Asia Leaving Paul

[YP0534]

I posted the kernel of this elsewhere, which I somewhat regret doing, but it started here, really, so I'm bringing it on back home.

I took the opportunity to express my recent realization that Paul's contradictory practice of Judaism while among the Jews (Acts 21:17-30) and well-known teachings against such practices, at least while among Gentiles (Gal. 2:12-20), is almost certainly what led to his abandonment by the Asian assemblies (2 Tim. 1:15) who were the primary witnesses to his hypocrisy. I think it is significant that the assemblies in Asia are the ones addressed in Revelation. I don't think it's a coincidence that Paul charged Timothy with teachings that establish hierarchy in the assemblies (1 Tim. 2:11-12, 3:1, 3:12) while the letter to Ephesus praises that assembly for hating the works of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6).

[UntoHim]

Interesting thought about the churches in Asia. Is this an original idea of yours or did you come to this conclusion through the writings of others? Could you possibly point me to any of the writings of the early church fathers/scholars who may have had similar thoughts regarding this? I don't agree with your assumption/conclusions, but knowing you it is well thought out and you will develop this as we go along.

I can see you are going to link this up with the "establishment of hierarchy in the assemblies". As I see it, there is a huge gulf between the establishment of proper leadership and order in new chruchers and "the works of the Nicolaitans". If I remember correctly you do not recognize the "office" (for lack of better word) of Elder. I assume you follow the school of thought that the office/function of apostleship ended with the death of the original scripture writing apostles? If so, how do the "gifts" to the body of Christ fit into your view. If getting into all this gets too far away from the thread here just feel free to skip it and go right ahead with your main points.

This could be an excellent thread, especially if we can tie it into what has taken place in the Local Church/ministries of Nee & Lee at some point.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I posted the kernel of this elsewhere, which I somewhat regret doing, but it started here, really, so I'm bringing it on back home.

I took the opportunity to express my recent realization that Paul's contradictory practice of Judaism while among the Jews (Acts 21:17-30) and well-known teachings against such practices, at least while among Gentiles (Gal. 2:12-20), is almost certainly what led to his abandonment by the Asian assemblies (2 Tim. 1:15) who were the primary witnesses to his hypocrisy. I think it is significant that the assemblies in Asia are the ones addressed in Revelation. I don't think it's a coincidence that Paul charged Timothy with teachings that establish hierarchy in the assemblies (1 Tim. 2:11-12, 3:1, 3:12) while the letter to Ephesus praises that assembly for hating the works of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6).

Greetings YPO534,

For many decades I had the opinion that Paul’s actions in Jerusalem regarding the four brothers who had taken the Nazirite Vow had damaged his relationship with the churches in the Asia region. Paul had rebuked Peter to his face in Galatia and gave a stern warning to the Ephesian elders regarding the whole council of God. It is only logical that they would have a negative reaction to an apostle who had been loose with the truth of the gospel.

Note that in Revelation chapter two we see the church in Ephesus was commended for trying the apostles. It was not the other way around. I suppose that a church could quarantine an apostle but not the other way around.

While the letters to Timothy and Titus have been used by some Christians over the centuries to develop a hierarchy, I do not believe that was the intent. Thus I have not included them in the issue of Asia turning away from Paul. Rather, the turning away from Paul, I have taken to be a subtle warning to extra local ministering brothers.

I would like to in the future pursue your issues with the universal church. In my reading of the New Testament I see no administration or practicality of the Universal Church. We see local church assemblies and the headship of Christ expressed locally. We see churches in a universal sense but never a single administered universal entity. The New Testament stresses “the churches” never “the church universal” as a practical administrative unit.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to become a true disciple.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Hope

Greetings YPO534,

For many decades I had the opinion that Paul’s actions in Jerusalem regarding the four brothers who had taken the Nazirite Vow had damaged his relationship with the churches in the Asia region. Paul had rebuked Peter to his face in Galatia and gave a stern warning to the Ephesian elders regarding the whole council of God. It is only logical that they would have a negative reaction to an apostle who had been loose with the truth of the gospel.

Was he loose with the truth or was he acting out his practice of all things to all men? Or is there a distinction?

Note that in Revelation chapter two we see the church in Ephesus was commended for trying the apostles. It was not the other way around. I suppose that a church could quarantine an apostle but not the other way around.

Well, he would be subject to his own discipline in Rom. 16:17 - he instructed the saints to mark and turn away from not only those who make divisions but also those wo make causes of stumbling contrary to the teaching they recieved. They managed to get past the circumcision issue without catastrophe but Jewish religious practices were far more pervasive than that one item of the old covenant.

