The Priesthood of the Believer
“Do you hear the secret counsel of God, and limit wisdom to yourself?” Job 15:8 NASB
Limit– What do I know? That God is good, man is born to turmoil and I am a sinner in need of deliverance. The cosmos is His creation, I am blessed to be alive and righteousness will fill the earth. What do I know? Knowledge is a function of community, I don’t exist without others, and God loves Israel. Not much, but very important. All the rest is still in process. But most believers don’t think in terms of process. They think in terms of certainty. That’s where Eliphaz confronts us. Would I limit God’s wisdom to my understanding? The Hebrew verb here is gara (“to clip, diminish, restrain, keep back, withdraw”). It’s a word of personal confrontation for most Christians because of Martin Luther.
One of the consequences of Luther’s doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is the destruction of communal authority. In an effort to remove the papal hierarchy, Luther threw away any intermediary between God and His children. Gone are the priests, Catholic or Hebrew. Now God comes to each of us individually, whispering the secrets of the Scriptures through the warming glow of the Spirit. There is no longer any need for the rabbi or the preacher. Just open the Bible, clear your mind and let God guide you into the truth (isn’t that what Yeshua says the Spirit will do?). Luther invented the perfect excuse for meditating minds and linguistic lapses. In fact, I really don’t even need the Word. Just let the Spirit within me direct my paths.
Such thinking leads to David Koresh, Jim Jones, and the hundreds of other cult leaders. Psychological certainty (the idea that I have a direct channel to God) has created innumerable mystics, all of whom disagree about what God said to the other person. They drift into personal solipsism and become gods of their own exegesis. But don’t raise an objection. That only proves you haven’t heard.
Luther might have been right about each believer’s access to the Father, but that never replaced the community of counsel or the discipline of deacons. Only arrogance could suppose that we know it all or that the Spirit speaks only to us. Nothing in the Hebrew prophetic tradition suggests that God is my personal savior. Rather, I am grafted into a community of His redeemed people. God saves Israel. I choose to belong to them.
Whenever people begin their Scriptural exegesis with “God revealed this to me,” I am inclined to think of Jesus Just Left Chicago (ZZ Top) and walk out the door. By the way, if you happen to be in an “assembly” (I won’t call it “church”) where someone (leader or otherwise) is immune from critical assessment, dialogue or objection, then you probably should listen to ZZ Top while the “expert” drones. At least the music will be good.
Topical Index: limit, priesthood of the believer, Job 15:8
My gosh I hope this is more than one day o f discussion and learning. If I recall, reinterpreting scripture. What’s the first title that let me do this amazing discovery.. the priesthood of the believer today’s topic. My first thought is 1st Peter tells us that it is a kingdom of priests, some people interpret that as a group of people as Kings and Priests, which is okay but that’s not what the Bible says. The term priest is Soo important, we did a little group study one time, and someone put in the thought, that a priest looks Into the Fire 24/7 wow even to consider it. A priest does not waver from his calling in Mission conserving the Lord…. I grew up with the understanding. That Yeshua is Lord, to be a lord, one must thoroughly own property and or laborers. Which is the understanding of the Gospel where it says and there was a me and who owns some Vineyards, and had some laborers Matthew 20 1- 16. I think that is a reference. Wonderful dissertation. If I recall correctly, the Biblical history of the priests come up with the sons of Aaron, wow what a picture, somewhere it says Moses and Aaron who was his Prophet. I’ll stop there.
May all of us have a blessed Shabbat tomorrow. Studying his word, and gathering with his people, and worshipping him alone. Pick.. In short conclusion… May the Lord bless you and keep you and may the Lord watch over you and give you peace.
I post the following for informational purposes, not to get into a discussion/argument about the relative merits of Protestantism and its tenets. There are both Protestants of differing persuasions and non-Prots who don’t understand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura. Some of these adhere to or understand what Mathison below calls “solo” Scriptura. The former holds to a tradition (the Reformation was not a full-on revolution/overthrow), to include the early church councils (Chalcedon, e.g.), while the latter believes ‘it’s just me, my Bible, and the Spirit’.
bible-researcher dot com/mathison.html
It might be helpful to read this very short overview first:
Patrickschreiner dot com/?p=12185
Thanks for these two links, Craig. Good reminders there!
