The introduction of leaven

[YP0534]

aron,

I've been pondering this issue off and on for awhile now. It seems more and more like the model James and Paul and the others employed for organizing the assemblies was then-current synagogue practice.

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 Judaism. And I'm not familiar with Old Testament prophecies concerning the cessation of temple practice, much less synagogue practice, are you?

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.

We were told to beware the leaven of the Pharisees.

Wasn't Paul one of those?

[UntoHim]

Excellent posts guys! I've always just assumed that the church and it's leadership was "modeled" after the Jewish synagogue.
I don't think it is unreasonable, however, to assume that there were a lot of things that the Lord Jesus taught the original apostles (+Paul) that did not make it word-for-word in the Bible.(in fact the Bible itself tells us exactly this) I have always assumed that many of the details of church leadership were among these things that never actually made it to the accepted text. Would it be a stretch to think that when Paul was apart from the other apostle (for many years right after he was saved) that God was giving him instructions regarding church leadership, along with so many of the other high and glorious revelations regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit?

I am very, very leery of questioning anything that seems to have been established by the scripture writing apostles. I am not saying that is what is happing here (I'm sure its not) but it can be a slippery slope if we're not careful.

Just as an aside (maybe not relevant) I think it should be noted that there has been just as much abuse of power and hierarchical nonsense perpetrated in the "house church" movement as anywhere else. Ironically this movement has, in some part, been lead by Gene Edwards who was once in the Local Church.

One thing that just popped into my pea brain was that the Lord Jesus was referred to as our "great High Priest" and the church is called "a kingdom of priests". Again, I'm just popping off here and not sure if this fits into the argument at all, but it does suggest that there is a connection there.

Good to hear from you both!

[OBW]

While I think that the parable of the leaven was to warn that added things tend to disappear into and become permanently part of the things they are added to, this topic is much deeper than just something about leaven. It plays into something broader concerning the church in general, and not just in the first century, but also today.

The changes, both positive and negative, that are happening or being proposed as the fight between conservative, liberal, evangelical, emerging (and emergent) thoughts collide, and the larger change from a philosophical base of modernity to one of postmodernity can be staggering. And anyone who simply says that we need to stay the course of conservative Evangelical "modern" thought is a fool. The problem isn't elders or no elders. It is not hierarchy or no hierarchy. It isn't modern or postmodern. It isn't megachurches or home churches. It isn't traditional worship v emerging worship. (That last one is really vague because "emerging" is as varied as the climatological environments present within the whole of Asia.)

Alan: Is this thread intended to simply explore the notion that the structure with elders and deacons might have been in error from the beginning? Or is there some other direction you would like to go?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I think that the parable of the leaven was to warn that added things tend to disappear into and become permanently part of the things they are added to, this topic is much deeper than just something about leaven. It plays into something broader concerning the church in general, and not just in the first century, but also today.

I may have gotten this thread off on the wrong foot by citing the parables in Matt 13 and Luke 13. I was aware of the differing interpretations of "leaven" in these 2 parables, and was just taking the Lee interpretation as my starting point. By so doing I introduced unnecesary conflict, and perhaps derailed it somewhat. OBW and Timotheist, my apologies for a less-than definitive lead-in. I would rather use the word "leaven" the general sense, without referring to those less-than-unequivocal parables.

I believe the Lord warned the disciples of a falling-away, post-resurrection, but I can't find it, and maybe I've confused it with Paul's word in Acts 20 about the "fierce wolves" coming into the flock. I'll keep looking. But for the meantime, please take Revelation 2 & 3 as the starting point. What caused all the problems in the seven assemblies? Is there one "root cause" we can single out? Or even two or three?

I say this because I am interested in solving puzzles, and this one has me intrigued. Also, I do it before you all because it seems to me that some appropriate context may help us as we continue to diagnose "l'affaire Lee" here and elsewhere. As I mentioned in another post, it's not like Lee showed up in a marvelous christian brotherhood/sisterhood, 1964 USA, and proceeded to ruin everything. No, "l'affaire Lee" is to me a symptom of a larger issue, and I want to know what it is.