While the letters to Timothy and Titus have been used by some Christians over the centuries to develop a hierarchy, I do not believe that was the intent. Thus I have not included them in the issue of Asia turning away from Paul. Rather, the turning away from Paul, I have taken to be a subtle warning to extra local ministering brothers.

You are too kind to our Christian brethren, Hope. The pastoral epistles have not been used merely by some to develop a hierarchy. Rather, they have been used by ALL to MAINTAIN the ancient hierarchy. Each successive generation of elders, formally or informally, drew its knowledge and practice concerning "eldership" from the traditions they received. None that I am aware of has completely rejected that practice only to have it purely rebuilt by the Lord alone. Regardless, the kernels of hierarchy are there in those books and, as I've complained about previously, there is no corresponding balancing word to limit hierarchy from developing. My takeaway is Paul's innocent desire to set some up over others for their own good without sufficient insight into the long term consequences of doing so.

The Lord taught "call no man Father" yet we see Paul calling Timothy his "genuine child" (1 Tim. 1:2). I'm suspicious of that. In what way is it helpful to Timothy or to us, the epistle's eventual recipients, that Paul called Timothy "genuine child"? Was Timothy born of the Spirit or of Paul? Should Timothy refer to Paul as his "genuine father"? How could the Roman Catholics ever come to call their ministers "Father" when such a matter is expressly forbidden by the Lord's own words (Matt. 23:9)? I submit it may be the natural consequence of someone being a "genuine child."

I would like to in the future pursue your issues with the universal church. In my reading of the New Testament I see no administration or practicality of the Universal Church. We see local church assemblies and the headship of Christ expressed locally. We see churches in a universal sense but never a single administered universal entity. The New Testament stresses “the churches” never “the church universal” as a practical administrative unit.

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to become a true disciple.

Hope, here's how that fits here for me: Paul appointed elders in all the assemblies he set up and that was an act of the apostle in relation to the Universal Church. He brought the compromise document from Jerusalem to every church and that was an act of the apostle in relation to the Universal Church. He directed that his letters be read universally. He permitted the women to speak in no locality. To the extent that Paul exercised his kind of teaching authority to control the assemblies, that look like administering a universal entity.

My disagreement with Paul concerning those matters leads me to conclude that the apostle's function must be limited by the reality of the Body expressed in a sending assembly. The silencing of the sisters, for instance, does not build the Body nor the assembly but it does strengthen the Universal Church power. To reject Universal Church, on the other hand, places the functioning of the individual members on equal footing with each other. Paul ministers his blessed portion and Sister Little Toe ministers her rich enjoyment and all the portions are required for God's glory to be expressed. Paul should not be heard to come back to my locality and say, "Why do the sisters speak in the meetings here? I set up the elders here and my letter clearly says that I don't permit that anywhere." Rather, when Paul returns to his supporting and sending locality he should receive the correction which says, "Paul, unless you would in the future desire to carry letters on behalf of all the assemblies directing the others how to behave, you should go back to each of the places you brought that Jerusalem letter and fix that mistake you made. And here's the copy you left with us."

Of course, the difficulty with all of this is drawing the line on where Paul went wrong. Some seem to ignore the obvious lapses and take Paul's every word as pure gospel. I'm far more suspicious now. That's the approach of the Local Church and it seems manifestly unworkable. What the Local Church has become is the eventuality of what any Pauline Universal Church would be, hence the striking similarities of the authority claims and actions of Rome and Anaheim.

Grace to you!

[OBW]

As usual, I come to be the fly in the ointment. Not because I think I have it right, but because I see something that I think is worthy of discussion.

First, while there is ample room to argue that the abandonment of Paul by Asia had something to do with the “error” that Paul fell into in Jerusalem, I do not see it delineated in anything that has been recorded for our consumption and consideration. Until someone can establish more than a correlative link, it is presumptive to say that one caused the other. This is the kind of illogic upon which so many snake-oil salesmen rely to hawk their lose-weight-quick pills. (“Yes. Your results are guaranteed.” Tell me what’s wrong with that one.)

Having said that, I do not disagree that a reasonable study in proper conduct of the Christian life might include a study of Paul’s “error,” an analysis of whether it was an error, and also of the abandonment by Asia under the assumption they are linked. There is much in the dynamics of what happened to both as a result of their success and or failure in fellowship, forgiveness, exhortation, and a number of the so-called “one anothers” that are found in the NT.

