[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #642
b-greek-digest Friday, 31 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 642
In this issue:
Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
Revelation/Apocalypse
Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
Re: "Soundness" in the Pastorals
RE:"Soundness"
Re: "Soundness" in the Pastorals
Baptism practiced by non authority
lay ministry/Nicolaitan Spirit of Control/long post
Re: lay ministry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 08:02:46 -0100
Subject: Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
Sorry ;-) for interrupting your discussion:
In article <9503301754.AA05721@arctic.sybgate.sybase.com>,
Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com> wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Pseudonymity is not the only issue. In addition, there is:
> 1. a lack of the standard review of world history
> 2. A pessimistic view of world history
>
> BTW, why shouldn't we identify John the apostle with John of Ephesus?
> I can't explain the prophecy genre. I only read the suggestion.
> I'd like to know why it is thought Revelation wasn't written against the
> background of persecution.
>
Why we shouldn't identify John the apostne with John of Ephesus
(i.e. the "author" of Revelation)? Good question ;-) I believe
that to be true, and it was widely accepted in the early church
_if_ they did accept Revelation, as far as I remember. But the
history of Revelation is a complicated one. It is treated in
N.B. Stonehouse: _The Apocalypse in the Early Church_. Goes,
1929 and in: G. Maier: _Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirche_
(WUNT 25). Tuebingen, 1981.
About persecution: I didn't state, that Revelation wasn't
written againt the background of persecution, but that it wasn't
written againt a background of persecution caused by the Roman
Emperor Domitian. In fact, the reason is that Domitian was not
accused of that before in the second century by some writers
obviously writing in the favour of the aristocracy againt the
Emperor. Besides that there was no known persecution at all in
Asia in the first century. On the contrary it was a time of
great prosperity to Asia. The internal evidence from Revelation
is far from clear. There is a reference to a killed person
(Antipas) but that's not a good reason for proposing a general
theory of prosecution, IMHO.
What _may_ be true is that there was some sort of persecution
caused by the Christians' relationship to the local city cult as
we know from e.g. Acts. But I am still studying this issue and
haven't reached my position yet.
Finally (in this letter), if you interpret Revelation as
evidence of a (severe) conflict between the Early Church and the
Roman Empire then you have some evidence of a conflict which can
support your reading of Revelation as evidence of a ... Well,
perhaps a joke, but the danger of circular reasoning applies
here, I'm afraid. As the European currencies have some crises at
the moment, I think I will leave my two Danish kroner here and
go back to study.
- -- Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 23:20:05 -0800
Subject: Revelation/Apocalypse
Ken Litwak wrote:
> Why shouldn't we identify John the apostle with John of
> Ephesus?
First, there is no claim in the NT or out of the NT until mid
second century making this identification. Second, it seems
counterindicated on internal grounds since John the prophet, the
author of Rev 1, never claims to be an apostle and appears to
be distinguished from the "twelve apostles" later in Rev.
Third, earlier testimony contradicts the notion.
The earlier testimony that contradicts the notion is that of
Papias, who said (according to two later quotations from Papias,
whose original writings unfortunately are lost) that John of
Zebedee was martyred by the Jews, which probably refers to Judea.
Mark 10:35-39 is normally understood as referring to martyrdoms
of John and James of Zebedee having occurred prior to the writing
of Mark.
Yet according to Papias, who knew a "John the Elder" whom he
distinguished from John of Zebedee (the passage is in Eusebius,
Eccl His 3.39.3-4), "Elder John" referred to the writing of
the Gospel of Mark. The relative sequence is then: martyrdoms
of both Zebedees; Gospel of Mark written; Elder John comments
to Papias about Gospel of Mark being out of order.
Though some object to locating this John the Elder in Ephesus,
or as the author or associated with authorship of the Johannine
literature, the arguments as outlined exhaustively in e.g.
Martin Hengel's book (reference not at hand) are powerful in
pointing to this conclusion as the most natural understanding
of the ancient evidence.
Where I believe Hengel and others are mistaken, however, is in
making this historical Elder John of Ephesus the beloved
disciple of the Gospel of John. But that's another subject.
> I'd like to know why it is thought Revelation wasn't written
> against the background of persecution.