I am not looking for a once-for-all, definitive answer. The truth as we experience it is unfolding. But I want to go forward and today my vehicle of inquiry is primarily being fueled by the epistles in Revelations 2 & 3, and the questions I see being raised there. If the Spirit is speaking one thing, or two or three things at most, what is it speaking to the churches in those two chapters, in those 7 epistles?

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem isn't elders or no elders. It is not hierarchy or no hierarchy. It isn't modern or postmodern. It isn't megachurches or home churches. It isn't traditional worship v emerging worship.

Agreed. I am rapidly moving away from my "anti-organizational" views. I think organizational structure, or lack thereof, is not the crux of the matter.

Originally Posted by OBW

Alan: Is this thread intended to simply explore the notion that the structure with elders and deacons might have been in error from the beginning? Or is there some other direction you would like to go?

See my response to "UntoHim" in my previous post, e.g. "But the varied issues with the seven churches have a common root (I am surmising), and I want to find out what it is. What caused the degradation?" I apologize if my initial, thread-starting post wasn't coherent enough.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by aron

I may have gotten this thread off on the wrong foot by citing the parables in Matt 13 and Luke 13. I was aware of the differing interpretations of "leaven" in these 2 parables, and was just taking the Lee interpretation as my starting point. By so doing I introduced unnecesary conflict, and perhaps derailed it somewhat. OBW and Timotheist, my apologies for a less-than definitive lead-in. I would rather use the word "leaven" the general sense, without referring to those less-than-unequivocal parables.

No need to apologize. I tried to answer your direct question with no intent of stirring up a conflict. Unfortunately there are those who seem to enjoy challenging what others post regardless of the intent.

I took a break from these forums because I tired of the argument-for-arguments-sake debates. Alas, I was only about three posts in to my return before it reared its head again.

This is my last post.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

No need to apologize. I tried to answer your direct question with no intent of stirring up a conflict. Unfortunately there are those who seem to enjoy challenging what others post regardless of the intent.

I took a break from these forums because I tired of the argument-for-arguments-sake debates. Alas, I was only about three posts in to my return before it reared its head again.

This is my last post.

Dear beloved Timotheist,

While you are, of course, fully free to follow the Lord as you are led by Him, I must say that I hate to hear that you have made your last post. :verysad:

I was actually enjoying the fellowship back and forth here, but I guess that is easy for me to say since I was not directly participating.

Have you considered opening a "blog" on the "blog" section of this forum? With a "blog" you can share whatever is on your heart, whenever you want. If you do start your own "blog", I know it would be a big blessing to the rest of us.

Whatever you decide to do, we love you in Christ, dear brother.

Much grace, peace, and love be with you, precious one.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by aron

I am not looking for a once-for-all, definitive answer. The truth as we experience it is unfolding. But I want to go forward and today my vehicle of inquiry is primarily being fueled by the epistles in Revelations 2 & 3, and the questions I see being raised there. If the Spirit is speaking one thing, or two or three things at most, what is it speaking to the churches in those two chapters, in those 7 epistles?

Hello dear brother aron, beloved in Christ,

At the present time I do not have any answers to your big questions, but I do have one insight to share. One item the Spirit is clearly speaking to the seven assemblies is the crucial need for repentance. If I remember correctly, the word "repent" appears eight times in these seven epistles. These eight mentions of the word "repent" are not spread evenly throughout all the epistles, but we should remember that all seven of the assemblies read the book of Revelation as a whole, i.e. each assemlby read the epistles spoken to the other assemblies.

While I am not touching on the root cause of the problem of degradation, repentance is surely a big, big, part of the solution!