The other point is that if we are determined that everything in scripture is universally and for all time prescriptive, then there will be many problems with scripture. My studies indicate that Paul was not so absolute about women being silent. Others feel that he was absolute. And while it is true that some after the NT writers began to create a hierarchy, all the words written about elders, overseers, or whatever you want to call them seems to indicate that there was a desire to change the existing natural order of elders, patriarchs, etc., into one in which the role sprang from their life and not from their natural-born position or even selection by others. They effectively evidenced themselves by their lives. The acknowledgment of that by Paul, Timothy, Titus, or whoever, was probably not much more than a way to point the people in the right direction rather than a way for Paul to control the assembly. I cannot see this as the creation of positions, but rather as a way to underscore the servant leadership that Jesus required.

I also find it interesting that we are discussing error in Paul’s teachings about elders simply because others took the terms and created something not supported by anything in scripture. Are we trying to excise the part of scripture that we have seen used wrongly as the cure to that wrong? Is this a little like those who turn away from God and the church, and even religion of any kind because one particular preacher, priest, elder, etc., was evil and did them harm at some point in their lives?

Beware. Tossing scripture because of other’s misapplication is worse than tossing the baby with the bathwater. It is willful tossing of the baby. That is what Lee did with James. It didn’t fit his narrow construct of “God’s economy” and “Christ and the church” so he made it into an object lesson in errors. Too bad nothing in the scripture supports his view.

[Hope]

Good Morning YPO534 and Mike OBW,

I am ever snowed under these days with my business and the economy, care for believers with whom I am related and many others who are abroad who need prayer and support, and family and many personal projects which are languishing. Thus, I had decided to let the forum go for a while. But there is so much to dig into in this particular topic. Just before I left Dallas in 1986, I spent over six months researching the first 600 years of church history regarding the development of the practice of hierarchy in the Body of Christ and the focus on the universal church. It seemed that we had been on an express train in the local churches covering much of the same ground I saw in church history. Once I moved to North Carolina, my own Arabia, I continued to pray and research the whole matter of “the Work,” “Deputy Authority” and Hierarchy,and the local church assembly and churches vs the Universal Church.

Mike you have well stated part of our delima. We must separate the errors that developed in church history and in the local churches from the simple and direct teachings of the Bible. Many things referred to in the New Testament are descriptive not prescriptive yet I hold that all is of the Holy Spirit. But it is critical not to bring superstitious notions and preconceived agendas to the descriptive items.

I mentioned that I had long considered what the consequences could have been for Paul’s actions in Jerusalem. Maybe this is why some turned away from him. Perhaps this is why the Lord allowed him to be imprisoned from which he wrote the most wonderful epistles. Perhaps this is an example of 1 Cor. Chapter nine being all things to all people that I might win some. Perhaps this was a big misstep and the Holy Spirit had it recorded as a warning to all and to undermine any hero worship among the believers. We can come up with many “perhaps this.” But it is just too easy to have our own shade of sun glasses on. We need others to give a little push back. This biggest danger to real fellowship in the word and truth is coming to the exchange with an agenda or a promotional attitude for a particular point of view.

I have appreciated many of the posters here who have the grace and measure of maturity to push back when any dogmatic one size fits all proposition is laid out. Likewise I have seen many of the posters take grace when they have been rebutted and changed their view or stand firm as the Lord leads their conscience.

Here are a few of Mike’s admonitions which to me were very good.

Originally Posted by OBW

As usual, I come to be the fly in the ointment. Not because I think I have it right, but because I see something that I think is worthy of discussion.

First, while there is ample room to argue that the abandonment of Paul by Asia had something to do with the “error” that Paul fell into in Jerusalem, I do not see it delineated in anything that has been recorded for our consumption and consideration. Until someone can establish more than a correlative link, it is presumptive to say that one caused the other.

Having said that, I do not disagree that a reasonable study in proper conduct of the Christian life might include a study of Paul’s “error,” an analysis of whether it was an error, and also of the abandonment by Asia under the assumption they are linked. There is much in the dynamics of what happened to both as a result of their success and or failure in fellowship, forgiveness, exhortation, and a number of the so-called “one anothers” that are found in the NT.

The other point is that if we are determined that everything in scripture is universally and for all time prescriptive, then there will be many problems with scripture

I also find it interesting that we are discussing error in Paul’s teachings about elders simply because others took the terms and created something not supported by anything in scripture. Are we trying to excise the part of scripture that we have seen used wrongly as the cure to that wrong?

