Acknowledging God as God

Sometime in the last six months I was sitting in a "Bible Church" on a Sunday morning, and it was a disheartening experience. We sang songs where "I" figured prominently, but "Christ" wasn't so prevalent. And we heard a very long sermon that seemed to be all about "community" and "sharing" and "real relationships," but there wasn't a whole lot about the Lord Jesus. And as I sat there I thought to myself, "Roman Catholicism is better than this, at least Roman Catholics have a God."

I was so surprised by what I had thought, that I was taken aback, and spent the rest of the day thinking about it.

Now, I have all sorts of problems with Roman Catholicism. I'm in no danger of converting to Roman Catholicism, because I have no interest in working for what God offers for free (Romans 4:5). And while I could make the argument that Roman Catholicism doesn't explicitly deny the Gospel – because they believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1–8) –; there is an implicit denial of the Gospel, because there is a responsibility to "walk according to the truth of the Gospel" (Galatians 2:14), and Roman Catholicism surely fails that test.

But the fact remains that my experiences in Evangelical churches have begun to make Roman Catholicism look a lot better than it once looked.

When so-called worship music is a lot about "I" and not much about "Him," then I have to ask who is actually the object of worship. When sermons are mainly about "I" and not much about "Him," I have to ask who is really at the center. When I can sit in a church for the better part of an hour and hear nothing about the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord, I have to ask why precisely I'm there.

 

Many years ago, after we decided we could no longer remain in fellowship with a particular "brethren" group, we spent several months visiting a "continuing Anglican" church. 

(I need to pause to give a word of explanation for our non-American friends. The Anglican church in Canada and the Church of England are associated with the Episcopalian church here in the United States. Here, "Anglican" generally signifies a church that has broken away from the Anglican communion. There are something like 16 Anglican denominations in the USA that are explicitly not in fellowship with the Church of England.  I'm oversimplifying a little, but it's important to note that "Anglican" in the USA is carefully chosen to mean "not Episcopalian" and "not in communion with the Church of England.")

Several people acted surprised that we would gravitate to a liturgical church after being so thoroughly "brethren," thinking we'd end up somewhere more Evangelical. But in my mind, liturgical worship is much closer to what we practiced with "brethren" than what I'd find in a Baptist church or a Bible church.

What I value about "brethren" assemblies is exactly what I valued about liturgical worship: the focus is on the Lord, not on me. The "main event" is remembering the Lord, not listening to a sermon. And while I understand there are some dissimilarities between liturgical worship and the Lord's Supper as practiced in most "brethren" circles, I found the similarities much more compelling. For example, liturgical worship is entirely participative (is that even a word?): there's no question that you're not a spectator, watching a show. You're absolutely participating.

I honestly believe "closed brethren" are much more closely related to Anglicanism than they are to the local Baptist church. It makes perfect sense to me that when W. T. Turpin abandoned brethrenism, he returned to the Church of England, rather than joining a Baptist church.  

OK, this wasn't meant to be a defense of Anglicanism. My point is that it made sense to us to step from "brethren" into a liturgical church, because the beneath-the-surface similarities were compelling: we were interested in "church" that was about the Lord, not about us. We were interested in a place where the Lord's Supper was central. We were looking for something where the congregation was actively participating, rather than simply listening to someone speak.

So I'm on an "assembly quest" again, because we're no longer in the city. We didn't intend to leave the assembly so much as we intended to leave the city and come to a place where we have room and it gets dark at night. And I'll hasten to say, when I've been back in the city, I've remembered the Lord at the same assembly where we'd been in fellowship from 2010 through 2019. The assembly there knows very well why we left, and it had nothing to do with them.

But we've been living in the middle of nowhere for more than two years now, and we've visited  a whole lot of churches. In this area in particular, there are too many small non-denominational churches to list. And over the last couple years, I've given a lot of thought to what I'm looking for in a church. 

So here's what I've settled on as a first requirement: they need to acknowledge God as God. I don't need to hear sermons about how to live a better life, and I don't need to sing songs about myself, my own devotion, and my own faithfulness. "Jesus, Jesus, how I trust Him" is a catchy song, but when I pay attention to the words, it's obvious it's about me, not about Him. I can do without that sort of thing.

And I'm not saying I'm looking for a liturgical church, by the way. I am saying that liturgical worship gets the most important thing right, and the best of "brethren" has a lot in common with it.

7k

Romans 11:2–5 makes an argument from the story of Elijah, Ahab, and Jezebel (1 Kings 19:1–18). Elijah had hid in a cave after killing the prophets of Baal, and had even asked God to kill him, believing himself to be the last believer in Israel (1 Kings 19:4–10). God corrected him, informing him there were seven thousand left who "had not bent the knee to Baal."

Romans 11:2–5 takes that story and uses it to demonstrate that God has not "cast off" Israel. It may look like it: the Church is (at least for now) predominantly Gentile (Romans 9:30–31). Things look bleak for Israel, and Paul is asking, has God replaced Israel? The answer, of course, is no. There is a day coming when all Israel shall be saved (Romans 11:25–26), but for now, God proves His intention of saving the entire nation by saving a  "remnant according to the election of grace" (Romans 11:5). They're sort of like a deposit, a show of good faith.

Elijah is convinced he is the one last man standing, so to speak. But God's response is, "I know more than you: I know 7,000 times more believers than you do." And there is an application we can make from this story to ourselves.

We, like Elijah, have a tendency to think more highly of ourselves than we ought. We look around, see ruin and decay, and think, "well, I guess it's down to me now." But that's foolishness. The Lord knows those who are His (2 Timothy 2:19). It's a pretty safe bet to say, as many faithful believers as we know, the Lord knows 7,000 times more.

I was thinking about this in connection with the seven churches in Asia (Revelation 2–3). In the message to each church, there is the promise to the one who overcomes. Do we not think there is an overcomer in every church? If we're honest, we don't. Not really. But even Thyatira has overcomers. Even Laodicea has overcomers.

It's striking that the overcomer in Laodicea isn't commanded to move to Philadelphia, or that the overcomer in Laodicea isn't told to move to Smyrna. As far as I can tell, the overcomer in Thyatira is called to overcome in Thyatira. The overcomer in Laodicea is called to overcome in Laodicea.

I know people who believe that the Roman Catholic Church isn't a church, while simultaneously saying that "the church in Thyatira" is Roman Catholicism. That strikes me as odd... you can't have it both ways. I'm not interested in Roman Catholicism because I don't see any point to working for what God offers for free (Romans 4:5). I'm certainly not claiming that the Roman Catholic Church faithfully preaches the gospel. But if I admit there is a resemblance to the church of Thyatira, I have to admit also that the Lord has overcomers there. And it's not surprising that He knows far more than 7,000 there, even though I do not.

Here's a thought: maybe I don't know who the overcomers in the Roman Catholic Church are, because they're too busy overcoming to pay any attention to me. It's worth thinking about. 

I can't in good conscience be part of the ELCA either, but I'm sure the Lord has 7,000 there too. There are overcomers even in Laodicea.

It can be frustrating to look at the landscape of Christendom. There are some pretty crazy things out there, and there are lots of things out there that I can't in good conscience be a part of. But I dare not claim to be wiser than the Lord. He knows overcomers in every church. He knows the names of those 7,000, even if I do not.

If I don't know about the 7,000 who haven't bent the knee to Baal, that might not be because they're not there. It might be because I'm like Elijah – so absorbed in myself I'm not letting God be God.

 

Not now, not here

1 Corinthians 14:27–33 presents us with some scenarios that should surprise us, if we're paying attention. In the first, we have someone in the assembly who wants to speak in a tongue, but there is no interpreter. So he is told to speak to himself and to God, but not out loud (1 Corinthians 14:28). In the second, we have someone who is prophesying – giving a word from the Lord – but someone else rises to speak, so he is to sit down and let the other person speak (1 Corinthians 14:30). And then we're given a remarkable statement, "spirits of prophets are subject to prophets" (1 Corinthians 14:32).

What's surprising here is that the text treats both the tongues-speaker and the interrupted prophet as having a legitimate thing from God. Neither one is treated as "out of order" in what they would say, but they would be "out of order" to say it at that time, in that place.

In other words, we are responsible to assess the situation, see how it lines up with 1 Corinthians 14, and then possibly refuse to say what the Spirit of God has given us to say. It's entirely possible that He will give us something to say, and then expect us not to say it, according to 1 Corinthians 14:32.

The first few times I experienced this, I tended to echo the disciples in John 9:2, "Who is in sin? Is it me for thinking I had something from the Lord? Or is it that other guy who stood up third, so now I can't?" But I've come to understand it might be more like the Lord's answer to the disciples, "Neither you nor he sinned, but this is the for the glory of God" (John 9:3).

There is a story in the Old Testament that seems appropriate to bring up here. David had a genuine exercise to build a temple for the Lord (2 Samuel 7:1–2). Nathan the prophet recognized it was a genuine exercise from the Lord, and told him so (2 Samuel 7:3). But the Lord spoke to Nathan, and told him that it would be David's son, not David, who would build the temple (2 Samuel 7:4–17).

So I've become a little more comfortable with the idea that I've gotten a genuine exercise from the Lord, but it wasn't ever His intention for me to be the one to act on it.

I'm not saying that third guy who stood up to speak in the assembly wasn't wrong to do so. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I confess there are a lot of times someone stands up and I am quite convinced they had nothing to say. But to be honest, there are a lot of times someone else stood up, and it was a great act of love for me not to roll my eyes... but then someone else would tell me afterwards that they felt the Lord gave them something they really needed in that message. In other words, He knew much better than I what was best for the assembly.

And that's the big lesson in 1 Corinthians 14. There is real responsibility in the assembly, but at the end of the day, the Lord doesn't need me. He is perfectly capable of doing what is best for the believers there without my help. 

Underneath a whole lot of what we do is the fear that if we don't intervene, things will go sideways. That's not even close to what Scripture teaches. God who raises the dead might well use me, but He certainly doesn't need me.

My Lord, the King

I was listening to someone speaking about the relationship between Christ and the church. He said that Christ isn't king over the church: the church is His bride, not His subject. I didn't spit out my coffee when he said that, but I wanted to. 

I understand where that idea comes from. Perhaps the most important distinction between believers on this side of the Cross and the Old Testament saints is union with Christ.  David and Abraham were both justified freely by faith (Romans 4:1–10). But not a verse of Scripture even hints that either of them had died with Christ, was buried with Him, or was risen with Him. All of these things are true of us today (Colossians 3:1–5). Of course this is all individual.