Humbling ourselves before the Lord and admitting our faults and shortcomings to Him, especially on a corporate basis, is too important! How many times in Church history can we see examples of this? Not enough times! May our dear Lord be incredibly merciful and gracious to us regarding this matter.

[aron]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

At the present time I do not have any answers to your big questions, but I do have one insight to share. One item the Spirit is clearly speaking to the seven assemblies is the crucial need for repentance. If I remember correctly, the word "repent" appears eight times in these seven epistles.
While I am not touching on the root cause of the problem of degradation, repentance is surely a big, big, part of the solution!

Humbling ourselves before the Lord and admitting our faults and shortcomings to Him, especially on a corporate basis, is too important!

You are right on track. The idea of "repentance" being broadly applied to cover a host of woes afflicting the fellowships is exactly what I was looking for. I am looking for themes which might be applicable beyond those 7 assemblies.

As I said, if the seven assemblies in asia were merely "signs" meant to represent the seven "stages" of church experience through history, then that wouldn't help the Corinthians or the Antiochians, right? I think that John's letters were meant to have an immediate and broad application, what the Spirit was speaking to the churches, both in Asia and beyond. And one of the things was surely "repent". Another was "hold fast".

But I digress. Those words are therapeutic in nature, and I was first looking for diagnostic. What is the problem with the seven assemblies? And how does this relate to others, including the lc issue, and us today outside the lc fold?

Well, I got some help from Jude's epistle, and I wanted to share it here. Jude in verse 6 says that some angels "abandoned their appointed place"; they had a position and function set for them by God and they left it. I realized this was of course especially relevant to Satan, who had a high position but wanted the highest position, reserved for God alone. Satan left his place. So did Adam and Eve. God set bounds for their human experience, and they trespassed the boundaries, went where they shouldn't, and suffered great loss.

Now, this is directly applicable to the christian experience. We all have an allotted portion of the common faith. There is a strong warning not to overstep our boundaries. To me, a common thread of the problems evident in the asian assemblies was leaving God's boundaries, and going somewhere you don't belong. To me, the Satan's throne, the Jezebel's fornication, the Nicolaitans (lording it over others), the claiming of some to be apostles, etc are all "wofish" ambition manifesting itself in the kingdom of sheep.

The second problem is pride. Attaining something spiritually is dangerous, if you look at the attainment instead of christ. That's what Satan did. And in the LCs you have the constant self-promotion of the "rich ministry" of Witness Lee. The "we have laid hold" theme is pervasive there. This can be seen in boasting of one's attainments, and also in lukewarmness (thinking one has already laid hold).

So, my diagnosis is: 1) Ambition, masking unremoved fear; and 2) pride, masking hidden shame. Those 2 spiritual "viruses" leaven the collective experience of Christ, and its expression on earth.

They issue in: 1) Egypt, which is carnality, and 2) Babylon, which is religious confusion. And the mingling of the two is seen in a golden cup full of abominations (Rev. 17:4), and the incessant merchandising ("cargo of gold and silver and precious stone and pearls and fine linen..[etc]..and cargo of horses and chariots and slaves and souls of men" - Rev. 18:12,13).

That's the kind of universal themes I am looking for, and it certainly seems applicable to the case of the local churches of Lee. But I am really just thinking aloud here; I don't pretend to have the definitive diagnosis of the situation. I just think it's fun to publicly explore ideas, it seems everyone has a piece of the puzzle and we can collectively find out things that would stymie us individually. My thanks to all for the input.

p.s. I have found that faith and love are the cures for fear and shame. I certainly need more of both. Lord, that we would fix our eyes on You alone!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

While I am not touching on the root cause of the problem of degradation, repentance is surely a big, big, part of the solution!

Humbling ourselves before the Lord and admitting our faults and shortcomings to Him, especially on a corporate basis, is too important! How many times in Church history can we see examples of this? Not enough times! May our dear Lord be incredibly merciful and gracious to us regarding this matter.

