What is the church as Jesus intended?

[jpaul]

What is the church as Jesus intended? Perhaps we could narrow the topic to the original teachings of what the church actually is, as discussed in scripture and then expand from there.

So, what church did Jesus mean when he said, "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector?” - Mt. 18:17.

Define church here.

Peace and all-good!

The “church” here refers to the teaching authority of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church.

There is no other.

jpaul

 

[guanophore]

But it doesn’t say the assembly is the leadership and those in union with them. It only says the assembly. When Paul writes to the Corinthians he addreses the whole assembly and does not as far as I can see single out the leadership at all. When he chides them for suing one another he doesn’t even ask them how come they don’t go to the elders. He express surprise and dismay that there was not one wise man among them to be able to decide between the brethren, with no reference to office.

Later, in dealing with the man involved with his step-mother, Paul explains how he was going to pray in spirit when they are assembled, also with no reference to hierarchy or leadership there, but the church in general. He ws dealing with this because they weren’t. In the second letter we see that they really rushed to straighten this out with happy success.

If hierarchy was in Paul’s apostolic thought, why didn’t he insist on going through channels?

I am not sure why the Corinthian Church was in such chaos. There are also two more letters he wrote to them that did not survive. It may be the bishops were martyred. I don’t think we should take this chaos as representative of what Paul intended.

Here’s where he takes it, and it is not a military hierarchy. "What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has an interpretation . . . And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment . . . For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and be exhorted"

Do you imagine that there was not a presider?

This is participatory and it is an apostolic instruction. Paul does not introduce or refer to clergy. He is saying something about how the assembly is supposed to function, in an orderly fashion. He refers to someone receiving a revelation while an other is speaking and says not to interrupt.

I agree that this passage is about liturgical practice, but it cannot be taken in a vacuum, apart from other instructions that Paul has given about the hierarchy.

1 Tim 3:1-2
3:1 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.

Here he DOES speak about the office of bishop.

Titus 1:7-16
7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; 9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. 10 For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; 11 they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach. 12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth. 15 To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

Titus 2:1-2
2:1 But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine. 2 Bid the older men be temperate, serious, sensible, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.

Why would Paul be instructing the Bishop in how to lead, if it were not his task to control the insubordinate? The Bishops task was to keep order, and to teach sound doctrine, and keep the flock of God of whom he has been given charge.

Paul’s answer to this is “not I but Christ.” He is our sufficiency, as we abide in Him, even while we are frail and have faults . . .

Anyway, there is at least something apostolic about what a church should look like.

Yours in Christ,

Melville

Indeed, the church leadership appointed by Christ should never function apart from Him, in whom we live and move and have our being.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks very much. I would not have found this easily. This is about the position held by Judas, which he vacated. Can we say that Judas at one time a bishop, prior to the betrayal? Hmmmm . . . Not being contentious, just wondering, because the office of overseeer had not been described at that point.

I see the word is also translated “visitation” in Luke 19:44 and 1 Peter 2:12. Hmmmm . . . What is the connection I wonder? Any thoughts? Greek scholaship needed.

Does this establish that all the apostles equally hold the office of bishop as well as apostle? They did not use that term to refer to themselves as bishops from my reading and word searches, but you may have something I missed. In any case I don’t see that this takes away from the apostolic appointment of elder/overseers as being plural.

The Church teaches that the Apostles appointed bishops to replace themselves, and that no one met the criteria for the office of Apostle after their deaths, since it had to be someone who followed Jesus and witnessed his resurrection.

One of the reasons that Rome developed a primacy is because both Peter and Paul were there teaching for several years, so the disciples got a big strong dose of orthodoxy.

 

[Melville]

I am curious why you would not consider the quote by Irenaeus about Polycarp being appointed by the apostles as the bishop of Smyrna as an establishment of the singular bishop? Because it is not in scripture?