There is something new that God has done now, corporately, compared to the Old Testament. There is the assembly, the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22–23), the habitation of God through the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19–22). Scripture tells us the assembly is not only the Body of Christ, but also the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:24–33). And it's entirely Scriptural to emphasize the intimacy of this relationship. Ephesians 5 does exactly that.

But there's a danger here: so many who want to emphasize the intimacy of the relationship between Christ and His bride, fall into the opposite error. The idea that "the church is His bride, not His subject" is just plain foolish. It doesn't have to be one or the other: it's both.  

Scripture tells us quite plainly that the wife of the king isn't exempt from his authority. Yes, the assembly has a distinct and intimate relationship with Christ, but I can't find a single example in Scripture where the king's wife isn't one of his subjects.

Let's consider the case of David and Bathsheba (1 Kings 1:11-31). What does she call David? She calls him "my lord King David" (1 Kings 1:31). She calls him "my lord the king" (1 Kings 1:21, 27).  She calls him "my lord" (1 Kings 1:17). Some people seem to have decided it's appropriate to use this last title for Christ, but not the others. Is there any reason the bride of Christ shouldn't address Him as "my Lord, the King?"

Let's consider the case of Esther. She refers to her husband as "the king" (Esther 5:1-4), and "O king" (Esther 7:1–4). 

It seems to me like this is an example of folks allowing their theology to push them past what Scripture actually teaches. Both in Israel (David and Bathsheba) and in the nations (Ahasuerus and Esther), Scripture presents the queen as addressing the king as "king". 

So we should be really careful about condemning someone for calling Christ the King. Let's not make someone a transgressor for a word, especially when the Scripture seems to support it.
 

 

 

The Synagogue

Sometime in the past couple years, I was struck by the fact that both the Lord and Paul appear to have regularly attended the Synagogue. Luke 4:16 tells us it was the Lord's custom to attend the synagogue. Acts 18:4 tells us Paul visited the synagogue every sabbath in Corinth.

What struck me is, the synagogue isn't in the Law of Moses. It was an invention of post-captivity Judaism; we generally credit Ezra with inventing the tradition of the synagogue (Nehemiah 8:1–12). In fact, the first sabbath day commandment – given before the children of Israel reached Sinai – commands against leaving your home (Exodus 16:29).  But the Lord respected the synagogue tradition, and appears to have attended faithfully.

I've spent a lot of time with folks who take very seriously any and all commands in the New Testament about the church and its order. We don't always agree on what that means – for example, "open" assemblies generally have elders, while "exclusive" assemblies take a "not for today" position on elders –, but it's not taken lightly. There is a tendency among some groups almost to attempt to reset the ecclesiastical clock and go back to Acts 2, like the last two millennia can just be ignored. And while I personally hold views along the lines of J. N. Darby and William Kelly, I see no less conviction on the part of others who might hold slightly different views.

So you can imagine my surprise when I realized that the Lord went to the synagogue. And He didn't apparently go there to accuse them of following a man-made tradition, He didn't go there and tell them that there's no mention of the synagogue in the Law, He didn't go there to remind them that they were to worship only in the place where God had put His name (Deuteronomy 12:1–14). He went there and read the scriptures.

And that made me question a whole lot of things.

Now's a good time to remind ourselves that the Lord did, indeed, call out the Pharisees for things they had added to Scripture (Matthew 15:1–9). We should remind ourselves that He went back to "the beginning" when it was a question of divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:1–9). So the Lord didn't just act like adding to the Word of God was OK. But we can't honestly say He followed a regulative principle either.

Now, it's true that the Lord is eternally God. It's true that He has every right to do whatever He likes, because He is God. But that doesn't appear to be what's going on here. The fact is that the Lord submitted to the Scriptures, treating them like they were the written record of God's words. But here's a case where He accepted the traditions of Judaism, apparently without any qualms at all.

I don't doubt that the Lord's life as a man on earth was entirely characterized by a moment-by-moment obedience to the Father (Isaiah 50:4; John 5:16–20).  I don't doubt that He was led by the Spirit of God every single step He took (Luke 4:1, etc.). There's no doubt in my mind that the Lord wasn't just doing what He felt like doing at the time.

But at the end of the day, here's a case where He accepted the traditions Judaism without making a point of reminding everyone that they weren't (in this case) strictly obeying the Law. He wasn't calling everyone to follow the "Old Testament pattern."

And the Apostles seemed to have a similar attitude. I've spend many years contemplating Acts 15, but without getting too side-tracked, I'll just say that when a dispute about the Law arose, the Apostles weren't shy about making a decision. Was it a godly decision? Apparently it was (Acts 15:28).

So I've been making a conscious effort not to get too hung up on a regulative principle. I've spent many years doing exactly that. I'm not saying "anything goes," not at all. I haven't forgotten that the Lord accused the Pharisees of allowing the traditions of the fathers to make the Word of God of none effect (Mark 7:9–14). But I'm also realizing that the Lord was led by the Spirit of God to participate in things that fail the to meet the standards of a strict regulative principle. And I'm not going to claim to be better than Him.

"Publicly and in every house"

There's been some discussion here about what constitutes an "assembly meeting". I've seen a lot of these discussions over the last twenty years, and I've come to dislike them intensely.

In my experience, when someone questions whether something is an "assembly meeting," the question behind the question is, "must we obey 1 Corinthians 14:26–40?" Literally every time I've heard someone question whether something is an "assembly meeting," the actual question is whether women should be speaking in the meeting. I can't recall a single instance when that wasn't the issue.

I can't find where scripture discusses "assembly meetings". I just can't find those verses. It seems to me we get into the weeds when we start building theologies on terminology that's not in scripture. If we really want to be biblical Christians, it seems to me the best place to start is by using biblical terms to describe biblical ideas.

So, if "assembly meeting" isn't a scriptural term, is it at least a scriptural idea? I suppose the actual question is whether there is the concept of a non "assembly meeting." It seems to me there are two questions we need to consider. First, is there the concept in scripture that Christians might gather, but not as the assembly? Second, is it possible that the assembly gathers, but it's not an "assembly meeting?"

In practical terms, the second question is really the one people are asking. I don't know anyone who questions whether it is "the assembly" when I have other Christians over for dinner. I'm sure there is someone, somewhere who holds that view, but it's not something I've come across.

I think the closest thing we get to a scriptural answer is in Acts 20:20. There, Paul says he taught the Ephesian elders "publicly and in every house." If there is a more relevant verse, I haven't found it.

So Paul appears to classify his teaching into two categories:

1. public
2. and private (in every house).

This has the advantage of being a simple and clear distinction, but there isn't really a lot of nuance to it. If someone has a Bible study in their home, then it would fall under "in every house." If the assembly has a Bible study on a weeknight, then it would fall under "publicly."

Again, I realize this isn't really nuanced, but it's all I really see in Scripture.

The small meeting here has a Wednesday night meeting. We spend about 45 minutes praying, then we spend another 45 minutes in a Bible reading. I've been told that the first 45 minutes is an "assembly meeting," while the next 45 minutes is "not an assembly meeting." That's certainly nuanced, but it also seems a bit ridiculous.

What I haven't personally seen – what I'd like to see – is an assembly taking the position that we only do what scripture clearly teaches. If we have to build a theology to explain "not assembly meeting" and "assembly meeting," then perhaps we've already gone down the wrong path. Perhaps we've already filled our schedules with things scripture doesn't actually command. Perhaps we're already doing too much.

"brethren" like to refer to Acts 2:42 as a sort of a charter for the assembly. There we read about four activities in the early church:

1. the teaching of the apostles
2. fellowship
3. breaking of bread
4. prayers.

It seems to my "brethren" read way too much into that verse. It's not a command for us, it's a description of what the early Christians did. And it certainly isn't giving us a list of meetings that we ought to be attending, although I've known plenty of folks who seem to think it is.

But let's just take those four elements as a sort of a basic description of four things an assembly should be doing. Let's be clear that adding more things isn't necessarily an improvement: the Ephesians appear to have been involved in all sorts of activities, but were still missing the point (Revelation 2:2–4). But let's get back to the four in Acts 2:42. If those comprise a list of activities the assembly should be doing, then perhaps we could generate a list of things the assembly shouldn't be doing.

In the end, I'm not actually advocating for cancelling all the meetings, nor even reducing the count to four or fewer. What I am advocating is that we test what we're doing against Scripture. If a meeting doesn't seem to work unless we declare it to be a "non-assembly meeting," then maybe we should just cancel it. And certainly, if there's no real exercise before the Lord about a meeting, we should pray about dropping it. Having a meeting just because "we've always done it" is a step down the path to Ephesus (Revelation 2:2–4).

Preparation

The preachings in the Acts were under such circumstances as to preclude any studied preparation. The preachers were prepared rather than the sermons. An old and honoured servant of the Lord, in answer to the question, What shall I study? said, Study well these four words, "The flesh profiteth nothing"! The preachings in the Acts were "water of the rain of heaven"; the streams flowed down in copious blessing. How definitely the Apostles presented Christ as crucified, risen, and exalted at God's right hand! How wonderfully they quoted and applied the Scriptures! How pointed and powerful was their dealing with men! There was a spiritual naturalness, if we may so say, a simplicity, freshness, sobriety and order in all that they said which made manifest that they preached the glad tidings "by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven". All true ministry is in the power of the Holy Spirit, and it tends to promote fruitfulness in the land. (C. A. Coates, An Outline of Deuteronomy, pp. 123–124, emphasis added)

"The preachers were prepared rather than the sermons" – a good friend shared this quote with me many years ago, I mentioned it in passing to Rodger, who did the spade work to dig up the source. (Thanks, Rodger!)

That quote has haunted me for at least a dozen years. I find myself asking, "am I prepared?"

I've had the privilege of fellowship in a couple assemblies where unplanned and unscripted meetings were the rule, rather than the exception. The assembly would have the Lord's Supper Sunday mornings, followed by a Bible Reading. In the evening, there was an "open meeting," where one or more brothers were expected to stand up and give a word. The rule was "two or at the most three" (1 Corinthians 14:26–35). They were never picked beforehand, and it was assumed they didn't have notes. We would gather to hear from the Lord, and whoever felt led to stand up and speak was expected to do so. Unless someone came through town specifically to minister the word, there were no prepared messages.

