’s ministry. John told the people clearly what his ministry was (John 1:23; 3:28-30), but his disciples understood in a wrong way. They thought that their teacher, John the Baptist, was great and that his teaching was unique. They followed him, and they followed his teaching. Perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, they became a rivalry to the Lord’s ministry. Eventually, that preaching became something that replaced the Lord’s ministry.
Quite often we fail to recognize the Lord’s sovereignty in the things that happened to John the Baptist. First, Herod put John into prison, and then, due to Herod’s indulgence in lust, he had John beheaded. However, we need to realize that for John to be put into prison was sovereign of the Lord, and even for John to be beheaded was sovereign of the Lord. I certainly do not mean to say that God was happy to see John imprisoned, much less to see him beheaded. Nevertheless, we must believe that God is sovereign, and we need to consider soberly why God allowed John to be imprisoned and later beheaded.
The imprisonment and execution of John came about because there was a care for another ministry. John’s ministry and his disciples caused some trouble. First, through Herod, God stopped John’s preaching. Then, even from the prison, John sent his disciples to the Lord Jesus with certain questions. Right after that, John suffered martyrdom. God was sovereign to terminate what was there with John at that time. Of course, that termination was not a good or positive termination.
The case of John the Baptist shows us that there is a peril that we may receive a genuine ministry, a genuine service from God, and yet we would not be willing to see that service terminated. This is a crucial point. God may use you, and He may use me. He may use us for a certain service with a view to His purpose, but after we have been used by Him, probably none of us would be willing to see the termination of that service.
The same principle can be applied in the case of Moses. The account of the shining of Moses’ face in Exodus 34 does not tell us why Moses covered his face with a veil (vv. 30-35). However, according to Paul’s interpretation in 2 Corinthians 3:13, Moses was afraid that the people would see the termination of his ministry. Moses did not want the people to see the shining of his ministry come to an end. Even in his case there was a consideration about the termination of his ministry. We all are happy to be used by the Lord in a certain service, but none of us would be willing to see that service come to an end.
It was this kind of trouble that forced God, the sovereign One, to allow John to be imprisoned and even to have his life terminated. We need to consider this whole matter carefully. Without God’s sovereignty to allow things to be carried out in this way, surely the teaching of John would have been taken over by his disciples and would have created a big problem. Here we need to learn the lesson. God would not allow any ministry, any service, to remain in a rivalry with His New Testament ministry. What happened in the case of John the Baptist sovereignly cleared up the whole situation. For the rest of the time of the Lord’s ministry, there was no rivalry, but there was opposition. Opposition is comparatively easy to deal with, but it is very hard to deal with rivalry.
God tolerated the opposition from the Pharisees for a longer time, at least up until A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. The Lord even prophesied that not one stone of the temple in Jerusalem would be left upon another because of their opposition, their rejection of Him, and He indicated that the temple of God had become their house because they had made it a den of robbers (Matt. 24:1-2; 23:38; 21:13). The Lord tolerated the opposition for a number of years, but He did not tolerate the rivalry. Immediately, John was put into prison, and his life was terminated. We need to learn the lesson from this case. This matter is something of the Lord’s sovereignty.
After John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus continued God’s New Testament ministry, and He thoroughly accomplished that part of the ministry. Then the day of Pentecost came. On that day Peter was strong, and he was pure in every way. In chapters 2 through 5 of Acts we can see a young man, probably still in his thirties, clean and pure in every way — in intent, in desire, in motive, in the heart, in the spirit, and in the understanding. He had no consideration about anything other than the Lord’s ministry, even no consideration about his life. With him at that time there was no problem in any point.
However, in Acts 10 Peter’s attitude caused a problem for God; it troubled Him. In Matthew 16 the Lord told Peter that He would give to him the keys of the kingdom. There are at least two keys because the word keys is plural. On the day of Pentecost Peter used one of the two keys to open the gate for the Jewish people to enter into God’s New Testament kingdom. However, when God was going on to use him with the second key to open the door for the Gentiles, this contradicted Peter’s background and tradition. On the day of Pentecost all that was necessary was for the Holy Spirit to descend upon Peter, but for the house of Cornelius God used two visions — one vision to Peter and another vision to Cornelius. This indicates that God was troubled because He was forced to take the Old Testament way of visions and dreams.
