Tag Archives: Biblical

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 4)

Posted on by
Reply

In this last part, it is our intention to look at two concepts and then some texts that show us clearly that the Old Testament and the Old Testament concept of Law were neither unknown nor forsaken by the New Testament writers.

  1. Scripture:

The first concept is that of Scripture itself. As Christians we are familiar with this term. We use it all the time to refer to our complete Bible. However, this understanding can also lead us astray. For the Early Church, their Scriptures, their Bible, if you will, were the writings of the Old Testament.

Thus, when we read statements in the New Testament in regard to Scripture, we must understand that those statements, in the clear majority of cases, refer to the Old Testament. This is important, for the term Scripture occurs over thirty times in the New Testament. It is also important because this term is used by all New Testament writers bar one, Jude.

Consequently, when Paul, writing to Timothy, says that, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”[1], he has in mind, primarily, the writings of the Old Testament. Similarly, when Peter states that, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God”[2], his statement, likewise, must be taken as referring to the Old Testament in the first instance.

  1. It Stands Written:

A second important concept has to do with the phrase, “It stands written”, which is often used by the New Testament authors to introduce the Old Testament Scriptures. This phrase is important, first, because of its frequent usage and, second, because it occurs in the Perfect Tense. As the name implies, the perfect tense points to perfected action. In Greek, the perfect has the connotation of something that is completed in the past, yet has abiding validity in the present. As such, the use of this term in this tense to introduce Scripture makes a potent statement about the nature of the Scriptures being quoted. In other words, this tense suggests to us, very strongly, that the Old Testament Scriptures are still valid and authoritative and that they are not to be easily forsaken, overturned, or discarded.

  1. Texts:

Next, we want to demonstrate just how widely the Old Testament was relied upon by the so-called New Testament writers. Now, please understand, the point here is not simply to multiply texts or Old Testament quotes. It is, rather, to display the importance of the Old Testament text, the range of the texts relied upon, and the speaker’s or writer’s emphasis upon the validity of the Old Testament for founding, making, or completing an argument.

          3.a Jesus:

  1. Have you not read: Beginning with Jesus, our first port of call is to see how Jesus rebuked His opponents for not reading and knowing Scripture, the Old Testament. Four times in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus replies to questions or challenges with, “Have you not read?” This phrase is very much akin to the “It stands written”, spoken of earlier, in that it establishes the Old Testament as an authoritative source.

Equally, we must see that there are three topics in view when Jesus uses this term – the Sabbath, Sexuality / Marriage, and the Resurrection. Let us look at each briefly:

          Sabbath: Jesus shows that the Law of the Sabbath is by no means contrary to mercy, compassion, or genuine service (to God). To prove this, Jesus brings in two historical events, one concerning David (1 Samuel 21:6) and the other from the practice of the priests via the phrase, “Have you not read in the Law how …?” Jesus caps of this teaching with a further rebuke, “… if you had known” – implying very clearly that His opponents did not know – and then quotes Hosea 6:6, “For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.”

The point here is that Jesus does not dismiss the Sabbath as no longer relevant. Jesus does not expunge the Law of the Sabbath. Rather, by appealing to the Law and the Prophets, Jesus shows to us the true nature of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is then a sacred and hallowed day in which we must cease from our labours and turn our thoughts and actions unto God, but it is also a day that is pre-eminently about mercy and compassion.[3]

The important point, in regard to our argument, is that Jesus does not simply quote the fourth Commandment and give some instruction. No, Jesus, quotes from history, the Law, and from a prophet to show the validity of the Sabbath and its true meaning. If it is only the Ten Commandments that are valid and authoritative, Jesus must have made a grave error or, the more likely scenario, we have contrived a falsehood when we insist that the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law.

          Sexuality / Marriage: Jesus is asked one of those sticky questions by the Pharisees regarding divorce. In answering, Jesus goes first to Genesis 1:27 (5:2), the Cultural Mandate, to establish the fact that Man was crated male and female with genuine, purpose built sexuality and then moves to Genesis 2:24 to show that this sexuality reaches its acme in the covenant bond of marriage. In short, male and female being fruitful, multiplying, and ruling, only occurs legitimately in the permanent bond of marriage.

Again, note that Jesus’ answer is not the quotation of the sixth command, but a restatement of God’s creation order and purpose. In taking this tack, Jesus is upholding the summary of the Law in the Ten Commandments, but He is also showing that God’s Moral Law and God’s Morality can be found in narratives that predate the Law and the Ten Commandments.

This point is essential for our understanding and for pressing home the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ in our daily lives. Take, as one example, the issue of homosexuality, which looms large today. There is much nonsense peddled in Christendom today with the result that many are confused. Our local Anglican Bishop came forward and stated that he could not see that homosexual marriage would be in anyway contradictory to the teachings of Christ. Such a position can only be arrived at through gross and wilful ignorance. Jesus, in the passage before us, upholds God’s creation order. In doing so, Jesus, by good and necessary consequence, upholds the fifth, seventh, and tenth Commandments as well as validating texts like Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and Revelation 22:15. Jesus 1; Bishop zip!

          Resurrection: In regard to the resurrection, all that needs to be noted are these basic facts: 1. Whist the OT acknowledges eternal life and resurrection, it does not give much information; 2. We would expect that Jesus may have given us clearer information regarding the resurrection; 3. What Jesus did, however, was quote the narrative of Exodus 3:6 to show that God is the God of the living.

Once more, we see that Jesus went back to the Law in order to make an authoritative statement regarding a little known subject. Using the narrative of Exodus, Jesus simply affirmed that the patriarchs were alive. The implication then being that all Abraham’s true children will live. What Jesus gave us was not a new revelation, but an authoritative restatement of what was already known, but not grasped and understood.

Equally, we cannot miss the point that there is authoritative and valid information contained in the Law, occurring outside the Decalogue and on subjects to which the Decalogue does not speak.

2.What is the Law? Most Christians know the story of the Rich Young Ruler, as it has come to be known. Here is a young man who declares that he has kept the Law from his youth. What many people miss, particularly in Matthew’s[4] account, is the very nature of what is to be called “the Law”.

Most Christians generally refer to “the Law” as the Pentateuch, the Torah, or as the first five books. This is acceptable, in one sense. However, as we have seen, many or most Christians, when pushed, would state that it is the Ten Commandments alone that are the real “Law”, the Moral Law, which unaccompanied is binding and valid. With this view in mind, let us see what Jesus’ encounter with this young man reveals.

Jesus is asked concerning life eternal. Jesus’ reply is “keep the commandments.” It is an aside, but it is very interesting that Jesus asserts that keeping God’s law goes hand in hand with eternal life! Anyway, in response to Jesus’ statement, the young man asks, “Which ones?” Jesus then gives this reply: “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Looking at this list of Commandments, and thinking of the Ten Commandments, the Moral Law, do you notice anything odd?

Let’s go through them. Jesus lists six Commandments. They are, in the order Jesus gives them, six, seven, eight, nine, five, and … whoops, what happened? The last Commandment that Jesus gives is actually a partial quote from Leviticus 19:18 and it is this same partial quote that forms the second great commandment, recorded in Matthew 22:39.

