Peter and James and John

[aron]

I'd like to have a discussion on Peter and James and John. This is an offshoot of the discussion that Peter D. started on 'eldership'; I found my comments were more in a 'background' vein, not entirely unrelated but perhaps not in the central line of that topic. When you have to ignore someone else's comments to make your own, perhaps you are pushing at a different subject.

But I mention this to say that my subject of choice is definitely related, and flows out of that thread. I see Peter and James and John (& the other 9, as well, with a much larger retinue, obviously, crowded around 'the 12'), and the experiences they had with Jesus, changing into the post-resurrection experiences of the fellowship of the remaining disciples (from the 12, plus from the larger group) changing again in chapter 9 of Acts when Paul comes on the scene. From there Paul dominates a good chunk of the NT record, with epistles of Peter & James(the 'other' James) & John, etc, closing out the written record.

Much of the discussion of eldership is dominated by Paul's experiences in Acts, and his epistles (Titus, Timothy, etc). I have found the discussion to have unearthed some very interesting items (e.g. elderLY [i.e. more mature] saints versus appointed, official 'elders'). But I think it necessary to complement all this with a discussion of relations among the believers pre-Paul.

And I especially want to use Peter and James and John to home in on John, who remained post-Paul, and seemed to have a less than sanguine view (Rev. chaps. 2 & 3) of the various assemblies at the close of the apostolic age. As I said elsewhere, he writes "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things written in it, for the time is near" (Rev.1:3), so these letters to the seven Asian assemblies there were meant for all to read, to understand, and to keep.

In order to understand what he is saying, I think I need to understand more about John, where he is coming from. So I wanted to start at the beginning, with Peter and James and John. But I am doing this in the light of the 'eldership' thread; ultimately what I want to do is to hold up the record of these brothers in one hand, and hold up Paul in the other hand, and look back and forth, as it were.

[aron]

"And He came to the house and did not allow anyone to enter with Him, except Peter and John and James and the father of the child and the mother" Luke 8:51.

Why were Peter and John and James singled out here? Why were they the only three who accompanied the Lord onto the mountain where He was glorified? What "leadership qualities" did they posess which caused them to be selected, versus anyone else?

I see the followers of Jesus in various 'waves'; which undulated and overlapped, often, at the edges. The first 3 were the aforementioned Peter, James, John; then the other 9; then the ministering women, with some like Nicodemus and Cleopas and others named occasionally. There are the 70 sent out in Luke chapter 10. There are 120 in the upper room in Acts chapter 2, praying for ten days in one accord. There are thousands being fed miraculously. Jesus appeared to over 500 people at once (1 Cor 15:6) in His resurrection.

Each group is a representative example of the outlying groups. Peter and James and John are not better than others; they merely 'represent' the larger group. Like a "representative sample" in statistical surveys. Peter and James and John were representative of the larger 12, who in turn represented the larger 70 who stood in for 500 and so forth. Eventually Jesus can minister to everyone (Daniel 2:35 says the "stone" became a great mountain and "filled the whole earth"; Isaiah 9:7 says that "of the increase of His kingdom there shall be no end"), but He seems to like to work successively through increasing waves of disciples.

But why Peter and James and John? Why not Nathaniel and James and Matthew? I think a big clue is found in Luke 5:10. Peter is with James and John, fishing in the sea of Galilee. They hear Jesus; they see a miracle at His hand. Peter falls down before the Lord. The others follow Peter. They were inseparable to the degree that when you got one, you got all three.

My point is that there is a relationship there already. They were connected, and they remained connected. They were the "unbreakable nut" at the middle of the twelve.

There is a word here that I would like to introduce; I have seen it surface sporadically in christian conversation. It is called "relationship". I would like to contrast that with the "office" interpretation of religion, as in "eldership", and "bishop" and so forth. At the core of these three there was a relationship. I always see them together. In Mark 9:38 John says "We forbade others from functioning in Your name". Luke chapter 9 has James and John speaking in one voice, trying to call fire down from heaven. Contrast this from Thomas, who is always speaking alone. And John and Peter are often found together, as in the scene at the tomb, the fishing incident in John chapter 21 (John speaks, Peter leaps), and the healing of the crippled man in Acts chapter 3.

Relationships are expressions of love, or other feelings. John and James and Peter seem to have had strong enough feelings that they stuck together. They held on to each other, close enough so that the Lord chose them when He was still hidden from others.

