Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534
I recently read something that took a strong position that "scattered saints" who met informally everywhere does not satisfy the New Testament definition of "ekklesia" and that, along the lines of Lee's doctrine derived from Matthew 18, the assembly must be a practical reality with a definite and focused embodiment.
The argument essentially went that Paul must have a place to send an epistle, that if you were to visit a city, there must be a way for you to hook up with the assembly, and that since after you discussed your brother's sin with two or three you then brought the problem before the assembly, the two or three were not legitimately to be considered the assembly but something else must be.
Here is the question I pose:
If the assembly is all the believers in a place, isn't it redundant to use the phrase "whole assembly"? The fact that Paul uses the word "whole" here implies that the assembly is also found where there is less than the "whole" in one place.
Good enough on that point I think for now. There is at least some evidence that something less than the "whole assembly" might be scripturally recognized as being "the assembly," for whatever that's worth.
|
I studied tort law, briefly, and was surprised that to learn that if I send an email bashing someone, it is still considered private if it goes to 2 people. But if it goes to 3 or more it is then "public" and potentially libelous. So maybe Roman law held that 3 people was a "private" gathering, I dunno.
And when Jesus took 3 disciples with him onto the mountain, that was still a "private" gathering, as opposed to the 12.
I think it may depend on the context. If you are 4 people on an island, and you gather, then you are the "whole assembly". But if there are many in a city, then 4 gathering together is not considered the whole assembly.
But on the other hand, as christianity grew, it would quickly become impractical to have the "whole assembly" come together in any place. And today, the whole assembly of believers in a place like Pittsburgh coming together seems to be logistically impossible.
I have decided that 3 or 4 gathering is perhaps not really "ekklesia" in the sense of the word as (mostly) used in the NT, but it is still legitimately representative. The Lord promised us His presence if we gather in His name, and I believe His quorum requirements were small. I am so leery of organization at this point that "private" gatherings are sufficient for me.
===================================
Interestingly, and perhaps unrelated, is the question of "who would Paul send a letter to" in such-and-such city. Interesting to me because you usually don't send a letter to a group, but rather to a person, a designated representative, who then transmits the message to the others, until all are informed. Messages must have "points of entry" -- you don't just give a message to a group unless you are there in person. And even then if you want anything done you'd better be specific. My boss told our group to do something yesterday and nobody did it because he didn't specify who to do it; he just said "someone needs to...". Nobody did it.
I say this because I was recently struck by the fact that John sent his epistles not to the seven assemblies in Asia, but to the "angelos" -- messengers or angels, i.e. designated
responsible representatives -- of the assemblies in Asia. Seems pretty practical to me. John sent the letters to specific persons who he trusted would get the word out to the rest.
Anyway, this further example reinforced my "thinking small" rather than "thinking big". But my ruminations may not be very applicable to your inquiry.