Very good point. The Domitian persecution has basically
vanished for lack of evidence. But the internal evidence of
Revelation points to the time of authorship in the time of the
Jewish War, late 60's. The Neronian persecution is uncontested.
J. Christian Wilson has written some good current articles
rehabilitating the old view of an early dating of Revelation.
I gave a paper on this subject at a regional SBL a year ago--
and developed the idea that the second beast of Rev 13, the
"false prophet", was Josephus. As Wilson says, Revelation is
not pseudepigraphic, and it contains true prophecy. The
sixth head or emperor who "is" is either Nero or Galba. This
is the time of writing. What is then projected ahead does not
come to pass accurately--a sign of reading a true prophecy as
opposed to later pseudepigrapha.
The Domitian dating has no internal evidence in Revelation
in its support. It derives from external tradition whose
earliest attestation is Irenaeus, late second century. From
the internal evidence of Revelation, Irenaeus was either
mistaken or misunderstood what he had received. Revelation
is a window into the fevered time of the Jewish War.
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 03:27:12 -0500
Subject: Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
CC: kenneth@sybase.com
From: Timster132@aol.com
Hi Ken. you said last...
> Pseudonymity is not the only issue. In addition, there is:
>1. a lack of the standard review of world history
>2. A pessimistic view of world history
Thanks. Rev.'s lack of a review of history (a pessimistic one at that) is
a very good point.
> BTW, why shouldn't we identify John the apostle with John of >Ephesus?
Why should we?
Seriously, it seems the reason John the Revelator was identified by
Tradition with John the Apostle was to give it apostolic authority, something
much needed for a document having trouble getting in the canon.
>I'd like to know why it is thought Revelation wasn't written against >the
background of persecution.
I don't know why. I believe that view is based on the lack of a
historical reference (outside of Revelation) concerning a general persecution
in Asia.
However, I believe parts of Rev. were written during the Nero persecution
(esp. Ch 13), and other parts and the final redaction came about under
Diocletion's persecution.
In Christ,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 03:27:07 -0500
Subject: Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
CC: glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
Glenn, you said,
>You must be careful with the use of such terminology as
>"apocalyptic". After twenty some years of hashing over >terminology,
scholars are generally agreed that we should use the >term "Apocalypse" to
refer to a literary genre and that that genre will
>have definable features. See Semeia 14 (John J. Collins's intro)
>and Semeia 36 (Adela Yarbro Collins's intro) for the generally
>accepted definition.
Thank you for the admonition on using "apocalyptic", even if it is a
pendantic note. I only pray my usage didn't trigger the seventh sign and
unleash the Tribulation on us all. (Tongue is planted in cheek here).
Could you give a synopsis of the Collins' definition for the literary
genre? I think that is what Kenneth was looking for.
Peace, Peace (but there is no peace!)
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 03:27:05 -0500
Subject: Re: "Soundness" in the Pastorals
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU,
CC: al69@cityscape.co.uk (Lloyd Pietersen)
FROM: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
Lloyd, you asked....
> Given their literal association with physical healing, is the writer
>deliberately using these words (which are comparatively rare in the >NT) to
emphasise that true well-being comes through sound >teaching, sound speech,
being sound in "the faith", etc. to
>combat an (over)emphasis on physical healing in his communities? > To put it
another way, given that oral legends about Paul were >obviously circulating in
the second half of the 1st century through to >the 2nd century CE (receiving
written form in the Acts of Paul), are >the Pastorals participating in a
battle for the memory of Paul (Paul >the Thaumaturge v Paul the Teacher)?
I think your idea is intriguing, that there was possibly a conflict in two
Pauline traditions (teacher vs. miracle-worker).
However, I am not sure that the usage of YGIHS is intentional in
challenging the healing traditions with a teaching tradition.
It is likely that the connotation here is that "sound teaching" is from a
"healthy mind", as in the Greek ideal of "healthy mind, healthy body".
Instead of being in opposition of a sound body, the ideal is for both to be
true. (Exception: Stoics, for whom the body didn't matter).
YGIHS would mean the teaching is reasonable, intelligent and appeals to
sound judgment. This also might include a plea for moderation or warning
against excess which keeps a sound mind and sound body.
