Copyright © 1995 by John M. Bland
There have been many reformation movements within the context of Christianity throughout its long history. If one espouses the need for reformation, it is naturally implied that there has been a departure from the original or Biblical pattern. This thesis not only challenges Roman Catholic claims and all Protestant denominations, but also is a direct challenge to believers that have deep roots in the so-named restoration movement that was basically endemic to the United States.
Though the seeds of this movement had already been planted in Europe, they found the necessary nourishment to blossom in 19th century America. Men of various denominations -- called "parties" at that time -- were convicted that their sects were guilty of diluting scriptural precepts by their catechisms, creeds, and human tenets. Thus was ushered in a new age of individual responsibility to know God's will. Personal Bible study was urged upon the "laity". A call went out to all those who would follow Jesus to reject all anti-Biblical precepts. "Lay aside your creeds and use the Bible only," was the challenge. "Cease the use of denominational names," was the dare. "Erect no orthodoxy based upon arguments from silence," was the admonition. New definitions were called for. "Call Bible things by Bible names," was the plea. Challenges for public discussion were issued and accepted. Debates took place in town halls, church buildings, open squares and countless milieus across this great land. Millions answered the call. Even more were influenced by the logic and purity of the "restoration plea". Restoration leaders were so sanguine regarding the ultimate results that some believed that the "millennium" would be ushered in as a result of progress made.
Unfortunately, like all other movements in history, it died. It can be said to have ended in 1866 with the death of Alexander Campbell, one of its strongest proponents. The offspring begotten from restoration zeal lost their focus as they gained recognition with the community at large. They were deceived into believing that they had arrived; that Biblical Christianity had indeed been restored. Instead of continuing to maintain an atmosphere of healthy Biblical discussion and debate, they instead defended their own brand of orthodoxy.
Since the attitude of entrenchment has always rung the death knell to mental expansion and Biblical growth, David Lipscomb felt compelled to remind all truth seekers that, "To suppress discussion is to deprive truth of all its vantage ground". Even though the Truth has nothing to fear by open discussion, dissension was discouraged by mainstreamers.
Eventually the movement became a monument; as immovable and inflexible as those that their forefathers had attempted to destroy with the light of Biblical teaching. Dissenters in their midst were suppressed, silenced, or ousted. "Heretics" were burned at the stake of mainstream disapproval and rejection. As an ultimate result, full-blown denominationalism occurred as corporations were formed, cathedrals were built at every street corner and ministerial schools and colleges were planted to train the defenders of their orthodoxy. The intellectual power of mainstream thought was harnessed as countless tomes were filled with "correct" Biblical exposition and commentary. "If a brother didn't write it, it couldn't be right" was the subliminal message.
Instead of continuing along the trail blazed by the restoration fathers and away from the mind restricting confines of Romanism and ecclesiastical officialdom, this new denomination back-slid towards "popery", leaving restoration principles squashed in its wake. Much backsliding was already occurring during the heyday of the restoration and there were elements of the denominational apostasy that had gone unaddressed altogether.
It is to this tendency towards apostasy that the author wants to direct this study. His call is for renewal:
We have been guilty in the church of zealous dedication to traditionalism, and defending traditional views with as much fervor as if they were divine edicts. With this process we have created a definite ... theology, some of which may have but flimsy foundation in Scriptural fact. The conclusion is drawn that our conventional interpretation of some passages and practices must in FACT be New Testament Christianity. Because a viewpoint has been held in our brotherhood for an extended period of time, however, no more authenticates its truth than a tradition held in any other church. God's Word alone is ultimate truth, and our interpretation of it may be very faulty.
Martin Luther, the best known reformer and the major catalyst of the Great Reformation movement that took place in Europe in the 16th century admonishes all those that would be Biblical scholars with these words:
"O that God should desire that my interpretation and that of all teachers should disappear, and each Christian should come straight to the Scripture alone and to the pure Word of God!... Go on to the bible itself, dear Christians, and let my expositions and those of all scholars be no more that a tool with which to build aright, so that we can understand, taste, and abide in the simple and pure Word of God; for God dwells alone in Zion."
Luther and his colleagues also said:
"We desire to follow Scripture alone as rule of faith and religion, without mixing it with any other thing which might be devised by the opinion of men, apart from the Word of God, and without wishing to accept for our spiritual government any other doctrine than what is conveyed to us by the same word without addition or diminution, according to the command of our Lord."Having been raised a child of the restoration makes questioning the foundational traditions of our fellowship unsettling, to say the least. However, it has become necessary to question many of the "givens" from time to time. It is with concern for restoration principles and the continual propensity towards apostasy that I approach the subject of this thesis.
Human nature has shown a continual gravitation toward shifting away from responsibility. This tendency is revealed for what it really is in Biblical writings. Bible history reverberates with those who "would be kings" and those who would -- admittedly with some trepidation -- give up their prerogatives to those who "would be kings".
As the author mulls over the idea of returning to Biblical Christianity established by Jesus , he has found it necessary to challenge the human tendency to shift responsibility already firmly entrenched in our practice, if not in our theology. Many of us who deny the authority of the "clergy/laity" system in Roman Catholicism and most Protestant denominations are blinded by bigotry and self-righteousness as we disregard our own. As we continually "compare ourselves by ourselves" we prove that -- like the Corinthian body -- we are equally unwise (2 Corinthians 10:12).
This, of course, is the nature of tradition. It becomes a paradigm, a way of looking at the world. Problems are easily overlooked as we carry on the heritage. Our intellects are continually narrowed as we study the Scriptures with the blinders of our paradigm.
It is the purpose of this brief work to challenge the entire organizational tradition of our church structure. From the concepts of ministry to the perpetuation and maintenance of the corporation with its board of directors and real estate holdings. As the author embarks upon the course of criticizing the ecclesiastical religious system inherent today in Christendom, he is reminded of the words of Robert Richardson, one of the Restoration Movement spokesmen. Encouraging individual study as well as the willingness to express one's convictions he writes:
"For my part, I shall ever claim the right of thinking and judging for myself, and of fully and freely expressing my views, whether these correspond with those of others or differ from them. This I conceive to be a high and holy privilege, and its exercise a sacred duty."
The author challenges all those who are interested in truth to remove their blinders as we together engage in this most sacred duty and study the scriptures together.
"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, 'Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?' He answered and said to them, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. And they worship me worthlessly, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'" (Mark 7:5-7, emphasis mine)
The above Scriptures illustrate very well the intellectually crippling nature of
traditions. As we can see, these Jewish leaders were not accusing Jesus of breaking God's
commandments but the "tradition of the elders." This "paradigm" had reached a position of
supremacy. Its importance had blinded them to the God's authority. It brought on the accusation
by Jesus that their tradition had caused them to violate the law of God. Their strict adherence to
their paradigms had caused them to overlook the anomalies (things that contradict the accepted
view). The consequences were dire. Their worship was vain. Traditions were taught as
God's will. Jesus accused them of
"... annulling God's message for your tradition which you have handed down. And you do many such things."(Mark 7:13).
They constantly found themselves defending their traditions rather than accepting the Messiah. This human propensity towards tradition caused them to multiply their mistakes. It caused them to lay the wrong foundations. It ultimately resulted in their rejection of the Anointed Jesus.
We offspring of restoration principles often look with disdain upon a people who could be so obtuse. We could never be like them! However, we have accepted numerous traditions without a peep of protest and, as the quote from Waymond Miller states, have vigorously defended them. Again, this is the nature of paradigms.
The "restoration father" Barton W. Stone had this to say when commenting on this human tendency buried deep in the heart of us all:
"A creed, or confession of faith, is considered both as a summary of doctrines taught in the Bible and an explanation of them. If it were left in its own place, to occupy the low ground of human opinion, it might do some good. But the moment it is received and adapted as a STANDARD, it assumes the place of the Bible...."
It is not enough to deny the existence of creeds within one's own theology. If they exist in the heart and make themselves known in practice, they are just as much creeds as if they were written and engraved in stone.
Stone went on to explain the necessity of distinguishing between our individual or collective views of Biblical truth and our general propensity to defend our orthodoxies.
"We must carefully distinguish between believing fundamental scripture truths and any explanation of them."
In looking at this idea of paradigm, the author will compare it to the humanistic view of the Theory of Evolution. Scientists who espouse this theory point to the "fact of evolution" to sweep away all arguments to the contrary. They do this "pontifically." The theory "must" be true because, in their paradigm, there simply is no alternative. A quote from the Nobel Prize winner in science Dr. George Wald is a great example of the strength of paradigms in affecting one's interpretations.
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."(emphasis mine)
When you approach science in this way, you certainly have no fear of the evidence. Any anomalies that might arise, therefore, are explained away and/or incorporated within the parameters of the paradigm itself.
Karl Popper believed that a theory or hypothesis was scientific only to the extent that it was capable of being verified or falsified viz reproduced in the laboratory or disproven. The problem with this criterion is that it is impossible to test every important scientific proposition in isolation. Background assumptions have to be made so that detailed statements can be tested. The paradigm, then, is made up of the background assumptions that define the current scientific world view.
Berkeley law professor Philip E. Johnson, in his book entitled Darwin on Trial, explains the all-pervasive nature of the traditional paradigm like this:
"A paradigm is not merely a hypothesis, which can be discarded if it fails a single experimental test. It is a way of looking at the world, or some part of it, and scientists understand even the anomalies in its terms. According to Kuhn, anomalies by themselves never falsify a paradigm, because its defenders can resort to ad hoc hypotheses to accommodate any potentially disconfirming evidence. A paradigm rules until it is replaced by another paradigm... Kuhn described experimental evidence showing that ordinary people tend to see what they have been trained to see, and fail to see what they know ought not to be present. The finest scientists are no exception. On the contrary, because they are dependent upon inferences and upon observations that are difficult to make, they are particularly prone to paradigm-influenced misperception."(emphasis mine)
Johnson is explaining the difficulty the disputer of Darwinism has when dealing with the "experts". He goes on to say that this tunnel vision of scientific paradigm increasingly narrows as it becomes sophisticated. When you include the compensatory relationship of public funding and grants, researchers have no alternative but to pursue their research within the boundaries of this all encompassing paradigm or risk losing their grants.