My working knowledge of scripture and church history is not up to part here, but I recognize that this clearly shows a singular bishop by the apostles.

Hi Scalco,

I’m having trouble finding this quotation from Irenaeus. Do you know where it is in Irenaeus’s writings?

I do make a distinction between scripture, which is the only document we have of the apostolic church period, and anything that came after that, as far as substantive reliability is concerned. From what I have been reading here about post apostolic church fathers there is a lot of conjecture and gaps.

We are talking about the church as Jesus intended and I have been trying to define what the New Testament record has to say rather than interpret that by what happened afterwards.

 

[Melville]

This rests on your interpretation of the word Nicolaitan. I cannot find any source to coroborate your interpretation of its meaning. Can you tell me the source for this?

God bless,
Ut

There are numerous web pages that have interpretations of the term. The Strong’s number are 3531 and 3532 in the Greek Dictionary. The first one says followers of Nicolaos, but this is interpretive. The second, Nicolaos is a compond of two words, (3534 and 2992) which means “victorious over the people”- nikos, “a conquest”, related to nikao, "to subdue of overcome’ (e.g., to him that overcomes). And laos, “people”, e.g., the populace, from whence derives our word laity.

A gloss on the topic is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaitanes

The reason that I say interpretive above is because there is no proof that the Nicolaitans the Lord referred to were followers of Nicolaos. Some have linked this to the first deacon, Nicholas, and said various bad things about him but this all came later and we have no ability to trace their knowledge of the man. There is no other Nicholas we can turn to for this that I have been able to see.

It’s been put forward that these people were basically the same as the Balaam people but that does not fir the text, because the Lord distinguishes them. " you also have those . . ."

We have nothing to solidly characterize this group except what the word itself means. I don’t know that they were a sect, per se, rather than first of all people following a natural human tendency to rally behind a leader (e.g., “you da man”), which was turned into a teaching that this is what God wants, clergy up here, laity down there.

One point of Greek here is that I am not sure the texts have this as a proper name because it is my understanding that it was all upper case until very late, so there would be no way to indicate whether it was a proper name of a description.

 

[utunumsint]

Hi Scalco,

I’m having trouble finding this quotation from Irenaeus. Do you know where it is in Irenaeus’s writings?

I do make a distinction between scripture, which is the only document we have of the apostolic church period, and anything that came after that, as far as substantive reliability is concerned. From what I have been reading here about post apostolic church fathers there is a lot of conjecture and gaps.

We are talking about the church as Jesus intended and I have been trying to define what the New Testament record has to say rather than interpret that by what happened afterwards.

Here you go from his letter to Florus. This are collected in Eusebius’ church history.

God bless,
Ut

 

[SCALCO]

Hi Scalco,

I’m having trouble finding this quotation from Irenaeus. Do you know where it is in Irenaeus’s writings?

I do make a distinction between scripture, which is the only document we have of the apostolic church period, and anything that came after that, as far as substantive reliability is concerned. From what I have been reading here about post apostolic church fathers there is a lot of conjecture and gaps.

We are talking about the church as Jesus intended and I have been trying to define what the New Testament record has to say rather than interpret that by what happened afterwards.

The Irenaeus quote I was referring to was in Against Heresies 3:3:4 [A.D. 189].
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

 

[Melville]

I am not sure why the Corinthian Church was in such chaos. There are also two more letters he wrote to them that did not survive. It may be the bishops were martyred. I don’t think we should take this chaos as representative of what Paul intended.

What we don’t have won’t help us. What we speculate is just that, speculation. What we do have is that Paul characterized the Corinthian church in general as being carnal, not spiritual, and there is a list of manifestations of this.

Do you imagine that there was not a presider?

What does what you or I imagine matter? Actually, Paul does mention a presider here, of sorts, when in vs 29 he says let two or three prophets speak and then to let the other or others judge or discern. The prophetic utterances are not to be accepted unexamined.

