Search
Based upon what we have picked up by the crucial points and by the bird’s-eye view over an entire book and even over the entire Bible, we must learn how to go further based upon what we have read and studied. Church history shows us that throughout the centuries many Bible readers and teachers became contented once they got something really good from the Bible. They were not only satisfied with what they had, but they became contented, and they became full. As a result, there was no more capacity in their being, so they became proud. They were stopped from going further, and they would not go on. You may have a bird’s-eye view of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and Romans. You may know all the crucial points in these books, and you may even have a bird’s-eye view of the entire Bible. At this point you may have the attitude that you know the Bible, and thus, you would not go any further.
Church history tells us that at certain times God raised up and initiated some of His lovers into a new realm. They began to doubt the religious traditions of their day, and they began to see something further. The Reformation is an illustration of this. About a century before Martin Luther’s time, the Lord raised up a certain environment that forced some of His seekers to realize that they were short in their vision and practice of what was contained in the divine revelation of the holy Word. Therefore, they began a new age, and they were initiated into a new realm. They began to see more. After Luther’s time, however, the Protestant churches stopped seeking further. The Lutheran churches and the state churches in northern Europe held the belief of justification by faith, but these Protestant churches were mostly stopped from seeing anything further. Then there were many others who began to see things from the Bible, but the things that they saw were not in the central lane of the New Testament ministry. They began to see baptism by immersion, the presbytery, and the brotherhood of all the believers. Some others began to see some deeper things, such as sanctification, but even they never got a proper, full, and thorough view of the biblical sanctification.
Under the leadership of Zinzendorf there was a partial recovery of the church life in Bohemia. He was the first one to see something higher than the others, but still this was not adequate. Then the Brethren were raised up under the leadership of J. N. Darby, and many precious Bible truths were unveiled. They saw something further, but they did not see the emphasis on Christ as life. They also never touched in a thorough and definite way the identification of Christ with the Holy Spirit. They knew Christ mostly in an objective way. They saw much more and went much further, but they did not call people’s attention to Christ as life and to Christ as the Spirit. They also talked about the church mostly in an objective way. They did not see the crucial, subjective aspects of the church, which include the church as the fullness, the new man, and the lampstand.
Later, thousands of missionaries went to China. Their teaching became shallow and superficial because they thought most of the Chinese people were not educated or knowledgeable. The missionaries had to establish schools to teach the Chinese. They even taught them their native language of Chinese so that they could be helped to read the Bible. Many of the missionaries at that time thought that the Chinese language was not adequate for the translation of the Bible. The Brethren, in their “home assembly,” practiced faith in the Lord for their living; however, when they went to China, they said that the Chinese people were not qualified to live by faith. Among the Brethren assemblies in China, many of the British brothers were living by faith, but the Chinese preachers and “Bible women” were paid by the Brethren, since they considered that the Chinese were not qualified, equipped, or able to live by faith. Also, when the Brethren taught, they taught in a low way. They lowered down their teaching purposely because they considered that the Chinese people could not understand the higher and deeper truths. The Brethren held the concept that they were superior. We should praise the Lord, however, that some among them were really men of God. They were not satisfied with this kind of preaching or with this kind of attitude. They prayed very much.
I was born and educated in Christianity. I studied in a Christian school established by Americans and directed by an American principal. A number of us brothers, including Brother Nee, knew Christianity and were educated by Christianity. The Lord caught us, and we began to investigate. Through much study we found that many of the things that we heard were superficial. Brother Nee took the lead to investigate the Bible teachings and to get into the depths of the Bible. He discovered that there were a lot of books written that were much deeper in their content than what we had heard. He began to buy many books, and we were all influenced by him to buy many books concerning church history and the truths of the Bible. Then we presented everything in our mother tongue of Chinese — what the missionaries called the “native dialect.” As a result, we uplifted the preaching with a higher kind of Bible interpretation, and we presented the higher and deeper truths. Then we expounded the Bible. This shocked many of the missionaries. They could not understand how native Chinese could expound the Bible in such a profound way. Some of them were convinced and turned to the way of the Lord’s recovery.