In making spiritual application, one must also examine the boundaries of his own paradigms to see whether they encompass Biblical truth or exclude it. The paradigm of the Pharisees referred to in Mark 7, restricted the Jewish orthodoxy from accepting their Messiah. Jesus never fit their paradigm. He looked nothing like their Messiah. He was the "stone that the builders rejected" (Matthew 21:42).
This example shows the extremes that a paradigm can take you. Even the testimony of miracles could not replace their own idea as to what the Anointed One was supposed to be. The scientific paradigm of Darwinism has caused many intelligent men to reject God, the Creator. The religious paradigm of the Jewish leaders caused them to reject Jesus, the Anointed One. What of our paradigm? Has it caused us to reject plain truths concerning the authority, structure, and organization of the Lord's body?
The author has often wondered why good students of the scriptures can differ so widely in their Biblical interpretations; why some reject many "plain teachings". We can assume they are familiar with the same verses. What is the problem?
As you examine the above definition of a paradigm it becomes obvious. Biblical interpretations are related to the basic paradigms of the individual students. Roman Catholics are going to interpret scriptures based upon Catholic paradigms; Lutherans on Lutheran paradigms; Baptists along Baptist paradigms, etc. Anomalies are explained within the parameters of their paradigms. In order for a person to accept a different interpretation, he must first allow his former paradigm to be compromised -- at least.
This, of course, applies to my own Bible studies as well -- it being subject to my own paradigm. As Kuhn described, all of us "... are guilty of seeing what we are trained to see, and fail to see what we know ought not to be present." This is bad enough when looking at a scientific hypotheses but it is disastrous if we are interested in treating Biblical writings with the respect that they deserve.
Jesus was hated because he made changing the Jewish and world paradigms a necessity for Kingdom citizenship. He spoke very directly about the difficulty:
"No one puts a piece from a new garment on an old one; otherwise the new makes a tear, and also the piece that was taken out of the new does not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins, and both are preserved. And no one, having old wine, immediately desires new; for he says the old is better. (Luke 5:36-39, emphasis mine)."
We can certainly relate to that! "The old is better!" Jesus is relating how paradigms operate. He explains the pervasive nature of humans to shun change of any kind -- even when it's right! Challenge to an old paradigm is unsettling! It makes everyone connected with it uncomfortable.
As we continue to apply the model of Kuhn's paradigm to religious matters we notice that the experts can be much guiltier than the laymen in promoting the existing paradigm. By comparison, the scientist's dependence upon inference and observations become the religionist's arguments from silence, claims of Holy Spirit Leading and pastoral interpretation of difficult scriptures. The aforementioned admonition that Martin Luther gave to those seeking enlightenment to "Go on to the bible itself, dear Christians, and let my expositions and those of all scholars be no more that a tool with which to build aright" is forgotten as the fine nuances of theological orthodoxy are carefully defined to protect the "laity" from heresy.
When you couple this with the pecuniary interest of accepting a living from the ministry -- the pressure to maintain the paradigm becomes overwhelming to all but a few. From this perspective, religious leaders are much less objective in dealing with truth than the led. Jesus told the religious leaders of his day, "you are blind guides" (Matthew 15:14). The compromising relationship between the minister and material compensation makes any serious challenge to the paradigm a threat to his chosen profession. Few have the courage to bite the hand that feeds them!
Trying to arrive at truth within the framework of sectarian paradigms relegates the "clergyman" to continual (even if unwanted) blindness. Richardson put it this way:
"A sectarian, who looks at the scriptures through a restrictive system of doctrines and opinions, called a creed, is like one who is incarcerated and fettered, and permitted to gaze upon one particular landscape only, from the single window of his gloomy and unwholesome prison."
The purpose of this thesis is not to look at the Pharisees or other Denominationalists but to examine our particular fellowship. To look intently at our paradigms and compare them to the Biblical truth. As we can plainly see, paradigms can make intellectual cowards of us all if we fail to take the challenge.
Have we been guilty of making all anomalies fit our paradigm? Truth should fear no challenge. Alexander Campbell, in his debate with the agnostic Owen asked this question at the end of his opening remarks. After defining the ageless presence of truth's enemies and demonstrating how the truth had triumphed under fearful odds, he asked. "... and shall the advocates of such a cause fear the contest now?"
The need for a social paradigm shift was also recognized by Karl Marx. Although there are many things with which one might disagree with Marx, his recognition of the state of the social paradigm cannot be ridiculed. It is not known whether Marx recognized this as also being the state of the religious paradigm, but his reference to the religion of his day as being "the opiate of the people" lends toward this conclusion. Marx wrote:
"The advantage of the new movement is that we do not want to anticipate the world dogmatically, but only to discover the new by way of the criticism of the old world. Until now, philosophers kept the solution of all mysteries inside their desks, and the stupid uneducated world merely had to open its mouth and the fried dove of absolute knowledge would fly in.
"Philosophy is now secular, for which the best proof is that philosophical consciousness itself feels the pain of the struggle not merely externally, but also internally. It is not our task to construct the future and to deal with everything once and for all, but it is clear what we have to do at present -- I am thinking of the merciless criticism of everything that exists -- merciless criticism in the sense that it is not afraid of its findings, and just as little afraid of conflict with the existing powers... It will be found that humanity does not start a new task, but consciously carries through the old (emphasis mine)."
Marx realized that new ideas were being derived from former ones and that only through honest inspection of the old paradigm can progress be made. Reader, have you ever entered into a study where you were afraid of the findings? It is a normal fear for all who want to be right.
The contest recognized by Marx and championed in Christian circles by those in the American Restoration Movement is taken up today by those interested in the restoration of Biblical Christianity. You can only be classified in either of two camps. Those who are interested in examining the scriptures to see for themselves the nature of Jesus' community or those who are satisfied with the status quo regardless of whether it can be Biblically defended. John Milton's comments about those that would accept the word of their pastor or denomination without question is apropos.
"Well knows he who used to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing any other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy. There is not any burden that some would gladlier post off to another than the care and charge of their religion. There be, who knows not that there be, of Protestants and professors who live and die in as errant an implicit faith as any lay papist of Loretto . . . (emphasis mine)"
As Milton has so aptly described, many today have espoused the idea that the church of our choice would correspond to the church of God's choice. Which camp are you in? Paul said, "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Prove yourselves...." (2 Corinthians 13:5).
"Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, Look, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make for us a king to judge us like all the nations.... And the Lord said to Samuel, Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them (1 Samuel 8:4-5,7, emphasis mine)."
The above scripture is an excellent illustration of the human tendency to ascribe to someone else one's own God-given responsibilities. Yahweh had founded a theocratic (God ruled) nation of priests. He had chosen them to be special. He had delivered them from the rule of Pharaoh and given them equality under His reign as defined below.
"You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagle's wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, then you will be a special treasure to me above all people; for all the earth is mine. And you will be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:4-6, emphasis mine)."
History shows they were faithful to God for only a short period of time. They failed to obey God in driving out the inhabitants of the land. They quit inquiring into the will of God from the Levitical priests. The comment in Judges 17:6, is this. "At that time there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (emphasis mine). Because they had rejected God's rule, He sold them into the hands of oppressors. From time to time, God found it merciful to raise up a deliverer. They would rally around this judge and with God's help conquer the enemy. Generally, they were called to personally participate in the war.
This was the background of things when Samuel, the last judge, was enfeebled with age. Israel was still surrounded with enemies. The people were weary of their responsibilities to confront these adversaries. They gave two reasons for their request for a king. The first is stated in the above introductory verse -- that they could be like the surrounding nations.
It takes courage and fortitude to be different. It takes commitment to an ideal to take a stand. It requires sacrifice to battle. From this perspective, you can understand their insistence on having a king even after the negatives were iterated. We want a king anyway, they said,
"...that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles (1 Samuel 8:19-20, emphasis mine)."
Now we're getting to the most important reason for their insistence. They were tired of fighting. They were glad -- with some hesitation -- to let others carry their responsibilities. God had warned them about the nature of kings. "They will tax you." "They will make servants out of your children." "They will take your sons for soldiers." "They will make your daughters perfumers and cooks." Etceteras! "Yeah," they replied, "we can understand that but what is that to us?" "Give us a king!" (paraphrase mine)
Who were these responsibility shirkers? These were the elders, the older people. These were the ones whom God wished to be shepherds of His citizens: those that had the weight of age and experience. It was going to be their sons who would end up paying the cost of their folly. It was their daughters that would be tyrannized by the kings that would follow. It was the issue of their loins that would have to give up their hard earned money to the king and his court. It was their offspring who would weep and toil in a land of captivity while they "rested with their fathers." The consequences of their demand was far reaching and enduring and they had no Scriptural right to relinquish their responsibilities to those "who would be kings". In doing so, God accused them of rejecting Him.
This Old Testament passage illustrates the constant human disposition to make excuses and avoid personal responsibility. Adam was the first to blame someone else for his rebellion. He ended up blaming both God and his wife. In the instance of Israel, after God gave in to their wish and granted them a "substitute", their first king Saul "shirked" his responsibility to carry out God's desire and then blamed the people (1 Samuel 15).
In modern day vernacular we would say "let George do it". Well, you say, that was then and this is now. Are we, the heirs of New Testament Christianity, guilty of the same? Let us examine the answer in the next chapter.
"And Simon Peter answered saying, 'You are the Anointed One, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered saying to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my community (ekklHsia), and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it' (Matthew 16:16-18)."
Most Bible students who are concerned with restoration principles are familiar with this statement by Jesus. The author wants to reiterate and emphasize that Jesus intended to build His assembly (literally, the "called out"). This assembly was going to be son-established, son- redeemed and son-ruled.
He spoke as he commissioned his apostles, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18, emphasis mine). How much authority belongs to Jesus?
Yet, as early as the middle of the second century, Jesus' authority was being granted to human beings ... men who would be kings. Just as the Israelites failed to listen to Samuel, Christians failed to listen to Jesus and the apostles. They preferred instead to select "church" officers to mediate their discipleship.
Immediately after the onset of this departure, their leaders began to "pass legislation." An early Christian document called the Didache -- usually dated to the second century -- comments on this tendency:
"Do not let your fasts be held in common with the hypocrites. For they fast on the second day of the week and on the fifth. But you fast during the fourth day and the preparation day...."
"And every apostle who comes to you, let him be received as the Lord. But he will not remain but one day. However, if there is a need, then he may remain the next day. But if he remains for three days, he is a false prophet.