I agree that this passage is about liturgical practice, but it cannot be taken in a vacuum, apart from other instructions that Paul has given about the hierarchy.

I cannot see how one could read this section and use the word ‘liturgical’. It is specifically and unambiguously about the exercise of spititual gifts.

1 Tim 3:1-2
3:1 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.

Here he DOES speak about the office of bishop.

Titus 1:7-16
7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; 9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. 10 For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; 11 they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach. 12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth. 15 To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

Titus 2:1-2
2:1 But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine. 2 Bid the older men be temperate, serious, sensible, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.

Why would Paul be instructing the Bishop in how to lead, if it were not his task to control the insubordinate? The Bishops task was to keep order, and to teach sound doctrine, and keep the flock of God of whom he has been given charge.

Indeed, the church leadership appointed by Christ should never function apart from Him, in whom we live and move and have our

I had not said there was no office of bishop. I had said that under the apostles the local overseers were plural.

Yours in Christ,

Melville

 

[Melville]

The Irenaeus quote I was referring to was in Against Heresies 3:3:4 [A.D. 189].
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Thanks.

Ok, what I get here is that Irenaeus said that he had seen Polycarp in his youth and he says that apostles in Asia appointed him bishop of Smyrna. Who told Irenaeus this? Did I miss something?

I go back to the spiritual principle that it takes two or three witnesses to establish every fact. The testimony of one witness is not sufficient. Is there any other witness who knew Polycarp and states that he was appointed the single bishop of Smyrna by the apostles?

If I was a historian I would not be able to call this a primary source. It is a secondary source at best.

Inside this is the issue of the transfer of what was one office, elder/overseer, into two, with the overseer being placed over the elders. How do I prove that Polycarp would not have been appointed a bishop instead of the bishop?

It would be good in this general regard to get a chronological catalogue of the those who knew the apostles first hand and say they appointed anyone to be “the” bishop.

 

[utunumsint]

I go back to the spiritual principle that it takes two or three witnesses to establish every fact. The testimony of one witness is not sufficient. Is there any other witness who knew Polycarp and states that he was appointed the single bishop of Smyrna by the apostles?

We have the following witness:

1. 
   *]Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnian church
   *]The Smyrnians themselves in their letter concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp
   *]From Irenaeus because he had met Polycarp and could relate several stories about him.
   
   These constitute multiple sources for the fact that Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna. Irenaeus was the only one to mention that Polycarp was appointed bishop by the Apostles.
   
   God bless,
   Ut

 

[SCALCO]

Thanks.

Ok, what I get here is that Irenaeus said that he had seen Polycarp in his youth and he says that apostles in Asia appointed him bishop of Smyrna. Who told Irenaeus this? Did I miss something?

I go back to the spiritual principle that it takes two or three witnesses to establish every fact. The testimony of one witness is not sufficient. Is there any other witness who knew Polycarp and states that he was appointed the single bishop of Smyrna by the apostles?

If I was a historian I would not be able to call this a primary source. It is a secondary source at best.

Inside this is the issue of the transfer of what was one office, elder/overseer, into two, with the overseer being placed over the elders. How do I prove that Polycarp would not have been appointed a bishop instead of the bishop?

It would be good in this general regard to get a chronological catalogue of the those who knew the apostles first hand and say they appointed anyone to be “the” bishop.

Hi Melville,

In the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Ignatius also calls Polycarp the bishop of the Smyrnaeans. This is two sources. I suppose there could be more? Did the Apostles appoint him? I don’t know for sure. Someone else may be able to answer that faster.

newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

The Ephesians from Smyrna (whence I also write to you), who are here for the glory of God, as you also are, who have in all things refreshed me, salute you, along with Polycarp, the bishop of the Smyrnæans. The rest of the Churches, in honour of Jesus Christ, also salute you. Fare well in the harmony of God, you who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ.

Btw, I also want to continue studying scripture in more detail here.