I've been to at least one Bible conference where there were no planned speakers, but whoever felt led would stand and speak. There was powerful ministry. A whole weekend of unplanned meetings. If I might say so, those meetings were short on planning, but long on preparation.

These days I remember the Lord in an assembly where the speakers are asked beforehand to speak. I really miss those unplanned, unscripted meetings.

It's difficult for me to stand up and speak in the assembly, because I have no fear of public speaking. I was a classroom teacher for several years, and it's all too easy for me to slip back into that mode. The problem is, people don't need to hear me, they need to be drawn to Christ. When we speak in the assembly, it should be as an oracle of God (1 Peter 4:11). That's easier said than done.

I've heard some amazing sermons that clearly took a whole lot of work. But the ministry that has seemed to me to be the most powerful has consistently been "extemporaneous". There is something qualitatively different about ministry that's given with a great deal of thought, but not a great deal of planning.

H. E. Hayhoe gave a talk on Isaiah 5 in 1969 ("Outline of Scripture"). It's worth a listen (or five). He makes a statement to the effect that, "we learn Scripture by meditation, not by study." That statement has affected me deeply.

Notice how it parallels CAC's claim that we want prepared preachers, rather than prepared sermons. It's not that we need to learn, it's that we need to be transformed. Scripture working in my mind and my heart is very, very different from Scripture analyzed and pushed into sermon notes.

It's possible people groan when they realize I'm standing up to speak in the assembly. It's possible they all wish I'd spend more time writing notes and referring to them. But I've made a point of preparing to speak with prayer, rather than with study. (I suppose, in a way, this blog is a sort of a scratch-pad where I can work things out in writing. It's possible I'm being a little less than honest with myself about that.)

Of course I'm not advocating speaking in the assembly without preparation, but I am absolutely advocating being prepared by spending time in the Lord's presence, rather than having good notes. That puts a much sterner responsibility on us: the responsibility of constant prayer and meditation, so that we can honestly say we're always prepared.

A form of Godliness

It would be a terrible mistake to think I'm sitting at the end of the path, telling people how to arrive like I have arrived. Let's be clear that I write about things I've glimpsed, not things I've mastered.

Scripture warns about "a form of piety" without its power (2 Timothy 3:1–5). The more godly the path we attempt to walk, the more we need to be careful of this warning. We might remember Peter stepping out of the boat (Matthew 14:26–32). Had he stayed in the boat, he would have had no trouble staying above the water. But once he stepped out the boat, he was in a place where only Divine power could keep him up.

There is a path the vulture's eye hasn't seen (Job 28:7). We can't find it on our own. God doesn't really command us to do things we can do: He only really commands us to do what we can't. That's precisely why Jeremiah 17:5–9 warns against confidence in man. God's not interested in what man can do, but in what one Man has done. The more closely we try to walk with that Man, the more dangerous it will be to attempt it in anything but His power.

Here's an example: I've heard many, many talks about church order among "brethren". With very few exceptions, what I've actually seen are attempts by sincere believers to maintain proper church order in the power and energy of the flesh.

Of course church order is important, or Scripture wouldn't bring it up. Reading 1 Corinthians 14:26 was a real pivot point in my life, because I realized I'd never actually seen it practiced. Church order is absolutely part of the Whole Counsel of God, and learning about it should be life-changing.

But 2 Timothy 3:5 specifically warns about getting the form right while not having the power. It's warning about people who try to do the right thing from the wrong source. That's the error of the Galatians: thinking it's possible to start out in the power of the Spirit and finish in the power of flesh (Galatians 3:3).

J. N. Darby wrote:

[O]ur worship falls back into the flesh; our prayers (or praying well) form what is sometimes called a gift of prayer, than which nothing often is more sorrowful (a fluent rehearsal of known truths and principles, instead of communion and the expression of praise and thanksgiving in the joy of communion, and even of our wants and desires in the unction of the Spirit); our singing, pleasure of the ear, taste in music, and expressions in which we sympathise – all a form in the flesh, and not communion in the Spirit. All this is evil; the Spirit of God owns it not; it is not in spirit and in truth; it is really iniquity. ("Worship in the Flesh", Synopsis, Leviticus 3)

It's a very serious danger, but it's subtle. You can only fall into it when you're trying to do the right thing.

If you spend any time at all among "brethren", you'll hear guilt trips about silence in the meetings. For some reason, the very same people who most loudly condemn denominational churches for having clergymen ("they're not being led of the Spirit") hesitate least to pressure younger men to speak up. I'll be honest, the majority of times I've seen a younger man cave to the pressure and speak up in the meetings, I wished he'd kept silent.

We still haven't learned this lesson: it's not enough to do the right thing, we have to do it the right way. At the slightest provocation, we rest on the power of flesh. We still haven't learned Jeremiah 17:5–9. We allow our embarrassment goad us into trying to act when we should be sitting quietly, waiting on the Lord. I've heard Robert talk about Isaiah 40:30–31, pointing out that it's a promise. Think about that for a few moments. And then think about this: waiting on the Lord isn't easy. We're all willing to wait for about as long as it takes for the guy at the drive-through to make us a burger. But the Lord isn't on the drive-through schedule: He might make us wait a lot longer. Are we willing to wait for His timing?

Here I am putting the "assembly" back into "Assembly Quest".

Again, I am talking about something I have rarely seen, and even more rarely experienced. I'm not telling you to live like me, I'm telling you we both need to learn to wait on the Lord. And once the Lord has shown us something from His word, once we have seen a truth we need to live out, then we step into the truly dangerous realm: the place where we're tempted to have a form of godliness without its power.

Eating the sin offering

Leviticus 6:24–26; Numbers 18:8–12; Ezekiel 9; Daniel 9; 1 Corinthians 5

There has been some conversation about eating the sin offering in the gathering here. I wanted to put a few of my thoughts on "paper", mainly for my own reference later.

The law of the sin offering (Leviticus 6:24–30) details that the priest is to eat the sin offering. That is, when an animal was brought to be sacrificed, it was mainly the animal's blood and fat that were offered. The flesh of the animal was the priest's. This is slightly over-simplified: there were various subtle differences in offerings, depending on what was offered and by whom. But in general, the law of the sin offering is that the priest is to eat the flesh of the sin offering (Leviticus 6:26).

We understand that the Levitical laws contain "typical" teaching for us. We understand this because Scripture very carefully points this out, especially in Hebrews. I understand that some Christians have taken this idea to the point where they hardly seem to think that the Pentatuech has any historical significance at all: they seem to think it is some sort of allegory. Of course that's wrong, but the New Testament does appeal to typical teaching in the Levitical law, and we don't want to miss what the Holy Spirit is trying to teach us.

Numbers 18:8–12 picks up this theme and teaches us that the priests are fed from the offerings that are brought to the Tabernacle. They don't have a part in the inheritance God gave Israel, so He gave them the offerings. And so the priests are told, "this shall be thine: the heave-offering of their gift, with all the wave-offerings of the children of Israel; I have given them unto thee, and to thy sons and to thy daughters with thee, by an everlasting statute" (Numbers 18:11).

Is there a typical teaching for us in the priests' eating the offerings? It would seem so, and 1 Corinthians 10 picks up this theme. "See Israel according to flesh: are not they who eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar?" (1 Corinthians 10:18). Here the Apostle's argument is that although an idol is really nothing (it's just a piece of metal or wood or stone), idolatry is very real. And eating what has been sacrificed to an idol brings us, in a way, into communion with the idolatry. The appeal is made to the Levitical law: doesn't eating the sin offering bring the priest into communion with the offering?

This statement sheds a great deal of light on what it means to eat a sin offering. Eating the sin offering wasn't only God's provision for the priests, to give them fresh meat. It was putting a responsibility on the priests and on their families, because they were in communion with the offering of those sacrifices.

If a man in Israel was to bring a goat to the priest as a sin offering, then when that priest was eating the flesh of that goat later that day, he was expressing a fellowship with the man's offering. Not merely the man's act of slaughtering a goat, but the man's need to slaughter the goat. The man's responsibility was to bring the offering to the priest, but the priest was not allowed simply to slaughter it and go about his day: he had to express communion with that offering probably after the man had stopped thinking about it.

If we think about Aaron, we notice that he grew into his priesthood. When Moses was up the mountain, receiving instruction from the Lord about Aaron's role as priest (Exodus 28), Aaron was down on the plain, leading the people in idolatry (Exodus 32:1–6). And when the Lord was angered about the idolatry, it was Moses and not Aaron who went to make atonement for them (Exodus 32:30–35). In fact, I'm not sure that Aaron really took up his role as priest until the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, when he ran to stand between the people and the plague (Numbers 16:46–50).

(I realize there is a difference between Advocacy and Priesthood, and perhaps Moses up on the mountain in contrast with Aaron on the plain illustrates this... but the fact remains that Aaron's priesthood grows in Scripture.)

But through the Old Testament, we have the histories of others who took up the duty of the priest, even if they weren't called to it. I don't mean ceremonially, but morally. Morally, the duty of the priest is to take represent the people to God. We see this in Samuel (1 Samuel 12:23), and Daniel (Daniel 9), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 9:8), to name a few. The priest stands between sinful people and holy God.

So what does it look like to eat the sin offering morally, if not physically? Daniel 9 is an example. Daniel read Jeremiah and realized the Babylonian Captivity was about to end. So he got down on his knees and prayed. His prayer is listed in Daniel 9:3–19. The vast majority of the prayers (vv. 4–16) is confession of the sins of Israel. But here's the thing: Daniel hadn't actually committed a single one of those sins. In fact, Daniel wasn't even in Jerusalem, he was in Babylon and had been since before Zedekiah's reign.

This is what we mean when we talk about eating the sin offering. Daniel himself hadn't sinned, but he expressed fellowship with his people in their sin. He confessed the sins as his own, and he took God's side, as it were. That is, he didn't make excuses, he acknowledged God's righteousness in judging the sins of His people.

Ezekiel 9 gives us a little more light on the subject. Here the Lord is judging Jerusalem for their idolatry. But before He sends judgment on them, He commands what appears to be an angel to go through the city, marking out certain people as untouchable (v. 4). What was the test? What made someone escape the judgment? It was simple: "mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that are done." God wasn't looking for a Jerubbaal who'd pull down an idol altar. He wasn't looking for a Josiah who'd go out and slaughter the idolatrous priests. He was looking for someone whose heart was touched with the enormity of their iniquity. He was looking for someone whose reaction in the middle of all this corruption was a broken heart.