Glad you found them useful!
Craig: I find this a very interesting and important topic… the issue of authority in the church. What started out in Acts was a group of Jewish disciples led by the brother of Jesus (James stood in for his brother the Messiah whose return was considered imminent). As time went by the Jewish connection was marginalized…by Nicea none of the bishops attending the conclave were Jewish. So here is my question to you. On the one hand we have the Roman Catholic belief in the Primacy of Peter and his descendent popes, assisted by the Church sages. How did the Protestants replace that if they were intent on avoiding Tradition 2? Who had the authority to speak for the church? Calvin? Luther?Today we have thousands of denominations, some are tiny. Twenty men in a room claiming to have ecclesiastical authority does not in fact make their authority legitimate. So who do you listen to, and take direction from? We desperately need the Messiah to return and inaugurate a system of righteous authority to replace the myriad of “fakes” out there.
I side with Hillel over Shammai!
See my initial post in which I specifically stated that the purpose was “not to get into a discussion/argument about the relative merits of Protestantism and its tenets.”
Craig: This was not intended as any kind of trick question. I am simply interested in what people consider legitimate authority in the church. I would assume you consider some folks to be in authority. What confirms that legitimacy?
On a macro level, the early church councils are viewed as authoritative—since they were arrived at via consensus with local bishops (episkopoi [plural], episkopos [sing])—though subordinate to Scripture. They are understood to be a sort of shorthand of Scripture at large, distilled into more easily understandable chunks. The councils, then, provide the bedrock for theological and christological beliefs. The major denominations align with them. Those that do not are considered heretical.
Under the authority of the denomination, the local congregation should elect an episkopos, “bishop”/”overseer” (1 Tim 3:1-7), though various names are used for this position. Under the bishop are diakonoi, “deacons” (1 Tim 3:8-13), defined in function as servants, ministers, or, better servant-leaders. These provide leadership at the local level. See Paul’s usage of both terms in Philippians 1:1. The term presbyteros, “presbyter”, “elder” is more of a general term, though sometimes used apparently for both episkopoi and diakonoi, as in 1 Tim 5:17-20 and Titus 1:5. Note that “priest”, hiereus (ἱερεύς) is not a term used for leadership. A word study for this term in the NT (there are only 31 occurrences) should prove enlightening.
In practice, far too much is vested in the individual “preacher” in most congregations, though. Also, individual denominations are differentiated largely by secondarily important doctrines. Thus, on the one hand, there’s quite a bit of uniformity. On the other hand, most of these divisions are treated as though they are of paramount importance, from my understanding. It’s for this reason I’ve not ever ‘officially’ joined a local congregation. I prefer non-denominational churches, as long as they adhere to the tenets of the early councils.
For more on this, see my comment to Laurita below @ May 24, 2019 5:08 pm.
Example! Yeshua said do as they say not as they do. Shaul also said you be imitators of me! In our 40 years of wilderness wandering I can only recall one man that I would be willing to walk beside that was within the institution of christianity as my our mentor the church has no authority I know that is a broad brush stroke. That is from east coast to west and back again……..
Baruch, may I fill out your thought here.
You cite from Matt 23: 2 where it says, “Do as they say yet not as they do.” We all get the “gist” of this yet nevertheless it never quite made sense to me. Yeshua described these scribes and Pharisees just a little later between verses 16 and 33, as, “blind guides, stupid, hypocrites, whitewashed corpses, serpents, vipers! How may you be fleeing from the judging of Gehenna?”
But since we know these people also taught the traditions of men, (Matt 15) how could Yeshua possibly even suggest that anyone should listen to and obey their teachings?
I discovered attention to detail in the context gave me the answer.
Mat 23:1 “Then Jesus spoke to the crowd and to His disciples,
2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have sat down on Moses’ seat.
3 Then all things, whatever they tell you to keep, keep and do. But do not do according to their works, for they say, and do not do.”
When the Pharisees “sat down on Moses’ seat”, in the synagogue, this was an expression describing a formal procedure that meant, reading from the books of Moses, or in other words, The Torah. When someone was sitting on Moses’ seat they couldn’t just spiel off anything they wanted, they HAD to be reading from Moses. Thus, “whatever they tell you”, was only and exactly what Moses taught and wrote, The Torah.