Now, it is very possible that Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18 as a parallel to the tenth Commandment, “Do not covet”, for, indeed, to covet your neighbour’s wife or possession is to show an extreme lack of love to your neighbour, especially if this errant desire is acted upon. However, in regard to our argument, it is imperative that we once more grasp the fact that Jesus gives Moral teaching from the Law, but not from what we so often label the Moral Law. Once grasped, we must acknowledge that equating the Ten Commandments with the Moral Law, as done by the moderns, is in fact a modern aberration. The Reformation Church, with its teaching that the Decalogue is a summary of the Moral law, had a much sounder and more Biblical belief.

          3.b Paul: The Apostle, Paul, has some interesting uses of the Old Testament Law that are instructive. They are so precisely because the moderns would never, by their standards, classify these Laws as applicable, abiding, or moral—indeed they would categorise them as those particular to Israel and of no benefit to modern man—yet Paul picks up these Laws and applies them to his day and in such a way that they must be understood as applicable, abiding, and Moral.

First, we read in 1 Timothy 5:17-18, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.””

Here, we come face to face with two case laws that would be, by most modern Christians, placed in the “judicial law” category, which is supposed to have passed away with Israel and therefore be of no relevance to us. Yet, Paul picks out these two Old Testament case laws, one dealing with a threshing ox (Deuteronomy 25:4) and the other dealing with a labourer’s wages (Leviticus 19:13), and applies them squarely to the issues of the sustentation and honour of the Elder. In making such an application, Paul demonstrates that these Laws were of Moral importance in their original setting and, in applying them to Elders, a continuing office of the Church, he makes these Laws applicable to every situation and for all time.

Next, we must understand, and we do mean must, that these Laws did not take on an authority because Paul, the Apostle, quoted them and somehow filled them with authority and validity. No, Paul quoted these Laws because they were already filled with authority; for they contained the very breath of God. Paul, in quoting the case laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was but practicing his own advice that he gave to Timothy, his son in the faith: “All Scripture is God breathed and useful!”

Second, in 1 Corinthians 5:1, Paul confronts a real issue of morality with the words: “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.”

In looking at this text, it seems a bit pedestrian on the face of things. However, if we focus on the last three words – his father’s wife – we will see that these words bear a striking resemblance to certain Laws contained in the Old Testament. For example, we could look at texts like Leviticus 18:8, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness”; Deuteronomy 22: 30, “A man shall not take his father’s wife so that he shall not uncover his father’s skirt”; or Deuteronomy 27:20, “Cursed is he who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s skirt.”

To make sense of this, let us look more closely at the text. Note that Paul states that there is “immorality” in the midst of the Corinthians. Immorality implies that a sin has been committed. What sin? The Greek word used (porneia) means any unlawful sexual transaction. This term does not specify the sin exactly; only that it is of a sexual nature. To make clear why this fellow is guilty of a sin, Paul then makes reference to the Law. Thus, once more, it is the Law that is the authority; it is the Law that has been transgressed; and because the Law has been transgressed, the man is guilty of a sin, which is classified as immorality.

Please also grasp the fact that Paul did not simply appeal to the fifth Commandment, “Honour father and mother”, but looked passed the summary to actual laws that embodied this principle and showed exactly how to honour one’s parents by elucidating specifics.

          Third, and briefly, we will make reference to Romans 1:32: “although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

Focussing upon the phrase “ordinances of God”, there are two points to be made. The first is that of understanding the term “ordinance”. It is not a term familiar to us in common usage. We might be more familiar with the term through our televisions, for the Americans use terms such a “city ordinance” more commonly. That usage shows to us that the term ordinance has at its root the concept of law. Thus, Paul is not speaking of a vague concept in regard to God, but rather of His law and His righteous decrees.

The second point comes in the form of a question, “To what is Paul referring?” The only possible answer that makes any sense is to say that Paul refers to the sins that he has listed in the immediate context, namely, the preceding verses.

Once more, Paul takes his stand in the Law of God. Man is to be condemned because he has turned from the knowledge of God and wilfully broken His righteous decrees even though Man knew that to do so was to court death.

          3.c Peter: Lastly, let us consider a few words from Peter. In regard to the first quotation, it is to be admitted that we will change tack slightly. The point at this juncture is that the New Testament writers understood the abiding validity and significance of God’s word. Says Peter, 1:1:23-25, “For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God. For, “All flesh is like grass, And all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the word of the Lord abides forever.” And this is the word which was preached to you.”

Peter’s contrast, so it seems, is between the transient nature of man and the abiding Word of God. Man is but a “flash in the pan” compared to the eternity of God and His word. We are perishable and perishing, but God’s word is imperishable and abiding.

However, when we dig deeper we see that the brilliance of the passage is in its correlation of salvation for God’s covenant people. Peter quotes from Isaiah (40:6f), an Old Testament prophet who spoke to God’s wayward covenant people concerning God’s great day of redemption. Peter, speaking on this very same topic, only from the point of fulfilment, not type, highlights that the abiding Word which brings life is the Gospel. It is the Word proclaimed by Isaiah, preached by Peter. It is the abiding Word that not only brings life, but which then governs and orders life so much so that we must “fervently love one another”.

The second text from Peter, returns us to the point that God’s Morality can be found throughout the Old Testament and not just in the Decalogue. Likewise, this Morality, precisely because it belongs to God, is eternal and binding. Noting that there is to be a moral and righteous relationship between Christians on the basis of our redemption, Peter says (1:3:8-12), “To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. For, “Let him who means to love life and see good days refrain his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile. “And let him turn away from evil and do good; Let him seek peace and pursue it. “For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and His ears attend to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

Can you see Peter’s methodology here? First, Peter makes certain statements in regard to what Christians should be and why. Then, to prove the correctness of his position he gives an extended quote from Psalm 34:12-16. Once more, the Old Testament does not become authoritative because it is used by Peter. Much rather, Peter uses the Old Testament because it is authoritative.

Similarly, we must see that the Psalm, not being part of the Decalogue, is nonetheless considered to be both Moral, valid, and abiding.

Conclusion:

When the Biblical evidence is assembled, it shows that Theocracy and Theonomy are not terms to be shunned, much rather, they are to be embraced. Furthermore, the very lack of understanding in regard to these concepts stems from the fact that we are using the World’s wisdom to gain understanding instead of turning unto God’s wisdom.

For example, we are being told by the word that Theocracy is bad and that it equates with tyranny (as if the World does not have a barrow to push!). We are told that a Secular government is right because it alone is neutral and will govern for all citizens. The simple fact is that both of these are lies, blatant lies!

Yes, from the Caesars to Idi Amin there have been those who have believed that they have been given a divine right to rule. In one sense they are right. God appoints all rulers and their place and time in history (Job 12:23; Daniel 2:21), but this act of Sovereignty by God is by no means equivalent to a genuine Theocracy. The true Theocracy is a rule established by God and for God. It rules by God’s law and for His glory. Despots with a “Jesus complex” or who delude themselves are rightly to be called rebels not theocrats. Even in regard to Israel, whilst we use the term Theocracy readily, we must understand its use in a loose manner. If the king, like an Ahab, did not fear Yahweh and seek to fulfil His commands, such a king was rebellious and not theocratic. He was in the truest sense a usurper and a pretender.

