The introduction of leaven

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, my goal in the post was more in the line of asking questions to expand the thinking, or at least determine that the areas I mentioned had been considered. When I suggested that the appointment of deacons was being dismissed “out of hand” I was pointing at the fact that only a negative motive followed by more negative considerations were given.

The customary and positive views of eldership and apostleship have been explored to death.

Let me challenge you, then, as I essentially did once before.

Are you aware of anyone who has legitimately and yet still faithfully explored the possibility that the the "apostles and elders" made a number of mistakes in recorded scripture that have remained unexamined and unchecked yet solemnly repeated throughout recorded history?

Sure it's speculative on my part to consider such notions. I admit that readily. But it's not that I'm merely focused on negative perspective. Surely you don't think me that ignorant of, ok, well, not "orthodox" teachings but "mainstream" Christian doctrine?

My thesis is essentially that everyone has always just accepted that all this stuff was right and proper and good and wholesome. Well, what if that isn't necessarily the case? Can we learn something new by rejecting that consensus opinion which has been handed down through the dusty tomes of medieval hagiography?

I'm not at all sold on my own thesis at this point. You're right about that. But neither am I dissuaded a bit by reference to consensus opinion without more.

Maybe look at it this way: I'm trying to come to these things with fresher eyes. Pretend for a minute that I know nothing of Christ or of these "apostles" and don't have any opinions about any of that one way or another. Upon reading that the 12 selected the 7 to take care of the widows, is it POSSIBLE that I might not immediately be struck with the wisdom and propriety of that action?

I think a reasonable person would agree that there could potentially be a difference of opinion on that point in that context. (I know that people harshly criticize televangelists who don't "get their hands dirty," for instance.)

We're obviously working with a larger context than just a slice of the book of Acts, thankfully, and I don't reject the traditional views outright for the sake of doing so. Part of the reason for bringing such speculations into discussion here is so that others can bring in their portions of which I am not yet a beneficiary of. But it's really not an answer to say something is merely speculative when that is its entire reason in the first place.

God is a God of order. Check.
There's a hierarchy of angelic beings which was breached. Check.
The Lord chose 12 and then 70 and then 120. Check.
There are 24 elders and thrones in Revelation. Check.
There are different members of the Body and diverse gifts. Check.

But does any of that MANDATE an interpretation that Paul was justified in appointment of "elders" or that the apostles were justified in appointing the 7?

I don't think it does.

And could all of the above still be held true while saying that Paul and the other apostles erred in some fashion?

I think perhaps.

And this is the thing that interests me and I think aron on this line: it would help explain where the intractable problem of (ok, maybe not all but at least errant) hierarchy originated within the Body, innocently enough and with good intention, as we know must have been the case.

I'm not interested in throwing the 12 under the bus of my interpretation solely to explain why a bishop is considered over an elder by 120 AD. But I think it's something worth considering in a modern context where we're a lot more focused on the importance of the function of every member of the Body than they were in medieval Europe, at least.

I'm just not familiar with the Lord being very concerned in the gospels with things along the lines of the appointment of "deacons" and "elders" and such and I'd have to believe that if He had said things touching these topics it surely would be preserved. We know that it was an important thing to Paul to set up "elders" in every assembly. And all I'm saying,at the end of the day, is that maybe I'm not completely sold on the concept of such formal designations under at least one possible reading of the teachings of Jesus in the gospels.

But perhaps there are teachings of Jesus in the gospels that support such formal designations of which I am simply ignorant at this time. Perhaps there are clear Old Testament types which we might reasonably feel are persuasive that formal designations are as good and wholesome and helpful as is commonly assumed. Maybe there's something instructive I'm missing where Paul commends us to a formal designation that wasn't set up by himself (other than "apostle" which he claimed). "The elders designated by James" or something like that? What about the other NT authors? Does Peter or John ever suggest that we need to have the "elders" that Paul describes with such deliberateness? How about similar formal designations, even?

I don't know. I'm likely missing some important piece of the puzzle along these lines and I need the help. Hence the posting.

Grace to you.