You’re right, Dan. Yeshua said it best. Scripture is the only true authority.
Thank you that is context
What I learned about these two amazing men, First what’s an explanation Putting hedge around the community, the teachings were to protect from outside influences. At everything else were differences of understanding of scripture… Which is very important! This is coming in a day later, on Shabbat
I was a bit satirical in my comment–the point being that there wasn’t universal authority in 1st century Judaism. It was not monolithic.
I’ve not studied Hillel or Shammai at any length, but I’m aware of the dispute centering on Deut 24:1-4. I’d actually side with Shammai on this, which is what Yeshua did in Matthew 19 (though He went even further) when the Pharisees taunted Him with their question regarding divorce, knowing how divisive the topic was. This was not an unimportant issue in 1st century Judaism, as divorced women had few options in that patriarchal Jewish culture.
If Jesus position on divorce lined up with that of Shammai but many of his other teachings were closer to Hillel what makes you think Jesus would approve of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon? What gave the pagan Emperor the right to chair a conclave of Christian bishops (in fact only 15% of the invitees showed up) and force a resolution on exiling Arius that was then subsequently overturned. Constantine himself was baptised on his deathbed by an Arian bishop and his children who followed him as emperors were also Arian. How do three hundred (arguably still Greek philosophers serving as bishops) get to speak for God for all times… or was it the power of the sword that enforced their decisions? They certainly made life difficult for Jewish believers. On a different note I noticed that Anabaptists are labelled as tradition zero in the article… presumably they put no confidence in church tradition.
I’ll state it again: I post the following for informational purposes, not to get into a discussion/argument about the relative merits of Protestantism and its tenets. The point of providing the article was to illustrate that Luther was not an advocate of “solo” Scriptura.
I don’t know enough about the Anabaptists to provide any comment.
Craig: thank you for your posts and links. They are helpful. I am not in attack mode, simply wrestling with questions of authority…. and who gets to call his opponent a heretic.
None of us ‘know’ (have experienced) all the truth. Pots and kettles, all of us. The point is, we get forgiven as we forgive, and I, as pot-and-kettle exhibit A, know that I need the most forgiving. Who am I to point a finger? We know that no person: not pope or any other individual OR GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS: ‘know’ all the truth – as a mental construct or “doctrine”, anyway. We have to leave room to question what we (or anybody else, including the Body) thinks is truth. I know there is clear order for the purposes of keeping the Body walking in the Scripture, but I also know that God never turns His back on anybody, so neither should we. Correct heresy? Sure. ‘Correct’ heretics? On what basis? (Paul writes that the Body should turn heretics over to SATAN for that correcting.) I am talking about throwing folks out for what may or may not be in their heads (understanding).
I think the question of order is about if folks are loving each other or not: not about how their heads – their paradigms – happen to be (or not be) working. My thoughts – my paradigm – is a construct of my experience. I think if we want to change what is in people’s heads, then we have to change what is in their experience. If they are having wrong thoughts about love (truth) then the only way, post-Tree, anyway, is to love them the right way until their poor heads get it, too. More sermons, from what I have seen, just doesn’t seem to get the job done. The Body has been called to this job.
I think what we have all been called to is the experience of the “Spirit of truth”, which is the love of God (as identified in Scripture) experienced in our hearts. If I, anyone else, or any other group, am not acting in love toward you, it is not going to matter what is or is not coming out of my -or their – mouth(s). The knowledge (experience) of the truth is about a relationship with the Truth. If someone has erroneous beliefs, all around are called to live that truth so as to teach them what it is. In fact, I know it is possible (for I have been privileged to witness it) for the head to have it ALL WRONG and the heart to still have it all right. Truth is about an indwelling of the heart – not the head – by it’s Spirit, after all. I think we worry too much about what is, or is not, in people’s poor, messed-up heads (starting with mine!) and not near enough time examining what is in our (or anybody else’s) hearts.
I think unloving actions by people towards other people will never determine truth: neither are they being actuated by it, either, for all truth is about love. God is not the enforcer, nor has He called anyone to enforce anything. He is the Unforcer, and if we want to be the heads of His kingdom I think we have been called to show it by getting down on our knees under the burdens of sin others carry and showing that we know how to carry it for them, like our Example did for us, until they learn how to walk in freedom.