It would seem this fits the context of 1 Tim 1:8-10, where
[Deutero-]Paul seems to be addressing antinomia (v 9, ANOMOIS).
In Titus 2:8, "sound speech" seems to be logical, rational speech that
an opponent could not refute.
Parallels of the usage of "soundness" referring to teaching is found in
elsewhere outside the NT:
Plutarch (Mor. 20F): AUTAI GAR EISIN YGIANOUSAI PERI THEWN DOKSAI KAI
ALHTHEIS "For these are sound concerning the glory and truth of God"
Philo (Abr. 223):TOUS YGIAINONOTES LOGOYS
Josephus (C Ap. 1, 222): YGIAINONTES TH KRISEI
Dio Chrysostom (1, 49):YGIHS LOGOS [Also M Ant 8, 30]
Maximus Tyrius (16, 3f): ALHTHEIAN GE KAI YGIH LOGOY
Greek Inscription (Dittenberger 3, 983): GNWMHN YGIHS
Epictetus (3, 9, 5): YGIH DOGMATA
Also, in Kittle (TDNT), one reads "In 1 Tim 1:10; 6:3; Tit 2:8... the
reference is to true teaching, not to teaching that makes whole". (see under
UGIHS).
I don't know if all this helps your argument or not, but I hope it gives
you some extra ideas about YGIHS.
In Christ,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Lloyd K Pietersen <al69@cityscape.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:05:07 +0100
Subject: RE:"Soundness"
Bill Mounce wrote:
>You can compare Paul's use of "gangrene" in his description of the Ephesian
>opponents and see that he is using medical imagery to describe the gospel
>vs. the Ephesian heresy. I would think that is the major thrust of the
>terms. Mahlerby has an article on this terminology in the PE. It is a
>question as to how far to push the imagery, though. Does the gospel
>actually aid in physical health? Probably not.
>
I am aware of Malherbe's article, "Medical Imagery in the Pastorals",
published in the book "Texts and Testaments." Unfortunately, our University
library does not have a copy of this book and so I have not yet read it. I
intend to get this via inter-library loan, but was the article originally
published in a journal?
With best wishes
Lloyd Pietersen
*****************************
* Graduate Student
* University of Sheffield
* Department of Biblical Studies
* Email: lloyd@cityscape.co.uk
*
*****************************
------------------------------
From: Lloyd K Pietersen <al69@cityscape.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:04:51 +0100
Subject: Re: "Soundness" in the Pastorals
Tim, you replied to my original posting on U(GIAINW and U(GIHS:
> However, I am not sure that the usage of YGIHS is intentional in
>challenging the healing traditions with a teaching tradition.
I accept that, in the light of Greek metaphorical usage as you note below,
the use of these words cannot, by themselves, demonstrate intention to
challenge healing traditions. Nevertheless, I still find it intriguing that
it is only in the PE (in the NT) that these words are used in this way. The
use of these words, if my argument can be sustained on other grounds (which
is what I am exploring), would _potentially_ form secondary evidence.
Whilst I am reasonably well aware of the usages you list below (thanks for
drawing my attention to some references outside the NT which I had not
picked up), I am wondering whether you or anyone else on the list knows of
any references where these words are used in a polemical way in the context
of miracles/healings?
> It is likely that the connotation here is that "sound teaching" is from a
>"healthy mind", as in the Greek ideal of "healthy mind, healthy body".
>Instead of being in opposition of a sound body, the ideal is for both to be
>true. (Exception: Stoics, for whom the body didn't matter).
> YGIHS would mean the teaching is reasonable, intelligent and appeals to
>sound judgment. This also might include a plea for moderation or warning
>against excess which keeps a sound mind and sound body.
> It would seem this fits the context of 1 Tim 1:8-10, where
>[Deutero-]Paul seems to be addressing antinomia (v 9, ANOMOIS).
> In Titus 2:8, "sound speech" seems to be logical, rational speech that
>an opponent could not refute.