So, let us not use cases of abuse and cases which are not Theocracy to deter us from believing in the truth of a genuine Theocracy.

The second lie is that of Neutrality. All governments must be biased. They will of necessity be biased toward their fundamental belief system. Even a Theocracy – the very reason it is denounced – is not neutral but actively biased to God. Thus, when Bill Shorten, as one example, campaigns under a slogan of government for all Australians, he is nothing but a bold faced liar. Mr Shorten peddles the politics of Socialism. Therefore, he will discriminate against one group in favour of another, based on his belief system. For example, he has pledged to introduce same-sex marriage within so many days of taking government. This is not governing for all, as it immediately discriminates against every person who believes homosexuality to be errant.

So let us not as Christians, continue to peddle the Myth of Neutrality and concepts like religious freedom and the right of a Secular government, and so on, for it is this plurality that has led us into the current crisis. By admitting that there are many ways that are right, we have denied the exclusivity of God, His right to rule, and His right to rule by His law. In taking this stand, we Christians have opened the door to pluralism and fostered its uptake. Now the chickens are roosting and we are to pay the piper. How long will we halt between two opinions?

Lastly, let us remember the words of Paul: “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.”[5]

Paul calls God’s people to prayer. Paul calls God’s people to pray for those in authority. This must, of course, include those who form government, no matter what form that government takes. For us, the importance comes when we consider the purpose for which we are to pray – that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity (NIV: holiness; we like “reverence”).

If we take these words seriously, then we cannot just pray a flippant prayer; we cannot just pray for a good government; No, we must pray for a righteous government! It is only righteousness that leads to peace and tranquillity. Godliness cannot be achieved through a Secular government; neither can holiness or reverence.

Therefore, if we are to be true to Paul’s command, we must be praying for a government that fears and honours Jesus Christ and such a government can only be had when the hearts of those men forming government are yielded to Jesus by His Spirit!

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore.”

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Footnotes:

[1] 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[2] 2 Peter 1:20-21.

[3] Even the Westminster Divines, who are big on worship and Sabbath acknowledge this point: WCF 21:8 – This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, (Exod. 20:8, Exod. 16;23,25–26,29–30, Exod. 31:15–17, Isa. 58:13, Neh. 13:15–19,21–22) but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. (Isa. 63:13, Matt. 12:1–13)

[4] Matthew 19:16-22.

[5] 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 3)

Posted on by
2

In this third part, we shall look again at these controversial “Theo-” words and continue in our endeavour to show how the modern attitude, which generally despises these terms, is in fact a digression from Biblical truth and historic Christianity.

Our first answer in relation to the extent and application of God’s law began by focusing upon our love for God. If we truly love God with all our being and God rules our hearts and minds, we can only be Theocratic and Theonomic in our outward expression of His manifest love. After all, if God rules our hearts and minds, we are already, as individuals, Theocratic and Theonomic, so it is only logical that the truth that governs the inner man ought to flow out through our words and actions.

This then hints at the first stumbling block – are we loving God so completely that He rules our hearts and minds? The reason that Theocracy and Theonomy are a challenge for many Christians in regard to the public arena has to do with the fact that they are not yet Theocratic and Theonomic in the inner man. The inner man, truly yielded to Christ the King, will live out the Theo- words in all of life. In fact, unless he be an utter hypocrite, it is impossible to do otherwise. Conversely, the inner man, not truly yielded to Christ Jesus the King, will remain committed to and under the rule of the Auto- words.[1]

Another stumbling block seems to be that, for many Christians, we have succumbed to a lie which tells us that law and love are opposed to each other. Most find it odd to have obedience tied to love, fealty tied to surrender. Thus, we have trouble with Jesus’ “If you love Me you will keep My commandments” because we try to rework our definition of obedience to fit with our skewed concept of love. Correspondingly, we have fallen for modern, erroneous notions that like driving wedges between concepts. Thus, obedience is opposed to love; law is opposed to grace; freedom is opposed to requirement, and so forth. This is what the moderns teach, but it is false. God loved us so much that He placed the requirement of the Law on Jesus so that He could show us grace and mercy. If we love Jesus, we will obey Him, just as Jesus loved the Father and obeyed Him. Our freedom from law is found in our obedience to God’s law. God’s law is grace because adherence to it keeps us safe[2] and nurtures us in the life of Christ.

So, please, let us grasp the idea that a profession of love to and for God means that we love Him exclusively, explicitly, and absolutely. To love God after this manner means surrender to His will and standards, which can only mean obedience to His revealed Law. To reject this package is to follow apostate Israel into adultery and idolatry and to contradict Scripture’s clear teaching.[3]

Moving on, a second answer comes from John. The apostle states that “sin is lawlessness.”[4] What law, then, are we “less” in order to be considered a sinner? Is it Man’s law or God’s law? The Westminster Divines asked and answered this question thusly: “What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. (1 John 3:4)” So, to be lawless is to sin and to sin is to be “less” the law of God.

If you are in doubt, consider the next verses from John: “And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.” Says John, ‘God appeared to take away sin; God does not sin; the one who loves God does not sin; the sinning one does not know God.’ Confused? No need to be. It is very simple. Sin is Lawlessness. Sin is the lack of conformity unto or the transgression of the Law of God. If we are God’s, we are Lawful and sinless; if we are not God’s we will be Lawless and sinful.

Therefore, Biblically and historically, the Church, in the case before us the Early and Reformation Churches, has recognised that it is God’s law alone that provides the standards by which all things are to be measured. The transgression of God’s law brings sin and is sin, which equally equates to the fact that God’s law must be and is the only standard of righteousness.

Consequently, no individual, no family, no part of the Church, and no State can claim to be honouring God if they are not living under God’s King and honouring God’s law.

A third answer would be in regard to the Ten Commandments. Most Christians, erroneously, state that the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law of God, but importantly, most admit that this Moral Law is still binding upon all men.

The question that springs to mind is, “If the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law of God and are still binding, why do we pick, choose, and discriminate between these Ten?”

What do we mean when we ask this? Well, let’s do a little survey. Below is an abbreviated list of the Ten Commandments. Please have a quick look and ask yourself, “Which of these are still valid for today?” Place a tick beside those you believe are valid.

  1. No Other God’s;
  2. No idols; (No false worship)
  3. Do not take the Lord’s Name in vain;
  4. Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy;
  5. Hour your father and mother;
  6. No murder;
  7. No adultery;
  8. No thievery;
  9. No false witness;
  10. No coveting.

If we are consistent with the belief professed that these Ten Laws are equal to God’s Moral Law and that they are, consequently, still binding upon all men, then everyone should have ten ticks. Do you have ten ticks? If not, why not?