The New Testament way is to follow the anointing within, to follow the indwelling Spirit. Peter had the Spirit dwelling within him inwardly, but he could not understand the indwelling because of his background and his tradition. Peter had the outward outpouring of the Spirit and also the inward indwelling of the Spirit, but he could not understand the indwelling. This is a crucial point.
To carry out God’s ministry there is the need of a clean person. How clean Peter was on the day of Pentecost and in chapters 2 through 5 of Acts! Nothing was there as a veil covering him, and he was absolutely pure as crystal. But after a short time, even when he was praying in Acts 10, there was a veil covering him. That veil was tradition and his Jewish background, covering him and keeping him from the New Testament way. Nevertheless, God overcame him, subdued him, and even convinced him to go to the house of Cornelius to use the second key to open the door for the Gentiles to come in.
We need to read and reread Acts with much consideration. After Peter used the second key, Acts 12 tells us that he was put into prison and then released from prison. Nevertheless, after Acts 12 there is nothing in Acts 13 concerning Peter. Chapters 13 through 28 are for Paul, and in Acts there are no more chapters for Peter. Peter’s ministry was finished in the New Testament ministry of God in Acts. Peter was good, and I believe he wrote both his Epistles after this time. (The date of 1 Peter is uncertain, whether before or after the time of Acts 13.) It was very good that Peter wrote those two Epistles. Especially in the second one, he was very genuine and bold, because he recommended the one who had rebuked him to his face (3:15-16).
After Acts 12 we do not see Peter until chapter 15. However, in Acts 15 Peter was no longer the first among the apostles nor even the first among the elders in Jerusalem. At that time in Jerusalem the atmosphere, the tendency, and the influence were not in favor of Peter but were altogether in favor of James, who somewhat might be considered a semi-New Testament apostle — a great part New Testament and some part Old Testament.
Something colored gray can blend in either with something colored white or with something colored black. James can be compared to something colored gray, something that can fit in with either side. Peter should have been compared to something pure white, but he did not dare to be what he was. Under that atmosphere, influence, and tendency, what Peter was would not have been welcome. However, James was welcome because he could fit in with two sides at the same time.
From what we have seen in the life-studies of James and Mark, we can realize that even the situation in Acts 15 was not entirely pure. We need to see the decision that was made in Acts 15 in the light of what happened in Acts 21. Although “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit” (15:28), that decision was made mainly under James’s influence, and it was not purely according to God’s New Testament economy. What happened in chapter 21 came out of the decision that was made in chapter 15. In other words, we could say that the weakness that was there in chapter 15 was exposed in chapter 21. In Acts 21 James was very bold to declare that there were many thousands of Jewish believers in Jerusalem zealous for the law (v. 20). James was even so bold that he advised Paul to take the same way.
We may say that Paul became weak in Acts 21 and followed the advice of James. Some may argue that Paul was not weak but that he was very strong to keep his word that to the Jews he became as a Jew (1 Cor. 9:20). They may excuse Paul, but the Lord did not allow him such an excuse. We know that the Lord did not excuse Paul, because on the last day of the vow that Paul had agreed to participate in, He brought the whole thing to an end. Paul had paid the charges for the poor votaries, and with just one more day they could have completed the vow. However, the Lord did not allow such a thing. As a result, all of Jerusalem was brought into an uproar, and Paul was arrested and put into prison.
This matter is very serious. Even Paul’s ministry was turned at this point because there was some involvement there. We should not get ourselves involved in things of this kind. It is altogether a serious matter to weaken God’s economy or to make it gray. As for Paul, he was pure, and God was, therefore, able to use him in another way, to write the Epistles. It was very good for Paul to write Epistles such as Ephesians, Philippians, and the others written while he was imprisoned. Nevertheless, the writing of these Epistles was all of Paul’s ministry after Acts 21. These are serious matters.
We need to go back to consider something concerning the case of Barnabas. He was faithful, and he was the one who brought Paul in (9:27). He was also a companion apostle to Paul. However, he had an opinion. To us, that was not a serious matter. Surely Barnabas was not a Judaizer, but because of his opinion, he took his way to carry out the so-called ministry. That was the termination of the record concerning Barnabas in the book of Acts. Not only in the Bible but even in history it is hard to trace any record concerning Barnabas after this point. What a sober word this is for us today!