KTS, I do hear what you're saying. You touched on a key word. Repentance is indeed a big part of the solution, but there needs to be humbling of oursleves. If a saint believes brothers so and so needs to repent, but not me, how can you or I expect anything can change? In a sense when there's no humility, there's no capacity to love beyond our natural measure.
This is why we need the Lord's grace, the Lord's mercy, and to seek the Lord's love. Whatever the factors of degradation may be, one that is missing is loving one another as the Lord has loved us.

Terry

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I've always just assumed that the church and it's leadership was "modeled" after the Jewish synagogue. I have always assumed that many of the details of church leadership were among these things that never actually made it to the accepted text. Would it be a stretch to think that when Paul was apart from the other apostle (for many years right after he was saved) that God was giving him instructions regarding church leadership, along with so many of the other high and glorious revelations regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit?

Good point. As I stated in my response to YP, it seems natural that a) if the Lord didn't explicitly forbid it and b) it was the prevailing practice among the observant ones, pre-Christ, then why shouldn't church leadership models which seemed proper be enacted? I am radically rethinking my longstanding issue with "organization" per se. I may have been completely missing the boat on this one. Thanks for your input.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am very, very leery of questioning anything that seems to have been established by the scripture writing apostles. I am not saying that is what is happing here (I'm sure its not) but it can be a slippery slope if we're not careful.

I understand completely. I raise this questioning thread based on the "epistles to the seven churches" in the second and third chapters of Revelation. It seems to me that something had happened to the fellowships between the day of pentecost and the day that John was instructed by the Lord to take a scroll and write down what he saw and send it to the seven churches. Something negative, corrupting; some degrading element had "leavened" the fellowships.

I take the opposite tack as Witness Lee; he says that they were identical positively (golden lampstands) but differed in negative aspects (lukewarmness, pride, deadness, sin, etc). I say the opposite: as a positive collective expression of Christ, these fellowships, like individuals, will have unique characteristics. God will give some to be strong on the truth, some to be strong in the gospel, some in shepherding, etc. I believe this pleases the Father, and the strengths of one can support the weaknesses of another in a free flow of fellowship among the differing assemblies.

But the varied issues with the seven churches have a common root (I am surmising), and I want to find out what it is. What caused the degradation? As I said before, I think this is a wider issue than the seven churches; in some way they are meant to be representative of the larger body, the "body of Christ", not only at that time, but going forward. There is a strong universalist streak in the book of Revelation, and it would be completely out of character (it seems to me) to insert seven private letters into this book like John did. Nee & Lee say that the seven churches represent the various "ages of the church"; I don't disagree but it goes much deeper than that. If that was merely a prediction about the various stages the body of christ would go through, it wouldn't have much sense for the immediate recipients would it? No, John is MUCH more practical than this. He has fish to fry, and he wants to fry them today, not when Nee or the Brethren show up to correctly interpret the signs.

If you have 4 patients in a hospital ward, and one of them has Karposi's Sarcoma, one of them has Hairy Leukoplatia, another has uncontrolled infections, another has Pneumonia, you may say they are all diversely afflicted. But if I tell you they all have AIDS, and it is manifesting itself differently, that makes sense, right? So I think that maybe some "virus" got into the fellowship of the believers, before the end of the writing of the Bible, and I want to know what it is.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

One thing that just popped into my pea brain was that the Lord Jesus was referred to as our "great High Priest" and the church is called "a kingdom of priests". Again, I'm just popping off here and not sure if this fits into the argument at all, but it does suggest that there is a connection there.

Well, the notion of "serving priests" would have different connotations to a Jewish believer AD 50, and a gentile believer today, wouldn't it? Point well raised.

[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.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

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,

I think it was perfectly natural for them to pick up synagogue practice and while it is not inherently wrong or evil I think it grew up into a large tree.