>
> Parallels of the usage of "soundness" referring to teaching is found in
>elsewhere outside the NT:
>
> Plutarch (Mor. 20F): AUTAI GAR EISIN YGIANOUSAI PERI THEWN DOKSAI KAI
>ALHTHEIS "For these are sound concerning the glory and truth of God"
>
> Philo (Abr. 223):TOUS YGIAINONOTES LOGOYS
>
> Josephus (C Ap. 1, 222): YGIAINONTES TH KRISEI
>
> Dio Chrysostom (1, 49):YGIHS LOGOS [Also M Ant 8, 30]
>
> Maximus Tyrius (16, 3f): ALHTHEIAN GE KAI YGIH LOGOY
>
> Greek Inscription (Dittenberger 3, 983): GNWMHN YGIHS
>
> Epictetus (3, 9, 5): YGIH DOGMATA
>
> Also, in Kittle (TDNT), one reads "In 1 Tim 1:10; 6:3; Tit 2:8... the
>reference is to true teaching, not to teaching that makes whole". (see under
>UGIHS).
>
> I don't know if all this helps your argument or not, but I hope it gives
>you some extra ideas about YGIHS.
>
> In Christ,
> Tim Staker
>
Thanks for the above. What I remain intrigued by is: why is it only the
author of the PE who uses these words metaphorically with reference to
teaching, speech, and faith in the NT? I appreciate that this is an
argument from silence, nevertheless I find it fascinating given that there
were undoubtedly oral stories circulating about Paul as a great miracle
worker. I think Dennis MacDonald's "The Legend and the Apostle" raises some
important questions about the Pastorals' relation to the "Acts of Paul."
Has there been any formal response to this book (written in 1983)?
As an aside, and not related to the question of the usage of U(GIAINW and
U(GIHS, it is also, in my view, intriguing that 1 Tim claims to be written
to Timothy in Ephesus. Ephesus is, of course, the scene of God's "DUNAMEIS
TE OU) TAS TUCOUSAS" through the hands of Paul, according to Luke (Acts 19:11).
With best wishes
Lloyd Pietersen
*****************************
* Graduate Student
* University of Sheffield
* Department of Biblical Studies
* Email: lloyd@cityscape.co.uk
*
*****************************
------------------------------
From: JefferisP@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 07:41:52 -0500
Subject: Baptism practiced by non authority
Michael B writes:
>are there any cases where someone
> not acknowledged to be a leader baptized another?" The answer would
> seem to be "no".
The answer seems to be yes:
Now there was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a
vision, "Ananias." He answered, "Here I am, Lord." The Lord said to him, "Get
up and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a
man of Tarsus named Saul. At this moment he is praying, and he has seen in a
vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might
regain his sight." But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about
this man, how much evil he has done to your saints in Jerusalem; AND HERE HE
HAS AUTHORITY FROM THE CHIEF PRIESTS TO BIND ALL WHO INVOKE YOUR NAME." But
the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to
bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel; I
myself will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." So
Ananias went and entered the house. He laid his hands on Saul and said,
"Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent
me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." And
immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his sight was
restored. THEN HE GOT UP AND WAS BAPTIZED, and after taking some food, he
regained his strength. For several days he was with the disciples in
Damascus, (Acts 9:10-19, NRSV).
Note the ONLY person who had authority in the is passage is Saul.
Jeff
Jefferis Kent Peterson
Center For Biblical Literacy
P.O.Box 1736
Lawrenceville, GA 30246-1736
"Love the Lord with all your....mind."
AOL: JefferisP
Internet: JefferisP@aol.com
CompuServe: 73061,1777
------------------------------
From: JefferisP@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 07:42:19 -0500
Subject: lay ministry/Nicolaitan Spirit of Control/long post
To Conquer the Laity - The Spirit of Nicolaitan
I am not able to carry all this people alone, for they are too heavy for me.
If this is the way you are going to treat me, put me to death at once--if I
have found favor in your sight--and do not let me see my misery." So the LORD
said to Moses, "Gather for me seventy of the elders of Israel, whom you know
to be the elders of the people and officers over them; bring them to the tent
of meeting, and have them take their place there with you. I will come down
and talk with you there; and I will take some of the spirit that is on you
and put it on them; and they shall bear the burden of the people along with
you so that you will not bear it all by yourself. (Numbers 11:14-17, NRSV).
Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the
spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders; and when the spirit
rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did not do so again. Two men
remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other named Medad, and the
spirit rested on them; they were among those registered, but they had not
gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the camp. And a young man ran
and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." And Joshua son
of Nun, the assistant of Moses, one of his chosen men, said, "My lord Moses,
stop them!" But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that
all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit
on them!" And Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp. (Numbers
11:25-30, NRSV).