Then at the end of Acts 18, Apollos came in. He came neither from the source of Peter nor from the source of Paul but from some other source. We cannot trace from what source Apollos came, but he appeared in chapter 18, teaching the Scriptures and knowing only the baptism of John (vv. 24-28). It was necessary for Apollos to be merged in with Paul’s ministry, the more the better. Although he may have been very much one with Paul, his case became a problem.
In Corinth Apollos became a problem, and Peter became a problem. I could not find out whether or not Peter himself had ever gone to Corinth. However, his ministry became a problem there, not because of Peter, but simply because there was such a thing as Peter’s ministry. There was a following of Peter’s ministry, since there were those who said, “I am of Peter” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:12). Apollos was also there, and there were those who said, “I am of Apollos.” I do not believe that Apollos had any intention to cause trouble, but the trouble came, not because of Apollos but because of his ministry and its following. Paul was a man in the Spirit, and he did not condemn Peter, nor did he condemn Apollos. Rather, in speaking things negatively, he mentioned his own name first (v. 12). We need to consider these matters carefully to see the peril that is before us today. In Corinth Peter’s ministry and its following and Apollos’s ministry and its following created a problem that almost caused a division.
Suppose I were Apollos. In such a case, do you think the Lord would use me more and more? If I had a ministry that was used as Apollos’s, do you think that my usefulness to the Lord would be increasing all the time? Paul’s ministry was never used in that way. His ministry was the major item in God’s New Testament ministry. Such was not the case with the ministry of Apollos.
In any case, at Corinth there were problems due to these three kinds of service, that of Peter, of Apollos, and of Paul. I do not believe that Apollos conducted himself in a way to be one with Paul to the uttermost in God’s New Testament economy (see 16:12). He was not divisive, and he did not separate himself from God’s New Testament ministry. Nevertheless, we could not see in the Scriptures that Apollos was one hundred percent one with Paul in God’s New Testament economy.
Allow me to testify something from my experience in working with Brother Watchman Nee. I worked with Brother Nee for over eighteen years. There are some among us who were there at that time and saw the situation. Since the beginning of Brother Nee’s work, a number of prominent Christians who later became famous preachers were there with Brother Nee for a time. The first meeting of the Lord’s table in the Lord’s recovery took place with Brother Nee and another brother and his wife. These were the three who initiated the Lord’s table meetings in the recovery. Eventually, that brother became a problem to Brother Nee because he was not one with him in God’s move at that time in China. From that time on, one prominent brother after another came into the recovery there in China. Nearly all of them became problems to Brother Nee. If I had taken the same attitude as the others, surely I would have become a problem to him also. However, all realized that I was one thousand percent one with Brother Nee in his ministry because my standing, my attitude, and my spirit were altogether one with him. No opening was left for anyone to say that I was a problem to Brother Nee. There was no ground for such a charge.
If someone is able to ask you whether or not you are one with me, that question is a hint that you are not one hundred percent one with me. If water can leak through a roof when it rains, that surely means there is a crack somewhere in the roof. If there is no crack, no water could leak in. If you are thoroughly one hundred percent one with me, we are like a roof that has no crack for the rain to come in. When it rains, the water both testifies and tests whether or not there is a crack in the roof. If there is a leak, this is a proof that a crack is there.
We need to read the facts in the Bible, not merely the letters in black and white. There was a reason for the problem in Corinth where some said, “I am of Cephas,” “I am of Apollos,” and “I am of Paul.” If Peter had behaved, acted, and worked in an atmosphere, in color, and in flavor absolutely one with Paul, no one at Corinth would have said that he was of Peter and not of Paul. If Apollos had been working, preaching, moving, and living in a way that was with the flavor, the color, and the atmosphere that absolutely matched that of Paul, no one would have said that he was of Apollos and not of Paul. There were three entities there. One was of Peter, one was of Apollos, and one was of Paul.
Whether you call them three ministries, three leaders, three headships, or three different kinds of teaching, the fact that there were three created a “leak” for the rain to come in, and the rain did come in. Some were saying, “I am of Peter. I don’t care for Paul.” Others said, “I am of Apollos. I don’t care for Peter or for Paul.” Still others said, “I am for Paul.” Therefore, in Corinth there was fighting among the saints that came from the different flavors, different colors, and different atmospheres of the so-called ministers. If Peter, Apollos, and Paul had been working, moving, and walking in one atmosphere, in one color, and in one flavor, I do not believe anything could ever have happened in Corinth that would have caused the people to say that they were of this one or of that one. Such a thing was able to happen there simply because the atmosphere, the flavor, the color, and the spirit among the three were not one.