Now, we will make it tougher. All of these Ten Laws had penalties applied to them. How many of these Laws do you believe are still valid and abiding along with the original punishments? How many ticks do you now have? Less than the first time? If so, why?

The point of the exercise is to demonstrate how we will give hearty approval to ideas and concepts, but often, when those concepts are to be applied, we become shaky and our resolve evaporates.

For most Christians, there will be an affirmation that God’s Moral law is still binding. Christians will tell you that murder, thievery, and adultery are wrong. Some would even agree that the penalties given in the Law should still apply. Yet, here, we are already seeing the gap of opinion widen. For example, most Christians would agree that capital punishment for murder is right, but few would agree that capital punishment for adultery is right. How then do we justify this difference?

Most Christians agree that God alone must be worshipped and that idolatry is wrong. Yet, how many Christians believe that mosques and Buddhist temples should be banned in Australia because God is God and false worship is incorrect? Not many, judging from conversations and experience. Why this inconsistency?

The fourth Commandment establishes the Sabbath as a day to be hallowed, but to this most Christians would say, “Sabbath! What Sabbath?” Even though this is the Fourth of the Ten, Christians question it readily and they do so with no apparent reason. Why is this one Commandment not relevant any longer?

Again, these questions and points are not irrelevant. Experience has taught us that many Christians will give a hearty, “Yes! God is King. He must be honoured and obeyed!” but when it comes to practice, they will not oppose the mosque because this is Secular Australia. We will be told that we must accept homosexuality because God has either changed His mind on the subject or that we are no longer in Israel. These answers then entitle us to the privilege of once more listening to the hackneyed “love and tolerance” speech of the moderns.

Yet, we must ask, “How do we justify this type of double standard?” If God is God and He is jealous for the integral holiness of His Character – reflected in and by His law – how do we dismiss, change, or denigrate the first or any of the Commandments? Equally, for those enslaved to the “New Testament Christian” concept, we ask, “Where in the New Testament are we taught that God has abandoned His holiness, that God no longer cares about morality, that God has whittled the Ten Commandments to Four Plausible Proposals? The answer is, “Nowhere!”

It seems that we arrive at these points of inconsistency precisely because most Christians and most of Christendom are not committed to the Biblical concepts of Theocracy and Theonomy. Consequently, when we seek to live our lives we operate on principles that make us inclusive, implicit, relative or conditional, and plural, rather than being exclusive, explicit, absolute, and singular.

Turning again to the Church of the Reformation, we will find two snippets of wisdom that are very helpful and which will assist us to see that the principles of the moderns are new. The first is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and asks, “Where is the moral law summarily comprehended? The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments. (Deut. 10:4, Matt. 19:17)”[5]

This first help comes in the word “summarily”. The Reformation Church did not believe that the Moral law was the Ten Commandments; it believed that the Ten Commandments were a summary of the Moral law.

Thus, the Commandment on adultery, for example, becomes case laws that proscribe fornication, bestiality, and homosexuality whilst conversely promoting and upholding marriage, family, and sexual purity. The Commandment on thievery becomes a command not to shift a boundary stone or to offer a bribe in order to pervert justice.

When understood in this manner, we see that the case laws are not irrelevant abstractions for the Old Testament people, which had no continuity to the Moral law, but were, rather, an application of God’s holy character to life and were themselves Moral Laws.[6]

The second help comes from the Westminster Larger Catechism and asks, “Of what use is the moral law to all men? The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God, (Lev. 11:44–45, Lev. 20:7–8, Rom. 7:12) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; (Micah 6:8, James 2:10–11) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: (Ps. 19:11–12, Rom. 3:20, Rom. 7:7) to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, (Rom. 3:9,23) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, (Gal. 3:21–22) and of the perfection of his obedience. (Rom. 10:4)”[7]

The Reformation Church is most helpful in clarifying this point. As noted above, we today want to drive wedges between concepts. Consequently, we will not preach Law, contrary to Biblical commands, because we want Man to experience God’s love. Because we will not preach Law, we must then try and invent ways to evangelise. When these manmade inventions fail, we simply move on to ‘Version 2.0’ rather than repent and seek God’s wisdom. However, in contradistinction to the modern concept, the Church in former ages realised the validity of the Law as a God appointed instrument of righteousness by which men will see Jesus the Christ and His perfection as their only hope.

Therefore, if we want to see God in Christ glorified, we must understand the importance, centrality, and abiding validity of God’s Moral Law, which is summarised in the Ten Commandments. If we would see a holy people and a holy nation that willingly bow before Jesus in heartfelt gratitude at the wonder of His salvation, then the one firm Biblical directive we have is, “Preach the Law!” (Galatians 3:24.)

God almighty is not divided; neither is His word; neither are the Persons of the Trinity; neither are His revelations. As God is One, so is all that He has given to Man for wisdom and instruction. The Old Testament does not teach one way to God and the New another. Jesus does not appear on the pages of the New Testament other than as the Messiah who was foreshadowed and promised in the pages of the Old. Jesus does not arrive with a different Law or set of principles, indeed Jesus could not, because He came to make known the Father; Jesus came as the exact representation of the invisible God![8]

Hence, any view that denounces Theocracy and Theonomy must be dismissed as attacks upon God’s Kingship and Rule over His creation through Jesus Christ, His Son, and, by extension, through His saved people. The Church in history has understood these points and has given us sound wisdom and we will ignore it to our peril.

God is King! He does rule and He must rule. We, the Church, are redeemed that we might “reign with Christ”[9] and our apprenticeship is now. If we love God, we will honour and obey God’s King, Jesus Christ, by living according to all that God in Christ has commanded.

Therefore, Theocracy and Theonomy are fundamental concepts that play an essential role in imbuing us with the essence of our identity as sons and daughters of the Most High God. We seem to forget that we were created and ordained as God’s viceregents, those given rule over God’s creation for God’s glory – fruitful, multiply, subdue, rule! We forget that our redemption is a restoration and re-empowerment to achieve this task. We forget that we are a people redeemed and called to worship (to declare the worth of God)—Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created! (Revelation 4:11); called to display His wonder upon the earth by reflecting His Kingship; called to live in obedience as a witness to Man that God is rightly to be obeyed for He alone is the true Sovereign; called that the display of God’s righteousness in us will convict men of their sin and show the exceeding wonder and perfection of Jesus, God’s Saviour and King.

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)

Footnotes:

[1] It would seem that too many have fallen for the heretical, “Take Jesus as your Saviour, but the lordship of Christ is an optional extra” line. Yet, the truth is that Scripture only knows a Saviour that can save because He is first and foremost God the King.

[2] My father spent a few years in the police force. He recounts a conversation with one old sergeant in which this experienced man said, “If you ever find someone at the bottom of the river, they will have fiddled with the till or with someone’s wife.” Thus, according to his observations, if we ‘do not steal’ and ‘do not commit adultery’, we have less probability of swimming with the fishes in an unhealthy manner.

[3] John 14:15 — If you love Me, you will keep My commandments; John 15:10 — If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love; John 14:21 — He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him; John 14:23 — If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him; 1 John 5:3 — For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome; 2 John 6 — And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. Please note the consistency of the theme: to love God is to obey or keep his commandments.