I think maybe the Lord did forbid it in that we are to wash the feet and that we are all brothers and that none is greater than the other and that none is rabbi or father.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I think it was perfectly natural for them to pick up synagogue practice and while it is not inherently wrong or evil I think it grew up into a large tree.

I think maybe the Lord did forbid it in that we are to wash the feet and that we are all brothers and that none is greater than the other and that none is rabbi or father.

Matthew Chapter 23:
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
4They tie up heavy burdens 3 (hard to carry) and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
5 All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
6 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
7 greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.'
8 As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
9Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
10 Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah.
11 The greatest among you must be your servant.
12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

There is certainly a "turning upside down" here in the teachings of Jesus, of the traditional "power structure" of both the religious Jews and of the Gentiles. But the "church" instead reverted to hierarchical arrangement already existant. And I think it did so to its detriment.

But, I am now thinking that a hierarchical "power" or "authority" structure, formalized into a human organization, meant to stand for a spiritual entity such as the "universal church" or the "body of christ", is not the real issue. The real issue is undealt-with ambition (fear) which manifests itself in distorted human relationships, and with pride (masking shame) which pushes God aside.

Jesus said that the drunkards and harlots were going into the kingdom before the religious Jews (Matt. 21:31. The sinners were closer to the kingdom because their sins were exposed. The religious ones were further away because their sins were hidden.

I think formalized structure is not the issue. But a structure can allow these issues to flourish, and eventually to dominate the collective expression.

Again, just thinking aloud here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I think it was perfectly natural for them[James & Paul] to pick up synagogue practice and while it is not inherently wrong or evil I think it grew up into a large tree.

I think maybe the Lord did forbid it in that we are to wash the feet and that we are all brothers and that none is greater than the other and that none is rabbi or father.

Think about it this way: Paul was a pharisee, persecuting the faith, when he got knocked down on the road to Damascus. Then he went off to Arabia or somewhere for what, 14 years? Then he stops by Jerusalem, then off to preach "where Christ is not yet known". So at what point, if ever, does he get exposed to the teachings that we now call "Matthew Chapter 23", etc?

In Arabia he surely had the Holy Spirit and revelation, and he also had what we'd call the OT (I imagine), but when, and to what degree, did he ever get Jesus' teachings like "the last shall be first, and the first, last", and "the greatest among you shall be the least"? And would(or should) these teachings have influenced his decision to copy synagogue practice, if that's indeed what he did, and appoint overseers of the church?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

when, and to what degree, did he ever get Jesus' teachings like "the last shall be first, and the first, last", and "the greatest among you shall be the least"? And would(or should) these teachings have influenced his decision to copy synagogue practice, if that's indeed what he did, and appoint overseers of the church?

Both two very excellent questions.

As to the first, I'd say perhaps not as much as we have.

As to the second, I'd say they should.


Both of these are just my opinion, however.

Paul's humility in being a servant and a slave and "less than the least of all saints" at least bears witness to his being in accord with that manner of life on some level.

Presumably Paul didn't consider appointment of elders as even slightly inconsistent with vying with each other in showing honor (Rom. 12:1-10).

At least, that is what we must conclude based upon the Biblical record.

It's times like these I feel we are a terrible disadvantage in not being able to state with certainty the chronology of the events after Pentecost.

And, yet again, there must be some reason that such record was not sovereignly preserved.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Presumably Paul didn't consider appointment of elders as even slightly inconsistent with vying with each other in showing honor (Rom. 12:1-10).

At least, that is what we must conclude based upon the Biblical record.

It's times like these I feel we are a terrible disadvantage in not being able to state with certainty the chronology of the events after Pentecost.

And, yet again, there must be some reason that such record was not sovereignly preserved.

Well, at the very least it can serve to humble us and make us aware that we don't have all the answers. So I look in places like Eusebius' "Church History", which seems to be a repository of genuine records. I look in the marginalia, such as Diotrophes wanting to be first (3 John 9-11), and refusing not only the counsel of the disciples, but also shunting them from the assembly! What a bother that must have been to the shepherds of the flock!