Beware. Tossing scripture because of other’s misapplication is worse than tossing the baby with the bathwater. It is willful tossing of the baby.

Dear brother YPO534,
This is an excellent topic. I would like to address some items you have brought up in another post. By the way, is your moniker YPO and then numeric or YP and then numeric. What is the significance of the alley cats?

Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to become a true disciple.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Hope

Dear brother YPO534,
This is an excellent topic. I would like to address some items you have brought up in another post. By the way, is your moniker YPO and then numeric or YP and then numeric. What is the significance of the alley cats?

YP-zero-534

I was assigned this number a long time ago and I have recycled it from its original purpose. The one who assigned it is unlikely to recall doing so, but he should.

The alley cats are just a cartoon of a guy shouting at some others who are listening. I got disturbed by someone's soapbox diatribe one day and it's meant to represent me standing upon mine in retort.

[YP0534]

Initial investigation is in accord.

Paul was known and followed from the earliest of times.

"Clement of Rome, writing about AD 95, quotes from Romans; Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 115) quotes from 1 Corinthians, Romans, and from 1 Timothy and Titus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

I also find it interesting that we are discussing error in Paul’s teachings about elders simply because others took the terms and created something not supported by anything in scripture. Are we trying to excise the part of scripture that we have seen used wrongly as the cure to that wrong?

I disagree with your characterization here. I'm not discussing error in Paul's teaching based upon the errors of others. I'm considering whether the errors of others may have originated with Paul's error in light of Paul's scripturally documented affinity for various Jewish worship practices. But my overall goal is to ensure that such parts of scripture as establish those things are in fact NOT excised wholesale.

My journey actually began when a brother I regularly fellowship with expressed his consideration that many of the epistles I accept as genuinely Pauline in origin were instead pseudographic. While I'm generally inclined to agree with that analysis regarding Titus, I'm strongly advocating for the authenticity of the remaining epistles. There is much scholarly discussion about such matters. Regardless, we followers of the Lord shouldn't be interested in blind allegiance to application of Paul's doctrine in a prescriptive manner and, when viewing issues such as appointment of elders, silence of sisters and even maintenance of a widows' roll, I don't see how those matters can be addressed other than in the same prescriptive fashion as the keeping from strangled meat and blood and the other matters put forth in Jerusalem's compromise compact.

So, perhaps I can express it this way: if we are told to do X and Y results, who is in error when Y is bad?

I'm not laying it certainly at the feet of the one who taught X, but there is certainly ground for suspicion that it should be placed there.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I disagree with your characterization here. I'm not discussing error in Paul's teaching based upon the errors of others.

Let me rephrase. Are we saying that Paul had an error on his own? Or are we taking exception to what he practiced and was recorded based on the errors that others heaped upon that.

If the first, then there needs to be some indication that Paul's teaching was actually in error before we simply toss out the teaching (the actual ones in the scripture).

If the second, then I am asking whether we are avoiding something simply because error has been heaped upon Paul's teachings.

But you seem to have proposed a third alternative. The writings with the things you see as error may not be authentic in full. I'm afraid that is worse than the slippery slope. It is fully joining Lee in the "it really shouldn't be in here" category. I don't know how we go there in this forum.

If we are told to do X and Y (bad) results, are we sure that we did X? Or did we do X plus A, B, C, Z, etc.? Did we really do X? Have we isolated the issue to X caused Y, or are we simply noting that X, among other things, was done and Y, among other things resulted. That does not equate to causality.

And you seem to have an agenda to deconstruct any kind of leadership. I'm not sure scripture supports that.

[cityonahill]

YP, You just brought up an interesting subject...this last semester in my "prison epistles" class, I was blown away to read some the facts about the Pauline letters...I can verify what you are saying.(i guess this isn't about asia leaving paul anymore...)

Such as, in 1 and 2 Timothy, there were words used that weren't around till 200 AD....now this could just have been lost in translation, but I doubt it...it's a little suspicious. The language and style of 1 and 2 Timothy is roughly 80% different to other Pauline letters. That's just a fact.

Also, "Ephesians" was not written to the church in Ephesus. It was believed to have been a general message passed around Asia Minor..."ephesus" was added after 325AD...

Regarding leadership,Philippians is considered to be definately Pauline...no debate about it! It could not have been in error...Paul's purpose in writing it was a letter of encouragement rather than correction...

In light of our discussion, I find this passage interesting...I believe it definately denotes a hierarchy of "apostles" "bishops/overseers" "deacons" and then "saints."