[4] 1 John 3:4.

[5] Question and answer 41.

[6] I do not wish to labour his point, but would beg your indulgence for a practical demonstration of this point. The Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 104, reads: “What are the duties required in the first commandment? The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God; (1 Chron. 28:9, Deut. 26:7, Isa. 43:10, Jer. 14:22) and to worship and glorify him accordingly, (Ps. 95:6–7, Matt. 4:10, Ps. 29:2) by thinking, (Mal. 3:16) mediating, (Ps. 63:6) remembering, (Eccl. 12:1) highly esteeming, (Ps. 71:19) honouring, (Mal. 1:6) adoring, (Isa. 45:23) choosing, (Josh. 24:15,22) loving, (Deut. 6:5) desiring, (Ps. 73:25) fearing of him; (Isa. 8:13) believing him; (Exod. 14:31) trusting (Isa. 26:4) hoping, (Ps. 130:7) delighting, (Ps. 37:4) rejoicing in him; (Ps. 32:11) being zealous for him; (Rom. 12:11, Num. 25:11) calling upon him, giving all praise and thanks, (Phil. 4:6) and yielding all obedience and submission to him with the whole man; (Jer. 7:23, James 4:7) being careful in all things to please him, (1 John 3:22) and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended; (Jer. 31:18, Ps. 119:136) and walking humbly with him. (Micah 6:8)” Here the Divines are speaking of Man’s duty to God as it is outlined in the first Commandment. We would simply like to draw your attention to the list of texts to which they refer in order to prove their statements. The Moral Law, summarily comprehended in the Decalogue, is proved to be true for the whole of Scripture.

[7] Question and answer 95.

[8] See: Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:1-2.

[9] See: Revelation 3:21; Revelation 20:6; 2 Timothy 2:12.

Controversial “Theo-” Words

Posted on by
Reply

Over the last decades there have been two “Theo-” words that have been causing controversy, consternation, and concern. This controversy is a sad reflection upon the Church at large and its continual drift away from God’s revealed standards.

As part of this drift, it has, with much regret, become de rigueur for the Church to accept the World’s ways and principles as Standard Operating Procedures. By this is meant that, all too often, people and ideas are maligned from the standpoint of ignorance or semi-ignorance when they seek to do nothing but introduce or re-introduce a Biblical concept that has been removed from view. The reasons for this removal are many and varied, but it usually boils down to sin, rebellion, compromise, and the idea that modern man has a bit more of a clue than God – even if it is not expressed this boldly.

The “Theo-” words we are about to consider are two such points of contention; not because they are unBiblical, but because they cut across the modern, selfish, individual standards that have become so popular with the modern Christian.

The two words or terms are Theocracy and Theonomy.

If you are still reading and have not fainted, let us explain these words in their simplest forms. These words are made by joining the Greek word for God (Theos) to the Greek words for Might / Power – and by extension Rule – (Kratos) and Law (Nomos). Thus, when we speak of Theocracy and Theonomy, we are simply speaking of God’s Rule and God’s Law or we might say God’s rule by God’s Law.

When viewed from this standpoint, it is very hard to see what all the fuss is about and why these terms create such controversy, particularly amongst Christians; but more on that later.

From my youth, I have heard many statements about God being the King of the world or many affirmations that “Jesus is King!” Preachers have preached on the text, “King of kings and Lord of lords”. We have heard sermons from prophecy that state that the Messiah will be a king on David’s throne and that He will rule the nations. This prophecy is fulfilled and it is said of Jesus, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord (Luke 19:38). I remember many preachers praying and asking God for the help to “obey God’s law”.

Even in our singing we have historically affirmed these truths. Do we not sing, “He’s got the whole world in His hands” or “The Lord is King! Lift up your voice, O earth and all you heavens, rejoice; from world to world the song shall ring: “The Lord omnipotent is King!” A glance at one hymn book sitting on my shelf reveals two consecutive hymns that start with the line, “The Lord God reigns …!” Do we not also sing of the “blessed man” whose sole delight is the “Law of God” on which he joys to “meditate day and night”? Let’s add a twist. One of Amy Grant’s big hits contained the words, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path”, which, of course, were not her own words, they were taken from Psalm 119 – a Psalm that spends 176 verses extolling God’s Law, commandments, and statutes.

So what is all the fuss about? Well, it seems that there a many points of contention to be explored. However, we will focus on three that form the core.

          Hearers not doers: First, this whole controversy highlights the fact that, amongst Christians, there seems to be a widening gap between profession and action. In other words, what we hear and sing on Sunday does not translate into practice during the week. We talk of God’s law as the rule for life; we sing of the merits and wonder of God’s law; we offer prayers that ask for Divine help in obeying God’s law.  Nonetheless, in practice, we do not seem at all interested in living by and applying God’s law to our lives, family, and culture. It is rare to find those who are truly interested in reading, studying, and preaching God’s law so that it is understood in order that it may be obeyed and consistently applied.

The truth of this can be attested with an empirical examination of Church life. Take Bible studies as the first example. How many Bible studies happen and how many actually study the Bible? The truth is that “Bible study” is now a code word for an ecclesiastical “get-together”. More often than not, a book or a book about the Bible is studied and not the Bible itself. Furthermore, as it has become unacceptable to have an authoritative and defined answer, as though truth exists, these studies are often little more than “opinion fests” or an out pouring of subjective feelings wherein the answers begin with, “I feel …!”

Another test, which highlights the current failing, can be viewed in the general Biblical illiteracy that abounds. Take a setting in Church life, any setting, and ask yourself, “When was the last time you heard someone cry out, ‘To the law and to the testimony’?”[1] In short, how many discussions and / or debates have ended up with an open Bible and the Word being the master that was invited to settle the debate?

          One Way: Second, these two Theo- words force us to singularity rather than plurality in terms of belief and practice. Sounds complicated, but it is not really. The World likes plurality. This is witnessed in thought and practice, for example, in a saying like, “All roads lead to Rome!” and a religion like Baha’i. It is witnessed in Eastern religions where the individual discovers truth for themselves – One thousand individuals equal one thousand unassailable truths.[2]

By contrast, God, as revealed in Scripture, is concerned with singularity. Thus, God alone is rightly ascribed as the determiner of truth (singularity).[3] We see that there is a wide and narrow path (plurality), but each leads to a different destination (singularity) and a person can be on but one path (singularity). Jesus alone is “the way” (singularity) and none can come to the Father but by Him. We are told that “there is salvation in no one else (singularity); for there is no other name (singularity) under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).”

          Warfare: Third, these unpopular Theo- words remind us of the reality and truth of the warfare that we, as God’ people, are involved in on a daily basis. This warfare is in our blood. It is woven into our existence, and, for now, it most certainly is the essence of our calling. Yet, most Christians find this concept repugnant; they seek to find peace in and with the World; and they lament the need to be constantly on guard and to fight.