My point is that there are obviously issues related to maintaining order in any aggregation of folks, no matter how spiritual. And it seems only natural that you'd have the so-called "Episcopal Throne" in the Jerusalem Assembly being passed on to the "Desposyni", the blood relatives of the Lord. But that's kind of what bugs me, really, is it natural, or heavenly?

2 more ideas, one old, one new: First, I've mentioned before but would like to repeat in this context that John the apostle might have been at the forefront of the "organizational" push, post-resurrection, had not his brother been beheaded, and Peter captured, only to be miraculously released. John as one of the original "inner three" might have felt it wise to disappear.

Second, I once read a story about a man who runs a shelter for wolves. Some people think they can raise wolves, and wolf/dog hybrids, and the poor creatures often end up half dead in an animal shelter in Bergen, NJ or somewhere. Well, rather than euthenize them this man who lives up in the mountains has a large fenced area and he takes them in and cares for them.

He was relating the behavior of pack animals. He said, "When the leader dies, the whole clan sets up a howling for several days. Then, they pick the next leader and life goes on. But when one of the "zeta" males dies, they walk over his dead body like he never even existed."

I read that story and I immediately thought of the funeral service of Witness Lee. Or it could be the pope, or Ronald Reagan or any head of state. The alpha males of pack animals occupy a ceremonial spot of honor, which allows the orderly functioning of the whole social system. And the "zeta" males die just as they lived, which is ignored and unnoticed. But Jesus turned the whole system on its head: He went to the "Zeta" people; the man in the Gadarenes, chained to a rock, the woman at the well in Samaria, the blind beggars and cripples. Paul is on record as remembering the poor, and himself was arguably "the scum and offscouring of the world". But look at the bulk of his writings, the "pastoral epistles", such as Timothy and Titus. Paul is focused on "order in the church".

The system that was set up, post-Pentecost, reflected the wordly ways to a large degree, even as it struggled to follow the heavenly path.

And I believe that possibly John, sitting on Patmos, looked back and saw this emergent trend, and the Spirit told him to take a scroll and write down what he saw and send it to the assemblies, to Ephesus and Smyrna and Pergamos...

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

And I believe that possibly John, sitting on Patmos, looked back and saw this emergent trend, and the Spirit told him to take a scroll and write down what he saw and send it to the assemblies, to Ephesus and Smyrna and Pergamos...

In complete accord with my earlier speculations concerning why "all those in Asia" may have left Paul.

The Gentiles likely were never very kindly disposed towards the ways of the Jews, and not just with regard to the matter of circumcision upon which topic it is more than clear that Paul sided with them over against the Judaizers.

Hierarchy did not spring full grown from the throne of Constantine. The witnesses are much earlier than this, regardless of how you read "Nicolaitans."

Hierarchy is a creeping thing among those who bear some seeming preeminence or there is no explanation for the course of Christian history.

It was not possible then for interlopers to dominate any more than it is possible now for someone like me to walk up and lay claim to the legacy of Lee's ministry. Such a claim is surely laughable for those in the continuum.

Only those who appear as legitimate successors have a chance to uplift themselves and subjugate others.

It is critical that all the saints recognize this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Think about it this way: Paul was a pharisee, persecuting the faith, when he got knocked down on the road to Damascus. Then he went off to Arabia or somewhere for what, 14 years? Then he stops by Jerusalem, then off to preach "where Christ is not yet known". So at what point, if ever, does he get exposed to the teachings that we now call "Matthew Chapter 23", etc?

In Arabia he surely had the Holy Spirit and revelation, and he also had what we'd call the OT (I imagine), but when, and to what degree, did he ever get Jesus' teachings like "the last shall be first, and the first, last", and "the greatest among you shall be the least"? And would(or should) these teachings have influenced his decision to copy synagogue practice, if that's indeed what he did, and appoint overseers of the church?