 

[SCALCO]

We have the following witness:

1. 
   *]Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnian church
   *]The Smyrnians themselves in their letter concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp
   *]From Irenaeus because he had met Polycarp and could relate several stories about him.
   
   These constitute multiple sources for the fact that Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna. Irenaeus was the only one to mention that Polycarp was appointed bishop by the Apostles.
   
   God bless,
   Ut

1. 
   I must have missed this post before I posted mine. I forgot about the Smyrnians letter.

 

[utunumsint]

There are numerous web pages that have interpretations of the term. The Strong’s number are 3531 and 3532 in the Greek Dictionary. The first one says followers of Nicolaos, but this is interpretive. The second, Nicolaos is a compond of two words, (3534 and 2992) which means “victorious over the people”- nikos, “a conquest”, related to nikao, "to subdue of overcome’ (e.g., to him that overcomes). And laos, “people”, e.g., the populace, from whence derives our word laity.

A gloss on the topic is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaitanes

Thanks for the link. I have to say that I would opt for the historical interpretation of Irenaeus, Clement, and Theodoret. And…along the same lines as my argument against the size of the rocks in Matthew 16…this interpretation of the word Nicolaitan does not seem to appear until well after the reformation.

Once again, the implications are that an evil clerical hierarchy overthrew the pristine democratic society of the early church, and this situation lasted up until the reformation. Once again, I find this beyond far fetched, because it would imply that the church which Christ founded had about as much staying power as a sneeze.

The reason that I say interpretive above is because there is no proof that the Nicolaitans the Lord referred to were followers of Nicolaos. Some have linked this to the first deacon, Nicholas, and said various bad things about him but this all came later and we have no ability to trace their knowledge of the man. There is no other Nicholas we can turn to for this that I have been able to see.

Clement of Alexandria tries to exonerate Nicholas, but in so doing he blames the Nicolaitans of the sins of Balaam.

It’s been put forward that these people were basically the same as the Balaam people but that does not fir the text, because the Lord distinguishes them. " you also have those . . ."

Or, it could mean more of the same.

We have nothing to solidly characterize this group except what the word itself means. I don’t know that they were a sect, per se, rather than first of all people following a natural human tendency to rally behind a leader (e.g., “you da man”), which was turned into a teaching that this is what God wants, clergy up here, laity down there.

One point of Greek here is that I am not sure the texts have this as a proper name because it is my understanding that it was all upper case until very late, so there would be no way to indicate whether it was a proper name of a description.

I would expect that the actual Greek speakers would have known, like Irenaeus, Clement, and Theodoret because it would have been obvious to them.

So my position in a nutshell is that this interpretation has no historical backing, and therefore I have to reject it.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Melville]

Thanks for the link. I have to say that I would opt for the historical interpretation of Irenaeus, Clement, and Theodoret. And…along the same lines as my argument against the size of the rocks in Matthew 16…this interpretation of the word Nicolaitan does not seem to appear until well after the reformation.

Once again, the implications are that an evil clerical hierarchy overthrew the pristine democratic society of the early church, and this situation lasted up until the reformation. Once again, I find this beyond far fetched, because it would imply that the church which Christ founded had about as much staying power as a sneeze.

Clement of Alexandria tries to exonerate Nicholas, but in so doing he blames the Nicolaitans of the sins of Balaam.

Or, it could mean more of the same.

I would expect that the actual Greek speakers would have known, like Irenaeus, Clement, and Theodoret because it would have been obvious to them.

So my position in a nutshell is that this interpretation has no historical backing, and therefore I have to reject it.

God bless,
Ut

You are probably not surprised, dear Ut, that I am not surprised that you side with Irenaeus, et al.

You are very familiar with the early church fathers and I am not. I also come from the place of wanting to see what the scriptures themselves say, taken as a whole and by way of self interpretation, comparing scripture with scripture, to see what that adds up to, and then compare that with the tradition. You interpret the scriptures via the post-biblical tradition.