This brings us into 1 Corinthians 5. Notice what the Apostle says to the Corinthians: "*ye* are puffed up, and ye have not rather mourned, in order that he that has done this deed might be taken away out of the midst of you" (1 Corinthians 5:2). So the "normal Christian" response to blatant immorality is supposed to be mourning. And I have to admit, I don't see a lot of that. The reactions I've seen have been more along the lines of gossip, slander, finger-pointing, or even just a deliberate ignoring of the sin. But Scripture says that "normal" reaction is mourning.

What's really interesting is the statement, "that he that has done this deed might be taken away out of the midst of you". I'm not going to be dogmatic about this, but this suggests that the Lord might have stepped in and intervened, had He seen the Corinthians mourning. If that's true, then we might conclude that assembly discipline in disfellowshipping someone is an indicator of failure. Had they been mournful of the sin, they wouldn't have had to act.

Regardless, Ezekiel 9 and 1 Corinthians 5 carry this theme: that the reaction God is looking for is sorrow. We see this same theme in Exodus 32. And so we have to ask ourselves: when we observe sin in the assembly, is our reaction sorrow?

When Daniel recognized the sin in Israel, he reacted to it as though it was his own. There was a degree of humility that comes from mourning sin: it reminds us sharply that we aren't above the sin we have seen. Daniel couldn't very well repent of the sins of Israel before God and then say, "I wouldn't ever do that!". But we see that reaction quite frequently among Christians: "How could he have done such a thing?" When we find ourselves asking that question, we've forgotten the lessons of Romans 6–8.

It's one thing to despise sins we've committed, but eventually we have to learn to despise the indwelling sin that is their source. That's the lesson of Romans 7, isn't it? It's one thing to despise what we do, it's another to recognize that "in me, that is in my flesh, dwells no good thing".

Galatians offers a warning to those who'd take the lead in the assembly: "if even a man be taken in some fault, ye who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of meekness, considering thyself lest *thou* also be tempted" (Galatians 6:1). What's the danger hidden in the godly desire to help out? There is the same flesh in me that is in every other child of God. When a believer is "taken in some fault", he or she is simply expressing the same sin that is in me too.

Galatians says the remedy is a "spirit of meekness". That's what Daniel had, that's what Ezekiel had. We don't see in either Daniel or Ezekiel a sense of superiority. We don't see them pointing to the idolaters without a sense of their own frailty. Ezekiel and Daniel are both deeply touched by what they've seen, and they're both dismayed to see it.

When a Christian falls into sin, there's frequently a sort of feeding frenzy among other Christians. We get the scent of blood, and we get into a self-righteous condemnation. The Lord Jesus said, "there's none good but God" (Mark 10:18). We'd do well to bear that in mind.

Now, this doesn't mean we can just ignore sin. At no point does Scripture ever teach, suggest, or imply that we should just ignore sin. Scripture is quite clear: "Let every one who names the name of [the] Lord withdraw from iniquity" (2 Timothy 2:19).

What it does mean is, the proper response to sin is meekness and sorrow. We've no call to act in malice, arrogance, and self-righteousness when sin in the assembly comes to light. The godly ones are always called to walk in humility. Yes, we are to separate from evil. Yes, we are called to walk in separation. Yes, the Scripture certainly prescribes a breaking of fellowship with the unrepentant. But when it comes to assembly matters, the how is at least as important as the what.

Reception, again

It seems like the issue of reception keeps coming up. So I thought I'd write down some notes about it. I've already laid out what I think about reception ("Thoughts on reception"), but I'm not sure I did a good job of referring to Scripture. So I'd like to establish in just a few paragraphs what Scripture has to say about reception. Yeah, like that's possible...

The first thing we need to establish is that not everyone is supposed to be at the Lord's Table. Scripture specifically says we're to exclude some: 1 Corinthians 5 discusses putting believers out of fellowship who deliberately and unrepentantly persist in sin. What does it say we should do in this case?

• to have nothing to do with such a person (v. 11)
• not to eat with such a person (v. 11)
• to remove such a person from among ourselves (v. 13)

If we're supposed to remove the person, if we're not to mix with the person, if we're not to eat with the person, then that person sure isn't supposed to be at the Lord's Table. If we allow that person to the Table, then we've disobeyed these three commands.

This is only about removing someone from fellowship who is living in known sin. So no, these verse don't apply to someone who just walks in off the street. But it does establish the general principle that we aren't supposed to have everyone at the Table. There is at least one complete class of people we're specifically told to exclude. Not to exclude such people is sin.

So we've established the principle that the Lord's Table isn't for everyone.

The next question is, why shouldn't we allow this person to the Table? The question is answered easily in 1 Corinthians 5:6–8: "a little leaven leavens the whole lump". What does that mean? It means that sin spreads. It's possible for an entire gathering of the Lord's people to become defiled by the sin of one person.

This isn't an isolated statement in Scripture. The Scriptures mention it explicitly in other places:

• 1 Timothy 5:22 commands not to "partake in others' sins"
• 2 John 10 & 11 say that you "partake in [a false teacher's] wicked works" just by allowing him into the house, or greeting him

So we have a principle given three times in Scripture, that it's possible to become a participant in someone else's sins. How? 1 Corinthians 5 contemplates social interaction, and includes church activities. The assembly is supposed to "remove" that person. 1 Timothy 5 connects participating in someone else's sins just by "laying hands" on him. That is not, I take it, a physical touch, but a symbolic gesture, like a hand shake. 2 John says it's possible to become a participant in an evil teacher's "wicked works" by allowing him to come into your house, or even by greeting him. There's a reason I never let representatives of the Watchtower Society into my house when they knock on the door. No thanks, I'm not interested in getting in on their blasphemies.

But can we really apply a principle like that to the assembly? Isn't it talking about individual social interactions? That's not really a reasonable interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5. But if we want to argue about it, we have more of God's thoughts on fellowship in Revelation 2 & 3. In the message to the assembly in Pergamos, the Lord Jesus says He has two things against them:

1. they have those who hold the doctrine of Balaam (Revelation 2:14)
2. they have those who hold the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes (Revelation 2:15)

Let's be perfectly clear here: the Lord makes exactly two accusations against the assembly in Pergamos, and they're both that the assembly has allowed people in who hold to false doctrines. And then He warns them to repent (Revelation 2:16). So the teaching of Revelation 2 is that there is judgment coming on this assembly because of their fellowship with certain people.

We could go on. We could discuss Jude. We could talk about Romans 16. But in the end, it's an indisputable fact that the Lord takes our associations very seriously. The Scripture explicitly warns against becoming a partaker in someone else's sins, and Christ judges the assembly specifically in terms of the people they allow in fellowship.

But there's more. The Lord's Supper is not an individual thing. What does the Scripture say? "[W]e, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf" (1 Corinthians 10:17). No, it doesn't mean we become one Body by eating the one loaf. The context makes that clear. What it means is that we announce our "One Body"-ness by eating that one loaf. Why do many Christians refer to the Lord's Supper as "Communion"? Because that's what 1 Corinthians 10 calls it. By eating the Lord's Supper together, we are demonstrating our communion.

Now we see why the Lord takes it so seriously to have an unrepentant fornicator in the assembly: the entire assembly is expressing unity with that man whenever they sit at the Lord's Supper together.

So let's talk about unbelievers for a moment. Do we believe they are part of the One Body? Of course not! It's only by baptism of the Holy Spirit we become part of the One Body (1 Corinthians 12:13). So then we're lying if we announce "One Body"-ness with an unbeliever, aren't we?

So we have the general principle that it's possible to become a partaker in someone else's sins. And we have some specific examples of how that works: things like inviting a false teacher into the house, or greeting him. And we have the explicit command that the assembly is to put unrepentant sinners out of fellowship: we're to have nothing to do with them, and we're specifically told not to eat with them. And we have the judgment of the Lord Jesus, that allowing people with false doctrine to be part of the assembly is a serious sin. So we can say with complete certainty that there are several reasons to exclude someone from the Lord's Supper. And in fact, Scripture makes it clear that if we don't exclude them, we come under the Lord's judgment (Revelation 2:14–16).

But what about 1 Corinthians 11? People have pointed out 1 Corinthians 11:28, "a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (NASB). People have taken that to mean that it's up to the individual to decide whether he ought to take part in the Lord's Supper. I suppose the verse might be taken that way, but I don't think it fits the context very well. Why would I say that? Because just six chapters earlier, the Scripture specifically commands we're not to eat with unrepentant sinners. Does the Lord's Supper count as eating? Of course it does! And 1 Corinthians 10 makes the point that in eating the Lord's Supper, we're expressing communion with each other. So 1 Corinthians 5 explicitly forbids eating with someone, can we then understand 1 Corinthians 11 to mean that it's up to them whether they partake of the Lord's Supper?

1 Corinthians 11 isn't saying that anyone who comes along is responsible to decide for themselves whether they ought to eat and drink: that would mean that the entire discussion in 1 Corinthians 5 is meaningless. It means that 1 Corinthians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 together read something like this, "Have nothing to do with that person, don't even eat with them. But really, leave it up to them to decide whether they eat with you..." When we put it that way, it sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

1 Corinthians 11 is addressing the people who are in the assembly. This is a known group of people, and we know that by v. 23. They were ones to whom Paul had already given the truth of the Lord's Supper. He knew them, they weren't strangers. And he says to them that they ought to be judging themselves, because it's by self-judgment that we escape God's judgment.

The concept of an "open table" doesn't stand up to Scripture. But there's another question: what is our test of fellowship? If not everyone's allowed to the Table, then who should be allowed?

I've pointed out before that the test of fellowship isn't loyalty to the group: the test is loyalty to Christ. I'm not by any means condoning a sectarian membership. But I am saying the uniform testimony of Scripture is that God holds the assembly responsible for who's eating the Lord's Supper. And Scripture plainly states that this relationship can be defiling to an assembly.

As a final note: I wrote several years ago about reception ("Thoughts on reception"), but I didn't know then that J. N. Darby wrote something very much along the same lines. It wasn't for quite some time I found it, but Darby's paper "Principles of Gathering" is excellent. It's on STEM Publishing, and it's worth a read.