Then how about our situation today? We need to consider our present situation soberly according to this light from the Scriptures. Again I say that I would have much more liberty to speak concerning these matters if Brother Nee were working among us. If this were the case, he would be the target instead of me. Because I am the target now, it is hard for me to speak concerning certain matters, lest whatever I say be considered a self-vindication.
Nevertheless, all of us need to realize that we are in the Lord’s recovery. The first characteristic of the Lord’s recovery is oneness. Once we lose the oneness, we are through. If we lose the oneness, we are no longer the Lord’s recovery. Therefore, we need to see that there is a peril of different teachings and different opinions damaging the oneness. I thank the Lord for His mercy that since the beginning of His recovery in this country, I have never been so cautious in any other matter as I have in this one matter. In all these twenty-three years it has been my practice to exercise myself never to debate with any of the brothers concerning doctrines or concerning opinions. Six years ago some very serious problems arose among us. During that time you probably did not hear me say anything concerning these problems, because I did not want to give any impression that I was open to debate concerning the opinions and doctrines of others. However, this did not mean that I agreed with those opinions and doctrines. Now I realize that the more we are going on, the more we are in a trend with a peril that opinions and different teachings may come in. Opinions may be good, and teachings may be scriptural, yet they may be different. Sooner or later, these matters will create a hidden division. The blessing that always comes down from God to His recovery is based upon the oneness (Psa. 133). If we lose the oneness, we will lose the blessing.
I believe that we can learn from Apollos’s case that there is the possibility of having different flavors, different atmospheres, and different colors, although we may move together, minister together, work together, and all be together in the Lord’s recovery. Apollos was not dissenting with Paul, but his ministry bore a different color and flavor than Paul’s ministry.
I am not saying that something has already happened among us to create a problem. No storm has come, but a weather report has. In the climate of the Lord’s recovery today, there are some signs that some storms may come if we do not exercise our carefulness. For this reason I am burdened to present the real situation to you in order that you may realize that there is a peril ahead of us. Even though we are not in any storm yet, I do feel the need to send out the weather report to let you know that there is the possibility of storms coming in this climate if we are careless. I hope we would not have a repetition of the storms that came six years ago. I believe all of us have a good intention. I do not believe there is anyone among us with a wrong intention. Nevertheless, the things we do could be wrong even though our intention is not wrong. All of us need to be careful.
When I was with Brother Nee, I never behaved, acted, worked, preached, taught, or spoke in any way that could be taken by the enemy to create trouble. Please be clear that what I am saying does not mean that I was one hundred percent in oneness in every doctrine with Brother Nee. For example, my interpretation of the two witnesses in Revelation 11 even today is different from that of Brother Nee. I believe that Brother Nee was influenced by Pember, Govett, and Panton, all of whom interpreted the two witnesses as Enoch and Elijah, based on the statement in Hebrews 9:27 that a person can die only once. Enoch and Elijah were the only two persons who did not die; therefore, it was interpreted to mean that they were preserved by God in order that they could be the two witnesses in Revelation 11 who would be killed there.
Although I never told anyone, from the first day that I heard this interpretation, I felt strongly that it was not accurate. In the first place, God has a testimony in the Old Testament that is constituted of the law and the prophets — the law represented by Moses and the prophets represented by Elijah. Therefore, in the New Testament, even according to the Jewish way, the rabbinical way, the Old Testament was called the law and the prophets even by the Lord Jesus Himself. In Revelation 11 the two witnesses stand before the Lord, and they bear a testimony. In this universe we see these witnesses standing before the Lord on the Mount of Transfiguration — Moses and Elijah.
In addition, if we say that man could die only once, based on Hebrews 9:27, we need to account for the case of Lazarus. He died once, and he was resurrected. Then he died a second time. There is also the case of the son of the widow in Nain (Luke 7:11-15). He died and was being carried in a coffin when the Lord Jesus came and raised him up. He was resurrected, but he surely died again. In the Scriptures a number of persons died twice (1 Kings 17:17, 22; 2 Kings 4:32-35; 13:21; Matt. 9:24-25; 11:5; Acts 9:40; 20:10).