We have different vantage points. One thing we may agree on is that some things in the Bible are completely unambiguous, witnesssed in the word multiple times. Some things are a single reference that is not multiple, and here you go back from tradition and I look at the Bible and ask, What?

An example that came to mind is the appointment of Matthias as apostle in the place of Judas. I don’t think you and I, Ut, discussed this but it has been used as a support for apostolic succession. Yet this was a very special case that applied to the position Judas held and no other. As Peter explained, in quoting Psalm 109, this vacation of the episcopate/ office was not simply replacing an apostle who died. (Was Judas ever named and apostle?) This was based on a curse David gave prophetically about the wicked betrayer. There is no other record of an apostolic appointment after the twelve, not even when James was murdered.

The only exception is Paul, whom the Lord Himself called and appointed. It was Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees, and not Peter, who withstood the Judaizers without compromise, which is nothing short of supernatural, given all of their backgrounds. It is interesting that after this appointment Matthias seems never to have been referred to again . . .

I would, from this vantage point of centuries past, go along with Clement in exonerating Nicholas, since we have no contemporary evidence to show where the deacon Nicholas went off the beam, at least so far here, but then where did Clement get his information? How about the others? Since I’ve done a little published scholarship (not in religious issues), I naturally need to go back to the texts and the sticking points.

I can’t see that the Nicolaitans were a separate sect. In Ephesus, happily they were OUT. In Pergamum they were, sadly, IN the church, as with the Balaam situation, and later with the Jezebel problem. At this point I can see no sound evidence that there was a party who were followers of an undocumented Nicholas, with undocumented teachings. I just see what the Greek words mean.

I would also like to note that the Lord’s words in Revelation, the whole book really, is very hard to understand, no? This was a spititual word given by Jesus Christ to John. These writers that are being quoted are not apostles. How can we prove that they all “got it”?

The clergy/laity hierarchy vs. a “a pristine democratic society” is not the way I’d phrase it. Nowhere that I can find are church issues or appointments settled by a vote. (Help if I missed something.) The church that Jesus intended, from scripture anyway, was meant to be governed spiritually neither by popular vote nor bureaucratically.

Yours in the love of Christ,

Melville

 

[utunumsint]

I would, from this vantage point of centuries past, go along with Clement in exonerating Nicholas, since we have no contemporary evidence to show where the deacon Nicholas went off the beam, at least so far here, but then where did Clement get his information? How about the others? Since I’ve done a little published scholarship (not in religious issues), I naturally need to go back to the texts and the sticking points.

I can’t see that the Nicolaitans were a separate sect. In Ephesus, happily they were OUT. In Pergamum they were, sadly, IN the church, as with the Balaam situation, and later with the Jezebel problem. At this point I can see no sound evidence that there was a party who were followers of an undocumented Nicholas, with undocumented teachings. I just see what the Greek words mean.

I would also like to note that the Lord’s words in Revelation, the whole book really, is very hard to understand, no? This was a spititual word given by Jesus Christ to John. These writers that are being quoted are not apostles. How can we prove that they all “got it”?

Are you suggesting that Matthais was not really an apostle? Because the text of Acts 2 seems clear to me.

For your interpretation of the word Nicolaitan — If we use the letter to the seven churches as our guide, and that the leaders of those churches would have understood the meaning of the word Nicolaitan, then we have the following consequence:

1. 
   *]Polycarp was probably a recipient of the letter to the seven churches since he was the bishop of Smyrna.
   *]He probably understood what the word would have meant.
   *]The letter itself shows that his church was in good standing.
   *]If it had meant what you suggest (e.g. overthrower of the laity by establishing a two tiered clergy/priestly class) why would he have not denouced Ignatius, who would clearly have fallen into the Nicolaitan category? Why would he proceed to forward his letter to the Philippians so they could also be influenced by his letter?
   
   God bless,
   Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Are you suggesting that Matthais was not really an apostle? Because the text of Acts 2 seems clear to me.