Ruin (Part 4)

We've considered the idea of "the Church in Ruin". We haven't examined it fully, of course. We've mainly been looking to understand the basic idea. The whole idea of "the Church in Ruin" is based on two postulates:

1. the Church was infiltrated by apostates early in its history: before the Apostles had died out
2. this will continue until the Lord Jesus comes back to judge: the damage is irreparable

We've looked to Scripture to see what it has to say about this, and we've seen that the Lord Jesus predicted there would be "tares" mixed in with the wheat until the "completion of the age". We saw, too, that the Apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders of apostates arising from among the leaders in Ephesus. We also considered some of the later epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Jude, and 1 John) and found they are consistent with the testimony of the Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul: they contemplated apostasy as a present fact within the Church. What's more, they contemplate the apostasy as being irreversible: it will continue until the Lord Jesus comes to judge.

I have very deliberately only looked at Scripture to this point. I've been careful not to appeal to empirical evidence in the Church around us.

There's a lot more to write about. We've not even really addressed Revelation 2–3, which are very important chapters in understanding the dispensational responsibility of the Church. And we haven't talked at all about the post-captivity books in the Old Testament, which have some bearing on the issue. But right at the moment I want to address some more practical concerns.

I'm going to come right out and say this: many "brethren" groups have found in this doctrine an excuse for their own fleshly actions. The flesh is really, really good at taking the truth of God and turning it into an excuse. Liberty can become a cloak for malice (1 Peter 2:16). Grace can become an excuse to sin (Romans 6:15).

I believe the Church is in ruin. I don't believe that because of what I see around me: I believe that because I think that's what Scripture teaches. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to have a heart that's cold towards God's children. It doesn't mean I can arrogantly claim the Lord's presence and accuse others of sitting at the table of demons. It doesn't mean I can see myself as separate from the Ruin. Truth is a poor excuse for sin.

Ruin (Part 3)

Well, we've been looking at the ruin of the Church. We started out in Part 1 by establishing that God sees the assembly from two perspectives: from an eternal, "God is sovereign" perspective, He sees the assembly as perfect. But from a temporal, "Man is responsible" perspective, He sees that the assembly has failed in its responsibility on earth. In Part 2 we went on to demonstrate that apostasy began very early on in the assembly: by the time Jude was written, it was an accomplished fact. Finally, we demonstrated that the testimony of Jude is corroborated by the testimony of the Apostles and of the Lord Jesus.

In this section, we'll attempt to demonstrate that apostasy is a fixture in the assembly. Not (although I've said it before) that the assembly is "characterized" by apostasy, but that Scripture contemplates it is something that won't be "cured" until "the completion of the age". In other words, we want to demonstrate the Scripture teaches the apostasy is irreparable.

We've already looked at the parable of the darnel of the field (Matthew 13:24–30) and the interpretation the Lord Jesus gave for it (Matthew 13:36–43). So we can ask the question: did the Lord Jesus expect things to get better and better? No, He didn't. He predicted that there would be darnel (or tares) sown in the field "while men slept". So He predicted that there would be false professors mixed in with true believers. Further, He specifically predicted that they wouldn't be sorted out until "the completion of the age". In fact, in the parable the farmer specifically forbids the pulling up of the tares, because it's possible that genuine wheat would be pulled up in the process.

So we can ask the question, did the Lord Jesus expect things would get better and better until He comes back? The answer, of course, is "No". He predicted false professors would come in, and would stay mixed in with the true believers until the end of the age.

So what about the epistles? Don't they teach things are generally going to get better and better? Not really. We've already considered Jude's epistle, let's reconsider what it has to say about the "ungodly persons" (v. 4) who've infiltrated the assembly.

14 And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied also as to these, saying, Behold, the Lord has come amidst his holy myriads, 15 to execute judgment against all; and to convict all the ungodly of them of all their works of ungodliness, which they have wrought ungodlily, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 14–15)

We noticed before that Jude's epistle doesn't warn apostasy is coming, rather it warns that it already has come. The ungodly persons in Jude 4 were already in the assembly. At the same time, Jude's epistle tells the end of those ungodly persons. It says the Lord will come and judge them. So as far as Jude is concerned, those ungodly persons are in the assembly, and they're there to stay until the Lord comes in judgment.

This is essentially what we expect based on the parable of the darnel of the field. The main point of that parable is that the Son of Man has no intention of differentiating between the wheat and the tares until the "completion of the age".

As an aside, I find Jude 14 is interesting with respect to the question of the "rapture". The "ungodly persons" will be judged when the Lord comes to execute judgment. On the other, the Lord is coming with His saints. That seems to me to fit in nicely with the whole idea that the Lord will come and get His saints, then come in judgment as a sort of a second stage. Is it a slam-dunk? Nope. But I think it fits.

But the point is that both Jude and Matthew predict an ongoing infiltration that will continue until the Lord comes back.

What about the other epistles? Not all the epistles discuss the issue of ruin, but those that do agree in at least the general outline. We might consider 1 Timothy 4:1, "the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall apostatise from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons". 2 Timothy 3:1–9 says something similar, "in the last days difficult times shall be there; for men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, etc." Both 1 and 2 Timothy explicitly teach that "the last days" are characterized by apostasy. That is to say, it's not going to get better and better. It's going to get worse and worse. But we have to look over to 1 John to fit the puzzle pieces together: "Little children, it is the last hour, and, according as ye have heard that antichrist comes, even now there have come many antichrists, whence we know that it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18). So the "last hour" has already begun. It began in the time of the Apostles. And (this is significant), 1 John produces the presence of "many antichrists" as evidence that the "last hour" has already begun. In the next verse, it is clarified what these "many antichrists" are: they are apostates (1 John 2:19).

What do these epistles say about the resolution to this apostasy? Do they predict a repentance? No, they don't.

The first few verses of 2 Timothy 4 might shed some additional light on our contemplation:

1 I testify before God and Christ Jesus, who is about to judge living and dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom, 2 proclaim the word; be urgent in season and out of season, convict, rebuke, encourage, with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time shall be when they will not bear sound teaching; but according to their own lusts will heap up to themselves teachers, having an itching ear; 4 and they will turn away their ear from the truth, and will have turned aside to fables. (1 Timothy 4:1–4)

We notice there is a connection with the return of Christ "who is about to judge the living and the dead". The connection is apocalyptic: "and by his appearing and his kingdom". And what does the epistle say? That there is a time coming when "they" will not bear sound teaching. Once again, we see a picture of decline. The Scripture doesn't contemplate things getting better and better. The Lord Jesus asked, "when the Son of man comes, shall he indeed find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). It is important for us to understand this: the entire testimony of Scripture is moral decline between Christ's first and second advent.

So the testimony of the Lord Jesus, the Apostle Paul, and the epistles is that apostasy has set in. It set in early: Jude considers it was an accomplished fact, 1 John says it [was] already "the last hour". And the Scripture presents this apostasy as continuing until the Lord Jesus comes back to judge "at the completion of the age".

We've now considered the basic idea of the "church in ruin". Scripture teaches that apostasy would set into the church early; and, having set in, it would be irreparable. We must bear in mind that this is only from one particular perspective. God's eternal purposes are not frustrated by man's failures. But the assembly has dispensational responsibility on the earth. We are here on Christ's behalf, and we've not been faithful. We'll discuss that in more detail in another installment.

Ruin (Part 2)

Last time we established that the assembly ("Church") is presented from two perspectives in Scripture. In one perspective, it is God's building: God places living stones in it, building it up into a holy temple. But in the other perspective, God has fellow-workmen. They build with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and stubble. God's work cannot be less than perfect, but man's work can.

We might say that this is yet another "God is sovereign"; "man is responsible" paradox. If we look at the assembly only as God's work, then we see His sovereign hand in it, and we understand that the assembly is turning out exactly as He wants. On the other hand, if we only see man's responsibility in the assembly, then we understand that the Lord Jesus walks in the midst of the candlesticks, judging our work. And of course both are true. Just like God is sovereign in saving sinners, but sinners are still responsible for their choices, God is at work in the assembly, but that doesn't mean we're not responsible for how we build on that One Foundation.

What I want to demonstrate this time, is that Scripture teaches that apostasy set into the assembly even before the Apostles died. Next time we're going to attempt to show that the apostasy in the assembly is irreparable: there might be isolated and localized reformations and revivals, but Scripture shows that, the apostasy having begun, it generally gets worse and worse until judgment.

The epistles warn that apostasy had already set into the assembly when the Apostles were still alive. We could demonstrate this from 2 Timothy, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 John, and Revelation 2–3. It would take a lot of time to look into all those passages, so let's consider Jude:

4 For certain men have got in unnoticed, they who of old were marked out beforehand to this sentence, ungodly persons, turning the grace of our God into dissoluteness, and denying our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ. 5 But I would put you in remembrance, you who once knew all things, that the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, in the second place destroyed those who had not believed. 6 And angels who had not kept their own original state, but had abandoned their own dwelling, he keeps in eternal chains under gloomy darkness, to the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities around them, committing greedily fornication, in like manner with them, and going after other flesh, lie there as an example, undergoing the judgment of eternal fire. (Jude 4–7)

14 And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied also as to these, saying, Behold, the Lord has come amidst his holy myriads, 15 to execute judgment against all; and to convict all the ungodly of them of all their works of ungodliness, which they have wrought ungodlily, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him (Jude 14–15)

There are two things we notice in Jude. First, there were "certain men" who'd already come into the assembly. They are apostates, and they're compared to three great apostasies in the Old Testament:

1. the unbelieving Israelites who were destroyed in the wilderness
2. the angels who fell, and are kept in "eternal chains" until judgment
3. the men of Sodom and Gomorrha, who are under the judgement of "eternal fire"

It's important to note Jude doesn't warn about apostates "out there", it warns against apostates who are in the assembly.

Second, the apostates are the object of God's judgment. It's interesting to note that the three Old Testament apostasies in Jude 4–7 are mentioned in connection with judgment. But the case is made more explicitly in vv. 14–15, where we're told that these men are the subject of Enoch's prophecy: the prophecy that the Lord is coming "to execute judgment" against them.

What is very interesting in Jude is that there's no word of these apostates repenting. I don't doubt that God saves the ungodly sinner who believes, regardless of whatever sin or wickedness he has done; but Jude doesn't present these "ungodly persons" as needing to repent, it presents them as reserved for judgment.

We might notice, too, that Jude is silent about removing these people from the assembly. It doesn't present this as a problem that can be fixed. The "solution" in Jude is

20 But *ye*, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life (Jude 20–21)

As far as Jude's concerned, the response of the faithful is to rest in God, "awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ".