Ohio says they may be related to one another. I myself have never heard that. But it does seem clear they are in a relationship when Jesus shows up. This relationship becomes, in a large part, the vehicle for their going on with Jesus.

Contrast this to the notion of "offices", with relations based on power.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Relationships are expressions of love, or other feelings. John and James and Peter seem to have had strong enough feelings that they stuck together. They held on to each other, close enough so that the Lord chose them when He was still hidden from others.

Ohio says they may be related to one another. I myself have never heard that. But it does seem clear they are in a relationship when Jesus shows up. This relationship becomes, in a large part, the vehicle for their going on with Jesus.

Contrast this to the notion of "offices", with relations based on power.

Wow.

I've never considered these factors this way although it's always been at the back of my mind that I wanted to know more about these factors. We can say Peter wasn't the first pope all day long but there does seem to be something different about his relationships both with the Lord and with the others, especially these two.

I've barely got time to read at the moment but, please continue, brother...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Ohio says they may be related to one another. I myself have never heard that. But it does seem clear they are in a relationship when Jesus shows up. This relationship becomes, in a large part, the vehicle for their going on with Jesus.

Here's my basis for commenting that Jesus was related to James and John, and had a family relationship with them before the gospel record begins:

Matt 27.56 lists Mary Magdalene, Mary (mother of James and Joseph -- the Lord's mother based on Matt 13.55), and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (clearly James and John, the leading disciples)

Mark 1540 and 16.1 list Mary Magdalene, Mary (mother of the younger James and Joses -- the Lord's mother), and Salome (we finally learn the name of the wife of Zebedee and the mother of the "sons of thunder")

Luke has no record of the sisters at the cross, but does include the message to the "daughters of Jerusalem"

John 19.25 lists His mother, His mother's sister, Mary (wife of Clopas, and not mentioned elsewhere), and Mary Magdalene

Here the author John lists his own mother as the Lord's mother's sister, hence John is the first cousin of Jesus.

Apparently, among the close cousins, James (son of Salome and Zebedee) was older in age than James (son of Mary and Joseph) so the former was referred to as James the elder, and the latter James "the younger." The elder James was slain by Herod in Acts 12.12, and the younger James became the leading elder in Jerusalem and authored the epistle by his name.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here's my basis for commenting that Jesus was related to James and John, and had a family relationship with them before the gospel record begins...

Sorry, Ohio, I had misread you earlier & thought you had meant that Peter & James & John were related.

"And there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother's sister and Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary the Magdalene." John 19:25

As YP says, "wow"... I never saw that. I need to recalibrate... thanks for the citation, Ohio.

Thank You Lord for your Word! Peace to all and have a great day.

[aron]

I have been entertaining the concept for some time now that John the "beloved" disciple was the other, unnamed disciple of John the Baptist in the scene in the fourth Gospel, where John the B. is standing with two of his disciples, and he sees Jesus walking and says "Behold! The Lamb of God!" (vv. 35-36). I have seen it written that "tradition holds" that it is John the disciple there with John the B. It stands up to reason:

--John doesn't mention himself by name in the gospel, and one of the disciples is not named, while the other (Andrew), is. Why is one not named? John is a careful writer.

--John and his brother James were business associates of Peter (Luke 5:10). Andrew, the other, named disciple, was Peter's brother; in fact he goes and gets Peter in verse 41. The connection thus favors John or James; I think John because of the next point.

--John's gospel seems to be all first-person, rather than a collection of stories from others (as Luke's gospel clearly is, for example). The preceding verses about John the Baptist certainly seem to be intimate first-hand reporting, which matches all the rest of the book.

--Many other disciples are named, so the process of elimination narrows it down. Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathaniel are all ruled out; they are delineated one by one as the narration proceeds. Of course, the disciple could have been one not of the twelve. It could have been Cleopas or someone else.

--But the fact that there are two, and they are spoken to by John the Baptizer, and then they speak to and go with Jesus ("and they stayed with Him that day" -- John 1:39), make me strongly predisposed to believe this was none other than John the "beloved" disciple.