For your interpretation of the word Nicolaitan — If we use the letter to the seven churches as our guide, and that the leaders of those churches would have understood the meaning of the word Nicolaitan, then we have the following consequence:

1. 
   *]Polycarp was probably a recipient of the letter to the seven churches since he was the bishop of Smyrna.
   *]He probably understood what the word would have meant.
   *]The letter itself shows that his church was in good standing.
   *]If it had meant what you suggest (e.g. overthrower of the laity by establishing a two tiered clergy/priestly class) why would he have not denouced Ignatius, who would clearly have fallen into the Nicolaitan category? Why would he proceed to forward his letter to the Philippians so they could also be influenced by his letter?
   
   God bless,
   Ut

1. 
   One more thing. Polycarp, in his letter to the Phillipians makes clear mention of the gnostic heresy of docetism. If the word Nicolaitan means what you says it means, it could be pointing to them as the overthrowers/victors/rulers of the laity.
   
   For that matter, does not the word “laity” presume something above it, in the same way that sheep presumes a shepherd? Is not the shepherd one who guides the sheep/laity and has authority and responsibility for them?
   
   God bless,
   Ut

 

[SCALCO]

When it comes to studying scripture and post Apostolic period writings, I think a trustworthy approach is to compare them side by side from the perspective of tradition and history. We can see that tradition affirms scripture. Since we are focusing on scripture, this is probably a whole different topic. Just using what we discussed as an example, we learn about the church of Smyrna in scripture and can prove from multiple sources that Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna during this time. We know from scripture that the Apostles appointed bishops/overseers. Ireneaus later writes that Polycarp was appointed by the apostle John.

 

[Melville]

Are you suggesting that Matthais was not really an apostle? Because the text of Acts 2 seems clear to me.

For your interpretation of the word Nicolaitan — If we use the letter to the seven churches as our guide, and that the leaders of those churches would have understood the meaning of the word Nicolaitan, then we have the following consequence:

1. 
   *]Polycarp was probably a recipient of the letter to the seven churches since he was the bishop of Smyrna.
   *]He probably understood what the word would have meant.
   *]The letter itself shows that his church was in good standing.
   *]If it had meant what you suggest (e.g. overthrower of the laity by establishing a two tiered clergy/priestly class) why would he have not denouced Ignatius, who would clearly have fallen into the Nicolaitan category? Why would he proceed to forward his letter to the Philippians so they could also be influenced by his letter?
   
   God bless,
   Ut

1. 
   No, I am not saying that Matthias was not an apostle. I am saying that this is a unique case of prophetic fulfillment that is not a precedent for general apostolic succession.
   
   I also brought up Paul because there is no doubt that he was an apostle, but he was not appointed by the other apostles, did not immediately confer with them, and received his revelation directly from the Lord. I would go on to say that not all the apostles had equal revelation. Paul was given to see things that were new, a particular insight into the mystery of God that he articulated more extensively than any other records that we have,
   
   About Polycarp and Nicolaitan, here’s that word “probably” again.
   
   That is reasonable because John also specifically writes to the seven churches. Is there any place in Polycarp’s writing that he refers to the Revelation?
   
   We can also infer that this was not all strictly and only to the seven churches, because in each case the Lord “he who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
   
   Can we assume that Polycarp knew what “Nicolaitan” referred to and that if it meant a clergy/laity distinction he would have rebuked Ignatius, edited the latter’s letter, or made mention of this particular point when forwarding the letter? I don’t see how there can be a certain conclusion either way. There were other letters from Polycarp that we don’t have. From the little I can find of Polycarp, he seems to have abounded with graciousness.
   
   I note that when he wrote to Phillipi, he did not write on his own but, as he put it, together with the elders. He did not tell the Philippians to focus on the bishop. In the face of false teachings he refers them to the word they had received. He wrote to them because they asked him to, not on his own initiative (another reason not to expect him to critique the content of Ignatius’s letters; they requested them). He obviously thought highly of Ignatius, but had not recent news of him. In every way this man wrote according to what I also find in the Bible.
   