The two of the seventy elders who were not at the tent of the meeting, upon
which the Spirit fell anyway and who prophesied, were Eldad ( God has loved
or loved by God) and Medad (love, from the love of friendship: in other
words, a friend loved by God). They did not conform to the order that was
expected but they had the character and the heart and the Spirit of Moses.
The zealous, managerial spirit of Moses' servant Joshua, who wanted to keep
order wanted to forbid this unexpected and uncontrolled outbreak of God's
Spirit, thinking that if the elders did not follow the exact, prescribed
pattern of their leader, then they were disqualified and should be forbidden
from operating in the gifts and calling of the Spirit.
However, Moses rebukes that well intentioned error, describing it as
misplaced envy.
A similar spirit is evident in the older brother of the Prodigal Son: the
elder brother is jealous and resentful of the love that their Father has for
the restored younger son (Luke 15: 11-32).
Also a parallel in the N.T.: John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting
out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow
with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not stop him; for whoever is not against
you is for you." (Luke 9:49-50, NRSV). {Right before this verse, the
disciples are arguing about who is the greatest among them - a control
issue} John, Jesus' beloved disciple was similarly tempted to defend Jesus by
forbiding others, because they were not following the order. They were not
part of the vision!!! - or so it seemed.
This attempt to manage and control the Holy Spirit is also evidenced by Peter
when he tries to forbid Jesus from going to the cross:Mt 16:22 And Peter took
him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This must
never happen to you."
Similar to or identical with a Nicolaitan Spirit, {to conquer or destroy the
laity}, is a Judaizing spirit, as the "certain men from James," e.g, tried
to dominate and control the flock of God by forcing them to fulfill external
requirements (cf. Gal. 2 & 2 Cor .11: 4, 13, 20). They put external ritual
ahead of the first love: Jesus. They made righteousness an outward and
visible conformity to external standards vs. a righteousness based upon
faith in Jesus Christ. {Righteousness in fact means "right relationship" or
"right standing". But the Judaizers put performance ahead of relationship}.
A modern manifestation of such a controlling spirit would be a requirement
to attend classes, etc. before being allowed to function in the giftings and
callings of the Holy Spirit. "Forbid them, Lord, they haven't attended our
classes! They aren't sharing our vision fully! They can't be missionaries,
they didn't go through our training. They can't prophesy, they didn't get our
instruction." Yet the Spirit fell on the two outside the order, and Moses was
not jealous, but happy for it. So was Jesus.
The Nicolaitan spirit, if not historically correct, by the derivation of the
name means an autocratic rule over the laity. The subsuming of all the rights
and privileges of the priesthood of believers into the ordained clergy would
be an example of that spirit. In the Catholic Church, only the bishops and
priests have the ability and the right to impart the Holy Spirit, do
miracles, etc., because they are holier than the ordinary believers. In
Protestant and Charismatic churches, too much control by staff and/or leaders
of the expression of the giftings of the people is the same thing. For
example, making every one pass close inspection before they are considered
worthy to operate in the gifts, the arts, evangelism, etc., would be one way
that Nicolaitan spirit is expressed. This managerial spirit manages the life
out of the church. The N.T. says that the gifts and callings of God are
without reproach, and as Corinthians shows, the gifts are expressed through
the very immature and self-centered. The managerial approach is to forbid
their expression by the people until they become mature so as to keep control
of the worship setting and order in the church. But Paul said "Do not FORBID
speaking in tongues, and do not quench the spirit of prophecy."
If the ORDER is valued more than the people, then the desire for control will
bring death to the people, the worship, the gifts, and the free expression of
the arts. Rather, the NT pattern is to preserve freedom, but instruct in the
order in the midst of that freedom sometimes bordering on chaos.