Why is this relevant? Because John the Baptist came from a priestly family. His father was not at the outside court, but "inside the temple of the Lord, burning incense" (Luke 1:9). John was conversant with the ways of the religious Jews; when they came to him he addressed them as "Offspring of vipers" (Matt 3:7)...where did this antipathy come from, if not from some acquaintance? Sure, he was in the wilderness until his presentation to Israel, but he seems to have had some intimate first-hand experience with the Jewish religious crowd.

Secondly, the Baptizer (naturally) speaks in the OT vernacular. "A voice crying out in the wilderness..." His ostensible disciple, John, reverts to this mode in his apocalyptic opus, the "Revelation". Look at all the OT references in the final book of the Bible. The entire book is almost lifted verbatim from the OT prophets. Just as Saul/Paul was "trained at the feet of Gamaliel" (Acts 22:3), so I think it likely that John the disciple was trained in OT exegesis by John the B. This comes to the fore in "The Revelation".

Combine this with John 18:16, that "...the other disciple, the one known to the high priest" was clearly John the disciple, and you have someone able to perceive the in degradation of the christian fellowship a haunting echo of that of its predecessor, the (also God-given) system of Jewish worship.

John can see where the fellowship is heading. His "Revelation" is merely an extrapolation of the current trends in the assemblies.

This post, and thread, are meant to be adjuncts to the ongoing discussion in the "eldership" thread.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I have been entertaining the concept for some time now that John the "beloved" disciple was the other, unnamed disciple of John the Baptist (ch 1, vv. 35-36). I have seen it written that "tradition holds" that it is John the disciple there with John the B... [I am] strongly predisposed to believe this [second person] was none other than John the "beloved" disciple.

Why is this relevant? Because John the Baptist came from a priestly family. ...Secondly, the Baptizer (naturally) speaks in the OT vernacular. "A voice crying out in the wilderness..." His ostensible disciple, John, reverts to this mode in his apocalyptic opus, the "Revelation". Look at all the OT references in the final book of the Bible. The entire book is almost lifted verbatim from the OT prophets. Just as Saul/Paul was "trained at the feet of Gamaliel" (Acts 22:3), so I think it likely that John the disciple was trained in OT exegesis by John the B. This comes to the fore in "The Revelation".

I'd like to give an example for consideration. Look at the following 2 verses.

Ezekiel 47:12 "And on the banks on both sides of the river will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail; but they will bring forth new fruit every month, because the water for them flows out of the sanctuary. And their fruit shall be for food, and their leaves for healing."

Revelation 22:2 "And on this side and on that side of the river was the tree of life, producing twelve fruits, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations."

You have tree(s) growing on both banks of the river, you have new fruits each month, you have healing leaves from the tree(s). If this was college, I'd call it plagiarism. John has lifted his "vision" from the OT. Why?

Consider what was circulating among the assemblies at this time. You had the gospel records, obviously. John is aware of this, and acknowledges it in the end of his, the fourth, gospel(chap. 20, vv. 30,31 and chap. 21, v. 25).

You had epistles getting passed around, prominently among them Paul's. Paul was even promoting the practice. Colossians 4:16 has Paul telling them to send this epistle along to the Laodiceans, and likewise to read his Laodican epistle. I'm not sure if John was deliberately referencing this practice in his "seven epistles to the seven churches" in the second and third chapters of his Revelation, but I don't doubt it. He seems to be a very deliberate writer.

But mostly what you had being read in the assemblies of disciples was the "sacred scriptures", our current "Old Testament". You clearly had saints poring over these writings, looking for clues to the Messiah's life and works, especially "what comes next", as we humans are always wont to do (the famous "Berean" text of Acts 17:11 would do nicely here; "examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so").

My point is that the OT was largely the "currency of the realm", and John was playing to this in his Revelation. John was as well-versed in the scriptures as anyone, and he was playing from his strength. He was using the apocalyptic visions from Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets, and weaving them into a tapestry and sending it to the assemblies, saying to each of them, "He who has an ear to hear, let him hear..." just as the Master, Jesus had done, in speaking parables before the crowds (see Rev. chap. 2 vv.7,11,17,29 and chap. 3, vv. 6,13,22; for Jesus, see Matt. 11:15 etc).

This is because John is writing to an at-least-partly hostile crowd. The "shoe" of his Jezebel/Satan's throne/Nicolaitans/Balaam barbs probably fit quite uncomfortably on some of the readers, and not a few of them were "in charge" of the gatherings. So John sent them all a parable, a riddle, wrapped in OT vernacular, much of which would have been instantly recognizeable to the readers.