   The Nicolaitan issue I am speaking about is not as simple as anti-nomianism or gnosticism. They would be people who adhere to Christian morality and the faith of Jesus Christ but they add this clergy distinction.
   
   About whether all the original readers of the letters in Revelation understood everything they referrrd to, this really goes to an overall question of whether the Lord was speaking spiritually or naturally. This is a problem for interpretatoin of the book generally. What is literal and what is figurative? I come down on the side of the spiritual. These things are spiritually discerned. (We can go into that if you’d like.) He says in Thyatira there was a woman, Jezebel. Do we reduce it to an individual by that name or is this a symbolic figuration that goes back to King Ahab’s wife and what she brought into Israel? I have to go with the latter, with the implication that in this period of the earliest of early church fathers something that bad was going on, in a spiritual sense.

 

[Melville]

One more thing. Polycarp, in his letter to the Phillipians makes clear mention of the gnostic heresy of docetism. If the word Nicolaitan means what you says it means, it could be pointing to them as the overthrowers/victors/rulers of the laity.

For that matter, does not the word “laity” presume something above it, in the same way that sheep presumes a shepherd? Is not the shepherd one who guides the sheep/laity and has authority and responsibility for them?

God bless,
Ut

Hi again,

I can’t find a credible Nicholas. No Nicolaitan documents have been adduced. I don’t know what docetism is or on what basis we’d connect that with this issue, and couldn’t find it in the letter. How did he phrase it?

The English word “laity” has associations, as you are using it, that I can’t find in the Greek New Testament. There it just means people, a people, or the general populace. It is the regular term for people. This is precisely the point.

 

[SCALCO]

Melville, You and UT seem to be carrying the discussion quite well. I am benefiting very much from the dialouge. If I may, I will respond to a couple of your comments.

No, I am not saying that Matthias was not an apostle. I am saying that this is a unique case of prophetic fulfillment that is not a precedent for general apostolic succession.

Your interpretation.

I also brought up Paul because there is no doubt that he was an apostle, but he was not appointed by the other apostles, did not immediately confer with them, and received his revelation directly from the Lord. I would go on to say that not all the apostles had equal revelation. Paul was given to see things that were new, a particular insight into the mystery of God that he articulated more extensively than any other records that we have,

Agreed.

About Polycarp and Nicolaitan, here’s that word “probably” again.

That is reasonable because John also specifically writes to the seven churches. Is there any place in Polycarp’s writing that he refers to the Revelation?

We can also infer that this was not all strictly and only to the seven churches, because in each case the Lord “he who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Can we assume that Polycarp knew what “Nicolaitan” referred to and that if it meant a clergy/laity distinction he would have rebuked Ignatius, edited the latter’s letter, or made mention of this particular point when forwarding the letter? I don’t see how there can be a certain conclusion either way. There were other letters from Polycarp that we don’t have. From the little I can find of Polycarp, he seems to have abounded with graciousness.

There’s a lot of inferring and assuming going on here. We only know that Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna at the time of the Apostle John.

I note that when he wrote to Phillipi, he did not write on his own but, as he put it, together with the elders. He did not tell the Philippians to focus on the bishop. In the face of false teachings he refers them to the word they had received. He wrote to them because they asked him to, not on his own initiative (another reason not to expect him to critique the content of Ignatius’s letters; they requested them). He obviously thought highly of Ignatius, but had not recent news of him. In every way this man wrote according to what I also find in the Bible.

I haven’t read enough to comment adequately about his epistle to the Philippians. However, I’m not sure why we must assume that Ignatius needs any approval from Polycarp. You said it best that Polycarp thought highly of Ignatius. Can we infer anything more or less? Just a side note: Ignatius was older than Polycarp.