"Now when the apostle leaves, he should take nothing except enough bread to last until he lodges again. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet...."Now hand-pick for yourselves overseers and servants worthy of the Lord... they too render you the service of the prophets and teachers. Therefore, do not despise them, for they are the ones who are honored of you, together with the prophets and teachers."
As the reader can easily discern, humanity's continual tendency toward legalism was already being exercised. They had designed a system for appointing "officers" whom they held equal to the prophets and teachers. The seeds of ecclesiastical corporate Churchianity was being sown.
Historically, we've seen many establishments in the overall context of Christianity. Most would insist that Jesus was the founder of their movement. Most would agree that all are reliant upon the redeeming blood of Jesus for salvation. But many would claim that the authority of Jesus rests with them or with their church officers. They would claim that Jesus has delegated this authority to them by various means.
The Roman Catholic Church and mainstream denominations all claim "apostolic succession" to one extent or the other for the authority they exert over their parishioners. This can be summed up by the following excerpt from the Confraternity Edition of the Bible.
"The commission (transmission of Divine revelation) was fulfilled, too, by those apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. But in order to keep the gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over their own teaching role" to them... And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by a continuous succession of preachers until the end of time... This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit... This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through the intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth... To the successors of the apostles, sacred tradition hands on in its full purity God's word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy spirit. Thus, led by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently, it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence... The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ... It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls... For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.... Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology, working diligently together and using appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings. It devolves on sacred bishops, "who have apostolic teaching," to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels, through translation of the sacred texts. It is his (the bishops) constant occupation. Moreover, in virtue of his ordination he has a special grace enabling him to proclaim God's word properly (emphasis mine)."
Whew! What a mouthful! If you desired a definition of "apostolic succession", "Divine Leading", and continued revelation in the twentieth century, the above quote should have given it for you. It was quoted in length because it is representative of the full range and scope of the subject under discussion. Every claim -- from the claims made by the modern prophet and revelator and pretenses erected by institutional ecclesiastical authority -- to those whose only pretense is that the Holy Spirit leads them in various, mysterious ways, is encompassed by the claims of the Roman Catholic Church.
Within the fellowship of the restoration churches, brethren have debated for years whether the "elders" had authority to dictate policy to their charges. An example of this "authoritarian view" was stated by H. E. Phillips.
"The authority of the eldership in the church is the authority of Christ. To rebel against the scriptural eldership is to rebel against Christ."
Thus, we can easily observe, whether Catholic, Protestant, or restorationist, claims of authority come from the argument that Jesus -- in one way or another -- delegated his authority to church leaders.
The purpose of this thesis is not to debate the authoritarian view of elders. In the author's view, the practical problem runs much deeper than their authority. The aim is to examine the foundational basis for the "authority" paradigm. How did this view arise and is it indeed Biblical? Since Jesus had plainly said that all authority was his, proponents of the authoritarian view must give "chapter and verse" to support their claims.
The "delegated authority" view has laid the foundation of abuse and departure from the beginning. It is directly counter to the instructions of Jesus to his envoys (apostles). Restorationists have absolutely rejected the claims of the Roman Catholic Bishop of possessing authority through apostolic succession via Peter. However, both paradigms receive their authority from misapplied scriptures and the great explanatory powers of "necessary inference" while rejecting the clear statements of Jesus. This view of "delegated authority" has been instrumental in leading to the highly developed ecclesiastical organizations, the sacerdotal system, church buildings, and other anti-Biblical corporate structures seen today. After all, what's a king without the "trappings"?
Jesus took a group of social nobodies and endued them with the gospel message. They were a ragtag group at best. They were obviously a great contrast with the pomp and "holy" demeanor of the Scribes and Pharisees. Human nature, being what it is, seduced even them with a desire to be greatest in the Kingdom.
Jesus, while continually challenging the bigotry and self-righteousness of the Jewish leaders, insisted that things were going to be different in his community. When His disciples came to him and asked who would be greatest in the Kingdom, Jesus answered:
"Assuredly, I say to you, unless you turn [i.e., from the attitude of superiority] and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3-4)."
"Hold on boys," says he. You need to change your paradigm. You are looking at things through 'old' eyes. You must change your attitude or you will not enter the kingdom at all." (paraphrase mine)
Does this sound like the chosen apostles were going to receive even a hint of position, title, and ecclesiastical authority? If you're thinking it's still hard to tell, then let's press on. In Matthew 20:20ff, Jesus was "assaulted" by the mother of James and John wanting, what else, for her sons to be greatest in the kingdom.
"Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on your right hand and the other on the left, in your kingdom (verse 21)."
Of course, the other disciples made great show of indignation as though they had not wanted the same honor for themselves. So Jesus expounded on the forthcoming body structure. The kingdom leadership would be unlike worldly authority and the ecclesiastical order represented at that time by Jewish Scribes and Pharisees, the Jewish Sanhedrin (elders), and Roman secular rule. Jesus rejected the authoritarian structure of his own religious heritage as well as anything that would approach the empires and kingdoms of men. Jesus explains this plainly as he continues.
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles are lords over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it will not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave -- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many (verses 25-28, emphasis mine)."
"Greatness is attained through service NOT position or titles." "You want to attain greatness in my kingdom then serve." "Those desiring esteem in my assembly must set the example in serving!" "You will not exercise authority over my people!" (paraphrase mine)
If that left the disciples in doubt about what positions they were to enjoy in the Anointed's kingdom, he certainly cleared it up by attacking the prevailing paradigm of Jewish religious imperialism and love of titles and position in Matthew 23.
"Then Jesus spoke to the multitude and to his disciples, saying: 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men. ..They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, Rabbi, Rabbi."'But you, do not be called Rabbi, for One is your Teacher, the Anointed One, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your leader, the Anointed One. but those who are great among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled and the one who humbles himself will be exalted (verses 1-12, emphasis mine).'"
Jesus, in these few sentences, is making it very plain what the nature of leadership in his assembly was going to be. His leaders would NOT assume titles or positions. "But you, do not be called Rabbi"! They were not to assume the title or position of Rabbi (master, teacher). As if this was not basic enough to persuade them, he continues in this vein by saying, "And do not be called leaders ". Even though the "authorized version" translates the word "leader" master, the correct translation could actually render the Greek "guide". Vine gives it this definition.
"KathHgHtHs is properly a guide (akin to kathHgHomai, to go before, guide; kata, down, hegHomai, to guide), translated master, a teacher, Matt. 23:10 (twice)."
Jesus emphasizes this very point while instructing those who would later be called apostles. Don't even let someone saddle you with the position or title of leader "guide". Don't be called Preacher Jones. Don't be called Evangelist Smith. Don't be called Pastor James. Don't be called Minister Johnson. Don't be called Elder Church. Is this not a true application of what Jesus was saying? If not, why not?
The only reason we find difficulty in application is because of our paradigm. Most restorationists would have no problem condemning someone for accepting the term reverend as a title of respect. They would correctly point out that reverend is used only one time in the KJV and applies to God. We can easily see that it is wrong to wear special clerical garbs to set ministers apart in the assembly of saints, while we have ordained -- by our practice -- "fathers", Rabbis, and leaders to serve within our "sanctuaries" and ride herd upon saints. It's easy to apply this teaching of Jesus to them. But our paradigm, our system, allows these things, not because they are scriptural but because they have been passed down from traditions and paradigms that our forefathers were either ignorant of or too cautious to reject.
There have always been men around "who would be kings". Paul warned that this human tendency was right around the corner. Speaking to the "elders" (literally, old people) of the Ephesian community of believers, he warned:
"Pay attention to yourselves and to the flock in which the Holy Spirit placed you, to feed the assembly of God which he has purchased with his own blood. For I know that after my departure, fierce wolves will come in among you who will not spare the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking distortions, to draw away students after themselves (Acts 20:28-30)."
Notice the specific nature of these people who would draw disciples away from Anointed Jesus. They would "rise up" among the shepherds. They wouldn't appear from outside their ranks. They would speak perverse things. They would draw away disciples after themselves. The focus was going to be removed from Jesus and be placed upon themselves.
Diotrephes was a great example of this kind of mentality. He rejected the apostle John and others that he didn't approve. John describes the arrogance of this man in his third epistle.
"I wrote to the assembly, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us (3 John 9)."
This tendency toward exercising "Gentile" authority will result in these kinds of heresies every time to one extent or the other. Men who would assume positions and titles abound in every group. Men who would receive acclaim without service. Men who become intoxicated with the lust for power. Men who would gladly earn a living pontificating on religious matters. Now we can see why Jesus said that those in His kingdom are expected to reject titles and positions -- even the title or position of guides.
Alexander Campbell said 150 years ago that the clergy -- the two-caste system present in denominationalism and Romanism, "is the gravest error that the religious world has ever fallen into." Continuing along this vein Campbell opined:
"To employ men to preach the gospel in a Christian congregation is a satire upon that congregation which employs them. It is the duty of every Christian to proclaim the word to those ignorant of it... That any man is to be paid for preaching, i.e., for making sermons and pronouncing them; or that any man is to be hired for a stipulated sum to preach and pray, and expound scripture, by the day, month, or year, I believe to be a relic of popery."
Craig Rogers, in an article published in the Examiner, stated it like this.
"We have seen that the clergy-laity system prevents the believer from functioning in his full capacity as a priest because these privileges are retained by the Presider."Jesus, in Matthew 23, once and for all time instructed those who would lead, not to assume or allow themselves to be saddled with positions and titles. Leadership would come through service, NOT through positional status or nomen."
It is very easy for us to see the tendency in men "who would be kings". However, it is often easy to overlook the presence of the masses who would be "king makers". This religious horde would gladly delegate their personal responsibilities to others. In pursuing this direction, certain prerogatives must be given up to those to whom they have appointed in their stead. They must give up -- along with their personal responsibilities as priests -- their hard earned money to the clergy. Because of this tradition, the true intent of congregational giving as described in 2 Corinthians 8:12-14, goes unheeded. Examine the purpose of giving closely.
"For if there is a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have. for I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; but for an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack -- that there may be equality (emphasis mine)."