I must admit that it is never stated. But in 1 Corinthians 11, he gives a fairly accurate rendition of the portions of the last Passover in which Jesus broke the bread and passed the wine. I'm fairly comfortable that Paul was not just "winging it" since the so-called "great commission" was mostly about obedience to Jesus commands and following and therefore a lack of knowledge of those commands would have been a disqualification from the very start.

So whether entirely alone and taught by God, or through a time receiving the accounts from someone(s), unnamed, who were there when Jesus spoke and acted as he did, Paul got it all. Why 14 years rather than just 3-1/2? Who knows. Maybe it is that even for a top brain with all the Jewish teachings that Paul had, not being there makes understanding more difficult. (Look at how unclear we are and we've been looking at this for more than 14 years in most cases.)

As for the use of synagogue practices, there is no way to presume that he got direct word from God or those unnamed persons that it was what God intended. We can only presume that with his writings about qualifications for elders achieving "Word of God" status as well as the mentions of appointing elders being recorded by Luke and mentioned by Paul, it is not simply some error even if not necessarily a requirement by God.

I also note that Jesus, while he did say strong things about the errors and teachings of the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc., never suggested that the temple leadership should not be. Further, he did his entire ministry in the form of a rabbi, even engaging in the kind of discussion and analysis of scripture that the rabbis of that time would do. He did say that we were not to revere a man for his position, such as "rabbi," but he did not say that the function of the position was invalid.

I don't know that any of this prescribes anything specific, but it makes me less inclined to oppose function like elders, and possibly even structures of positions, but to look instead at how those functions are being carried out. The problem may not be the function or position, but the person who is claiming the position. That is another can of worms when you begin to analyze how to deal with persons who have come to hold postion but should not.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

So whether entirely alone and taught by God, or through a time receiving the accounts from someone(s), unnamed, who were there when Jesus spoke and acted as he did, Paul got it all. .

very good point. I now remember that Luke, Paul's traveling companion, was a compendium of stories par excellence, so Paul must be presumed to have had unfettered and long-term access to all of the Master's teachings.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for the use of synagogue practices, there is no way to presume that he got direct word from God or those unnamed persons that it was what God intended. We can only presume that with his writings about qualifications for elders achieving "Word of God" status as well as the mentions of appointing elders being recorded by Luke and mentioned by Paul, it is not simply some error even if not necessarily a requirement by God..

True. I just raise my line of questioning because something bad seems to have happened to the fellowships by the "Revelation" of John, and I am casting my net broadly. Throwing a net and pulling in a fish are two different things. One may follow the other, but it doesn't necessarily, at least the first or second cast.

Originally Posted by OBW

I also note that Jesus, while he did say strong things about the errors and teachings of the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc., never suggested that the temple leadership should not be. Further, he did his entire ministry in the form of a rabbi, even engaging in the kind of discussion and analysis of scripture that the rabbis of that time would do. He did say that we were not to revere a man for his position, such as "rabbi," but he did not say that the function of the position was invalid..

Well, my reading is probably stronger than yours, but that may be a function of my personality.

Originally Posted by OBW

I don't know that any of this prescribes anything specific, but it makes me less inclined to oppose function like elders, and possibly even structures of positions, but to look instead at how those functions are being carried out. The problem may not be the function or position, but the person who is claiming the position. That is another can of worms when you begin to analyze how to deal with persons who have come to hold postion but should not.

Good points. As I mentioned earlier, I am recalibrating my positions vis-a-vis structured positions. I myself am rather inclined to "function" and let people hang whatever title they want to upon me, rather than be handed a square hole and told to fit myself in. But again, that may be disposition or culture rather than "truth". People from other cultures might be very uncomfortable in a group agglomeration unless someone starts assigning places.

But at the very least, I would suggest what Paul did doesn't have to be the template we all have to squirm into, a la "NCCL" of Nee.