Because Western Christianity had become more than contented, this kind of situation forced the Lord to do a new thing. Every denomination was contented. Even nearly every missionary was contented. Not many were seeking. But the Lord sovereignly created a kind of environment to raise up some “natives” to begin a new period of time. It was really new. We began to see new things from the Word. Actually, this was just a new understanding of the old, even ancient Bible. Actually, this was nothing new. What we saw were old, ancient things already contained in the Bible, but to our view they were new. I am relating this to you because I am concerned that you younger ones, after picking up the crucial points and the bird’s-eye view of the chapters, the sections, the books, and the entire Bible, will become contented. Do not do this. All the things that we have presented to you in the ministry are just “openers.”
Even after I opened up some portions of the Word, I studied them further. I would like to illustrate to you what I mean, by sharing with you what I have seen from a further study of Isaiah 9:6. Many of you know that I have been speaking on this verse for over twenty years in America. I did some further study on this verse, and I believe that I have seen a better way to present it. I spoke quite much in the past that Isaiah 9:6 shows us that the Son is the Father. We also put out a number of publications containing this truth. After all these publications I began to realize that I must present the truth in Isaiah 9:6 in a very basic, biblical way. The very basic, biblical principle is to interpret any verse by taking care of the context of that chapter. Then you need to take care of, in a further way, the context of the entire book. This is still not adequate. It is finally necessary to take care of the context of the entire Bible. This is a basic word concerning the basic principle of interpreting the Bible, that is, that every word of the Bible needs the entire Bible to interpret it.
Isaiah 9:6 has become a great debatable verse mainly due to the Son being called the Father versus the traditional theology of the Trinity always remaining in three distinct and separate persons. The best theology says that the Trinity is three distinct persons, whereas the poor theology says that the Trinity is three distinct and separate persons. Traditional theology keeps the three persons in a distinction and separation. According to this theology, you should never say that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father and the Son is also the Spirit. If you say this, you will be immediately condemned as modalistic. Modalism, of course, is a serious heresy, and a serious condemnation is ascribed to it. In order to avoid being condemned as modalistic, no interpreter or teacher of the Bible would say that the Son, having been called the Father, is the Father. No one would dare to say this. Whoever would say this would be condemned.
We young brothers in China, however, were faithful to tell the truth, not caring for being condemned. I came to the United States and dared to tell people that the Son is the Father. Then the opposition was aroused, and some condemned me of being modalistic. Even some among us took the side of the opposition. They said that “Eternal Father” in Isaiah 9:6 is not an accurate translation, because in Hebrew Eternal is a noun. Therefore, the proper translation should be “the Father of eternity.” Based upon this they said that the Son is called the Father of eternity and that this does not mean that the Son is the Father in the Godhead of the Trinity. The Father of eternity to them is not the Father in the Godhead of the Trinity. This is another Father. They said that the Father of eternity is like George Washington being called the father of the United States or like Thomas Edison being called the father of electricity.
Many believe in this way because they need some refuge in order to remain in the traditional theology with an understanding of three distinct and separate persons. Many traditional theologians stay in this refuge of interpreting Isaiah 9:6 by saying that this verse does not refer to the Father in the Godhead but to the Father of eternity. Jesus as the Creator is surely the Father of eternity. It is quite reasonable to say that Christ as the Son of God was the Creator of everything. However, for the traditional Christian teachers to indicate that besides the Father in the Godhead there is another Father is a top heresy. This is the reason we put out a booklet titled What a Heresy — Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-giving Spirits, and Three Gods! This was published in a major California newspaper, but no one answered it. This was a challenge that defeated the traditional, theological interpretation concerning the Triune God. No one answered this article, because they could not answer. Many Christians are caught in the heresy of two divine Fathers, two life-giving Spirits, and three Gods. This is the unconscious, subconscious belief of today’s traditional theology.
By the Lord’s mercy I have been strong not only to preach but also to insist that we do not have two divine Fathers, two life-giving Spirits, and three Gods. We have only one God who is the Father, who is the Son, who is the Spirit, and who is the Triune God. This One is the Creator. This is our God as revealed in His holy Word. He is the Creator, He is the Father of eternity, and He is the Father of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named (Eph. 3:14-15). Paul in his preaching to the philosophical Greeks in Acts 17 told them that they were the race of God (vv. 28-29). Since God is the Creator, the Source, of all men, He is the Father of them all (Mal. 2:10) in a natural sense, not in the spiritual sense as He is the Father of all the believers (Gal. 4:6) who are regenerated by Him in their spirit (1 Pet. 1:3; John 3:5-6). Also, in James 1:17 we see that God is “the Father of lights.” Many Christians understand lights in this verse to mean spiritual lights or divine lights. However, lights here refers to the heavenly luminaries. The Father is the Creator, the Source, of these shining bodies. Our God is not only our Father who begot us with His divine life but also the Father of all the heavenly luminaries, such as the sun, the moon, the stars, and the planets. He is the Father of all the heavenly bodies since they all were created by Him. This does not mean that this Father who is the Creator of all things is not the Father in the Godhead but another Father. Isaiah 9:6 has been debated in such a way. Some say that the Father of eternity in this verse is not the Father in the Godhead. I have considered many times what the best way would be to present Isaiah 9:6 as a rebuttal to this interpretation. In order to do this we must be brought back to the basic principle of interpretation, that is, to take care of the context of the chapter, of the entire book, and of the entire Bible.