Philippians 1
1Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Overall, I believe that it was not an error to appoint "elders" or "deacons" or whatever you call it. I believe the error was in the human desire to "lead" rather than submitting to God's leadership while leading.

Leaders are practical. It's too easy to just pass the buck around and not take responsibility...We've all seen that communism isn't the best form of government. Not for a nation, and not for the church.

Question: What's the difference between a "bishop" and a "deacon"?

[Oregon]

Quite an interesting topic YPO534 and certainly worth looking at. I remember Brother Lee sharing on this matter in the past….. that what Paul was really doing was trying to make an attempt to bring together both the Jewish and Gentile elements of the church. Even though he knew that the practice of Jewish rituals meant nothing…he was willing to do it to demonstrate his oneness with the believing Jews.


I Corinthians 1:19-23
“For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.”

[kisstheson]

Hello dear ones,

I claim total ignorance on this topic. I have always glossed over 2 Tim. 1:15 ("This you know, that all who are in Asia turned away from me, of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes"), assuming that the reason for the turning away from Paul was something we could not know in the age.

Perhaps the puzzle pieces which solve this question do exist in the Scriptrues, but are somewhat hiddern? Hmmmm . . .

One thing I just noticed today while considering this is that 2 Tim. 4:12 states "But Tychius I have sent to Ephesus." It would seem that Paul's co-workers (or at least one of his co-workers) was still welcome in Ephesus, so the "turning away" seems to have applied to Paul only. Hmmmm . . . I just don't know what to think about this.

[cityonahill]

Why did "everyone in Asia" desert Paul?

I imagine "everyone" is an exageration especially considering Timothy himself was in Ephesus...

We do not have a scriptural account of the people of Asia turning away from Paul. This is the only mention of it in scripture. It can be assumed that this is speaking only of the Asians who were in Rome at that time(and several others also in Asia), who turned away from him because of the potential incrimination that associating with a condemned prisoner might bring on them.

Paul started many churches in Asia and spent years of his life ministering to the people there. It would be hard to believe that thousands of people had forsaken him. It is certain that Timothy, who was an Asian, hadn't forsaken Paul. It is also probable that many of the believers in Ephesus, under the leadership of Paul's most loyal associate, Timothy, still loved and appreciated Paul.


There are two factors that could be the cause for this "falling away."

Persecution and False Teachers...

The falling away that Paul first encountered in Ephesus seemed to have spread while he was imprisoned in Rome. Even though certain false teachers were driven away (1 Timothy 1:20), apparently, they did not repent and continued to spread their teaching beyond Ephesus into other parts of Asia Minor in the time between 1 and 2 Timothy.
These teachings(2 timothy 2:14-18) were early forms of Gnosticism that denied the bodily resurrection(2 timothy 2:18) They also had a "triumphalist" view of the Holy Spirit, and no doubt, they took advantage of Paul's imprisonment and the Roman persecution to decieve many and turn them away from Paul and his co-workers.

Some good resources on 1 and 2 Timothy:

Gordon Fee and Ben Witherington...
I just got their commentaries last year for my "prison epistles" class...good stuff!

[aron]

Originally Posted by cityonahill

Why did "everyone in Asia" desert Paul?

I imagine "everyone" is an exageration especially considering Timothy himself was in Ephesus...

We do not have a scriptural account of the people of Asia turning away from Paul. This is the only mention of it in scripture. It can be assumed that this is speaking only of the Asians who were in Rome at that time(and several others also in Asia), who turned away from him because of the potential incrimination that associating with a condemned prisoner might bring on them.

Paul started many churches in Asia and spent years of his life ministering to the people there. It would be hard to believe that thousands of people had forsaken him. It is certain that Timothy, who was an Asian, hadn't forsaken Paul. It is also probable that many of the believers in Ephesus, under the leadership of Paul's most loyal associate, Timothy, still loved and appreciated Paul.


There are two factors that could be the cause for this "falling away."

Persecution and False Teachers...

The falling away that Paul first encountered in Ephesus seemed to have spread while he was imprisoned in Rome. Even though certain false teachers were driven away (1 Timothy 1:20), apparently, they did not repent and continued to spread their teaching beyond Ephesus into other parts of Asia Minor in the time between 1 and 2 Timothy.
These teachings(2 timothy 2:14-18) were early forms of Gnosticism that denied the bodily resurrection(2 timothy 2:18) They also had a "triumphalist" view of the Holy Spirit, and no doubt, they took advantage of Paul's imprisonment and the Roman persecution to decieve many and turn them away from Paul and his co-workers.

