Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534
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.
|
And I am wondering what John was upset about in the "Revelation". The epistles to the seven Asian assemblies make John's evaluation quite clear to me. But was the degradation connected to Paul's ministry? To James and the "throne" and the desposyni (the family of Jesus) in Jerusalem? To some combination thereof?
The only direct comment I can recollect John making towards James the brother of the Lord is his remark in chapter 7 of his gospel, that "not even his brothers believed into Him" (v.5). I consider this remark to be rather pointed; a shot from John directed at the "leadership" in Jerusalem who had had nothing to do with the man Jesus. To me, that's pretty big, and the later implications are clear. Ignorant leadership led the sheep astray.
And John certainly took a different "route" than Paul in following the Lord. No great organization-building efforts that I can see. But John left disciples such as Polycarp who were a bridge to later ones such as Irenaeus. John's "lineage" is intact. Paul's never survived, for all of his labor, which is really kind of striking when you think of it. Timothy left no mark. I have heard that one of the various Clements (there seem to be several) was associated with Paul to some degree, but that link doesn't seem strong to me.
Anyway, I am just thinking aloud here. Something happened in the fellowships of the believers which by AD 90 or so had the aged apostle John quite bothered. The assemblies were in some kind of bondage. A new Babylon was rising in their midst. Whether this was due to the efforts of James or Paul or something else I can't establish. John was one of the 12 who set up the "feeding committee" in Acts 6 (see v.2). He didn't want to serve tables either. So why is he excoriating the Nicolaitans 50 years later?