The solution to the "riddle", like all great truths, is quite simple. Behind the hundred pound burning hailstones and rivers of blood up to the knees are simple spiritual principles. "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy and keep the thngs written in it, for the time is near" (1:3). The spiritual principles in John's "Revelation" are simple, and therefore we can keep them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Much of the discussion of eldership is dominated by Paul's experiences in Acts, and his epistles (Titus, Timothy, etc)....But I think it necessary to complement all this with a discussion of relations among the believers pre-Paul.

And I especially want to use Peter and James and John to home in on John, who remained post-Paul, and seemed to have a less than sanguine view (Rev. chaps. 2 & 3) of the various assemblies at the close of the apostolic age...

John remains for me the bellwether, the best reference point for getting into the written record of the New Testament because he was there when Jesus arrived and he was there after Paul and James "the younger" had passed on. So his "Revelation" is worthy of our attention.

As I've mentioned earlier, John likely was the "other disciple" in the first chapter of the fourth gospel, who leaves John the Baptist and follows Jesus. John saw Jesus when he wasn't a media sensation. He was one of the original ones who wasn't drawn to the circus, but to the man. And he stuck with it even when it became a circus, even when it all came crashing down at Golgotha, and when the shattered believers regrouped and went on together.

Anyway, this post is simply to make the remark that John in the book of Revelation is very similar to Daniel in the OT. John was imprisoned on Patmos. Daniel was carried away to Babylon. Of course, Daniel wasn't the only "exile" record in the OT. Ezekiel got some of his visions by the banks of the river Chebar, and Jeremiah famously wept over the destruction of Jerusalem.

Nonetheless my subjective assessment is that the linkage with Daniel's experience is strongest. Daniel is writing to people in captivity, who have fallen away from the desire of God. They are in a strange land, and they are also worshipping strange things; things of man. They are far from where they once were. The king decreed that everyone not petition any other God but only the king (Darius) for 30 days. Daniel opened his window and prayed toward Jerusalem, as he did 3 times daily.

Now, how many other Jews got tossed for this violation? None. Only Daniel got busted. How many of the other Jews in Babylon continued praying toward Jerusalem? See the story in Daniel chapter 6.

My point is that not only were the Jews in Babylon, far from Jerusalem, but also they lost the practice of contacting God and following him. And they began to take up the ways of the locals. They became the "chosen people" in name only; no longer in deed.

Now, go to Revelation chapter 1, 2 and 3. Not only is John captive on Patmos, but he is writing to assemblies that have been captured by dark forces. He writes to them again and again: "repent". Only one of the seven is not urged to repent and turn back to God. And this is clearly an epistle meant to all the fellowships of believers, not just in Asia. "Blessed is he who reads the words of this prophecy and keeps the things in it..." (1:3).

John is in exile, placed on the island of Patmos. But he is only physically captured. Like Daniel, he is writing to a people whose souls have been led astray.

Look at the strong parallels in Revelation to Daniel. The apocalyptic visions, the "time, and times, and half a time" (Daniel 12:7), the decree that everyone must bear the mark of the beast and worship the beast or be killed, in Revelation chapter 13, which echoes Daniel's experience. Etc, etc.

These were letters written by people in captivity, written to their brethren who were also in captivity. 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. Watchman Nee's "The Normal Christian Church Life" is perhaps not so normal, after all.

[YP0534]

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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

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.

Even in Jesus' statement concerning "the old law," He does not express it in terms of it being "Law" at all... 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.

How quickly we can interject a "new law" into the text. Just supply a few words into the mouth of the King, and off we go.

Also re: the universal church. I was just listening to a song tape from the old days. We were singing about the "glorious church", and I recognized a lot of the songs inspired by exegeses Lee gave from Ephesians. I remember thinking as I listened, how we came full circle. First there was the RCC, where all the rank & file overlooked the egregious errors both in word and deed committed by the "church authorities". Then there was the Reformation & much subsequent splintering; group after group. This church and that church. After meeting one another, believers ask, "What church do you belong to?"

Then along comes Nee, trying to restore the "original church", supposedly ordained by God from the mouth of Jesus and the apostles. Now we overlook any shortcomings in word and deed of the leadership because, "It's the church". I know I did, right from the bat. Whenever I came across something which didn't square with the letter nor the spirit of the Bible, I would tell myself, "Well, it's the church."