Based upon this, I did some further study of Isaiah 9:6 based upon the context of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah refers to God as Father two other times. Isaiah 63:16 says, “You are our Father, / Since Abraham does not know us, / And Israel does not acknowledge us. / You, Jehovah, are our Father; / Our Redeemer from eternity is Your name.” There are four main points in this verse: the Father, Jehovah, the Redeemer, and eternity. In this verse Isaiah says that God is not only the Son as in 9:6 but also Jehovah. Jehovah indicates that God is the triune One, the eternal One, the great I Am, the One who is and who was and who is coming. We must also have a further realization that Jehovah in the Old Testament equals Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Joshua (Num. 13:16), which means “Jehovah Savior” or “the salvation of Jehovah.” Hence, Jesus is not only a man but Jehovah and not only Jehovah but Jehovah becoming our salvation. This verse also tells us that Jehovah, who is our Father, is also our Redeemer. Generally speaking, God is our Redeemer, but strictly speaking, Christ is our Redeemer. Isaiah firstly tells us that God is our Father and that He is also Jehovah and our Redeemer. Therefore, this verse indicates that the Redeemer, Jesus Christ, is the Father of Israel. Actually, the Father of Israel is also the Father of eternity. This verse, however, does not stress the Father of eternity but the Father of the people of Israel. This Father is Jehovah, the Old Testament Jesus, and Jehovah is the Redeemer, and this name (our Redeemer) is from eternity. Isaiah 9:6 and 63:16 correspond to each other. If we are going to interpret Isaiah 9:6, we must come to Isaiah 63:16 in the same book.
In order to get a proper interpretation of Isaiah 9:6, we must also look at Isaiah 64:8: “Now, Jehovah, You are our Father; / We are the clay; and You, our Potter; / And all of us are the work of Your hand.” In this verse we see that Isaiah calls Jehovah “our Father.” In 63:16 He is also called by Isaiah “our Father” and “our Redeemer.” This name is from eternity. Isaiah speaks of God being our Father three times — in 9:6; 63:16; and 64:8. We must ask the question — are these three Fathers referring to one Father or to two Fathers? If you do not say that the Father in Isaiah 9:6 is the Father in the Godhead, then what about the Father in 63:16 and 64:8? Is the Father in these verses the Father in the Godhead? In Isaiah 9:6 the Son is called Eternal Father. To say that the eternal Father in this verse is not the Father in the Godhead is wrong based upon the context of the book of Isaiah. This interpretation cannot stand when we compare Isaiah 9:6 with the other two references to the Father in the same book of Isaiah.
There are also some other verses in the Old Testament that show that God is the Father of Israel. Deuteronomy 32:6 says, “Do you repay Jehovah with this, / Foolish and unwise people? / Is He not your Father who bought you? / Was it not He who made you and established you?” Moses told the children of Israel in this verse that Jehovah was their Father. The thought in the Old Testament is that God was always the Father of the children of Israel. Furthermore, Exodus 4:22-23 tells us that God sent Moses to see Pharaoh and tell him, “Thus says Jehovah, Israel is My son, My firstborn. And I said to you, Let My son go that he may serve Me.” Again we can see the thought in the Old Testament that God was the Father of Israel.
Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 that a child would be born to us and a Son given to us and that this Son would be called Eternal Father. The eternal Father is our Father and also the Father of the children of Israel. To say that the Father of eternity is not the Father in the Godhead is off and not according to the context of Isaiah and the rest of the Bible. This interpretation is like a foreign article wedged into the body of the Scriptures.
