Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Contrary to what many christians have asserted to me over the years, I think that the degradation of "the church" did not happened when Constantine got his vision of the cross, before the battle of Milvan bridge, and thenceforth assumed "headship" of the church. I believe the degradation of the church was well underway during the writing of the final NT chapters.
|
Concur.
You know, the issue here goes back to that very word once again.
"Universal Church."
Those who instinctively interpret that term as more-or-less institutional in its essential character are always going to look primarily towards indicia of institutional change, and surely the biggest one was Constantine's embrace.
The truth that "ekklesia" simply means "assembly" just goes in one ear and out the other.
What Constantine took control of was something that had obviously been developing for quite some time already and it was not merely the Body of Christ but a religious institution, most likely originating ultimately in the practices of the Jewish synagogues of the diaspora.
My study at this time is a consideration of the extent to which Paul himself may have been inadvertently responsible for that development, which issue may have been Witness Lee's single biggest blind spot. Lee always looked at Paul's recorded Jewish practices as momentary lapses rather than as part of a pattern of such practices maintained customarily by a Pharisee of Pharisees. I think it's fair to say without risk of serious contradiction that Paul's appreciation of God's love was necessarily inferior to that of Christ's own embodiment of same and comfortable institutions flowing from fundamentally legalistic concepts are far more likely to have been part of Paul's thinking than we have customarily attributed to him.
I recently read a message from the Life-Study of Matthew wherein Lee discussed at length "the new law" of the King. From a certain perspective, of course, that makes perfect sense, but I was struck this time with the very concept of "the new law" that Lee introduced there. (See the footnote on Matt. 5:23 for an example of the approach.)
Even in Jesus' statement concerning "the old law," He does not express it in terms of it being "Law" at all!
"You have heard that it was said..." is not a commandment being repeated! Why didn't Jesus say,
"The Law commands..." instead? While highlighting the need for His believers' behavior to be uplifted (even
perfect) is clearly the Lord's intention in the section, there is no "new law" being discussed here and the very inclination to find or discuss one is almost certainly the legacy of the ancient scholars of the law who were among the first of His disciples.