Good writing. I always felt that Paul's statement seemed a bit of an exaggeration, and this is a good look at possibly what was really occurring on the ground.

[aron]

One thing that struck me about the immediate post-apostolic period is that there is a resounding silence from the labors of Paul. Where are his disciples?

The only connection I can find to any surviving link to Paul is possibly Clement of Rome. Paul lists a Clement as a fellow laborer in his epistle to the Philippians, 4:3, but it is uncertain if this is the Clement of Rome who wrote the famous epistle to the Corinthians. Church history links him to Paul's Clement, but that is a late connection (3rd/4th century) and seems limited. He is also connected to Peter, as following him in a leadership position in Rome. Whether or not Clement of Rome was personally discipled to Paul or Peter is open to question.

Okay, fine; why am I making a big deal about this? Because here is a master organization-builder, and when he leaves there are no people! No disciples! Clement doesn't mention him. He cites his letters, of course, which were widely circulated. But where are Paul's disciples? Paul told Timothy to commit the truth to faithful men, who would in turn instruct others (2 Tim 2:2). But I can see no record that indicates that he or Timothy did this with anyone.

Contrast this with John, who leaves behind Papias, "a hearer of John", and Polycarp, "a disciple of John the evangelist"; Polycarp in turn leaves behind Irenaus, and so forth. Ignatius is also possibly a student of John. There is an unbroken chain of witnesses, from Jesus through the disciples and into the second and third generation of believers, thence commencing up through the ages to us.

We have surviving authentic documents which attest to witnesses of John the evangelist. Why did none of Paul's co-workers leave any trace?

We do, of course, have Luke's documents, which are tremendous. But I am speaking of the transition to the age of the "church fathers"; of all the elder-appointing Paul seems to have been responsible for, it seems remarkable (notable, worth remarking upon) that all his work vanishes. He left behind letters, but no trace of disciples.

Paul was clearly a gifted organizer. I have seen secular histories which call him, not Jesus, the founder of the christian church (!!). But for all his works, I see no trace of people, and it is for me, as I said, a resounding silence. I can only suspect this may somehow be linked to the "turning away" he mentions in the beginning of 2 Timothy. Causality for me is unproven; there is just a big, empty, suggestive gap in the testimony, post-Paul.

[YP0534]

Thanks for the kind comments!

Just as a side note, I'm leaving for a business trip in the morning and may or may not have much time over the next week to check in with y'all but I'll certainly try.

Here's one of the fundamental building blocks of my thinking along these lines, something we've discussed around here before: a study of the scriptures seems to require the conclusion that the appointment of elders in the assemblies by Paul was not his invention but was merely a continuation/adaptation of a practice of the synagogues. Without giving the references now (perhaps someone will be so kind) it is difficult to distinguish between "elders" (of the people) and "elders" (of the assembly) at some points in Acts. With a background of speculation that Luke's primary purpose in writing Acts was to provide a factual context for the defense of Paul at trial, Luke's failure to make such a distinction clear is understandable and excusable. But if you don't consider that Luke specifically intended to spin Christian practice to seem of a whole with Jewish practice, then the difficulty with making this distinction is even more concerning.

On the other hand, if we take Paul's religious lapses as the appropriate exercise of becoming all things to all men, I think that practice itself deserves further examination. I'm essentially asking whether Paul's testimony among alternately the Jews and the Gentiles was damaged by that practice. And in that context, how did the Gentiles then view the appointment of "elders" as contrasted with the way the Jewish believers received that teaching?

Here's one of the most important points: hierarchy did NOT spring full grown. Lee had made a vague reference to an early error of one of the early church fathers in establishing a bishop as over the elders. (Not like we have ever seen someone exerting influence over elders from above in our lifetime.) But the whole thing had its kernel in the Pauline epistles. Had to. How fast it went awry is at least partly dependent upon our judgment of how appropriate it was in the first place to have the appointment of elders. Was the first step toward a pope the claims of a bishop or the practice of an apostle?

So, I'm just concerned that there is a seemingly neglected connection between Asia rejecting Paul's ministry at some point due to something and the fact that it is those very assemblies, *NOT* those in Judea, which are the subject of the Lord's precise attention in John's Revelation some time later. Since I myself find Paul's religious teachings regarding the role of women, appointment of elders, the keeping a widow's roll, etc., somewhat bothersome for various reasons, others who were not Jewish might also find these items troubling in their walk.

I find myself considering that I should perhaps join those in Asia.