We might look to the testimony of the Apostles as well. Let's consider Acts 20

28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. 29 For *I* know this, that there will come in amongst you after my departure grievous wolves, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Wherefore watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I ceased not admonishing each one of you with tears. 32 And now I commit you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and give to you an inheritance among all the sanctified. (Acts 20:28–32)

Here Paul is addressing the Ephesian elders at Miletus. And he warns them that "grievous wolves" will come in after he leaves (v. 29). But the interesting statement is in the next verse "from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them" (v. 30). So he warned them that apostasy would set in after he leaves, and that it would particularly come from among the overseers, in this case in Ephesus.

That might remind us of Diotrephes (3 John 9–10).

So the testimony of the Apostle Paul was the apostasy would arise "after [his] departure". But when we come to 3 John, we find that the apostasy has already begun, and there was a man who had gained some power over the assembly, so that he rejected Apostolic authority. But it wasn't only that he personally rejected Apostolic authority, he had "the brethren" put out of the assembly (v. 10).

We might consider Revelation 2–3 as well, but the testimony of Scripture is consistent on this point: apostasy had set into the assembly even in the time of the Apostles.

What did the Lord Jesus say about it? Did He predict the state of things would get better and better? Or did He predict that things would get worse and worse until He came to judge? Let's consider Matthew 13:

24 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man sowing good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed darnel amongst the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the blade shot up and produced fruit, then appeared the darnel also. 27 And the bondmen of the householder came up and said to him, Sir, hast thou not sown good seed in thy field? whence then has it darnel? 28 And he said to them, A man that is an enemy has done this. And the bondmen said to him, Wilt thou then that we should go and gather it up? 29 But he said, No; lest in gathering the darnel ye should root up the wheat with it. 30 Suffer both to grow together unto the harvest, and in time of the harvest I will say to the harvestmen, Gather first the darnel, and bind it into bundles to burn it; but the wheat bring together into my granary. (Matthew 13:24–30)

This is a most interesting parable, and I've heard it "expounded" in all sorts of interesting ways. But the Lord Himself interpreted it to the disciples later in the chapter:

36 Then, having dismissed the crowds, he went into the house; and his disciples came to him, saying, Expound to us the parable of the darnel of the field. 37 But he answering said, He that sows the good seed is the Son of man, 38 and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom, but the darnel are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who has sowed it is the devil; and the harvest is the completion of the age, and the harvestmen are angels. 40 As then the darnel is gathered and is burned in the fire, thus it shall be in the completion of the age. 41 The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all offences, and those that practise lawlessness; 42 and they shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that has ears, let him hear. (Matthew 13:36–43)

So the parable of the darnel of the field teaches us this: the Son of Man has sown good seed in the world. The devil as also sown seed, "while men slept". (Notice it wasn't the Son of Man who slept, it was "men" who slept.) When it became apparent that there is a mixture of darnel and wheat, the question was, should we pull up the darnel? No, the Son of Man says, wait until the harvest (the completion of the age).

What do we learn from the parable of the darnel of the field? We learn that there is an intermingling of true believers and false professors, and they are really, really hard to tell apart. But it's not the Lord's intention to sort it out until the "completion of the age," when He will cast the darnel into the "furnace of fire".

There is a significant difference between the parable of the darnel and the book of Jude. The Lord Jesus explicitly says that "the field is the world" in the parable of the darnel of the field. But Jude is written to warn of apostates who'd "crept in unawares". They weren't in the world, they were in the assembly.

So what have we demonstrated? Neither the Lord Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the Epistles looked to see things get better and better. In every case, the expectation is that we see things get worse and worse, until judgment. I don't doubt the Lord is working, and there will be local revivals, renewals, and reformations. But the whole arc of the narrative of the New Testament is that apostasy will increase until the Lord Jesus comes to execute judgment.

Ruin (Part 1)

I'm sitting at home sick, so I thought I'd update this blog. Recently someone asked me about "the Church in Ruin", and I found had trouble giving a concise answer. So I'm going to use this blog as a scratchpad to see if I can articulate this idea a bit.

The Ruin of the Church is the teaching that the Church has failed in its dispensational (governmental) responsibilities on the earth. As a result, it is irreparably "ruined" as far as dispensational responsibility is concerned. There is no repairing the damage, we are left merely waiting for judgment.

So I got it down to three sentences, but they're not very good sentences. And while that's not a terrible description, there's no way I'd expect anyone to agree without some reference to the Word of God. So let's look at the Scriptures and see what they say.

First we're going to look at the Old Testament, because there is a subtle, but important, principle brought out there. Three incidents stick out in my mind with respect Israel in the wilderness. The first is in Numbers 23:

18 Then he took up his parable and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear! hearken unto me, son of Zippor! 19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither a son of man, that he should repent. Shall he say and not do? and shall he speak and not make it good? 20 Behold, I have received [mission] to bless; and he hath blessed, and I cannot reverse it. 21 He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen wrong in Israel; Jehovah his God is with him, and the shout of a king is in his midst. 22 God brought him out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a buffalo. 23 For there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel. At this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought! (Numbers 23:18–23)

The second is in Exodus 32:7–8:

7 Then Jehovah said to Moses, Away, go down! for thy people, which thou hast brought out of the land of Egypt, is acting corruptly. 8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them: they have made themselves a molten calf, and have bowed down to it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, This is thy god, Israel, who has brought thee up out of the land of Egypt!

The last is a single verse, Deuteronomy 23:14:

14 For Jehovah thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; and thy camp shall be holy, that he see nothing unseemly with thee, and turn away from thee.

There are two different perspectives between the first passage and the second and third passages. In the first, the Lord says He doesn't see any iniquity in Israel. Which is a remarkable statement, given the entirety of the history of Israel's travel from Egypt to Canaan. There certainly was a great deal of iniquity in Israel! But the Lord looks down and sees not a bit of it.

In the second and third verses, the Lord definitely sees iniquity in Israel. In the passage in Exodus, He looks down from Sinai and tells Moses to leave Him, because of Israel's sin. The third passage is actually part of the commands about sanitation: they weren't to foul their camp, but they were to "turn aside" and keep the camp clean. But the remarkable statement is that the Lord would walk in the camp, and if He sees anything unseemly in it, He might turn away from them.

So which is it? Did God see iniquity in Jacob? Was that what the second and third passages say? Or perhaps He was just making empty threats when He looked down from Sinai, or when Moses commanded the people not to foul the camp? Well, both are true. God saw Israel from two different perspectives. When He looked down from Heaven and spoke to Balaam, He saw a perfect people. But when He walked through the camp, He saw their sin.

Now, perhaps we see something akin to Galatians 4 when we introduce Sinai vs. the "high places of Baal". Perhaps there is something there for us to learn about the Accuser. Perhaps we should point out that God saw their sins at Sinai, but there was an intercessor there to plead for them. And really, Moses stands as a type of our Advocate in this story. But we're not going to consider all the implications here. We're merely going to point out that there are two different perspectives from which God saw Israel.

When viewed from the perspective of God's eternal purposes, He saw no sin in Israel. But when He was walking in the camp, He saw everything that defiles.

Similarly, the Lord sees the Church in two different perspectives. There is the perspective of God's eternal purpose, but there is the perspective of man's responsibility. From the one perspective, Christ sees no sin in the Church. But from the other, He judges everything, and there is no hiding from His sight.

Those two perspectives are contrasted in 1 Peter 2 and 1 Corinthians 4.

4 To whom coming, a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious, 5 yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:4–5)

9 For we are God's fellow-workmen; ye are God's husbandry, God's building. 10 According to the grace of God which has been given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation, but another builds upon it. But let each see how he builds upon it. 11 For other foundation can no man lay besides that which [is] laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one build upon [this] foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw, 13 the work of each shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare [it], because it is revealed in fire; and the fire shall try the work of each what it is. 14 If the work of any one which he has built upon [the foundation] shall abide, he shall receive a reward. 15 If the work of any one shall be consumed, he shall suffer loss, but *he* shall be saved, but so as through [the] fire. (1 Corinthians 3:9–15)

In 1 Peter, God Himself does the building, and He works with only one building material: "living stones" (v. 5). But in 1 Corinthians 3, although it's still God's building, it is now men who are working on it. These men need to take care how they build, because they can make mistakes; God can't. And while God works exclusively with "living stones", men have more options: gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw. Men build with six materials, God with only one.

Need I point out that the Lord Jesus, as both God and Man, builds the assembly as well? (Matthew 16:16–18). Need I mention that His work doesn't fail? Of course it doesn't!

But the point is that there are both perspectives in the New Testament, just like there were both in the Old Testament.

Now, Revelation 2–3 brings us to the end of one of those two perspectives. God's eternal, heavenly perspective doesn't come to a close. How God sees us now is how He'll see us through eternity. But there is a dispensational responsibility, which is connected to this earth. Here on this earth, we have a responsibility as the House of God. And 1 Peter 4 reminds us that the House of God is where judgment will begin (1 Peter 4:17). So Revelation 2–3 gives us a prophetic look into that judgment. And notice how it starts, the Lord Jesus is described as the One who "who walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps" (Revelation 2:1) the previous verse tells us exactly what those lamps are: they are the seven assemblies in Asia (Revelation 1:20).

So we're right back to Deuteronomy 23 in a sense: when the Lord looks down from Heaven, He sees His eternal purpose, but when He walks in the camp, He sees every defiling thing.

When we look at what the Scripture says about the Church, we need to bear these two perspectives in mind. God's eternal purpose for us is nothing but blessing. But while we're here waiting for His Son to come and get us (Philippians 3:20–21, 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10), there is responsibility connected with this earth.

There's a lot more to say, but I think I'll save it for next time.

Presbuterion

Introduction

I was at a Labour Day conference a couple weeks ago (you know... on Labour Day). I met some lovely new people there, which is always a joy. One of the gentlemen I met is a brother with whom I chatted for several hours. I think I freaked him out a little when I mentioned that elders aren't for today.

I wasn't trying to freak him out.

So I thought I'd write something about that. Not to prove to you, my one reader, that I'm right; but so that I can refer to this in the future. Now, here's the problem: this is a really big subject. It's a big subject, and it deserves careful consideration.