Surely you can realize that I was not following Brother Nee blindly. I have given you a little hint that I did not necessarily agree with Brother Nee in every point of doctrine. You would have to agree that my so-called dissenting point is logical and scriptural. The major points concerning the two witnesses are covered in Message 27 of Life-study of Revelation, pages 317 through 325. Those points are very basic. Fact is fact, and the truth is the truth. However, I do not care for such things as whether the two witnesses are Elijah and Moses, or Elijah and Enoch. My one concern is for God’s economy, for Christ and the church. Never have I found a person who surpassed Brother Watchman Nee in the matters of Christ and the church. For this reason I placed myself one hundred percent at his feet to follow him. Actually, in following him it was the Lord’s economy that I was following.
My point, dear saints, is that we are not here for doctrines, but we are here for God’s economy. For me to speak concerning these doctrinal points today does not cause any damage at all to Brother Nee’s ministry. However, if I had said something concerning these matters while he was living and I was working with him there, there would immediately have been division. For this reason I did not preach anything that Brother Nee did not preach, and I did not teach anything that he had not touched.
I do not feel at all ashamed to say that whatever I taught and whatever I preached was Brother Nee’s. It is glorious that there was such a man on this earth who was worthwhile for me to follow. Nevertheless, I fully realized that Brother Watchman Nee was a man. If any knew his shortcomings and his weaknesses, I must be one of them. I treasure what the Lord is doing in using him to fulfill His purpose to the uttermost. I have no interest in doing a light work according to the religious practices of today. I consecrated myself and my future for God’s unique purpose on this earth. I saw this purpose in Brother Nee, I was for this, and I sacrificed everything for this. Therefore, I would not say a word, and I would not do anything at all to damage this purpose. I saw that he was one used by God for God’s purpose.
We should not forget the account of the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron (Num. 12:1-15). Surely they saw Moses’ weakness. There is no question that Moses married an Ethiopian woman. However, when Miriam rebelled, she became leprous. She did not receive a reward; she had leprosy. This did not mean that Moses was not wrong. The point is that all of us need to be very careful. It is my practice to exercise care with all of you, and I do not believe that I have done anything to damage your being used in the hand of the Lord. Even the more, I have exercised care to help you be perfected so that you may be used in the hand of the Lord. It is not at all a small thing to say a word or to do something to affect the Lord’s recovery in a negative way.
I have always realized that it is a very serious matter even to affect the Lord’s recovery a little bit, no need to say to damage it. I have been with one brother for over twenty-two years. I am very frank with him, and we are very close. Nevertheless, I have the assurance that even this brother cannot say that I have been so free to say anything to him about any brother that was not so positive. This does not mean that I have been blind, that I have been dumb, or that I have no feeling, just like a piece of marble. Rather, if you have feeling, I do believe at least I have it too. Yet I have never talked, and I have never said anything, because I am not here for that. Over fifty-five years ago I gave myself to the Lord, I came to this country, and I am still laboring day and night through all the hardships, absolutely for the Lord’s recovery. I long to see all of you completed and perfected in the hand of the Lord that He may use you and that His recovery could be carried on in a prosperous way.
We are not here to repeat the history of Christianity or to do a religious work. We are here for the Lord’s recovery. I am not speaking something to threaten any one of you. The Lord knows. I am burdened to speak the fact, the truth, and to open up the real situation to you with the real peril. We are here, dear brothers, and we need to learn of the Lord concerning His economy, even as Paul said, with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12). From the four cases we have considered, you could see the hints concerning all the things that caused trouble in the Lord’s move. Not one of the four persons we have considered — John the Baptist, Barnabas, Peter, Apollos — was a negative person or even someone who was superficial. They were very solid, right, good, moral, spiritual persons with weight. All of them were solid and weighty, yet in certain crucial points they were not careful; they did not carry on their ministry with adequate consideration of the real situation in the Lord’s move. If Apollos had given thorough consideration to the whole situation, surely he would have realized that he must be the same as Paul, one with Paul in the same atmosphere, color, and flavor. That situation caused Paul to be embarrassed to the uttermost and, in a sense, to make a fool of himself in order to vindicate himself (1 Cor. 1:13; 9:1). It was not the opposers, the criticizers, who created the trouble and embarrassed Paul but such dear ones as Apollos and Peter.
How much we all need to treasure this opportunity to see these crucial matters. We all need to have a clear sky with a crystal-clear view so that we may know what it is we are in and so that we may have a clear view of the real situation.
