[aron]

I have a sort of blanket "disclaimer and apology" here on a couple of fronts.

One, I apologize for my tone if I seem a little too glib, too casual. When I earlier wrote, "I now present my next witness, the apostle John" I was kind of mocking myself, because I am in no way an organized or trained or even careful theologian or scriptural presenter. I sense something in the Word of God which resonates both with my study of christian, even human history, and my experiences, both "human" as well as "spiritual" (these are arbitrary categories), and both in the local churches led by Witness Lee as well as those in what we in the LC's used to call "christianity", i.e. non-local church groupings of believers. I see a common theme emerging, and it may only be tangenitally connected to the subject at hand, "eldership", but to me it is a critical theme in christian history and the appointment and service of elders in the assembly is quite connected.

But I am not a trained, organized, or systematic thinker so I am more or less reduced to "thinking aloud" in my posts. Which makes for messy, wandering reading, I am sure.

Combine that with my sort of "breathless" style, that every fourth or fifth line I write is full of self-inflicted drama, and I find it very easy to caricaturize myself, which I did in introducing my ideas on the apostle John.

So I apologize if my loose, breezy style comes off as disrespectful to Paul, or John, or anyone of antiquity. We owe them much. We are grateful to the Lord for their lives and experiences and testimonies. And I apologize if my writing is inflicted with self-importance, as if I have laid hold of something. And I apologize if my writing is scattershot, meandering, long and disorganized. And I especially apologize if I am disrespectful to Mr. Lee, any of the leading ones in the "Recovery" or elsewhere, or any posters here. I can be self-absorbed and often don't consciously realize the effect I have on others.

That said, I feel that John does in fact have something to say about the assembling together of the believers. He writes often in a general tone, a universal tone, but it may well be applicable in specifics as in the elders appointed by Paul. So please bear with me, if you can.

John is an important witness to me because he was there at the beginning. I think it quite possible that he was the other disciple of John the Baptist, called by the seashore. Look at the callings recorded in the Gospels. There is John's account, with two John the B. disciples transferred to Jesus, one of them being Andrew, who then goes and gets Peter.

Then there is the Matthew/Mark version, which has them by the seashore, fishing and mending nets. Jesus calls them and they go. The boats are presented as being in close proximity. Probably they know each other, being in the same trade on the same pond. Then there is Luke, which has them listed as being "partners", if I remember correctly. John and James and Peter are partners. But Zebedee the father of the two is also somehow connected, and has other servants laboring there as well.

So they are all somehow connected before Jesus shows up and changes their lives forever. Then Peter and James and John become a somewhat delineated "inner ring" around Jesus, at least in some occasions. Peter takes the lead to declare Jesus the Christ, to get out of the boat and walk on the water, etc.

John and James break ranks, with their mother inquiring on their behalf, and the others are indignant, but no permanent damage seems to linger. John and Peter are seen together at the tomb, and early in the book of Acts.

John may be therefore "of" Peter in the parties forming in Corinth. Some are of Paul, some of Peter, some of Apollos, etc. John may be "under" Peter in one grouping of the new fellowship of believers.

But I see John as too independent for that. I doubt he was unwittingly dragged into his mother's scheme; he is lockstep with James in calling down fire, in being a "son of thunder". He is intimate with the high priest, enough so that not only can he go in and out of the high priest's house when Jesus is being tried, but he can bring in Peter with him, who remained outside. No, John is what they call a "player", he has connections and contacts. His experience with John the B. and with the high priests of the Jewish religion casts him as anything but a naiif wandering along, like some early Forrest Gump.

The universal perception was that Jesus was going to set up a kingdom on the earth. Death and resurrection was part of nobody's plan, except God's, and it was hidden to all until it sprang forth by torchlight and weapons and a kiss of betrayal (Of course Jesus knew what was happening, I am speaking of the followers). The statement made by the two walking on the road to Emmaus in Luke 22 is likely a universal sentiment. "We thought [Jesus] was going to be ruler in Israel..."

So there are two shocks which make John disappear, to become an invisible "nobody" in our written record. The first is the crucifixion. This was contrary to his and everyone's expectations. All their earthly and selfish dreams and hopes, tied up in this man Jesus, were running out onto the ground in His shed blood. And they expired when Jesus died. But John remained in the center of the drama. Jesus told him, from the cross, to take Mary into his, John's own home. John is there with Peter at the tomb after the resurrection, and he's next to Peter when Peter heals the cripple at the temple, early in the book of Acts.

But then Herod kills James, his brother, with the sword, and when Herod sees that it pleases the Jews, he grabs Peter. An angel busts Peter out of jail, and Peter has to go into hiding. So John, being ambitious, realizes Herod's methods (he sees himself, in a way; his ambitious alter ego wielding earthly, threat-based power), and he also disappears. John realizes it would behoove him not to be "somebody" in the christian ranks, but to be an anonymous nobody. My point is that James is dead, Peter was grabbed and nearly killed also, and a prudent John realizes he's probably "next".

I don't think John was a wilting lily, by any means. It just became dangerous for him to be "somebody". So he went underground. And the vision within him percolated, and eventually came out in his writings. But he did make disciples. Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, are listed by name. So John was there, laboring quietly, all along, but his labor offers a different "model" than that of Paul. It was not by his design, but necessity, expediency. But it was by God's design. And we should consider it when we talk about the "New Testament Model".

Thanks for bearing with me. Peace to all who read this.