Once I swallowed the "Universal Church" established here on earth and directed by men, it's amazing how much else my stomach could handle.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Once I swallowed the "Universal Church" established here on earth and directed by men, it's amazing how much else my stomach could handle.

You said a mouthful!

[aron]

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?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

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?

Well maybe think about this aloud: John's gospel is the most purely Greek of the bunch and it is markedly distinct in any number of ways. Why and how did that occur? And as you already noted, he was way outside of the mainstream at the close of the period. Surely that might give him perspective. I wouldn't hold being among them in Acts 6 as anything much because he may have seen the outcome of that very early organizational effort and felt differently later. Can you identify some statement which might reveal that?

But this is the thing that instantly interested me most in this context: he referred to himself four times as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." I think instinctively, we may tend to hear this as a boast about the special place that he had in the Lord's heart but consider his epistles and see if that reading really fits for you. Surely, brother John did not truly believe Jesus loved him more than all the others! And he never says "more" anyway.

So, if that's the case, how can we understand the repeated phrase about being loved? What else might he have meant to convey by the phrase? And is it possible that this is a clue?

I don't just want to raise the questions. My speculation, along the line of yours I believe, is that John was on a different line from the rest early on.

Maybe not read John as opposed to those brothers but as opposed to what came from their Jewish practice because of a more Greek connection of some kind?

This is interesting!

[OBW]

aron,

Why are we considering elevating certain scripture over other scripture? Besides the clear change in "agreement" between the OT and the NT, what is the scripture if not the telling of the story of God and of his dealings with man. Does any one writing/writer tell the whole story? No. Even if you look at the Pentateuch and presume that Moses wrote most of it, it clearly does not tell us everything, but tells us what it tells us.

When we get to the NT, Matthew, Mark and Luke tell the same story to a great extent, but with variation throughout. John told something else, covering little of what the other three did. Is any of them the whole story? Do you know the entirety of Jesus teaching by reading only John (or all four gospels, for that matter)? There is no charge to baptize without Matthew. And that charge also included a command to disciple (make followers) and to teach to obey. This is not found in John. But without John, we do not know about some of the more spiritual aspects of our relationship with Christ.

Then comes the telling of the start of the church. Acts gives a mostly historical account. While there are spiritual principles within it, it mostly gives the accounts of the "acts of the apostles." Paul came along and provided some insight into the things that came up within some of the churches. His discussion is often at a very different kind of level than had been seen in any other writings. Why? Not sure. But I would attribute it mainly to his higher education than virtually any contemporaries or of those who had gone before, coupled with the religious training and what he learned in his time in Arabia. But I do not find him to have been teaching things different to what had gone before, most notably the teachings of Jesus.

Then, when we read the other epistles, including those of Peter and John, I am not struck that any of them are at odds with any other. They generally do not talk about the same things, but they are in agreement where they do.

So when you consider that John was writing something different from the others, as YP called "on a different line from the rest early on," do we have reason to believe that it was superior? Lee would say so, and generally does. But is it rather than the entire revelation of the story of Jesus' time on earth and his direct teachings is not simply one or the other, but both? Do we need to know the truth that will set us free or keep to Jesus commands? And you answer "both" (which would be correct). How many commands are found in Matthew, Mark and Luke that are not found in John? Do we need them all and need to "hold to" (obey) them all to know the truth?

Last, you question John for instituting the deacons and then writing against the Nicolaitans. This question is based upon the presumption that Lee was correct to call the "deeds of the Nicolaitans" to be the clergy-laity system when that is not established as so, and is considered by much less than half of bible scholars to be the correct understanding of the label. I freely admit that the number of scholars is irrelevant as to what is true. But it does present a significant reason to consider the alternative understandings of the term (or name of a person who possibly lead people astray in a way entirely different from "clergy-laity"). To simply go on as if there is no question that "clergy-laity" is the meaning is not intellectually honest. And if the result of calling it "clergy-laity" is to cast such a significant cloud over John, then it would seem that reconsidering the meaning of Nicolaitan might be a reasonable thing.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Well maybe think about this aloud: John's gospel is the most purely Greek of the bunch and it is markedly distinct in any number of ways. Why and how did that occur?

Reviewing John's gospel account over a few days, a couple of things I've noticed.