What Scripture commands

The first consideration whenever we think about an issue of church order is, "What does Scripture command?" Now, a lack of a Scriptural command isn't the same as Scriptural prohibition. We can't say, for example, that since Scripture doesn't command potluck dinners, they're forbidden. Similarly, if Scripture doesn't command us to appoint elders, it doesn't follow that it's a sin to do so. On the other hand, if Scripture positively commands something, then the question is settled.

So we ask, what does Scripture command concerning elders? The answer is simple: there is no command in Scripture for any church, assembly, or gathering to choose elders.

Don't let's forget that a lack of command is not the same thing as prohibition. We can't say that it's forbidden for an assembly to choose elders, but we can say positively that it's not commanded.

But it does raise a very important question: when Scripture doesn't command something, should we do it? Or, put another way, if Scripture is silent on something, why would we think we ought to do it? This is a question we'll try and answer in more detail. Let's leave that as an open question for the moment.

The gentleman with whom I spoke at the conference doesn't believe an assembly ought to appoint a pastor. (I mean here, not "pastor" in the sense of "shepherd", but "pastor" in the sense of a clergyman.) So I asked him, why not? Scripture doesn't actually forbid appointing a pastor, just like it doesn't actually forbid appointing elders. What is the difference? Why do you think one is acceptable but the other isn't?

Because, he said, it doesn't fit the New Testament pattern.

So let's discuss the "New Testament Pattern".

The "New Testament Pattern"

There are a great many Christians who talk about the "New Testament Pattern". By that they mean there is a pattern in Scripture for how the church was to function. So they search through Scripture, looking for how the church operated. We commend them for searching the Scriptures, but they make a dangerous assumption: they assume what Scripture describes about the early church is a de facto command for us today. They confuse the descriptive with the prescriptive.

This is essentially an appeal to precedent. If they see the New Testament church doing something, then they see a precedent for us to do the same thing. In fact, I've actually heard one preacher talk about "the mandate in Acts 2:42". Let's consider that for a minute: what's the mandate in Acts 2:42?

And they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers. Acts 2:42

Simple answer: there is no mandate in Acts 2:42. There is no command given in this verse, it's simply a statement of what the early church did. But this preacher has taken the statement of what the early church did as a command for what churches today ought to do. Obviously there are some pretty huge hermeneutical problems with this approach.

What is the precedent?

But for the sake of argument, let's assume we can treat the early church as a precedent. Let's examine what Scripture has to tell us about the appointment of elders in the early church.

We see the appointment of elders exactly once in Scripture:

21 And having announced the glad tidings to that city, and having made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, and Iconium, and Antioch, 22 establishing the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to abide in the faith, and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. 23 And having chosen them elders in each assembly, having prayed with fastings, they committed them to the Lord, on whom they had believed Acts 14:21–23

In this case, it was Paul and Barnabas who chose elders "in each assembly."

There is also the case of Titus in Crete. Scripture doesn't record that he chose elders, but clearly he was told to do so:

5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou mightest go on to set right what remained [unordered], and establish elders in each city, as *I* had ordered thee: 6 if any one be free from all charge [against him], husband of one wife, having believing children not accused of excess or unruly. Titus 1:4–5

We might notice a difference here from the events recorded in Acts 14. Titus was told to appoint elders "in each city", Paul and Barnabas appointed elders "in each assembly". This isn't a contradiction: Scripture uniformly presents only one gathering in each city. I don't take that to mean there was only one place the Christians gathered, but that all the Christians in a city were seen as one gathering, regardless of how many places they gathered.

What we don't see in Scripture is that any gathering chose their own elders. Either the Apostles appointed them, or they sent someone to appoint them. The idea that a gathering would choose elders for itself is entirely foreign to Scripture.

So the "pattern" isn't that assemblies chose elders for themselves: the "pattern" is that outsiders came along and appointed elders in each assembly. In every single case in Scripture elders are appointed by outsiders to an assembly. It's difficult to argue that we're following "the New Testament Pattern" in having elders unless we have Apostles coming through town, appointing them, and leaving. That's the New Testament pattern.

Choosing and recognizing

"But wait!" someone says, "we don't choose elders, we recognize the elders the Lord has chosen! That's what Acts 20:28 teaches!"

Let's consider that:

28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. Acts 20:28

At first glance that seems like there might be something to that claim. If the Holy Spirit put the elders in the assembly, then maybe Paul and Barnabas didn't actually choose them: maybe Paul and Barnabas just pointed out the elders the Holy Spirit had already put into the assembly.

There is a compelling reason to reject this view: the Word of God explicitly says that Paul and Barnabas chose the elders (Acts 14:23). It doesn't say they "recognized" elders, it says they "chose" them. The fact is that "recognizing" elders has absolutely no Scriptural basis. There isn't a single place where Scripture says anyone "recognized" elders. Paul and Barnabas "chose" elders, Titus "established" elders.

So no, Acts 20:28 doesn't teach that God put elders in the assembly and Paul and Barnabas just "recognized" them. Acts 14:23 explicitly contradicts this interpretation. And it sure doesn't imply that God put elders anywhere else, just waiting to be recognized.

To whom is Acts 20 written?

I've noticed people who talk about the "New Testament Pattern" like to talk a lot about Acts 20:17–38. That makes a certain amount of sense: Paul's discourse to the Ephesian elders gives us a lot of insight into his relationship to them, their relationship to the assembly in Ephesus, and their responsibilities to the Lord. But in the end, Acts 20 isn't a discourse on proper church order. Acts 20:17–38 is Paul's farewell address to the elders at Ephesus. It's not Paul's address to the elders in Philippi, or the elders in Lystra, or the elders in Chicago.

In Acts 20:28, Paul states "the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers" in the assembly. There are many who'd try and apply that verse to elders in an assembly today, but that's nonsense, and demonstrably so. Let's consider the verse in context. Paul begins his talk with the Ephesian elders by reminding them of their relationship:

18 And when they were come to him, he said to them, *Ye* know how I was with you all the time from the first day that I arrived in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all lowliness, and tears, and temptations, which happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I held back nothing of what is profitable, so as not to announce [it] to you, and to teach you publicly and in every house, 21 testifying to both Jews and Greeks repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 20:18–21

Now, can we honestly say that applies to any elders in any assembly, church, or congregation in America? Of course not! And yet the "you" in these verses is exactly the same as the "you" in v. 28. If we can't apply the "you" in these verses to elders in a gathering today, then we can't apply the "you" in v. 28 to them either.

What about the verses after v. 28?

31 Wherefore watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I ceased not admonishing each one [of you] with tears. Acts 20:31

Do we really think Paul spent three years, night and day, with the elders of any assembly today? Of course not!

Paul was speaking specifically to the elders from Ephesus, whom he called to Miletus to see him off. Whatever he said about the Ephesian elders, there's no reason to believe it's true of any other group of men. This is obvious if we consider v. 31, where Paul says he spent three years among them. If v. 31 isn't true of the elders in my city, why should I think v. 28 is?

Now, let me make an important point: if we were to say that Paul's commands to the elders in Ephesus apply to elders today, that might be arguable. But to say his statements about elders in Ephesus apply to someone today is a stretch.

There's no reason at all to believe that Paul's words about the Ephesian elders are applicable to anyone other than the Ephesian elders. He was specifically addressing a group of men that he knew personally. There is a lot we can learn from Acts 20, but to imagine that verse 28 (or any other verse) applies to anyone other than the elders in Ephesus is ridiculous.

1 Timothy 3

"But what about 1 Timothy 3?" someone might interrupt, "Doesn't that give us criteria for appointing elders?"

That's a good question. Before we consider 1 Timothy 3, let's remember to look at the context of the chapter. How does 1 Timothy start?

3 Even as I begged thee to remain in Ephesus, [when I was] going to Macedonia, that thou mightest enjoin some not to teach other doctrines, 4 nor to turn their minds to fables and interminable genealogies, which bring questionings rather than [further] God's dispensation, which [is] in faith. 1 Timothy 1:3–4

So Paul is writing to Timothy, and Timothy is in Ephesus. Ephesus... didn't we just read about Ephesus in Acts 20? Didn't we just learn that Paul had spoken to the elders in Ephesus? Yes he did... so why does 1 Timothy contain "qualifications" for elders, if there were already elders in Ephesus?

This isn't a trivial question. This is a really, really important question. This is a question that I've never heard anyone, anywhere ask. If there were already elders in Ephesus, why does Paul send Timothy the criteria for elders?

The general assumption seems to be that he was telling Timothy how to choose elders. But there were already elders in Ephesus! So if we take 1 Timothy 3 as being written so that Timothy could choose elders, then we have to conclude that even where there were existing elders, there was a need for an outsider to appoint their replacements. Even though there were elders in Ephesus who were appointed by the Apostle, it was Timothy who was given the criteria to choose elders in Ephesus.

But I suspect the general assumption is wrong. I suspect that 1 Timothy 3 wasn't written to tell Timothy how to choose [more] elders: I think it was written so that Timothy would know how to exhort the elders in Ephesus. Timothy was left in Ephesus to "enjoin some not to teach other doctrines" (v. 3). He was left there to make sure the Ephesians didn't depart from the Apostolic teachings. I think chapter 3 was given so that he'd be able to correct the elders in Ephesus.

No matter how you look at it, it's a really long stretch to think that 1 Timothy 3 gives us the green light to appoint elders. Timothy, an Apostolic appointment to Ephesus, was sent to an assembly where there were already elders, and given the qualifications (or "characteristics", if you prefer) of an elder. It's difficult to imagine how this might give us the authority to appoint elders today.

The New Testament pattern, revisited

We've considered several passages about elders. What is interesting, though, is what those passages tell us about the practices of the New Testament church.

I mentioned earlier that I was speaking with someone who said it's all right to appoint elders, but not clergymen, because of the "New Testament Pattern." That's an increasingly difficult point to argue... let's consider it. 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Corinthians present three very different "patterns" to us.

1 Timothy 1:3–4 tells us Paul left Timothy in Ephesus (where there were already elders) to ensure they didn't veer from Apostolic doctrine. So what does that pattern look like? The pattern in 1 Timothy is something like this: there is one person (an outsider) and the elders of the assembly report to him. His job is to make sure the locals don't depart from the Apostolic teaching, and he is (individually) given the criteria for elders. Maybe he appointed more elders, maybe he didn't. But that's the pattern we can deduce from 1 Timothy.