I want to show the young brothers how not to be contented merely with what you have learned from the footnotes of the Recovery Version and from the Life-study messages. For example, for a verse like Isaiah 9:6, I did not initially interpret it according to the basic principle of interpretation, which is to take care of the context of the book. You should go further to interpret this verse according to the context of the book of Isaiah. I am just illustrating to you that if you study the Bible in this way, you will see something further. I was not contented with my presentation of this verse, so I did some further study according to the context of the entire book of Isaiah, which tells us that Christ, the Messiah, was the Father of the children of Israel. Is not this Father also the Father in the Godhead? I hope we have all seen that the Father of Israel, unequivocally, is the Father in the Godhead.
Now we want to see something further concerning 2 Corinthians 3:17. Most of us have probably been contented with our interpretation of this verse. The traditional teachings avoid saying that Christ is the Spirit. They say that the Lord in 2 Corinthians 3:17 does not refer to Jesus Christ but that it is a general address referring to God. We have argued in the past that according to the context of this section, which starts at 2:12, the Lord here must refer to Christ the Lord (vv. 12, 14-15, 17; 3:3-4, 14, 16; 4:5). According to the context of 2 Corinthians 2 through 4, there is no other way to interpret 2 Corinthians 3:17 but to acknowledge that the Lord in this verse is Jesus Christ.
When I studied this verse further, I realized that it is in the functional sense that the Lord is the Spirit. In order to see that what is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is a matter of function, we must take care of the context of this verse. Darby indicates that verse 7 through verse 16 of chapter 3 is a parenthetical section. With this understanding as a basis, verse 17 is a direct continuation of verse 6, which ends with the phrase the Spirit gives life. Verse 6 tells us what kind of Spirit the Lord is. He is a life-giving Spirit. Life-giving is a function. Verse 17 also tells us that where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. Freedom refers to the work of freeing. Life-giving is a function, and freeing is also a function. Then the following verse, verse 18, tells us that “we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord Spirit.” In this verse we see the transforming function of the Spirit. These are the three main functions of the Spirit in chapter 3—life-giving, freeing, and transforming. In such functions Christ today is the Spirit.
This shows us that we should not be contented with the understanding that we have of the divine revelation. We must realize that the holy Word is not so simple. It is a big mine, which no one can exhaust. Even though I have presented something more concerning Isaiah 9:6 and 2 Corinthians 3:17, there is still more concerning these two verses. Who can say that he has exhausted any verse or any point in the Bible? The Bible is too profound.
I want to give you another illustration of how we should never be contented with what we have. In John 6:57 the Lord told us, “He who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me.” A few hymns in our hymnal tell us that “eating is the way.” We must ask ourselves what the eating way is. How do we eat Jesus? In my writings I have given you only a small amount of information on this subject. Because I did not give you an adequate definition of the way to eat Jesus, you must study this point. To fully understand this point you must take care of the entire context of John 6:57. In verse 63 the Lord said, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” This indicates that to eat Jesus is to receive Him into us as life. This corresponds with the principle of eating. Eating is to receive some organic nourishment into your being as your life. Eating is to take in the life supply. Some might say that it is heretical to say that people can eat Jesus. The Bible, however, says to eat Jesus.
We must realize that to eat Jesus is a figure of speech. It indicates that we need Jesus as our life supply; we must receive Him into us as our life supply just as we eat food. The Lord used bread to illustrate that He is the life supply by saying that He is the bread of life (v. 48). We eat bread by receiving it into our organic body, by digesting it into our blood, fibers, and tissue. Therefore, to eat Jesus is to receive Him into our being. He is the Spirit, and the Spirit is in the word, so we have to take His word by exercising our spirit. Then we receive the Spirit in the word. This is Jesus becoming our inner life supply. Here we could see the way to eat Jesus.
Chapter 6 of John also indicates the Lord’s death, that is, His being slain. Verse 54 tells us that His blood is drinkable and that His flesh is eatable. Here flesh and blood are mentioned separately. When blood is separate from flesh, it indicates death. This helps us further to see how to eat Jesus. To eat Jesus means to receive the crucified and resurrected Christ through His Word, by exercising our spirit to receive the life-giving Spirit as our life supply.
The way to carry out the vision is by taking care of the crucial points, by taking care of the outline, the bird’s-eye view, and by never being contented. Go on and on to further study and further seeking. I hope that you would do this work. Do not wait for me to do it.