Christians generally resent this basic fact because it means that, to live the principle of warfare fully, this world must be apprehended as a battleground and not a beach resort. It means army life – bad food, barracks, one-size-fits-all boots, sharpening of swords, polishing of armour, and early morning wake up calls – just so you can march, bleed, and die!

Okay, you may be a little confused, so let’s try and pull this together.

Man was created to obey God and to live by His law. Hence, Man was created to be both Theocratic and Theonomic – no “buts!” about it. Man was made to live under God’s rule and by God’s law; so we say again, Man was made to be Theocratic and Theonomic!

When sin entered the world through Man’s rebellion against God’s righteous rule and rightful sovereignty, Yahweh declared war on Satan and his seed saying, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.”

Understood properly, this means that there are now two lines of Man upon the earth – those who live under God’s rule and by His law and those who endeavour to escape from it. It means that the inclination of Man’s heart is only evil all the time (Genesis 6:5). It means that even redeemed Man must work hard at overcoming the inclinations of evil and rebellion so that he may serve God as He was created, and re-created in Christ Jesus, to do.[4]

Therefore, it means that the life and calling of redeemed Man in this divided world has become harder. However, we must understand that the intrinsic nature of our life and calling in this divided world has not changed. God still requires Man to live the Theocratic and Theonomic life, but the actuality and realisation of this goal now falls to redeemed Man as he alone is equipped with Christ’s Spirit and, therefore, the Power to realise the goal.[5]

That Man’s goal and purpose has not been changed by the fall is clearly seen in the judgements that God decreed in the wake of the fall. Man’s basic call remained intact even though frustrated by sin and God’s judgement. Woman, given to Man so that they could be fruitful and multiply, now has pain in childbearing and pregnancy. Man, placed to cultivate and keep the earth, will now reap by the sweat of his brow.  He will be frustrated by thorns and thistles. Note, please, that the intrinsic nature and function of Man remains – Woman still bears; she is still fruitful; Man labours; he is still required to use and keep the earth – but now these tasks are frustrated.

In regard to our Theo- words, it means that Man is still required to be Theocratic and Theonomic. The only difference is that fallen Man has no desire to comply and redeemed Man finds it much harder to attain this end. Redeemed Man must now accomplish his mandate from God, not in an environment of peace and harmony, but in the environment of warfare. We must fight sin, the world, and Satan. In other words, we have opposition from within and without, and all of this is fuelled by “the prince of the power of the air.”

The reality of this warfare strikes home when Man seeks to supplant the Theo- words with some Auto- words that he finds much more palatable.[6] Man sinned against God by trying to ascend to God’s throne and Man is still afflicted with this desire today. Rather than Theocracy, sinful Man prefers Autocracy. Rather than Theonomy, sinful Man prefers Autonomy. Sinful Man still recognises, generally speaking, the need for rule and law, but, to spite God, sinful Man wants it to be his own rule by his own law – and the long war against God continues! This then places Redeemed Man in the midst of a war—the war proclaimed by our God, the war to which we are called, and the war in which we must engage, if we are to be a faithful servants of Jesus Christ.

This then brings us back to the concept of singularity and plurality. Jesus told us that no man can have two masters.[7] Plurality is out. We cannot be of the World and of Heaven. We cannot love God and obey the Devil. We cannot be autocratic and Theocratic; we cannot be autonomous and Theonomic. It is impossible to have a foot in both camps. James (4:4) puts it bluntly but truthfully when he says: “You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

In short, there are not multiple roads to heaven. There are not multiple Saviours. There are not multiple ways to please God. There are not multiple ways to run a country, a household, or a business. There are not multiple ways to raise children, construct families, or define families. There are not multiple ways to live acceptably before God. Man must live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.[8] Full stop!

Consequently, it seems that the controversy caused by our Theo- words stems from the fact that, in our age of radical individualism and the idol of ‘personal choice’, too many Christians have imbibed the “snake oil” being sold by the World. They have come to love their Auto- words and resent the fact that they are being forced to make both a choice and an admission; a choice for God’s singularity and an admission that they have sinned by living the World’s plurality.

Some may as yet remain unconvinced. If so, simply think of the progress of salvation history. Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt. God redeemed Israel by promise and having brought them out, Yahweh gave them His law – not as a means of Justification, strictly speaking, but as a means of sanctification (so that God’s people could live the holy life that is pleasing to God). To this some will say, “Ah, Yes; but that is the Old Testament.[9]

To this, we reply, “Ah, yes; but the New Testament says the same thing!” Colossians 1:13 states: “For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.” Note please that we are not delivered from the domain of darkness to Autocracy and Autonomy – self rule and self law – but to the kingdom of His Son! We are transferred into a Kingdom in which there is a King. This King has a Law by which He governs His Kingdom. This King is the Son of God. Thus, the Rule and Law of this Kingdom must be Theocratic and Theonomic. Equally, the citizens of this Kingdom must live the King’s rule and law or be considered as traitors. Likewise, it is the task of God’s people to extend this rule over all the earth.

Our redemption is to obedience, not inventiveness. We were redeemed that we should obey God’s word. James makes a strong a valid statement when he says, “But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does.”[10] In other words, God does not call us to form a committee so that we can assemble all the latest and greatest ideas and work out how best to serve Him. No! God reveals Himself, says, “Look at Me and know My law!” and then expects us to implement those standards. This is where we find blessing – in hearing and doing! There is no future in a lot of head nodding on Sunday followed by apathy and neglect on Monday.[11]

Similarly, in understanding hearing doing, we better understand that we are servants obliged to follow the instructions given to us by our Master, our King.

Therefore, Theocracy and Theonomy are not ideas and concepts to be feared or shunned. No, they are to be embraced. God’s Rule by God’s Law over all of creation is the restoration that Jesus Christ has purchased with His precious blood. To say or state otherwise is to contradict God and the complete revelation of salvation history.

When we as God’ people recover the age old truth that this world is to operate under God’s rule and by God’s law, we will once again see the return of godly, peaceful, and Christ honouring societies. When we return to a true belief in Theocracy and Theonomy we will, for the first time in centuries, return to living and implementing the Great Commission.

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)

Footnotes:

[1] Isaiah 8:20.

[2] It is equally seen today in the misguided attempts to show that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are really one religion or that they are so much alike that they should be able to co-exist.

[3] Isaiah 45:18-19.

[4] See, for example, Romans 6:12; Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 2:1-3; 1 Corinthians 6:11.

[5] See Romans 8:37; 1John 4:4; Revelation 2:7; John 16:33; Revelation 12:11;

[6] Let’s be clear here. Even Christians fall into this trap when they are not singularly focussed upon God.

[7] Matthew 6:24.

[8] Deuteronomy 8:3.

[9] This type of response is also part of the problem as it conceives of much of God’s revelation as passé and irrelevant. It places a divide in God’s word as though He changed His mind or some such, when no such change has occurred. It purports that God’s word is not a singularity and a unity in theme and purpose, but a plurality of stories that remain in disunity.

[10] James 1:25.

[11] Compare Jesus’ words in Mathew 7:24-27: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. “And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. “And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. “And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall.”

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt 3)

Posted on by
Reply

(Rebuilding Esteem and Belief in Eldership: God’s Institution)

Right now, you no doubt have many questions running through your mind as a consequence of reading the previous articles in this series. You may agree with certain points. You may disagree with certain applications. This is to be expected when the proverbial boat is firmly rocked. However, I hope, like the Bereans, that we will turn to Scripture and search out our agreement in the light of God’s word. After all, every belief and every action must have genuine Biblical warrant. Therefore, to be obedient to our Lord, we must look past the external tags, the “We have always done it this way!”, and the paralysing exasperation, “What else will we do!”

Our obligation is to search out and live in light of the Biblical data. Thus far, that data has shown us that we cannot hold to two masters, two worldviews, or two fundamental presuppositions. Likewise, we cannot believe that the elders are God’s appointed authority for the good and holy governance of His blood bought Church, whilst asserting that such an institution is dated or in need of supplementation. Such a philosophical contradiction is simply untenable.

As posited previously, if we are to rebuild genuine esteem and belief in the institution of Eldership, we must begin by cutting off everything that would seek to undermine and supplant that institution, no matter how subtle its influence in this direction.

So let us look at a few reasons as to why elders should be preferred to counsellors in the Church.

4. God’s Institution:

The first and most obvious reason is that the eldership was instituted by God. Eldership existed during Israel’s captivity in Egypt and was given specific form and structure in the wilderness under Moses[1] and continued in existence to the day of Jesus. As such, it was naturally taken across into the New Testament Church and continues to this day (and forever?).

This point needs to be underscored. In our Reformed history, it is tragic that most look for the foundation of the Eldership in the New Testament only. Our creeds, confessions, and theologies are almost Dispensational in their desire to see Eldership as a new or mostly new office instituted by Apostolic warrant.

Rushdoony rights states:

The origins of the church theologians place in the Old Testament. … Strangely, the government of the church is not likewise sought in the Old Testament, although the New Testament is clear that the familiar pattern, and even the name of the office, elders, was derived from the Old Testament….[2]

Strange indeed; yet true.[3] Consider the following statement:

We know nothing about the origin of this office. There appears to be elders in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). There probably is a connection between the Jewish council of elders that conducted the business of the synagogue, but did not play a role in worship, and the elders of the Church.[4]

Please note the categorical followed by the maybe – we know nothing, but there probably is! This inconsistency is unexpected given that we Reformed people do not like surprises or the unknown. It is even more surprising given our Doctrine of Scripture and the Biblical evidence that this doctrine unearths for us.

For example, in our theology we have no problem admitting that Moses is a type of Christ[5] and that the Church existed in the Old Testament.[6] Why, then, do we suppose that God’s Church, of old, was ungoverned? Why would we suppose that a new form of Church government needed to be invented?

These questions are posed precisely because the Biblical evidence gives us no right to assume that the “congregation of Israel” was ungoverned or that the New Testament Church[7] had to hurriedly find a model of governance. When we examine Scripture, we see something very different.

After the re-formation of the eldership in the wilderness, we see that elders take a more prominent place in Israel. Such is the evidence that we would need many pages to enumerate all the Old Testament passages regarding eldership. Consequently, we will cite just a few before moving to the time of Christ and on into the embryonic Church, the newer.

The first thing we need to see is that the elders went with Moses and Aaron. We often think of these two great men acting alone. However, this was not the case as far as God’s intent was concerned:

The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God.” (Exodus 3:18)

We must also grasp the significant fact that the elders of Israel are always portrayed as being in the company of God’s appointed leaders; as taking over leadership in their absence; and in performing significant rites.

Passover – Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb.” (Exodus 12:21)

Worship at Sinai – Then he said to Moses, “Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance.” (Exodus 24:1)

After the defeat at Ai – Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads. (Joshua 7:6)

Israel’s Faithfulness through Elders – Israel served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had experienced everything the LORD had done for Israel. (Joshua 24:31)

Kingship – When all the elders of Israel had come to King David at Hebron, the king made a compact with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel. (2 Samuel 5:3)

Leaving the Old Testament, let us move forward to the time of Christ.

Please note these three texts:

Matthew 15:1-2: “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Matthew 16:21: “From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

Acts 4:5-8: “The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem … They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?” Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!”

In these texts, we witness both the prominence and continuity of data regarding the eldership, both of which are almost universally ignored. We know of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the teachers of the Law, but how often have you noted this group called the elders? These elders have traditions. Jesus states that He will suffer at the hands of these elders. When the embryonic New(er) Testament Church is persecuted in the persons of Peter and John, the elders are there and Peter, by the Holy Spirit, addresses them directly.

So it is that we must see that eldership was not some dinky concept that Moses invented in the wilderness so that he could get a bit more “me time”. No. This was a serious institution in Israel for the governance of God’s covenant people. Even though Israel had good familial governance through heads of families and tribes, it was pleasing to God to add to this the office of Elder. Therefore, we should neither view this institution lightly nor be surprised that it is brought into the New(er) Testament Church without fuss.

Here, again, we must challenge ourselves. When we speak of elders in the New Testament Church, we immediately think of the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy and Titus, and of Paul’s instruction to them regarding the standards for the office. What we miss with this singular focus or blinkeredness is the prominence of their position already highlighted throughout Scripture.

The Book of Acts is the record of Christ’s embryonic fulfillment Church moving forward at Her Captain’s command. It is replete with information that is of great use to us in our day. Have you ever noted the place of elders in the Book of Acts?

The term elders – always plural – occurs eighteen times in Acts. Eight of these references are to the Jewish elders. The rest, the remaining ten, refer to the Christian elders. Now, please note that nowhere do we witness an initiation, a ceremony, a command, or any other process of inception. These elders arrive on the scene and are fully accepted, without a whimper, as the authoritative officers for the governance of Christ’s Church (as they always had been).

We first see the Christian elder[8] in the context of those to whom Barnabas and Paul (Saul) would entrust the alms collected by the Antiochian[9] church.[10] The elders took receipt of these alms and were presumably responsible for their distribution. Next, we see Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in the Church. In this instance the context refers to the four local churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and (Pisidian) Antioch.[11] Please note, once more, that there is no fuss or bother involved at this point. These commissioned men appoint elders and the church accepts them.

In following the chronology of Acts, we now come to one of the most significant texts. We are all familiar with the Council at Jerusalem as outlined in Acts 15. Whilst there are different views on this Council, certain things are beyond dispute. This Council had authority. It did so because of its makeup. However, this makeup was not in and of itself Apostolic. Please be aware that five times the term Apostle is used in conjunction with the elders. That is to say that every time the Apostles are mentioned in chapter 15, the elders are mentioned right alongside.[12] Hmmm, interesting. Yes?

So who was it that took over the governance of the Church when the Apostles were not around or once they had been promoted to glory? Yes, it was the elders. Then we must ask, “Have we seen this pattern before?”

With this said, let us leave Acts and move into the Book of Revelation. When reading Revelation and with your gaze fixed upon the sublime worship of God in which praise is offered to God by the Seraphim, the angelic host, and the saints, have you ever noticed the role or presence of that other group? Yes, I speak of the elders.