Jhn 7:35 The Jews therefore said to one another, Where is he about to go that we shall not find him? Is he about to go to the dispersion among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?

Two things are found in this one verse. One is John's use of the phrase "The Jews". Now please take note that I am NOT stating that John uses the phrase "The Jews" solely as or even primarily as a condemning term. But if you review the other three gospel accounts regarding the use of this phrase you cannot detect even a hint of negativity. The most common usage elsewhere is simply in the phrase "King of the Jews." "The Jews" don't seem to be a problem. John, it seems to me, is possibly the likely root of much of the historical antisemitism that we've witnessed throughout Christian history on account of his use of this phrase.

Consider John 7:1, for instance:

Jhn 7:1 And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee, for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.

Not the elders, the rulers, the Pharisees. "The Jews."

The second thing is the musing about going to the Greek diaspora. Luke in Acts makes it clear that the initial 12 remained in Jerusalem after the persecutions intensified. It was Paul who apparently had to sell them on the topic of salvation beyond the children of Abraham. The idea of salvation coming to the whole world and not just the Jews is not unique to John, nor even to he and Paul alone. But as I noted above, John's gospel account is peculiarly Greek in character in a few ways and herein he seems to have intended to record a kind of prophetic speculation that he heard one day about "The Greeks."

Not just the diaspora among the Greeks. "The Greeks."

(On a side note, it is also interesting to see the reference to "the Dispersion" John uses, a term only used elsewhere in the NT by James and Peter.)


My main query at this point along these lines derives from John's use of the term "The Jews" at all. The implication is that he did not count himself among them and I find that quite odd and certainly adverse to the position of those who have speculated that the first believers saw themselves solely as a reform movement within Judaism. Perhaps it might be proposed that some felt that way, perhaps even Paul by some accounts, but I don't think that can be fairly said about John. John seems to be interested in something quite different.

Aside from his joint participation in the activities in Jerusalem (up until whatever point) and being among them in Acts 6, can you point to a single "Jewish" thing that John himself did after the resurrection?

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

...the thing that instantly interested me most in this context: he referred to himself four times as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." I think instinctively, we may tend to hear this as a boast about the special place that he had in the Lord's heart but consider his epistles and see if that reading really fits for you. Surely, brother John did not truly believe Jesus loved him more than all the others! And he never says "more" anyway.

So, if that's the case, how can we understand the repeated phrase about being loved? What else might he have meant to convey by the phrase? And is it possible that this is a clue?

I don't just want to raise the questions. My speculation, along the line of yours I believe, is that John was on a different line from the rest early on.

John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Was he loved more than the others? Not that we can tell. Then why the appelation? I surmise it may have been that John experienced and apprehended God's great love in the person of Jesus Christ, more than the others did. John wasn't frozen in some conceptual bondage; he was free to experience God's love through Jesus the man, instead of putting Him in some pre-arranged "Christ" slot.

After Jesus departed, John also realized this was the best -- perhaps the only-- way to serve the Master. Love one another. In this you are the true disciples. If we see this great truth we will perhaps be spared from wrangling with each other over "who is in charge", what date to celebrate Easter, etc.

But why didn't His younger brothers love Jesus? I and my brother idolized our older brother. He was by most accounts a ne'er do well, but we couldn't see any faults at all. Just the opposite.... maybe James & the rest were already "religious" and Jesus didn't fit their "Messiah" template. They certainly were rude to Him. John was thoughtful enough to provide us with the juicy details.

Yes, it is an amazing thing to break free from forms and traditions and man-created expectations, and just know, apprehend, appreciate, experience, that God loves us. God has so much love for us! And God loves all these "unlovable" people around us. Unlovely, unlovable, unloving, but very, very loved by God. Don't you to some degree feel this was John's burden in writing? Once you start to see the pattern in his writings it really shines through.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

My speculation, along the line of yours I believe, is that John was on a different line from the rest early on.

Maybe not read John as opposed to those brothers but as opposed to what came from their Jewish practice because of a more Greek connection of some kind?

Well, my reading is that John was ambitious for power early on. He knew the high priest. He was a disciple of John the Baptist, who had enough power to take on the whole priestly class (a "brood of vipers"), counsel soldiers, and rebuke Herod.

