The introduction of leaven

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

It seems more and more like the model James and Paul and the others employed for organizing the assemblies was then-current synagogue practice.

When I read this sentence, I had one of those "Duh" questions that somehow I overlooked before. My previous take was that there was no explicit word from the Lord to appoint elders, to "organize", have synauds, etc; then any move in this direction is suspect, especially in view of the monstrosity that eventually was shown to all (the RCC and its various mutant offspring).

But why can't Paul & James et al organize assemblies along the the prevailing customs? Better yet, why shouldn't they? I mean, the Lord didn't forbid it, and here was this existing structure, ready to be appropriated. Peter & John also went into the synagogues and preached, right? So what should "organically" develop out of this was exactly what we saw. Why shouldn't Jerusalem be seen as the de facto "center" of the nascent movement? After Jerusalem is destroyed, circa 70 AD, Rome by dint of being the seat of political power gradually takes over as the seat of ecclesiastical control.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Pursue the answer to this question: Paul appointed elders. WHY? Wherever did Paul get the idea to go about organizing the believers in that fashion? When considered in tandem with Luke's account in Acts where "elders" refers alternately to the high-ranking in the Jewish religion and the leading ones among the believers, the indications seem to point to a continuum and a reform movement.

Of course, I don't mean for a second to say that those first apostles didn't see Jesus as the unique Messiah and the start of a new era. But the Messiah was foretold and expected within [the cultural domain of] Judaism. And I'm not familiar with Old Testament prophecies concerning the cessation of temple practice, much less synagogue practice, are you?

Yes, exactly. I am suddenly getting a massive recalibration of my brain circuits. I now realize my old shibboleth "organization" is not necessarily the underlying culprit here. Organization was a main vector which allowed degradation to take root, and to flourish, largely unchecked, despite what I see as warnings by the aged apostle John. But I am going to discard organization per se as the culprit. I think we can go deeper.

Regarding your question abot Paul appointing elders; well, Paul wanted "order in the church", and it seemed good to have some overseers who were proven trustworthy. Isn't this a big theme with Paul? Letters to Timothy, Titus, etc center around this theme. Like you said, this (eldership) might have been prevailing in the Jewish synagogues, so why shouldn't it work here as well? I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than a few like Diotrophes who "loved to be first" and tried to shunt the apostles' teaching; these "local cancers" needed to be nipped in the bud (so I surmise), and thus appointing elders seemed to be the logical and necessary extension of the gospel work.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Lee used the analogy of a chicken and an egg: when the chicken hatches, you don't need the old shell any more. I think that's probably right but I don't have the conviction that our spiritual ancestors necessarily saw that so clearly.

Your comments were very helpful. Thanks for writing. I will post my new thoughts shortly.