Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Think about it this way: Paul was a pharisee, persecuting the faith, when he got knocked down on the road to Damascus. Then he went off to Arabia or somewhere for what, 14 years? Then he stops by Jerusalem, then off to preach "where Christ is not yet known". So at what point, if ever, does he get exposed to the teachings that we now call "Matthew Chapter 23", etc?
In Arabia he surely had the Holy Spirit and revelation, and he also had what we'd call the OT (I imagine), but when, and to what degree, did he ever get Jesus' teachings like "the last shall be first, and the first, last", and "the greatest among you shall be the least"? And would(or should) these teachings have influenced his decision to copy synagogue practice, if that's indeed what he did, and appoint overseers of the church?
|
I must admit that it is never stated. But in 1 Corinthians 11, he gives a fairly accurate rendition of the portions of the last Passover in which Jesus broke the bread and passed the wine. I'm fairly comfortable that Paul was not just "winging it" since the so-called "great commission" was mostly about obedience to Jesus commands and following and therefore a lack of knowledge of those commands would have been a disqualification from the very start.
So whether entirely alone and taught by God, or through a time receiving the accounts from someone(s), unnamed, who were there when Jesus spoke and acted as he did, Paul got it all. Why 14 years rather than just 3-1/2? Who knows. Maybe it is that even for a top brain with all the Jewish teachings that Paul had, not being there makes understanding more difficult. (Look at how unclear we are and we've been looking at this for more than 14 years in most cases.)
As for the use of synagogue practices, there is no way to presume that he got direct word from God or those unnamed persons that it was what God intended. We can only presume that with his writings about qualifications for elders achieving "Word of God" status as well as the mentions of appointing elders being recorded by Luke and mentioned by Paul, it is not simply some error even if not necessarily a requirement by God.
I also note that Jesus, while he did say strong things about the errors and teachings of the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc., never suggested that the temple leadership should not be. Further, he did his entire ministry in the form of a rabbi, even engaging in the kind of discussion and analysis of scripture that the rabbis of that time would do. He did say that we were not to revere a man for his position, such as "rabbi," but he did not say that the function of the position was invalid.
I don't know that any of this prescribes anything specific, but it makes me less inclined to oppose function like elders, and possibly even structures of positions, but to look instead at how those functions are being carried out. The problem may not be the function or position, but the person who is claiming the position. That is another can of worms when you begin to analyze how to deal with persons who have come to hold postion but should not.