But John's desire for power perhaps cloaked insecurity. I am not sure if that is the case, but for some reason, in the Gospels John seems power-focused even more than the others. He wanted the "right hand" of God kind of power. He wanted to call down fire on those who couldn't get with "the plan".

Instead, he got a front row seat to watch John the Baptist get beheaded, then his own brother, then Peter escape - barely - the same fate. Peter had guards chained to either side of him the night he escaped. The next day he would have been dead.

So John prudently "fell into the earth & died"; he disappeared. He didn't go around making a big fuss in the fellowship. He kept on being a disciple of Jesus, but he disappeared. Later, when he resurfaced, all the other stuff had leached out of him, and what was left was the power (to resist evil), the glory (the memory of seeing Jesus on the mountain (see John 1:14), and the love. God loves us, more than we can imagine, and John realized this and grew a burden to communicate this.

[aron]

I know some might accuse me of taking minor points, which are context-sensitive, and making grand sweeping generalizations from them. I often need such adjustment; they are probably mostly right in this regard. Nonetheless I still look at portions of scripture and wonder what it means for us today.

Take, for example, Paul's characterization of his commission, and ministry, in Galatians chapters 1 & 2. Paul didn't receive his gospel from men, nor the counsel of men. Nor was he taught by men, but received revelation from Jesus Christ (1:11, 12).

Now, why would Paul make such a fuss about this? Why is it noteworthy? I think because he sets the source of his ministry independent from the others. His view and experience is not dependent upon the view, nor experience of others. Eventually, he did go and get fellowship from others, and got the "right hand of fellowship" (2:2,9). But this was the apostles recognizing him as a peer, not as their disciple.

This is significant as a contrast to Apollos for example, in Acts 18. Apollos needed to get his vision under the vision of the ones before him. Paul didn't.

Today, should we be Apollos, and go up to Jerusalem to get our vision adjusted by the leading ones? Or should we be Paul, and not go up to those who were apostles before us, but rather go to our own versions of "the regions of Syria and Cilicia" (Gal 1:21)? I think if Paul had gone straight up to the Headquarters in Jerusalem, and reported to James or Peter, then his ministry wouldn't have amounted to very much. Since he would have "owed" James & Peter, he wouldn't have been able to stand up to Peter (Gal. 2:12)when some came from James, who were zealous for the law. Paul was connected, but not dependent, not subservient.

We should likewise not be subservient to Paul. Nor to Peter nor James, nor to Witness Lee, nor to Dong Yu Lan, nor to Titus Chu, nor to Benjamin Chen, nor to James Reetzke, nor to Ed Marks, nor to Benson Philips, nor to Ron Kangas, nor to James Lee, nor to anyone. We are their peers. We both give and expect to receive the right hand of fellowship from them and from all christians. But we look to Jesus Christ for our revelation, and not to any of His servants. In this we can be "like Paul". We don't have to read this week's HWMR. Paul didn't read his "daily bread" from James nor Peter nor John; yet he still believed that he, Paul, spoke with the same voice as they did. Paul said, "Am I not free?" (1 Cor. 9:1). We can "imitate" this apostle in also being free.

Peter's testimony is a great confirmation of this. The leading ones are to lead by example, and no more (1 Peter 5:3). If we are wise we will recognize and follow such good examples. But if they are unwise and go beyond their heavenly mandate and attempt to lord it over the ones of the faith, we would be wise not to follow their example.

[aron]

A previous thought on Witness Lee being presented in the LC as "today's Paul":

Originally Posted by aron

. . .in Galatians chapters 1 & 2, Paul said that didn't receive his gospel from men, nor the counsel of men, nor was he taught by men, but received revelation from Jesus Christ (1:11, 12).

Now, why would Paul make such a fuss about this? Why is it noteworthy? I think because he sets the source of his ministry independent from the others. His view and experience is not dependent upon the view, nor experience of others. Eventually, he did go and get fellowship from others, and got the "right hand of fellowship" (2:2,9). But this was the apostles recognizing him as a peer, not as their disciple.

This is significant as a contrast to Apollos for example, in Acts 18. Apollos needed to get his vision under the vision of the ones before him. Paul didn't.