Why does the Nicolaitan spirit, or the Judaizing spirit, arise? Usually in
response to a Jezebel spirit that will not submit to order or correction, who
hates leadership, and who attacks those in leadership. Because Jezebel is so
obviously wrong, the subtle nature of a Spirit of Control seems godly. It is
established as a means of preserving what appears to be godly order. Because
it is not rebellious, it is far more subtle and dangerous, because it has all
the appearances of righteousness. But like the small yeast, Jesus said,
"beware... a little yeast infects the whole loaf." Jezebel is easily
identified because it screams for control, but it has no legitimate basis for
doing so. It is outside of the legitimate power structure. However, a
Nicolaitan spirit will attach itself to those who have authority
legitimately, and so it is also harder to discern.
Why is it so common for those in authority to yield to this spirit? Because
they feel the attacks and the rejection of Jezebel personally. And in order
to defend the legitimate authority of the Word resident in them, they often
fall into the trap of defending themselves in their office. Their calling is
not theirs to defend, but God's. However, because they feel the attacks and
suffer from it personally, they are often subtly attempting to try and
insulate themselves from further attacks and challenges to their ministry.
Rather than defending the Word resident in them and the authority of office
of God expressed through the Word, they try to protect themselves from the
rebellion of Jezebel.
However, this situation provides an open door for counterfeit order when
managerial attempts to control these attacks become a substitute for divine
authority. And Nicolas appears, in the guise of rescuing and protecting
leadership. It appears as a welcome relief, but ends up stepping on the
people of God in order to secure its position. When Jezebel needs to be
confronted, she is confronted in open prophetic confrontation as Elijah did
with the prophets of Baal, not through political manipulation and managerial
control. This style of confrontation preserves both liberty and freedom,
while commanding accountability for one's choices. "Choose this day whom you
will serve..."
When Paul confronted the Judaizing spirit of those who feigned God's divine
order, he was violent, wanting those who promoted false humility and false
order to go the whole way and castrate themselves (Gal. 5:12). Paul knew that
the very essence of the gospel was at stake over this counterfeit, which
appeared good but was in truth a religious deception that would kill the work
and power of the gospel in the life of the people. (For such men are false
apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no
wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not
surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness.
Their end will be what their actions deserve. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.
Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against
them with the sword of my mouth. (Revelation 2:15-16)).
Manifestations of the effects of this spirit in the life of the congregation:
1) hostility, jealousy, and bitterness on the parts of those who are given to
head up different areas of ministry;
2) a competitive spirit between those who head up different areas of ministry
- - turf wars - as in "who has to approve of this request of a congregation
member? What department does that fall under?" and a need for three
different approvals from three different ministries for one item;
3) a sometimes suspicious and critical attitude towards those who do not
conform to expectations, standards, the Order, even when those people express
no outward signs of rebellion or rejection ("he who is not against us is with
us").
4) hindered worship, outreach, & growth.
5) heaviness on the part of the people; depression. A feeling that they are
inadequate, do not measure up to standards and expectations of leadership.
And a corresponding unwillingness to offer themselves freely on behalf of the
church for service. AND growing resentment in the people towards leaders,
because the people perceive the leaders who are trying to control them as
manipulative or as obstacles to the fulfillment of their (often genuine)
calling.
6) an increasing emphasis on programs and a judging of those who do not seem
to fit into prescribed slots or fulfilled the needs of leaders for their
goals (valuing goals - the vision of the house - more than the people who are
actually in the house).
7) eventually, the establishment of a priestly class. A division between the
clergy and the people; the secular and the sacred, with those called to serve
in the house having a higher calling than the lay person.
Remedy:
We cannot avoid the rejection of men nor the sufferings of Christ. It is
necessary to endure the painful freedom of the immature and unloving in order
to bear the cross of Christ's compassion and love for the people:
What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing
greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all
things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him,
not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which
is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by
faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the
fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
(Philippians 3:8-10, NIV).
Our love for the people and their freedom must override our need for
protection and our self-concern.
Secondly, the Jerusalem Council allowed that spirit to abide there. The
fruit of that controlling and measuring nature of the Judaizers was
EXCLUSIVE. They were more interested in keeping people out than in reaching
the lost. They did not want to let in Gentiles and non-practicing Jews unless
they conformed to Jewish laws. And they persecuted and pressured Peter when
he tried to fellowship with Gentiles in Antioch (Galatians 2).So Jerusalem
became inwardly focused.
This spirit apparently kills outreach and evangelism and makes the whole
organization gear itself towards self-preservation rather than outreach.
