Quote:
Originally Posted by Toledo
Nobody in the scriptures opposed "the old Hebrew artifacts among us" more than the apostle Paul. He was persecuted because he refused to preach circumcision. He confronted Cephas with regard to separating from the Gentiles and the holy diet. He wrote that it was up to the individual believer to keep the Sabbath or not.
Yet he appointed elders in every church, and advised Titus to appoint elders in every city. On his way to Jerusalem that last time, he called for the elders of the church to meet with him. He wrote regarding the eldership in the books of Timothy and Titus.
You can make a fair point that the eldership has been abused in the local churches, among the Roman Catholics, and elsewhere. However, in the light of the scriptures, to claim that the New Testament eldership is simply another "old Hebrew artifact" seems more than frivolous.
|
Toledo:
I just want to make a quick distinction here:
Paul vigorously opposed those "old Hebrew artifacts" which were insidious and undermining of the gospel. It very well could be the case that the Jewish practice of the "eldership" was, in fact, simply inherented by the early church, but was a fairly
innocuous practice. If such were the case, it would not be incongruous that the practice was still "an old Hebrew artifact" and Paul nevertheless did not oppose it.
Refusing to eat meat of strangled animals was "an old Hebrew artifact," and yet Paul did not seem to take its presence in the early church as something to oppose in Acts 15. Just because Paul didn't oppose it, or even perpetuated it, does not mean it isn't neverthelss
descriptive and not
universally prescriptive.
Does that make sense?
Peter