Today, should we be Apollos, and go up to Jerusalem to get our vision adjusted by the leading ones? Or should we be Paul, and not go up to those who were apostles before us, but rather go to our own versions of "the regions of Syria and Cilicia" (Gal 1:21)? I think if Paul had gone straight up to the Headquarters in Jerusalem, and reported to James or Peter, then his ministry wouldn't have amounted to very much. Since he would have "owed" James & Peter, he wouldn't have been able to stand up to Peter (Gal. 2:12)when some came from James, who were zealous for the law. Paul was connected, but not dependent, not subservient.

We should likewise not be subservient to Paul. Nor to Peter nor James, nor to Witness Lee, nor to Dong Yu Lan, nor to Titus Chu, nor to Benjamin Chen, nor to James Reetzke, nor to Ed Marks, nor to Benson Philips, nor to Ron Kangas, nor to James Lee, nor to anyone. We are their peers. We both give and expect to receive the right hand of fellowship from them (and all Christians). But we look to Jesus Christ for our revelation, and not to any of His servants. In this we can be "like Paul". . .

How could Witness Lee be "today's Paul" if Paul didn't go to Jerusalem and get discipled by James or John or Peter? Lee received his training, or revelation, from Nee. So how could Lee be "today's Paul"? The way to follow Paul is not to go up to Jerusalem for FTT, but to go to Arabia. Paul said, "Am I not free?" Shouldn't we also ask this question?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

A previous thought on Witness Lee being presented in the LC as "today's Paul":



How could Witness Lee be "today's Paul" if Paul didn't go to Jerusalem and get discipled by James or John or Peter? Lee received his training, or revelation, from Nee. So how could Lee be "today's Paul"? The way to follow Paul is not to go up to Jerusalem for FTT, but to go to Arabia. Paul said, "Am I not free?" Shouldn't we also ask this question?

Back in 1978 ish, the elders in my locality began stressing and 'stressing me out' with their emphasis on Lee being Paul. It got to the point, I did not want to read or hear anything about PAUL!!! What happened to Christ and the church? It turned into Lee and the church.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

I know some might accuse me of taking minor points, which are context-sensitive, and making grand sweeping generalizations from them. I often need such adjustment; they are probably mostly right in this regard. Nonetheless I still look at portions of scripture and wonder what it means for us today.

Take, for example, Paul's characterization of his commission, and ministry, in Galatians chapters 1 & 2. Paul didn't receive his gospel from men, nor the counsel of men. Nor was he taught by men, but received revelation from Jesus Christ (1:11, 12).

Now, why would Paul make such a fuss about this? Why is it noteworthy? I think because he sets the source of his ministry independent from the others. His view and experience is not dependent upon the view, nor experience of others. Eventually, he did go and get fellowship from others, and got the "right hand of fellowship" (2:2,9). But this was the apostles recognizing him as a peer, not as their disciple.

This is significant as a contrast to Apollos for example, in Acts 18. Apollos needed to get his vision under the vision of the ones before him. Paul didn't.


Paul was connected, but not dependent, not subservient.

we look to Jesus Christ for our revelation, and not to any of His servants.

Great stuff here Aron!

I have been reading and studying up on Paul. I am understanding him and his writings a lot better these days. He indeed received his revelation on the Messiah, the Holy Spirit, Who God is, how God spoke many times and in various, different ways to our ancestors, the fathers, through the prophets. Yet in these last days God has spoken to us through His Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things,

Paul was the Jew of jews and the Pharisee of pharisees. All of Jesus' disciples were Jews but God plucked Paul out and stripped him of his religious background. What a job he was assigned. He understood God spoke and dealt with the Jews in the OT through prophets, judges, the LAW at different times in many ways. He dealt with Adam/Eve differently than He did with Noah, with Abraham and then still differently with Moses and the prophets.

With the advent of Jesus, His ministry, His death, His resurrection, Paul now realized God was dealing with His people, both converted Jews and gentiles (the one new man) through Jesus and His Holy Spirit. Paul knew exactly what he was saying in Hebrews 1.

And YES.. Paul was a peer to his fellow apostles. He was connected, but not dependent, not subservient.

I have often had a thought that as true believers, we need mentors and teachers when we are young in the Lord. But as we mature, we are peers to one another responsible to mentor and disciple the younger ones in Christ, so when they mature, they too become mentors to the young believers... no easy task for sure!!

And while we look to Jesus Christ for our revelation, The Spirit of God often confirms our revelation through the Living but written Word as well as our spirit and our peers!

Muchos blessings to all!