Paul's response to this spirit was vicious. He exposed its workings and
those through whom it worked because he knew that it was absolutely
antithetical to the heart and essence of the gospel, advising castration as a
proper remedy for its malicious and malevolent intent.
The spirit of the Nicolaitans: (update):
It has been suggested that the spirit of control of the laity through
religious means may be more reflective of a Judaizing spirit rather than
characteristic of the Nicolaitans. The Judaizers disqualified people from
"full" fellowship and "legitimate" apostleship if they did not follow all of
the legalistic and ritual obligations of the Jewish heritage. By asserting
their own religious authority through their knowledge of the Law, the
Judaizers attempted to control the laity and make them perform according to
endless external, religious observations . A spirit of religion, or
religious legalism, is the control factor of a Judaizing Spirit. However, a
spirit of religion is a pervasive spirit that does not only manifest in the
clergy or in those given legitimate positions of leadership and authority in
the Church. The spirit of religion is as common in the laity as in the
leadership. It is often reflected in piety (a word which means devotion to
any form of ritual, religious observance) and can also manifest as a devotion
to culture, tradition, public order or national allegiance. It is for this
reason that the German people were so easily swayed by Adolph Hitler, who
extended piety to the State as an extension of religious devotion to the
Church. The Nicolaitans however destroyed the laity through permitting and
excusing idolatry and syncretism:
Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold
to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin
by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality.
Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.
(Revelation 2:14-15, NIV).
Nicolaitan (in Greek) and Balaam (in Hebrew): both mean to "conquer the
people." In the sense of destruction, a Nicolaitan spirit would promote some
form of idolatry. Such conquest is accomplished by seduction and corruption.
However, there is a an aspect of religious authority to a Nicolaitan spirit
which gives it weight of respect greater than that allowed to the laity. The
authority of such teaching is attributed to a false apostolic authority:
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you
cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be
apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have
endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Yet I hold this
against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from
which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do
not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. But
you have this in your favour: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans,
which I also hate. (Revelation 2:2-6, NIV).
It is the claim to special knowledge and insight into God's Truth
(Gnosticism) which is at the root of this Nicolaitan deception. The fasle
apostles claim that they have a special knowledge that is not available to
the masses. This knowledge permits them extra liberties that unenlightened
and less developed Christians cannot understand or accept. They claim that as
Christians mature, they will also gain understanding of this freedom. This
situation sets up a division between the laity and a gnostic, priestly class,
who are more advanced in the things of God. And it implies an ignorance in
the people: that their spiritual discernment cannot be trusted because they
are not yet initiated fully into the truth. Yet, the Nicolaitans claim they
will teach the people the way and lead them into enlightenment and true
freedom. This claim to spiritual maturity and special position is at the root
of a Nicolaitan claim over the people.
This division is paralleled by the medieval distinction between clergy &
laity. The clergy are seen as holier than average Christians: a priesthood
is set up which drives a wedge between God and the laity, denying the
essential equality of the people before God.The priests are the new gnostics
who must lead the people to God. They reject that the people can approach God
directly through the Spirit and by the study of the Word. Now, to truly know
God and approach him, the people have need of priests with special knowledge
who will interpret the truth for them and tell them what to believe.
Jefferis Kent Peterson
Center For Biblical Literacy
P.O.Box 1736
Lawrenceville, GA 30246-1736
"Love the Lord with all your....mind."
AOL: JefferisP
Internet: JefferisP@aol.com
CompuServe: 73061,1777
------------------------------
From: JefferisP@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 07:42:03 -0500
Subject: Re: lay ministry
> I have been following the discussion concerning Matt. 28 (commission for
> lay ministry or Apostolic) as well as the discussions about Baptism and
> ecclesiastic authority and cannot get rid nagging concern that is raised
> by the very posing of these question. ISTM that the clerical/lay
> distinction is an extra-biblical one that is being furthered here and
> that is potentially harmful to the ongoing mission of the church
> (making disciples). Much could be said in this regard, but I believe
> one needs only read the first couple chapters of Paul's letter to the
> Galatians to understand this central point: IT IS THE GOSPEL THAT
> CONVEYS AUTHORITY, NOT ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE. Note in particular
> Paul's attitude toward the "other" apostles in 2:6. Paul emphasizes
> that the only thing Paul received from human agency was the
> "recognition" of the grace given him (2:9) by those who were recognized
> as apostles and that THE CRITERION FOR JUDGMENT OF AUTHORITY IS NOT
> ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE BUT FAITHFUL PRESENTATION OF THE GOSPEL (see esp.
