Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Neither do they provide much support for Nee's model. There is enough grey area, however, to question the scriptural support for Nee's model. If we take a careful look at the New Testament and especially Revelations chapters 2-3, the most we can conclude is that the Bible is merely descriptive of the one-church-one-city model and not prescriptive in any way.
Concerning Acts 9.31, Nee based his model partly on the mis-translation in the KJV, "then had the churches." Perhaps the Textus Receptus is to blame here. Darby follows this rendering with "assemblies." All other contemporary translations use the singular "church." Nee's model would mandate the plural use however.
A parallel verse in Acts 16.5 does not use the singular "church" implying either that Luke (and his mentor Paul) did not actively distinguish the difference, or that the plural "churches" was used in the Gentile world when referring to small and isolated assemblies.
What do you think?
|
Sure, the New Testament describes rather than prescribes how the early church organised themselves. While there are no imperatives or commandments that say, "Thou shall be called the church in X", the identification of the church with its locality was the apostolic norm. The church fathers continued this tradition - a bishop in every city. The major primates were Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. Obviously there were many congregations in all these metropolitans all through history, yet the same bishop in each. This model was more or less followed up to the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion (Canterbury, York, London, Durham, and Winchester) continue to display vestiges of apostolic localism.
Thus, Nee's contribution to ecclesiology cannot be discounted offhand. Far less Scriptural evidence had been marshalled to advance other doctrines - even major ones. While not beyond reasonable doubt, one can argue in favour of Nee on balance of evidence - which is really how much of theology is done. So I'll still maintain that Nee had enough basis to promote Christian unity through localism but his implementation was way off. I doubt he knew what he was doing. Lee, who knew exactly what
he was doing, simply made it worse by subverting the original intention and consolidating power in his ministry.
Acts 9:31 vs Acts 16:5 is very unfortunate textually. I had to look up both the critical text and the textus receptus because these two verses were never in my radar all through seminary. Besides textual criticism is the most boring subject ever, so I'm doing it for you
For 16:5, both the textus receptus (e.g., TR1550) and the critical text (e.g., NA28) recorded ἐκκλησίαι (
ekklēsiai), which is to be translated as "churches" or "assemblies" or "congregations".
For 9:31, TR1550 recorded it as ἐκκλησίαι while the critical apparatus (NA28) favours ἐκκλησία (
ekklēsia, "church"). Thus, it's ἐκκλησία vs ἐκκλησίαι. Textually, it's really down to whether the ending iota was part of the original.
I'd skip the part of the critical apparatus that talks about which manuscript and minuscule support which reading but the conclusion is that the apparatus believes the singular "Church" is to be preferred. The theory is the scribes were influenced by 16:5. It explains that the context of 16:5 where Paul was delivering the Jerusalem Council's decision to the Gentile churches demands that the word must be plural and refers to the specific local churches that Paul visited. But since 9:31 serves as a summary statement of the spread of the gospel, the generic "church" (singular) is the most likely reading. "Churches", says the apparatus, is too specific for 9:31 especially since Luke didn't tell us about how the gospel reached back to Galilee.
I think Nee would be happy either way. If the original says "churches", he would claim that there are now many local churches throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. But if the original says "church", he would say that this refers to the universal church, which is of course what text critics claim to be Luke's intention.