Instead of monies being collected for the needy which fulfills the purpose of congregational giving, it is spent on a group of professional ministers who have been empowered by the laity to assume responsibilities that are obligatory on all the saints. Instead of God given resources advancing the goals of "equality", they are diverted to a professional, ministerial class and -- by necessary inference -- to all the trappings essential to support this class.
One of the most apparent amenities of ecclesiastical "kings" have been the multiplication of church buildings. The cathedral type church buildings became one of the central trappings used to adorn and propagate ecclesiastical orthodoxy as Christians moved toward greater apostasy.
Jesus talked about the meeting places which were sacred to the Jews in John 4. When he was asked whether the Temple in Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim is the proper "place of worship," Jesus surprised the woman by replying that neither place is correct. On the contrary, says Jesus,
"An hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem... An hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit; that is, truth. For the Father is also seeking those who worship him that way. God is a spirit, and it is necessary for those who worship him to worship in spirit; that is, truth (John 4:21-24, emphasis mine)."
Jesus took the entire paradigm of "places of worship" and scrapped it. The TRUE place of worship is internal. The Temple (or church building) is not a "place of worship." Hebrews 9:1 expressly says that rituals of worship and "the earthly sanctuary" were facets of the Old Covenant: facets which had been made obsolete by the New Covenant.
This is echoed in Acts by both Stephen and Paul. In Acts 7, even though Solomon made a "house" for God, the scriptures teach:
"The Most High does not dwell in handmade places, as the prophet says, 'The sky is my throne. Now the earth is my footstool. What house will you construct for me?', says Yahweh. 'Or what is my place of rest? Hasn't my hand made all of these things?'"(Acts 7:48-50)
Paul echoes this theme in the hearing of those Athenians that were wont to believe that the "gods" lived in man made temples:
"Therefore, since you do not know whom you are worshipping, I announce this to you: The God who made the creation and everything in it, the one who is Lord of Heaven and Earth, does not dwell in handmade temples, nor is he served by human hands (as though he lacked something) (Acts 17:24-25a)."
If "God does not dwell" in our buildings and if they are NOT "places of worship," why is it that people today DO call church buildings "places of worship" and DO claim that they are "houses of God?"
Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd century, makes it plain that church buildings were nonexistent in his day and that the saints were not accustomed to meeting at any particular time or in any place. When Martyr was asked where he assembled, he answered thus:
"Where each one chooses and can; do you suppose that we all are accustomed to meet together in one place? Quite otherwise, for the God of the Christians is not confined by place, but being invisible, He fills the heaven and the earth, and the faithful everywhere adore Him and sing His praise."
Robert Hach, in a private pamphlet written and circulated among his fellowship recognized the all pervading tendency in modern Christendom to equate the church experience with worship. His commentary on the practice of entempling religion deserves repeating here.
"It is difficult to deny that organized religion, or 'the church', is perpetuated by temples of worship, typically called 'churches.' Though some assert that 'church' is actually people, they still 'go to church to worship God,' which, in reality, means going to a religious building to perform religious rituals administered by religious professionals."
In fact, the earliest "house church" building is dated circa 250 AD at Lullingstone Park near Eynsford in Kent. Even this date is considered an early dating. That is, the actual date cannot be earlier, but may be considerably later.
"The one at Kent, built before 250 AD, has rooms for instruction, a place for baptism and the Lord's Supper. It consisted originally of two rooms which were later converted into a single rectangular hall with a raised platform at the narrow east end. This is the sole survivor of this kind."
As the ecclesiastical paradigm became entrenched, church leaders found it necessary to herd the laity under one roof. This was desirable so that they could be guarded against "heretical" teachings of those that weren't approved by the clergy. It was not until after the reign of the emperor Constantine (307-337 AD) that Christianity was publicly recognized and sanctioned by the state. By this time a clear class of "church officials" had evolved. It was Constantine that gave legacies (money) to church leaders and begin to erect cathedral type buildings.
"When the emperor Constantine came to the throne (307-337 AD), he was eager to provide buildings for Christians equal in magnificence to the old basilicas and temples. He built 7 in Rome (at least) , and others in Italian cities, in Africa, Syria, and Asia."
Since there was now a well defined distinction made between the clergy and laity, sacerdotal clothing, titles, and duties evolved that could only be performed by these elitists. This group now decided who could speak, teach, and be added to their clergy group. These leaders gathered together to decide issues and plans. They regularly discussed personal matters of the laity that in other contexts would be considered gossip. And all this was accomplished for the good of the laity. These were the self-appointed "watchers" that insisted on submission. Can the reader describe one attribute mentioned above that is NOT present within Denominations of all stripes -- restoration corporations included?
Robert Hach describes how this situation has been carried into modern practices.
"Though these religious professionals may or may not be called 'priests,' it is difficult to deny that they perform a priestly function not performed by others. They mediate 'the word of God' to the congregation from a pulpit which symbolically elevates them to a position between God and humanity. They often mediate 'communion' and other religious rituals. Their words are often revered as 'the word of God,' which excuses members from the necessity of coming to their own understanding of and conviction about spiritual truth. And they are expected to live up to a higher standard of morality and ethics than the 'lay' persons to whom they 'minister.' It is difficult to deny that the religious system of the church, in addition to its temples of worship and its official priesthood, consists of sacrificial offerings on which the survival of the organization depends...."
This system evolved and survives because of the clergy makers -- those who would gladly be laity. Jesus addresses them also in Matthew 23. "Do not call anyone on earth your father" (verse 9). Now the shoe is on a different foot! those of you "who would be kings" don't assume title or position.. And those of you that would set up kings, don't do it! God's kingdom is a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9); a kingdom of Firstborn ones (Hebrews 12:23); a kingdom of saints; and a kingdom of sons and daughters of equality.
"For you are sons of God through the faith of Anointed Jesus, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no 'male and female'; for you are all one in Anointed Jesus (Galatians 3:26, 28)."
This kingdom is going to be responsible to GOD alone through His message. This ekklesia (called out, assembly) would be ruled by no one but Jesus. This community would be LED by the examples of those whose lives were worth emulating (1 Corinthians 16:15-16). Let me reiterate. In this body, there are to be no positions or titles given or accepted, either theologically or in practice. Diotrephes, who is mentioned in third John, didn't hold a gun to anybody's head when he assumed a position of eminence. He had his band of followers. They may have followed him for a variety of reasons but they followed him just the same. John describes the situation further.
"Therefore if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, talking trash against us with evil words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and casts (from the assembly) those who wish to receive them (3 John 10)."
Where did Diotrephes get this authority to exclude believers from their fellowship -- even John? Think about it! He didn't get this authority from Jesus even though he may well have claimed so. His real authority came from all those who would give him position and / or title: those who had no scriptural right to do so. They may have not "called him father" in theology but did so in PRACTICE. Like Israel of old, they gave up their priestly function to a king and then were tyrannized by him. The supporters of Diotrephes, either positively or by their cowardice, shared responsibility for this situation by not obeying the injunction of Jesus against appointing clergy.
How many churches exist that allow the presence of some Diotrephes because he holds the key to the corporate finances? Most believers are familiar with such a situation but will themselves continue to give position and title to "elders", "preachers", or some other special minister who would assume their responsibilities. Denying the reality of a clergy-laity system theologically is meaningless if it exists in practice. AND if the PRACTICE is present, the degree is unimportant.
If we are guilty of giving title or position to an "elder", "preacher" or "minister", we are guilty of violating the teaching of Jesus. If not, why not? If we accept title or position as "minister", "elder", or "fill in the blank", we are in violation of Jesus' mandate. Are we really interested in restoration or has it become hollow, empty rhetoric and a theater for bigotry and denomination bashing? Paul warned Timothy of this human tendency.
"For there will be a season when they will not endure the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will heap up for themselves teachers who will tickle their ears, and they will turn their ears away from the truth and be turned aside to fables (2 Timothy 4:3-4, emphasis mine)."
We who are heirs of the restoration movement have denied for years that we are a denomination. We have, using a prominent teacher's term, denied it with "great circumlocution." However, we have all the attributes. Charles Holt, the editor of the EXAMINER, has repeatedly challenged members to name even one attribute of any denomination that is not present in the so-called restoration churches. He is still waiting and so am I. Describing this anti Biblical, denominational structure Mr. Holt waxes eloquent.
"It should be obvious to all honest hearts that there is no pattern in the scripture for setting up a church institution of any kind. The pattern followed today by all brands of churches... is borrowed from the organizations and corporate structures in today's business world. The organization provides the mechanism for controlling the people and keeping them in submission to the institution, its rulers and clergy. The church organization today provides these clergymen with employment and a livelihood! They are employed, with a job description, just like the employees of any other business or organization. The Eldership, the rulers or corporate officials, sets the conditions of their employment, their duties, and pays their salary. Few, if any, will "bite the hand that feeds them."
The devastating result of this preacher / corporate system is also alluded to by Alexander Campbell.
"No class or order of men that ever appeared on earth have obtained so much influence, or acquired so complete an ascendency over the human mind, as the clergy. The Christian clergy have exercised, for about 1500 years, a sovereign dominion over the Bible, the consciences, and the religious sentiments of all nations professing Christianity."
These things happen to those who demand a "church of their choice". Those interested in pursuing their religion in their own way. However, if we want to be a part of the ekklesia that Jesus established, we must do it his way. And his way means the individual responsibility of priesthood.
"Obey them that have the rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch for your souls, as those who must give account, Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable to you(Hebrews 13:17 KJV)."
The above scripture is the favorite of those who labor under the anti-Biblical authoritarian view of church officialdom. Instead of reconciling this scripture by the limits Jesus placed upon his disciples that have been previously discussed in Matthew 20 and 23, they modify the plain paradigm of Jesus to fit their ecclesiastical bias. When you change the rules to such an extent, you make void the continuation of restoration to Biblical Christianity. It also proves that the call for restoration is nothing more than empty rhetoric.
It is no wonder that reformers have had difficulty in understanding the nature of New Testament structure. The authorized version known as the King James Version, was translated by men with a very definite ecclesiastical paradigm. They were members of the Church of England. This denomination had its own sordid history of persecuting and torturing heretics (those who disagreed with the "powers that be"). They were also under certain strictures of the King of England.
They had little notion of the apostolic dispensation that will be discussed later in this work. As if this wasn't compromising enough, they had no personal experience of any other form than sacerdotal hierarchy. Because of this, they translated scriptures that had to do with leadership and "followship" in the strongest English terms. The above scripture is a perfect example so we will look at it first.
There are several words in the Greek language for "obey", but the one translated "obey" in Hebrews 13:17, is NOT one of them. For an example, Upakouw, hupakouo, is usually translated obey in Matthew 8:27, ..."the winds and the sea listen (obey) to him." This word, which itself never implies unwilling obedience, is never used in regard to obedience to congregational leaders.
Peithw, peitho, the word translated "obey" in Hebrews 13:17, is translated 23 times "persuade", 10 times "trust", and one time "agree". It is translated 5 times "obey," but only in Hebrews 13:17, 21, does it refer to obedience to another person (See Acts 5:36,37; Romans 2:8; Galatians 3:1; James 3:3). Don't you think it just a little strange that it is translated "obey" when speaking of "leadership" in this place? Of this interesting point of ecclesiastical bias, Dusty Owens wrote:
"I am convinced that the King James Translators, laboring under an 'institutional church' mentality, selected the strongest words possible which conveyed the idea that the people must submit to the authority of the Clergy. In this way King James could control the people through the Church, of which he was Supreme Ruler."
Although the problem began long before King James, Owens' observations are valid indeed. The word Peiqw is related to the Greek word pisteuo, which means trust. Vine defines its use as such:
"PEITHO, to persuade, to win over, in the Passive and Middle voices, to be persuaded, to listen to.... (Acts 5:40, Passive Voice, "they agreed"); The obedience suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion."
Just the fact that the KJV Greek scholars translated the word peitho "obey" only in this context calls into question their objectivity in seeing leadership outside the paradigm of their ecclesiastical experience and bias.
In Acts 5:40, peitho is used identically to what is suggested in Hebrews 13:17. The Jewish rulers were thinking of killing Peter and John because they were preaching Jesus. Gamaliel, a respected teacher of the law, argued persuasively against this purpose. He was so "persuasive" in his apology that the scripture says,
"And they were persuaded by (peiqw) by him.. they gave word that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go."
The Sanhedrin was under no obligation to "obey" Gamaliel. He had no arbitrary authority over them. They did, on the other hand, respect and trust his judgment. So they "were persuaded by" and "agreed with" him.
This is the exact use of peitho in Hebrews 13:17. The disciples were to be "persuaded", to "agree with", or to "trust" their guides. In this text, it was those who had spoken the word to them. Most likely this is a reference to the apostolic messengers -- the "them that heard him" of Hebrews 2:3, i.e., those whom they were instructed to imitate in faith (Hebrews 13:7). The admonition had nothing to do with those with whom they had no relationship and it is questionable as to whether it even referred to anyone of the local congregation. There was no office they were obligated to respect. The ecclesiastical structure we see today was simply nonexistent then.
The word translated "rule" in this verse is the Greek word HgHomai, hegeomai. It is not translated "rule" in any other like context in the New Testament. Are you surprised? Are you starting to see the translators' bias and paradigm? It actually means lead or guide. There are several Greek words that deal with Lordly rule in the New Testament. This is NOT one of them. The verse could actually be translated such:
Another scripture that is a blatant example of ecclesiastical bias is found in 1 Timothy 3:1-2. The Kings James renders it thus:
"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the office of a Bishop, he desires a good work. A Bishop then must be blameless..."
The translators, under the king's injunction to keep the main terms of the Church of England's ecclesiastical form, make two main errors. The first is adding a word to the text that doesn't appear in the Greek, i.e. "office". There is neither a word in the text for office NOR the idea of office outside their own paradigm. The second is an error in translation. The word translated "Bishop" is episkopos. The word means to "oversee", to "tend". Vine defines it thus: "EPISKOPOS, lit., an overseer (epi, over, skopeo, to look or watch), whence Eng. "bishop"..." The passage in 1st Timothy actually reads,
Again, let me say this. Even if the KJV was translated correctly, our view would have to be reconciled according to the model given by Jesus on the exercise of authority. "You will not be called Rabbi or leaders." "You will not give title or position" (Matthew 23, paraphrase mine). Do you remember his injunction?
An additional favorite of those espousing the authoritarian view of leadership is found in the KJV translation of 1 Timothy 5:17. It says this.
"Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine."
Of course, emphasis is placed by proponents on the word translated "rule". They would argue, "how can one rule without authority?" Good question, but I would have to remind them of the words of Jesus. "You will not exercise authority over them" (Matthew 20:26, paraphrase mine). According to Jesus, there must be a way. If you keep the word "rule", then the leader will rule by his service, says Jesus. He will "rule" by being a slave to all, by example. He will not "rule" by "dictation".
The New International Version has become the new standard for those who "would be kings". It translates the verse in Hebrews 13:17,
"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority."
It translates 1 Timothy 5:17,
"The elders that direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor."
Unfortunately, at times the NIV is more interested in paraphrasing than translating. In Hebrews 13:17, there is no Greek word for "authority" in the text. We've already seen that "obey" means to persuade. In 1 Timothy 5:17, the words "affairs of the church" are completely missing. Both texts in the NIV also show a strong ecclesiastical paradigm.
In 1 Timothy 5:17, the elders (Greek presbuteroi, "old people") are described as laboring and teaching the message. The fact is this. The word translated in this place "rule" is proistHmi, proistemi, which means literally to stand in front of. Vine defines it in the following way.
"PROISTEMI, literally, to stand before, hence to lead, attend to, indicating care and diligence."
It is translated "maintain" in Titus 1:3, as "maintain (proistemi) good works".
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writing of the usage of this word in 1 Thes. 5:12, says,
"The emphasis is not on their rank or authority but on their efforts for the eternal salvation of believers."
The Dictonary of NT Theology opines,
"The present writer believes that there were as yet no institutionalized or precisely differentiated offices in the church known to Paul."
In a Christian context, it could be easily defined here as to be an outstanding example. The same word group is also used in reference to Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2. These verses are worthy of a special look within the context of this thesis. Paul introduces Phoebe to the Roman assembly with this description:
"I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant (diakonos) of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper (prostatis, from proistemi) of many and of myself as well (emphasis mine)."
Liddell and Scott's Lexicon says that prostatis could be rendered "guardian", "protector", or "champion." Why didn't the scholars translate proistemi "ruler" or even "leader" in this verse? I'll tell you why. Phoebe was a woman and they had a well defined bias concerning a "woman's place" in the congregation. Not only did they fail to translate prostatiV "ruler" or leader but they went against their general practice and translated diakonoV (diakonos) "servant" instead of "deacon" or "minister" which was their common exercise and would have fit the context perfectly! Can you see their paradigm at work? Women can "serve" but not be a deacon or a Minister.
A literal translation of 1 Timothy 5:17 would approach something like this.
"Let the old people who are outstanding examples be counted worthy of a double honorarium, especially those who are working in the message and teaching."
Within this Timothy context it seems that both old men and women are in view. As common in the New Testament, men and women, as in the case of Phoebe, are worthy of emulating for their work's sake, NOT from their position. This was also said of the "household of Stephanos" (1 Corinthians 16:15-16) and to all "such" that work and labor. About the translation of the preceding terms Hach wrote,
"The tendency of English translations of the Bible to translate these leadership-terms with words like 'rule', 'ruler', or other words denoting positional authority, has obscured the teaching and example of Jesus and upheld authoritarian structures and styles of leadership which characterize religious organization."
The strong terms for leaders and leadership are not used of the Christian form of "rule". These include archwn, translated "ruler" in Mark 10:42, referring to world sovereigns. This word is used 37 times in the NT. A related word, archisunagogos, meaning "synagogue ruler," occurs nine times. All nine occurrences of archisunagogos are about Jewish positional leaders. Of the 37 uses of archwn, three of them are about Satan, fourteen of them are about Gentile leaders, and the majority -- eighteen occurrences -- are about Jewish positional leaders. NONE of the occurrences of either word are about Christians.
Another often used word denoting position is kurieuw, "be lord," which appears in Luke 22:25 and in Matthew 20. Of its use in Lk 22:25, where Jesus forbids being lord, Foerester writes,
"The reference here is to the use of power as such (not its misuse), and to the associated outlook."
Anyone who occupied a superior position was commonly referred to as lord (kurios). But again, this is not used of Christians, who have only one Lord.
Another, katexousiazw, is translated "exercise authority over", and is spoken against by Jesus (Matthew 20:25) and later by Peter when referring to the oversight by old persons, i.e. "elders" (1 Peter 5:3). The word group to which exousiazo and its allies belong relates to the decision making process. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament refers to exousia as "the power that decides." Having authority over someone, as in Matthew 20, is having the ability to make decisions for that person. Christians are forbidden from this.
The strongest word used of any Christian regarding a relationship involving other Christians occurs in 1 Timothy 5, where younger widows are told to marry and "rule the house." The verb here, oikodespotew, means literally "house rule" and comes from despotew, "be despot, rule" and is the source of the English word "despot."
As before mentioned, Jesus explicitly forbade titles, both the giving and the receiving of them in Matthew 23. One word that has become a title is the word "elder". It comes from the Greek word presbuteros, which simply refers to an older person. Within their culture, they were worthy of respect and deferment simply because of their age. In Leviticus 19:32, the scriptural background is given for this respect.
"You shall rise before the gray headed and honor the presence of an old person, and fear your God: I am the LORD."
Concerning elders in general: The term was only used to describe elderly people. In the cultural usage in the time of Jesus, it meant people who are at least (about) age 60. The Hebrew word refers to those who were able to grow beards which were fully white. The "beard" stipulation was contingent on having Jewish racial stock, but the age stipulation was not.
The Hebrew word zaqen, old person, comes from a word meaning "beard" and is related to the Aramaic and Akkadian terms for the same thing, which comes from the Semitic root for "be hoary" (literally, white with age). The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament says that the term "always refers to old men (once to an old woman)" or to a subgroup of those elderly people. The Greek term "prebus", "presbutes", "presbuteros" was used in the Septuagint as a rendering of the Hebrew term (zaqen) given above. These are the terms which are used in the New Testament.
The old person was not only revered in Jewish culture, but with this respect came grave responsibilities. Because of their age and assumed wisdom, they were expected to guide those who were younger. This leadership was not something they could relinquish since they never asked for it. They received it because they grew old. The same principles could be applied to fathers. Fathers have the responsibility to raise their children in the training and discipline of the Lord. This is not a responsibility they have any right to shirk. They have no right to give this responsibility to others. This responsibility was not earned or asked for but came through the natural process of parenthood.
As old people, the presbuteroi became the prime group for the overseer to be "appointed" from among the disciples if they were "blameless". The weight of age coupled with an exemplary life was worthy of emulation. These were the "elders" mentioned in the New Testament. Also, there is good reason to believe that these "elders" were gifted men and probably women who were chosen for purposes that are not altogether clear. "Gifted" Christians will be discussed at length later in this thesis.
Another word that has become a title is "minister". This word is taken from the Latin translation of the Greek word diakonos meaning "servant," or properly "table servant." The word group is translated 38 times "minister" by the KJV. It is translated "ministry" 16 times, "ministering" 3 times, and "ministration" 6 times. It is translated "serve", "servant", and "service" 21 times. It would be proper and much more correct to translate it the "serve" and its derivatives every time.
The King James translators, as previously mentioned, were well acquainted with "ministers" within the Church of England hierarchy. They consistently translated the word "minister" when referring to a worker of the congregation except when it came to Phoebe, then they translated it "servant" (Romans 16:1-2). Are you surprised? By the way, Phoebe is the only person in the entire New Testament who is referred to as a diakonos of a specific church and yet her "position" is purposefully diluted by the KJV translators and most others that have followed suit.
Another word that has been grievously mistranslated is ekklHsia, ekklesia. The KJV translators, following the injunction of the King of England to retain certain ecclesiastical nomenclatures, translated this word "church" every time but thrice. In acts 19:32,39,41, it is translated correctly "assembly", all in the same context. Since that ekklesia didn't refer to believers, the KJV scholars translated it correctly.
In fact, "church" is not a translation at all! It is an adoption from the Latin and its roots are hard to trace. It is thought that the word derives from cirice, meaning circle. Others speculate that its roots are in the Greek kuriakon, meaning "of the Lord." The KJV paradigm of "church" was well established in the ecclesiastical orders and offices of the Church of England. So they followed the instructions of the noble King James who held many titles, one being "Defender of the Faith".
The Theological Dictionary gives us a short background of ekklesia.
"From the time of Thuc., Plato, and Xenophon, and especially inscriptions, ekklHsia is the assembly of the dHmos [populus] in Athens and in most poleis [cities]. The etymology is both simple and significant... At least in the classical period, the ekklHsia in the sense of a popular assembly is not without a religious undertone and is one of the main institutions of the divinely given polis and its order. We can see this from the prayers which were usually offered by the kHrux [herald] before the ekklHsia and then each individual speaker before the assembly."
Regarding Old Testament (Septuagint) usage, TDNT has this to say:
"In the LXX, ekklHsia is a wholly secular term; it means 'assembly', whether in the sense of assembling or of those assembled. (III, 527)"
Charles Holt, in commenting upon the concept of "church" had this to say by way of challenging the thinking of modern Christians:
"You are aware, I hope, that the word ekklesia is the English spelling of the Greek word for what Jesus said He would build. Jesus said: "upon this rock I will build My ekklesia..." (Matt. 16:18). What He said was that upon the great truth confessed by Peter, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Jesus would build His assembly, congregation, gathering, or redeemed people. Jesus did NOT say that He would build a church and He did not do such a thing! The ekklesia of Christ is NOT a church! All churches are the works and creations of men. Jesus did not set up a religious institution of any kind. The ekklesia is His called out, obedient people, wherever they are! The ekklesia is NOT an organization or institution (emphasis mine)."
M.C. Kurfees, in his Biographies and Sermons, says follows this same theme:
"Any assembly of citizens in Athens, whether political or otherwise, even a mob, would have been called an 'ekklesia,' signifying that such persons had been called out from homes and congregated in one place ... The word continued to have this meaning in the time of Christ (p.383)."
Restoration leader Benjamin Franklin adds:
"The word simply means 'assembly' or 'congregation."
The Dictionary of New Testament Theology adds a facet unknown in today's church meetings:
"Every citizen had the right to speak and to propose matters for discussion."
This last comment is worthy of special attention. The character of the ekklesia was related to the goal the Greeks were striving for within their assemblies (ekklesia) -- freedom of speech. Since the exercise of free speech was so important within the Hellenistic culture, the ekklesia was often identified with another significant Greek term, parrHsia."
ParrHsia (parresia) is a word that literally means "freedom of speech". It is translated "waxed bold" by the KJV in 1 Thes.. 2:2 and Acts 13:46. The Revised Version renders it "spake out boldly". In Acts 9:27 and 29, it is rendered "preached boldly". In Acts 26:26, it is translated "speak freely".
Norman M. DeWitt, writing of classical usage of this important parrhesia concept, says that it was:
"The right of every citizen to stand up in the public assembly and express his honest opinion."
Its opposite was given the name "sycophancy" or shameless assent. Allowing someone to have their way without speaking up and supporting your view was viewed as a great fault. Outside the assembly (ekklesia) DeWitt explains that,
"... parrhesia represented the expression of the speaker's opinion without regard for the feelings of others."
ParrHsia was crucial in every good relationship and indeed, "freedom of speech toward God" is referred to several times in the New Testament, although the word is usually translated "confidence" in that context. Epicurus opined thus:
It is better to have parrHsia 'even if not a soul shall understand' what one is saying than to fall 'into step with popular opinions, to harvest the lush praise that falls from the favor of the multitude.'
This was the essence and character of the Greek ekklesia. Thus parrhesia is isolated to represent the freedom of speech common to the Greek citizen within the confines of their ekklesia. Demosthenes wrote, "There is no greater loss than to lose it (freedom of speech)."
It needs to be emphasized here that Jesus used the term ekklesia when describing what he intended to build rather than the Greek term synagoge which he was both familiar with and could have been logically expected to use. Colin Brown emphasizes this very idea:
"It is striking that Jesus' followers did not describe their meetings and the community represented by them as a synagoge (with the single exception of Jas. 2:2). For the word would have been natural for a group which sprang from Jewish roots...."
Jesus' penchant for teaching the equality that he intended to be present within the confines of his community is demonstrated in his choice of the Greek term ekklesia. Currently, there is no greater inequality demonstrated within modern Christendom than the repression of speech. Remember again the words of David Lipscomb: "To suppress discussion is to deprive truth of all its vantage ground."
Authority to speak within the orthodox assemblies is granted exclusively by the clergy -- those that "would be kings" among the saints and it is given only to those that will stay within the boundaries of their particular orthodoxy. This current practice is totally foreign to the essence and spirit of parrhesia and against the will of the Savior for his ekklesia. Speaking from a context of controversy and persecution, the Hebrew writer admonishes the brethren,
"Do not cast away your freedom of speech (parrhesia), which has a great reward."(Hebrews 10:35)
The principle found in the about verse teaches us to maintain our freedom of speech even in the face of persecution. Open discussion was highly prized in the New Testament assembly as it had been in Greece.
In fact, discussion (as in the Greek ekklesia) was employed as the Christian method of learning. The Greek word dialegomai, the common Greek word for "discuss," is the word used during Christian meetings.
"The meaning of dialegomai in classical and Hellenistic Greek is expressed by our lone word dialogue; it means hold a conversation, chat. It was used by the poets with a neutral sense, but in the philosophers it came to mean conversation with teaching as its object: one debates and learns in so doing."
Unfortunately, the true meaning of dialegomai is sometimes hidden by the KJV and others that have followed suit. For example, a favorite text of modern "preachers" is found in Acts 20:7. The KJV renders it thus:
"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached (dielegeto) unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."
As the reader can conclude, by translating dielegeto (a derivative of dialegomai) "preach" rather than "held a discussion" which one translator properly renders it, and then continuing in this vein by saying he "continued his peech until midnight" -- it would certainly be easy to get the idea that this was a speech or lecture rather than a discussion.
Though the modern practice of "pulpit preaching" is universal among moderns, the word group for "lecture" or "give sermons" is never found within the New Testament ekklesia. However, instead of "discuss" or "start a discussion," the Greek word is commonly rendered "preach" by translators... conforming with medieval and modern practice.
Personal study of the character of the early Christian assembly and of the Greek ekklesia shows another similarity between the two. In the Greek assembly, a citizen would introduce the topic for discussion, perhaps with a brief presentation. Then every citizen would exercise his/her parrhesia and express his honest opinions before the assembly. By hearing and comparing viewpoints and by asking questions knowledge would be gained.
There is one place where "lecturer" occurs in the New Testament. This is in Acts 24:1, where an orator (hrHtwr) is hired by the Jewish leaders to speak against Paul. The word group (hrHtwr , rhetor, from which we get "rhetoric" ) is never found in reference to Christians lecturing Christians. Hmm... discussion is found but lecturing is never found. Obviously, this runs contrary to the modern practice of "Sunday morning sermons."
I've spent quite some time dealing with the original Greek and translation problems. There is certainly much more that could be said, but this should suffice. The purpose in looking at the Greek was to prove both the innate difficulty of translation and the strong bias of the translators toward the ecclesiastical and sacerdotal church format. If we dig behind their paradigm, we see that the ekklesia of Jesus was vastly different from their experience.
Many ask why the new versions seem to follow the KJV lead so often. The answer is that marketability often dictates the translation. The KJV enjoyed unprecedented popularity for decades. Untold thousands memorized countless scriptures from this translation. Many "preachers" have gone so far as to pronounce that God intended the English populace to possess the "Authorized Version". This popularity has doomed translations that appear too "foreign" to oblivion, resulting in few sales and loss of money to the publishers. Few, if any, translate the original languages without a thought to the marketability factor.
From the vantage point of authority, let's look at some examples to show that even the apostles -- the twelve and Paul -- held no church office and assumed no titles. They could be challenged by any and all disciples of Jesus. They never pulled rank and never lived economically above the other believers.
One could expect that if there ever was a group of men who could have claimed position or title it would have been the "apostles". Notwithstanding the translator bias, the term "apostle" (Greek apostolos) was never a title, position, or church office. The word simply means, "one sent", therefore an emissary or envoy. Vine defines it like this.
"APOSTOLOS is, literally, one sent forth apo, from, stello, to send, i.e., an envoy."
It does have reference in a specific way with those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus (Acts 1:21-22), but was never given to them as a title. The use by "preachers" in introducing Biblical texts have added to this confusion. They say, "the apostle Paul wrote...." and many such things as this. The allusion is to the authority of the Biblical scriptures and not to the position or office of apostle.
Paul, when speaking of the "apostles" and other brethren of repute in Jerusalem, described them in no official way. Listen to his benign references.
"Then, fourteen years later, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking along Titus also. Now I went up according to a revelation and communicated to them the good message that I am heralding among the Gentiles. I did this by myself to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain... But those who seemed to be something communicated nothing to me. Whatever they were, it means nothing to me: God does not accept personal appearance(Galatians 2:1,2,6, emphasis mine)."
We can clearly see by the above verses that there existed no church institutionalized clergy in the mind of Paul. It was normal that the "apostles" in Jerusalem would be considered "men of repute" by means of their prophetic gift -- detailed in the next chapter -- and by those who would set up kings, but we have the inspired man's word on it that it was not so.
The calling together of all the disciples at the bequest of the "apostles" in Acts 6:1-6, also shows that they enjoyed no official capacity. We can see from what ensued that the "apostles" persuaded the disciples to choose men who would feed the Grecian widows.
Notice the nature of the event. "The twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples" (verse 2). Observe, they didn't meet privately behind closed doors. They summoned the ekklesia, the multitude of disciples. Then they persuaded them.
"It is not desirable that we should leave the message of God and serve tables. Choose out from among yourselves... (Verses 2-3)."
It seems to me that the multitude may have been attempting to saddle the twelve with this administrative responsibility and they would have none of it. They did not, however, pull rank on the multitude and order them to do anything. They persuaded them. The result was effective. "And the saying pleased the whole multitude..." (verse 5). Doesn't this remind you of the true translation of Hebrews 13:17, "Be persuaded by your guides, and be submissive." In the case of Acts 6, the twelve persuaded and the multitude listened and submitted. They could have chosen another way. The twelve exercised no lordship over them.
The "apostles" could also be challenged by any disciple. An example of this is found in Acts 11. Following Peter's trip to the Gentile Cornelius, he was castigated by certain brethren "of the circumcision" (verse 2). It says they "contended with him". They accused him of unauthorized conduct. Peter's reaction was not, "who do you think you are? Don't you know that I am an Apostle?" On the contrary, he again persuaded them by explaining the circumstances. After hearing Peter's apology, they were persuaded.
"When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life (verse 18)."
In Acts 15, the apostles, elders, and the entire assembly were all involved in settling the question of legalism. It ended in a letter being sent representing the whole ekklesia in Jerusalem.
"Then it pleased the envoys and old people, with the whole assembly, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas... (verse 22, emphasis mine)."
As we can see from these examples, all the saints were involved with the affairs of the ekklesia. These did not meet behind the closed doors of ecclesiastical officialdom to decide important questions. It was not until apostasy entered the ranks that the ekklesia of Christ became tyrannized by the emergence of ecclesiatical "kings'. Isn't it amazing that we can examine the structure of the New Testament ekklesia and still fervently defend our orthodoxy?
The "long and short" of it is that even modern restoration church leaders exercise more authority while denying it than the apostles of the first century ekklesia ever exerted. I dare anybody to prove that untrue. When is the last time you heard an "elder" admit that he was lording it over God's charge? Try getting a "preacher" to admit that he is accepting title or position after you have pointed out Jesus' injunction against it. However, many continue to keep their whole body wrapped in traditionalism while paying lip service and tribute to the principles of restoration with their mouths. Entrenched paradigms have always led -- even unintentionally -- to hypocrisy. Jesus, speaking of the hypocrites of his day, said,
"Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men (Mark 7:6-7)."
It's easy to fault the Pharisees and overlook the hypocrisy of our own paradigm. When will the ekklesia of God take this situation seriously? How about you reader? Will you begin to exercise your responsibilities of the Priesthood of God? Will you turn your back upon human traditions, titles, and positions? Will you insist upon your right to free speech within the framework or your particular fellowship? Will you encourage others to do likewise?
Along this vein, it becomes necessary to look at the uniqueness of first century Christianity and the apostolic dispensation that ushered in this new age.
"Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, on account of whom he also created the ages(Hebrews 1:1-2, emphasis mine)."
If the above verse teaches nothing else, it teaches us that dispensationalism is not a fancy in the mind of those that would deny "Jesus delegated authority", latter day prophecy and other manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the twentieth century. It details the speaking to the ancestors (the prophets) at various times and ways.
There has never been -- in the long Biblical history of man -- a continual stream of revelation from God. There were often long periods in which there were no prophets. prophets appeared at various times, with God speaking to them in "various ways." Though the Bible records and identifies these various ways and times, it is not the purpose of this work to explore them but rather emphasize that the above verse teaches us that there is a dispensation called the "last days" (literally, the end of the days). In this era, God spoke to us by his Son -- identified many times as Jesus, the Anointed.
The Hebrew writer is making a clear distinction between those past eras when God spoke to the prophets and the "last days" when God spoke through the Son. Many of those who are willing to grant the above argument would insist that God is still speaking: some opining that all powers available in these "last days" are ongoing. It is this argument that the author seeks to address in this short work as it relates to this human tendency to "be" and to set up "kings".
The American Heritage Dictionary defines dispensation as:
"Specific arrangement or system by which something is dispensed or administered. The divine ordering of worldly affairs. A religious system or code of commands considered to have been divinely revealed or appointed."
In the confines of this definition, I would like to look specifically at what I have referred to as the "apostolic dispensation." Actually, it could also be termed the "holy spirit dispensation". It was during the apostle's (apostle is simply defined as "one sent" or an envoy) lifetime that the Christian system was divinely revealed and appointed. This was a specific time in history as follows:
One subject that needs close attention is the theology concerning what is called in Hebrews and other places the "last days" or "latter days". Many hold to the view that each time they encounter this phrase or one approaching it, the phrase always refers to the same event or time. This is clearly not the case.
In Genesis 49:1 and Numbers 24:14, for example, it just means later on. It is used several times to refer to the last times of the Jewish commonwealth such as in Micah 4:1; Joel 2:28ff. This would include an overlapping period of Christianity but would not necessarily bleed over into the present. The author believes this is the reference here. In this letter to the Hebrews, there is definitely an event pending. In chapter 10:25b we read, "...and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." (emphasis mine) In Hebrews 12:27, the writer alludes to the removal of the things that can be shaken so that the things that cannot be shaken will remain.
As you can see, the Christians reading this first century letter were those that saw "the day approaching." It was to these people that the Hebrew writer reminds them that certain things had to be removed in order for those that couldn't be moved would remain.
The things that are to be removed are easily determined to be those things connected with Judaism. In Hebrews 12:18-19, the Hebrew writer introduces the receiving of the law of Moses as:
"You have not come to something that can be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that not another word be spoken to them...."
The author then proceeds to describe the things that cannot be shaken.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem; and to innumerable messengers in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (emphasis mine)."
As before mentioned, verse 27 alludes plainly to Judaism and its forthcoming destruction. We read,
***SOMETHING MISSING*** This phrase, yet once more, indicates the removal of what is shaken -- that is, created things -- so that what cannot be shaken may remain.
Then speaking to the Hebrew Christians he proceeds,
"Therefore, since we have received a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks...(Hebrews 12:28, emphasis mine)."
The entire context of Hebrews involves the contrast between Judaism and Christianity. The "created things" are clearly contrasted to the "heavenly things". They refer here to the earthly Jerusalem as opposed to the "heavenly Jerusalem". The earthly temple as opposed to the heavenly tabernacle where Jesus sprinkled his blood (Hebrews 9:11-14).
To make the "created things" that were to be removed the whole earth and the universe as applied by some is to miss the point completely and remove the entire historical setting from the first century to the future. This would make this message of admonition to the Hebrew Christians -- to whom the letter was addressed -- totally irrelevant.
Thus we see that the theology of the "last days" is completely apropos to the subject under discussion. It is in these "last days" the Anointed appeared. It was in these "last days" that the apostles were chosen by Jesus. It was in these "last days" that Jesus cried,
"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near, repent, and trust the good message (Mark 1:14)."
The "last days" of Hebrews corresponds to the overall New Testament teaching that looks forward to the pending end of Judaism. This pending destruction is described in the text many ways. one, as we've just seen, as the "day approaching" (Heb. 10:25). In Acts 2, Peter, quoting the Old Testament prophet Joel identifies his present time as the "last days" (verses 16-17), then proceeds to describe the coming judgment as "...that great and notable day of the Lord..." (verse 20). John the Baptist had also clearly referred to this coming destruction when he challenged the Jews.
"... when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance. Do not presume to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our ancestor... Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire... His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff will burn with unquenchable fire (Matthew 3:7-12, emphasis mine)."
You will notice that the ax was then lying at the root of the tree. Not only was the destruction pending but it would be total -- the judged would be completely uprooted. The phrase "unquenchable fire" carries the same connotation.
Jesus had also prophesied in Matthew 24, the pending destruction of Jerusalem. After some had drawn his attention to the temple and its grandiose architecture, he informs his disciples that a time was coming that it would be completely demolished (Matthew 24:1-2). This pronouncement naturally aroused the curiosity of his followers and they asked him what he was talking about and when it would occur (Matthew 24:3).
Matthew uses common Jewish phraseology in recording their question.
"Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? (emphasis mine)"
Jesus, in Matthew 24:15, finally draws the disciples attention to the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, which portends the Prince of the people destroying the city and the temple (Daniel 9:26), and borrows the phrase "abomination of Desolation". Luke, in his parallel, uses a clearer phrase.
"When you see Jerusalem encompassed with armies, then know that its desolation is near (Luke 21:20, emphasis mine)."
Jesus made sure that these men didn't get the idea that this destruction was "futurized". He said,
"Truly I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled (Matthew 24:34, emphasis mine)."
The modern reader runs into problems because of the figurative, Jewish language of the text. The expression "sign of your coming" is especially mysterious if we are unfamiliar with its usage. It is wording borrowed from the Old Testament and did not carry the import to the Jew that it sometimes carries with the modern student. The modern reader not only has the tendency to literalize the language of judgment but is sometimes ignorant of the Old Testament from whence this expression arose.
When the Jew heard the expression "God coming" they did not think of His literal presence. A good example is Isaiah 19:1, which reads thus:
"An oracle concerning Egypt. See, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt." (emphasis mine)
In this context, the prophet has clearly identified the target of impending judgment -- Egypt. He uses two expressions that we find reiterated in Jesus' foreboding in Matthew 24. In Isaiah, the Lord is "coming" to Egypt. In addition, the Lord is riding on a "cloud". In Matthew 24, Jesus is asked what would be the sign of his "coming". While answering the question he says,
"... then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (verse 30, emphasis mine)."
As in Isaiah 19, the target of this "visit" is clearly identified -- in this case Jerusalem. Can we be sure?
"Truly I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled(Matthew 24:34, emphasis mine)."
It must be reiterated that the Jews were aware of this prophecy. The term the "last days" had a specific significance for they who lived at that time. It is a matter of debate with us. Most New Testament epistles alluded to this coming destruction.
Peter makes the statement in his letter, "The end of all things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7, emphasis mine). Some have tried to convince us that Peter was mistaken: that Peter only thought that the "end of the world" was near. This argument undermines the inspiration of Peter as well as begs the question.
The "all things" of Peter's letter is the "created things" of the Hebrew letter. The whole tenor and context of Peter's missives points to the end of Judaism. Judaism, the persecutor of the church. Judaism, the claimant to God's favor. Judaism, the heirs of the earthly temple, priesthood, and sacrificial system. The Hebrew writer also mentions this "end time" in similar language.
"But as it is, he appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself(Hebrews 9:26, emphasis mine)."
It is easy for twentieth century Gentiles to overlook the significance of this "end". To the first century Jew -- both Christian and unbeliever alike -- it was the happening.
For the purposes of our discussion, the "end of the age" is important as it corresponds to the age of miracles, prophecy, revelation of the good news, the New Testament scriptures and holy spirit witness. In the quotation of Joel, Peter reiterated that it was in these "last days"...", before that great and notable day of the Lord", that the spirit would be "poured out", and tongues, prophecy and other manifestations of God's power would be evident (Acts 2:17-21, emphasis mine).
This dispensation was to occur before the destruction of Jerusalem, i.e. "that great and notable day of the Lord". The main point is this. If this period occurred and was fulfilled in their generation then it is not now occurring and is not being fulfilled in our generation. The claims of modern day charismatics and "prophets" are both false and spurious. But what about the claims of apostolic succession and Holy Spirit leading by Roman Catholicism and mainstream denominations?
In the first place, when something is fulfilled it means completed. It cannot be fulfilled one time and then continue to be fulfilled in another era. Jesus said, concerning the promised kingdom, that the "time is fulfilled". However, many scholars say that the kingdom has NOT yet occurred. Who are we to believe? In reality, the kingdom that Jesus established simply does not fit their theology. They are guilty of the same misunderstanding that plagued the Jews. The Jews were expecting a kingdom that looked differently from the one Jesus was preaching. This is the reason Jesus -- when asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom would come -- told them,
"... God's kingdom is not coming with scrutiny. Nor will they say, 'Look, it is here or there.' For look, God's kingdom is within you.'" (Luke 17:20-21, emphasis mine)
In Luke 24:44, speaking of past events, Jesus said,
"These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you -- that everything written about me in the Torah of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
No one argues that Jesus would need to die again or be resurrected again since these events had been fulfilled already. However, when it comes to many of the other promises concerning the first century, some deny that they were actually fulfilled by either denying them in their theology or by giving lip service in theory but denying the dispensational aspects by their practice.
The Episcopal Church, Church of England, Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches, Methodist, Presbyterian, and many others also claim that the continuing teaching office of the Holy Spirit is found in their episcopates, synods, or gathering of elders. They all maintain this "special grace" as they pontificate on church matters as was alluded to in the quote earlier from the Catholic Bible. The Holy Spirit must be confused. He is both Catholic and Protestant! Then we have the latter day "prophets".
Mary Baker Eddy claimed that God revealed to her the cure for sin and disease, appointing her the founder of the "true" church. The Church of Christ Scientists are still with us today.
Herbert W. Armstrong said the living Christ appeared to him in 1928, and gave him the "key" to prophesy. It is with this "key" that you could understand what the Holy Spirit had already "revealed". He also founded the "true" religion (he was before affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventists) known as the Worldwide Church of God.
James White and his seer wife Ellen G., after leaving the "Adventist" movement established by Miller (who claimed the Lord would come again in 1841), commenced to initiate the "true" church known as the Seventh Day Adventists on new revelations Ellen received while falling into a stupor similar to Grand Mal epileptic seizures. She claimed to have been caught up into heaven and there saw the Ten Commandments. The fourth commandment was circled (keep the Sabbath). She received many other "special forms of Grace" during her lifetime.
Joseph Smith claimed an angel appeared to him revealing where the golden plates containing the "fullness of the everlasting gospel" were buried. He was told by the heavenly messenger that great and precious truths had been left out of the Bible. He proceeded to establish another "true" church known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There have been countless others.
Then there are those that claim that the Holy Spirit guides them as they study the Bible, enlightening them as they read. Also, many claim the Spirit leads them to this place or that, chooses this person or that, or engages in all kinds of various and sundry, mystical proceedings. You hear "preachers" that claim that God brings a scripture to mind while they "preach" or reveals to them what a certain scripture means.
All the above have one thing in common. If you can prove one claim you can prove any of them. Only the degree is different. Those who claim the Holy Spirit "teaches" them in ways over and beyond the Bible must prove it using the same arguments essentially as the Roman Catholic Church or Joseph Smith. They are claiming special revelation. If the Holy Spirit does indeed enlighten them on a scripture or any verse whatsoever, any who took issue with their opinion would be rightly judged as false and rebellious. If the Holy Spirit reveals to the preacher the meaning of a certain passage, then why do they disagree among themselves? Why does the Holy Spirit reveal one thing to one man and the opposite to another. Both claim the same leading!
Remember this! If the claims of the Catholic Church are true then we are all divinely obligated to be Catholics. If God speaks and moves through the teaching authority of the Roman Bishops then who are we to disagree? If not, then the Roman Catholic Church has no divine sanction within the framework of Biblical Christianity!
If God spoke to Ellen G. White, we are all divinely instructed to be Seventh Day Adventists. If not, then the Adventists have no divine authority within the context of Biblical Christianity. If the living Christ appeared to Herbert W. Armstrong in 1928, and gave him the "key" -- we all better join the Worldwide Church of God. If Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet, we had better be "Mormonized" or we are being continually disobedient to Divine directives.
On the other hand, if these people were not prophets and Divinely inspired, then the religions that they inspired have no claim to our life and have no Divine sanction to exist at all within the framework of Biblical Christianity. If this is not true, then why not?
Bringing this argument closer to home, if the Holy Spirit "enlightens" anyone to the meaning of a particular scripture, who has a right to argue with them? There is no essential difference between those who claim the "Spirit leading" than those who claim a special teaching authority, modern prophecy, etceteras. The only difference is in proportion. All these claims make the individual or group that enjoys them more special than the rest of us who don't enjoy these benefits.
All are claiming the "special grace" the Roman Catholic Church claims in the earlier quote and which this author argues was fulfilled in the apostles and prophets of the first century. The claims of both Catholic, Protestant, and those specially led, is that the Bible is a dead letter and therefore needs help to make it pertinent for today. Of course, those so "gifted" can make it pertinent for us. Listen again to the Catholic pretension on this point.
"But in order to keep the gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the apostles left bishops as their successors, 'handing over their own teaching role' to them..."
Can you really name one essential difference between that claim and the modern day revelator or the person who is simply "Holy Spirit led" over and beyond following the Biblical truth as he or she understands it? And if every Christian is so "led", why the differences of opinion on practically every Biblical subject, this one included?
Practically every group wants to claim a superior Holy Spirit understanding in one way or another. This is one way in which they can be separated from the run of the mill Christian. This gives them a feeling of specialness and gives legitimacy to their money making efforts. One Christian will say things like, "that group doesn't have the Holy Spirit." I've personally been accused of not believing in the Holy Spirit simply because I deny the conclusions that have been drawn by those who are specially "led".
These specially "led" may believe that Christians who clap, sway, sing out, and use other "enthusiasms" "have the Spirit" while those that are not so moved do not. If you have the "full gospel", the Holy Spirit will give you the gift of the quivers, the shakes, or may even "slay you". Such nonsense! You cannot find in the sacred text even a hint that the Spirit of God ever caused any such things! Others simply say that the Holy Spirit caused this or that to occur, led them here or there, into this or that situation. This same Spirit gave insight as they studied the scriptures, and so on.
Yet both extremes point to the same verses in the Bible as their proof texts. Logicians, however, have long known that -- "that which proves too much proves nothing"! So it is here. The views stated just above, the Roman Catholic claims, the modern "prophets", et cetera, all use the same proof to one degree or another and all suffer from the same misunderstanding of the "apostolic dispensation".
Many are reaching out for something that they can't explain. They're searching for a feeling that is not provable and for a "possession" which they cannot Biblically describe. Many desire the warm fuzzies of grace. The necessary inference and consequence is that the Bible is incomplete, inadequate and insufficient. Why aren't the plain promises found in the scriptures enough? It has always been the trait of human pride to lust for special treatment, greater honor, authority, and power. No human is immune. But these powers, revelations, and testifying "gifts" of the spirit were reserved for the "last days".
"Therefore we must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the message declared through messengers was valid, and every transgression or disobedience received a just penalty, how can we escape if we neglect so great salvation? It was declared at first through the Lord, and was attested to us by those who heard him, while God bore witness to them by signs and wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of holy breath, distributed according to his will(Hebrews 2:1-4, emphasis mine)."
The above quotation from the Hebrew letter addresses powerfully the subject under discussion in this thesis. In a few short verses it runs the gamut of dispensational revelation and the confirming miracles of the Holy Spirit. As you can see, this "gamut" is placed in the past tense.
The Hebrew writer is not drawing the readers attention to any new revelation but reminding them of what they had already received and witnessed. Not only had they heard this "gospel" they had seen "signs" and "wonders" designed to confirm the veracity of the spoken message.
This verse also points to the fact that the author of Hebrews was not an apostle. He or she makes no apostolic claims but emphasizes the message previously received. This message had first been proclaimed by Jesus and