> 1:8).
>
Dear Tom,
I agree with your assertions 100%, but the issue being addressed here is a
bit confused. It is the Word that gives authority, but the problems being
addressed include both ecclesiastical office and relatedness of believers to
the Body.
The problem: the American concept of individualism is confused with Biblical
Liberty. Biblical Liberty always included a social dimension which worked
against a proud and independent spirit. Paul was not given authority by
others, he was called by God an apostle, BUT his call was confirmed and
affirmed through the Body of Christ by others. He was called to be an
apostle when he met Jesus on the road for the first time, but he did not
function in that call till over 9 years later when he was gathered up by
Barnabas and then SENT OUT (Acts 13:3 & 4) by the church in Antioch. The
point is that even his call existed in RELATIONSHIP to others in the Body of
Christ. He was joined to a Church.
The problem of protestant Americanism is not with the concept of the
authority of the Call, but with submission and accountability. Even Paul went
before the Elders in Jerusalem to make sure he had not "run in vain" ( i.e.,
preached a wrong gospel), Gal. 2:2.
Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch
over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not
with sighing--for that would be harmful to you.
1Pe 5:5 In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the
elders. And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings
with one another, for "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
The renegade spirit of american individualism refuses to submit to anyone
other than itself, and so we often see a church split over minor differences
of interpretation of the Word (not essential to salvation). and a proud
spirit, and a spirit of accusation against all those who do not agree. We
also see "hallelujah hobos" who will never commit to being in relationship
with other Christians, and whenever confronted with conviction or challenge
by the Holy Spirit in a particular congregation, "feel led" to go to a new
place. Submission to those who are placed over you in Christ is part of true
Christian Liberty.
I realize there are false apostles out there who are legalistic and demand
servility and not submission, but the counterfeit does not negate the need to
find that biblical pattern of relationship. For authority to minister comes
through the context of relationship and accountability to the rest of the
Body.
Second, there is a real evidence in the scripture of the calling of
governmental office in the Church (apostle, prophet, teaching pastor,
evangelist) who are the means of Christ's government on the earth and are
gifts to the Body. To spurn those who genuinely hold that authority by God's
call and to seek to establish ministry independently from those structures
of accountability is usually a secret self exaltation: "no one has the inside
track on the truth except me." But here again, the question is not
permission to baptize, e.g., but context: are you related to others in the
Body of Christ, and do you have a true spirit of humility and submission, or
are you seeking to establish your own kingdom?
Finally, the institutional nature of the Church as it exists over the course
of time has tended to err on the other side of the coin. It has confused the
role of oversight with the right to operate in the gifts of God: those who
are officially part of the clergy only have the right to baptize, break
bread, etc... There is the confusion here between calling into Christ's
governmental office and the priestly function which has been fulfilled in
Christ Jesus. Because of the fulfillment of the priesthood in Christ, we all
have become a kingdom of priests who have the right to administer the life of
Christ to the world, to pray and intercede for one another, to forgive each
others sins, etc...
There is the natural human tendency to retreat from the liberty of the gospel
into the security of organizational structures that codify hierarchical
systems of authority. This pattern repeats itself because humanity is
insecure and seeks to secure its own interests through rules, regulations
and controls. Paul, by contrast, was willing to deal with the chaos caused
by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including miracles, tongues, and prophecy,
operating freely in the midst of the people without trying to limit them to
only a select group of approved people.
Because this issue has arisen in several different contexts, I am going to
put up a fairly longer post on a Nicolaitan Spirit which will likely ruffle
a few feathers.
Jefferis Kent Peterson
Center For Biblical Literacy
P.O.Box 1736
Lawrenceville, GA 30246-1736
"Love the Lord with all your....mind."
AOL: JefferisP
Internet: JefferisP@aol.com
CompuServe: 73061,1777
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #642
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu