Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Paul was free to set up leadership in the new fellowships as he saw fit; we seem to be free to set up leadership, or not, as we see fit.
|
Well, let's look at something, here, shall we?
In 1 Tim., Paul told Timothy to remain in Ephesus to straighten some things out in that assembly, including with regard to overseership.
We also have the epistle to the saints in Ephesus, containing some of the highest revelations in the New Testament concerning Christ and His Body, which was squarely directed to Gentile believers (Eph. 2:11) who most likely would not have automatically conducted themselves in accordance with synagogue practices as some other places may have.
This we also know - at a certain point, according to 2 Tim. 1:15, all in Asia had left Paul.
Then, we come to Revelation 2 and, Lo! here's a letter to Ephesus! Among the things discussed there is that they have left their first love and that they hate the works of the Nicolaitans.
Maybe the brief letter to Ephesus in Revelation should be read together with the Pauline epistles to Ephesus and Timothy?
Maybe the Ephesians rejected too much else when they rejected hierarchy?
At this point, the evidence seems strong to me to say that the practice of a clerical hierarchy in the assemblies had Paul as its ultimate source, even though it seems pretty clearly unintentional given the entire New Testament context.
Here's a question that occurs to me: if Nicolatianism refers to a priestly class (I know some here do not agree but I'm referring to my KJV Criswell Study Bible today) and, more clearly, since the Lord in the gospels taught that we should call none "Teacher" or "Father" (which I don't think any can argue with), where is Paul's admonition along this line? Paul was clearly concerned with BAD leaders but where is the balancing word to say, for instance, as Witness Lee taught, that the elders are slaves and their wives are the wives of slaves? (Or perhaps some think Lee was wrong about that and the elders are to be like little kings?)
We can say definitively that clerical hierarchy was firmly established right at the close of the apostolic period and we can certainly say that the Lord Himself taught against such a thing. But the practice did not spring to life full grown - it had to have developed over some span of time and must have had some way to flourish against the Lord's own words.
Could Paul himself have been the source?
If he called Timothy "genuine child," did Timothy answer, "Yes, Father?"
I see several places where Paul's teachings are at least colorably the source of a clerical system. But to be fair to brother Paul, have I just missed the place where he spoke a balancing word against such a system or men who would set themselves up over others for titles of respect?
It seems likely that this would have been an issue somewhat quickly and in any event factually must have been since the clergy was a common practice so soon after Paul's time. Could this have somehow escaped Paul's notice entirely? If so, why might that have been?
The Lord be with your spirit this day!