When we view Revelation chapter four, we are immediately introduced to a vision of God Almighty upon His throne. What comes next? Angels? Seraphim? Spirits? Saints? No, none of these. After being introduced to God and His throne, we are introduced to twenty-four elders who sit upon their own thrones in the presence of God.[13] Then, and only then, are we introduced to the four living creatures.

In Revelation, these elders are referred to twelve times. In 5:14, 11:16, and 19:4, these elders are involved in worship. They are said to fall down or to fall on their faces before God and to worship Him. In 5:8 they are said to fall down before the Lamb. They are also shown to sing unto God (5:9, 11). Most striking, though, of all these is the text of Revelation 5:8 – And when he [the Lamb] had taken it [the Book], the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

The import of this text is monumental for our understanding. As we noted earlier, many do not look for the establishment of eldership in the Old Testament. Yet, here, in this resplendent heavenly vision, we see correlations that cannot be dismissed.

In our view, the Eldership is re-established and re-organised in Exodus 18. In Exodus 19, God speaks to Moses and says, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant … you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”[14] This theme of being kingly-priests is picked up several times in the New Testament. Peter calls us a “holy priesthood” before referring to us as a “royal priesthood”.[15]

Returning to Revelation, we see that John, in his opening comments, addresses the saints in exactly the same manner – “To him who loves us … and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father.”[16] The next reference occurs in Revelation 5:10, two verse after the text under consideration, and says, “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God….”

With this information in mind, think back, please, to Revelation 5:8. Here we see the elders, the governors and representatives of the people, falling down in worship before the Lamb. Question, “What is the Church’s priority?” It is the worship of God. Again, think back to Exodus, why did Israel demand to leave Egypt? It was so that they could go forth and worship God.[17] What happened in Exodus 19 after the mention of the kingly-priests? Did not the kingly-priests worship at the foot of the mountain? Did not the kingly-priests meet with their God?

Then we ask, “From what did these elders in Revelation 5:8 arise?” Was it not their thrones? What image comes immediately to mind when you think of a throne? Is it not kingship?

Now we are forced to look at what these elders were holding. First, we note that they possess a harp. What would the harp be used for? Is it not the worship of God? The Psalmist certainly thought so – “I will praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praise to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.”[18] Equally, if we look at Revelation 15:2, we see the victorious possessing harps. With these instruments, verse three, they sang the song of Moses and of the Lamb. How interesting! Moses is not despised. His song is not ridiculed or cast out as irrelevant because it belonged to type and shadow. No, no! Much rather, it is incorporated into the fullness of the worship of God—Servant and Son together praising the Father, God Almighty.

Second, we see that the elders hold censors full of the prayers of the saints. Why would these elders hold these prayers? Could it be that they are going to offer them before God, the Almighty? Could it be that their song of praise is infused with the prayers of God’s people on earth? Such would seem to be very probable. What role, then, would we ascribe to the elder at this point? Would we not rightly designate him a priest?

If so, we see kings who are priests worshipping God and the Lamb. Moreover, we see these elders rightly representing the people who are also designated as kingly-priests.  Thus, the evidence for the unified Biblical doctrine of eldership seems very solid. Also, the potency of these visions underscores the roles that the elder must undertake as part of his commissioning.

Conclusion:

Although this has been a very quick look at some of the Biblical data surrounding the Eldership, it is hoped that your horizons have been widened as to the chronology and importance of this institution. It was given substance through Moses. It was not revoked by Jesus. It was affirmed by Apostolic practice and warrant as normative, and, if that were not enough, we are shown that the elder operates in the heavenly worship of the One Living and True God.

Thus, unlike social workers, psychiatrists, and counselors, when you deal with an elder and the eldership you are dealing with those who are ordained by God. They operate as God’s instruments for His glory and they operate on God’s authority alone. This should, indeed must, signify something of great importance to every Christian. To willingly sidestep the elder, is tantamount to trying to sidestep the living God.[19] God gave us this institution for a reason, to despise it in favour of Worldly substitutes is a fatal error.

 

[1] Exodus 18:24-26. The first mention of elders in Scripture is in Genesis 50:7. This reference is to the elders of Egypt. In Exodus 3, we see, as part of Moses’ commissioning, that he is sent to gather the elders of Israel (3:16). When Moses returns to Egypt, he first gathers the elders together so that Aaron can explain all that Yahweh had commanded (4:29-30). After the elders are given instruction, there are demonstrations of power before the people. When they hear that Yahweh is concerned for them, they bow down and worship. Apart from some obvious patterns and clues that shall become more apparent as we progress, it is necessary to see that right at the beginning of redemptive history, nationally speaking, the elders were at the forefront.

[2] Rousas Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1984, Vol. 2), 679.

[3] See also: Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: an urgent call to restore Biblical Church leadership, (Littleton: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995). The first five chapters of this book are useful. The major weakness, however, is the fact that he passes over the Old Testament foundation for eldership. He vacillates, speaking of an apostolic institution, but then tacitly admits some prior form or information that guided their model.

[4] Van Genderen and Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2008), 736. Emphasis added.

[5] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, ([1948 Eerdmans] Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975; reprint 1985), 104

[6] Van Genderen and Velema, 677. These do not make the link as strongly as Charles Hodge, who, in one sentence, states: “The conclusion is that God has ever had but one Church in the world.” Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1989, Vol. 3), 551. See also The Belgic Confession, Article 27.

[7] As noted, it is our view that the Church is one. It would be better if we could hold this conversation without the Old Testament / New Testament bifurcation. However, this pattern has become so entrenched that many find it difficult to grasp arguments when the pattern is not present. Please understand that when this bifurcation is used, we intend no radical discontinuity of a Dispensational variety. Rather, we are referring to the two chapters of the Bible, which make a complete book, as the source of our authority.

[8] Acts 11:30.

[9] This is Syrian Antioch.

[10] A “cat among the pigeons” question may be: Given the evidence from Acts 11:30, would we better term the seven from Acts 6:1-7 as elders rather than deacons? I think I felt a shudder! Think this through please. Remember, Acts 6 does not give these men a title. We have applied a title and an office to them. Calvin argues that the deacons operated under the elders and so the two pieces of information are not incongruous. That however is an argument from silence. If we put the concept of Acts 6 with the information of Acts 11, we have evidence to suggest that the missing institution is not, in fact missing. Just some food for thought.

[11] Acts 14:23. Derbe may be exempted from the list

[12] Note, please, that the letter circulated by this Council also bore the name of the elders (15:23).

[13] These twenty-four thrones are mentioned in Revelation 4:4 and 11:16.

[14] Exodus 19:5-6.

[15] 1 Peter 2:5 & 9.

[16] Revelation 1:5-6.

[17] Exodus 3:18ff. In these passages the term “sacrifice” is prominent. However, in the Old Testament context, sacrifice is worship. See Exodus 3:12 for the term “Worship” and the setting of the context.

[18] Psalm 71:22.

[19] Romans chapter 13 states that there is “no authority that is not from God”. It also states that those who resist that authority will be punished.