The situation in Titus is a little different: like Timothy, he was an outsider sent to take care of problems in the assemblies. But unlike Timothy, he was sent not to a single city, but to an island with several cities. So the pattern we might deduce from Titus is that there ought to be a single person over several assemblies.

Corinth is an interesting case study: there are two Epistles written to Corinth, and neither one mentions elders at all. There were some real problems at Corinth: there were problems of church order, there were moral problems, there were personal problems. But there's not one mention of elders. They are completely silent on the subject. They talk about a lot of things: they address the Lord's Supper and excommunication and who can talk in the meetings. But they don't mention elders.

So we might find a third pattern in the Corinthian epistles: there the pattern is an assembly without elders. Perhaps there were elders in Corinth and the epistles simply don't address them. We really don't know for sure, but if we're looking for a pattern, 1 Corinthians entirely omits elders.

Now, I don't point this out simply to be contentious. There are at least three "patterns" in Scripture, and there are genuine, sincere Christians who have attempted to model churches after all of them. We might say that Titus provides the pattern for episcopalianism, where a bishop is over the clergymen in several cities in a region. We might consider 1 Timothy as a pattern for presbyterianism, where there are many elders in an assembly, but one takes the lead over the others as the "teaching elder".

But of course there is a problem with these approaches: they each look in Scripture to find a pattern, and they attempt to follow them. But they find different patterns. I'm suggesting this is because the Lord never intended us to find a pattern. Scripture contains ample instruction in its explicit commands: there's no need to look for a pattern. There's no need to look to implication and inference when we've explicit instruction.

So what about elders, then?

When we look in Scripture, we don't see a very consistent pattern. The assembly in Jerusalem had elders, but we have no record where they came from. We can assume they were men of stature and renown in the Jewish community before they converted to Christianity, but we just don't know for sure. We're sure there were elders in Ephesus (Acts 20 makes this very clear), and we're sure Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in Iconium, Lystra, and Antioch. Titus was sent to appoint elders in every city in Crete, but Scripture doesn't say he actually did it (I assume he did). But there are other assemblies with no mention of elders at all, like Corinth.

I don't think it was ever intended that elders should be a fixture in the assembly. Elders were a temporary provision for the church until the canon of Scripture was completed. There aren't Apostles anymore: the Apostles were strictly a transitional feature of the church. Elders are exactly the same, a transitional provision for the church in its infancy.

I oppose appointing elders in the assembly for the same reason I oppose appointing clergy. Scripture doesn't actually condemn appointing clergy, just like it doesn't actually condemn appointing elders. But it was an Apostolic function to set up authority in the assembly: it wasn't a democratic process. We ought not take to ourselves the right to appoint authorities in the House of God.

The Apostles didn't follow a very consistent pattern, because they were following the Spirit of God. We notice Paul paid a lot of attention to Ephesus in particular: he spent three years there himself, then he gave the elders there severe warnings when he left, and then he sent Timothy to take care of that assembly. Interestingly, Ephesus is also the first assembly that's addressed in Revelation 2. It's one assembly (along with Laodicea) we know for sure received epistles from both Paul (Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy) and John (Revelation 2). Ephesus seems to have been the center of the church on earth, in a way. It's significant that Paul predicted apostasy would arise among the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:29). And it's in Ephesus that the judgment of the House of God begins (Revelation 2–3).

We observed already that 1 Corinthians makes no mention of elders. This is interesting insofar as 1 Corinthians deals with an assembly with very serious problems. But at no point is there the suggestion that the solution to the problem is leadership. If there were elders in Corinth, the epistle doesn't tell them to demonstrate leadership in the assembly. If there weren't, it doesn't suggest the Corinthians appoint (or even "recognize") elders to help them solve their problems. There seems to be a lot of people who are prescribing "strong leadership" as a solution to assembly problems, but at least the epistles to the Corinthians do not.

What should we take from this? Very simply, there is no reason to believe that elders are a necessity in an assembly. In fact, there is no reason to believe that elders are the solution to assembly problems. Let's consider that Paul told the elders in Ephesus:

32 And now I commit you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build [you] up and give [to you] an inheritance among all the sanctified Acts 20:32

When elders were being appointed in the New Testament, the canon wasn't complete. But even then, it was to "God and the word of His grace" that Paul committed the Ephesian elders.

Now we have the completed Scriptures: we have what the Ephesian elders didn't have. But we have what Paul said was the appropriate resource for believers in the face of trouble.

What do others think?

It's obvious that the vast majority of Christians don't take this view on elders. The majority of churches practice some form of clergy or another, and even those that don't generally practice some form of appointed eldership. The gentleman I spoke with the other week thought it would be wrong to have a "pastor", but was convinced an assembly should have elders. I think this is a common take on the subject.

But let me point out that I am in good company. William Kelly, C. H. Mackintosh, and J. N. Darby all held the same view on elders I've laid out here. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean what I'm about to say was held and argued by careful and respected students of the Word of God.

William Kelly argued the case persuasively in his comments on Acts 14:

It is vain to deny or parry the importance of this decision of scripture on the subject of presbyters. Not infrequently there is an attack made on those who really desire to follow the word of God, by men who ask, "Where are your elders? You profess to follow scripture faithfully: how is it that you have not elders?" To such I would answer, "When you provide apostles to choose elders for us, we shall be exceedingly obliged for both." How can we have elders appointed according to scripture unless we have apostles or their delegates? Where are the men now who stand in the same position before God and the assembly as Paul and Barnabas? You must either have apostles, or at the very least apostolic men such as Timothy and Titus; for it is quite evident that merely to call people elders does not make them such. Nothing would be easier than to bestow the title of elders within a sect, or for the law of the land to sanction it. Any of us could set ourselves up, and do the work in name, no doubt; but whether there would be any value in the assumption, or whether it would not be really great sin, presumption, and folly, I must leave to the consciences of all to judge.

Thus we know with divine certainty that the elders were chosen for the disciples by the apostles in every church. Such is the doctrine of scripture, and the fact as here described. It is evident therefore, that unless there be duly qualified persons whom the Lord has authorised for the purpose, and in virtue of their most singular relation to the assembly, — unless there be such persons as apostles, or persons representing apostles in this particular, there is no authority for such appointment: it is mere imitation. And in questions of authority it must be evident that imitation is just as foolish as where it is a question of power. You cannot imitate the energy of the Spirit except by sin, neither can you arrogate the authority of the Lord without rebellion against Him. Notwithstanding, I do not doubt that this is often done with comparatively good — let us conceive the best — intentions on the part of many, but with very great rashness and inattention to the word of God. Hence those are really wrong, not to say inexcusable, who assume to do the work that apostles or their delegates alone could do, not such as content themselves with doing their own duty, and refuse a delicate and authoritative task to which they are not called of the Lord.

What, then, is the right thing? All that we can say is, that God has not been pleased, in the present broken state of the church, to provide all that is desirable and requisite for perpetuating everything in due order. Is this ever His way when things are morally ruined? Does He make provision to continue what dishonoured Him? So far from contrariety in this to the analogy of His dealings, it seems to me quite according to them. There was no such state of things in Israel in the days of the returned captives, as in the days of the Exodus, but Nehemiah was just as truly raised up of God for the return from Babylon, as Moses was for the march out of Egypt. Still the two conditions were quite different, and the mere doing by Nehemiah what Moses did would have been ignorance of his own proper place. Such imitation would have possessed no power, and would have secured no blessing.

(William Kelly, Introductory Lectures on the Acts, available at STEM Publishing)

And Kelly points out what really is at stake here: we don't want to play church. We want to gather as closely as we can to what we see in Scripture. The problem is, imitating the historical record of Acts is not really gathering according to Scripture. It has a good appearance, that's true. But there is a world of difference between having a "correct" form and having godly power. Scripture warns against having form without power (2 Timothy 3:5), but that is what modern appointment of elders amounts to.

J. N. Darby's rejection of the appointment of elders is much more difficult to read, but is very similar (although not identical) to Kelly's. I'd recommend starting with "On Gifts and Offices in the Church", if you're interested. His rejection of the idea that we have elders today is more fully developed in "Examination of a few passages of Scripture, etc.", but I'll caution you that it's a lot harder reading:

Whence comes the authority you pretend to in the house of God? How would you exercise it towards any one who might dispute it? When such men as Paul, Timothy (if it was so in his case), and Titus had with apostolical authority established elders in the churches, if the authority of these elders were disputed, it was disputing the apostolical authority that had placed them there. But as regards you, who made you elders? Except it be with revolutionists, authority flows from authority. Thus it was in the Church. Christ named apostles. The apostles named elders. Who is it that named you? Who is it that communicated to you your authority? You know, and you cannot deny, that the apostles and their special delegates established elders at the beginning. You ask for proof "that this was forbidden to any others." Is it thus that one can assume authority? If the right of naming public functionaries was exercised by the king in a state of which he was the sovereign, could each one name as he chose, over a small portion of the citizens, because there was nothing in the laws declaring that none else had a right to make them? Who would listen to such nonsense? Well! it is much more serious and much worse to do so in the things of God. One would not dare to say or to do such things in human society. Alas! one dares everything in the Church of God.

(J. N. Darby, "Examination of a few passages of Scripture, etc.", available at STEM Publishing).

Now, I don't in any way wish to give the impression that Kelly, Darby, or anyone else is the test of truth. Scripture is the test of truth. But I want to illustrate that I'm in very good company when I say that elders aren't for today.

Conclusion

The subject of elders isn't a simple one. There is some disagreement about what the correct practice is for us today. I am convinced the practice of appointing elders today is based on faulty exposition of Scripture. I'm convinced when we look at Scripture in context, it doesn't at all teach we have the authority– or the need– to appoint elders.

But I would hasten to add this caution: the path of the Christian is a path of submission. There is a tendency for us to want to throw off all authority, and no doubt the idea that we ought not to have elders today appeals to the flesh for this reason. We might like the idea that there's no authority in the assembly. But that's a wrong idea: there is a divine Head over the church, and we are to submit to Him.

Elders or not, we are "legitimately subject to Christ" (1 Corinthians 9:21). We're not called to lawlessly go about, not bowing to anyone. We're called to be subject to Christ. We're called to submit to one another. It would be much, much better for a believer to submit to elders– or even clergymen– than to adopt a high-handed attitude that "you're not the boss of me!"

Self-will is sin.

The problem with the appointment of elders is that it's effectively usurping authority in the House of God. If we reject the one usurpation only to replace it with another (our own self-will), we're worse off in every way.