[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Early on in Jerusalem even until ~AD50, John was still "reputed to be a pillar" by Paul, yet we have no record that he spoke at the council on circumcision. My impression has always been that John, over time, like Peter, became subdued by James and the zealots of the law. He was new to Jerusalem with all its traditions and trappings, having grown up in distant Galilee. John the Baptist, however, knew it all and forsook it all to go to the wilderness, but those from "up north" were still "in awe" of it all.

Then it was the destruction of Jerusalem which "recovered" John, who later served in Ephesus. The revelations returned. When initially called, he was perhaps the youngest, and thus saved by God to minister to the church after all the destruction and persecution of the period of ad 66-70. ... His ministry in the end became a "mending of nets" in the church, which had suffered dearly, and was transitioning from the "Ephesus" to the "Smyrna" model in church history.

I think I want to start a new thread on Peter/James/John & the first "assembly" around Jesus, and contrast that with the assemblies Paul was ministering to and trying to manage, some from a distance. Then, obviously, try to shed some light on the situation today.

There is a lot to say here, on the relations and relationships before Jesus, on the circumstances of the initial "call" to gather around Jesus, on the nascent subgroups within the new assembly, and the delineations of various services and special roles filled by people, and how that may have mutated into "offices" with bureaucrats and so on.

I am especially interested that John the Baptist came from a Jewish priestly family and "chucked it all", and made disciples of his own, before the fateful day that he said, "Behold, the lamb of God...", and they left John and followed Jesus. Combine that with the "Zebedee" John's being "...known to the high priest"(John 18:16). However, this new gathering of seeking ones around Jesus seemed quite new and fresh contrasted to the "offices" filled by Pharisees and Sadducees. And it is contrasted, I think, because up until John the B. and then Jesus the formal priestly "offices" was the status quo.

Then at the end of the Bible, John the aged apostle is "writing in tongues", quoting the OT profusely, saying that Jezebel and Balak and the throne of Satan are there, either within or threatening from without, among the gatherings of believers. So it seemed to me that "offices" had sprung up among them, with bureaucrats and political maneuverings and power structures a-borning.

But all this, I fear, may be distracting from a perfectly reasonable discussion Peter D. & YP & others may have been having about eldership, with the apostle Paul & his experiences in Acts, plus his epistles. I had interjected my point on John simply to say that the Titus/Timothy quotes of Paul on eldership were not the only thing germane to the discussion. But as usual, I make my points by going overboard.

So I apologize if I've been flooding this discussion with "spam" (unrelated)posts, and think there's enough useful material on the "pre-elder" days to start a new thread. Which I will do one of these days, when I get time. Ha-ha.