I think heretics are to be loved by the truth-lovers until they can’t stand the pressure any more and either knuckle under or walk out on their own two feet. I learned in Alanon that the best way to change others was to change myself around them, leaving them free to change, too. Yeshua “emptied Himself” (now THAT’S change!) to get under my load of death and die it for me. Am I willing to do that for a heretic? If so, then I am a “leader” in the kingdom of God. I think heresy can only flourish in an atmosphere conducive to it: in an atmosphere where love in the entire community is already falling down on the job. In other words, I think heresy is more of an inditement of the community than of any single person. I think only in the West is it even possible to blame an individual for incorrect notions about love. In the East, I know that, traditionally, if a child misbehaved, the parents were beaten by the community, and if one person messed up, all got ‘corrected’. I think the problems get taken care of better if we looked instead to correcting the substrate that created that problem. I suspect that if we focused on correcting the absence of the Spirit of truth by inviting love back into the equation, heresy would be a lot more likely to either shape up (like Peter) or hang its own self (like Judas).
HSB,
Given your response just below @ May 25, 2019 8:02 am, I’ll provide a reply here.
Couldn’t a meeting of the bishops of the local ekklēsia be viewed as akin to a meeting of the Sanhedrin? Didn’t YHWH use pagan leaders toward His ends? I think Constantine was more interested in socio-political expedience than the ‘truth’ of the matter; and, I am not so sure he fully understood the related arguments.
You ask who gets to call who a ‘heretic’. That word was thrown around quite a bit in the early ekklēsia. You can find the word in the following letter of Arius:
Biblehub dot com/library/theodoret/the_ecclesiastical_history_of_theodoret/chapter_iv_the_letter_of_arius.htm
Whether it’s a faithful document, i.e., an accurate reflection of Arius’ beliefs, I do not know, though it seems to comport with the Wikipedia page (see more on this further below). I must say that my previous understanding falls short of what he apparently believed and taught. He might not have been a Trinitarian, but he was not very far from it either. Below is an extract, explaining Arius’ position (assuming these are his actual words and this is a faithful translation):
The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia
*This could mean (a) that the Son “has subsisted before time, and before ages just as the “perfect God”, i.e. the Father (though at some ‘point’ later), or (b) that the Son was “perfect God”, since He was begotten by the Father. His work Thana, referenced below, seems to support (b).
The Greek at footnote 322 could be rendered “is of non-essence”, i.e., Arius is speaking in ontological categories here. Arius is clearly stating that the Son is not of the same ‘essence’ as creation, though ‘begotten’ of the Father. Let’s look at the Wikipedia:
En dot Wikipedia dot org/wiki/Arius#The_Thalia
Now, though this material is found as quoted within two different works by his arch-enemy Athanasius, given that these are polemics against Arius, we might expect any deviations to point further away from Trinitarian beliefs. I was quite surprised to find more commonalities that I’d previously thought.
The most striking thing to me is the use of μονογενὴς θεός, monogenēs theos, in reference to the Son. This is the exact verbiage found in the newest Greek texts of John 1:18. [The Textus Receptus (as undergirding the KJV) is monogenēs huios: ‘only-begotten’ Son.]
μονογενὴς θεός ἐστι[ν]
monogenēs theos esti[n]
monogenēs God, He is
He is (the) ‘only-begotten’ God.
Or: He is (the) ‘only-begotten’, God.
To be clear, this cannot be “He is the ‘only-begotton’ OF God, for that would require theos to be in the genitive (theou) instead of the nominative as it is above.
Here are some snippets; the first is from the first work and under that is the translation of the second one:
Thus, for Arius, the Father reigns Supreme over against the somewhat less exalted Son and Wisdom/Spirit. Though he recognizes a ‘Triad’ (Τριας, Trias, he construes that their individual ‘glories’ are not similar (δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις, doxais ouch homoiais) to each other. The Son is recognized as “God”, with some of the same qualities as God the Father, though also at some sort of reduced level. Overall, this sounds like tritheism (three gods) to me. But, more importantly, Arius had more in common that I—and I’d guess others on here—thought.
Craig: first of all let me thank you for the effort expended to research this topic and provide this outline. Secondly I admire your scholarship and desire to find the truth. Thirdly if I might add, we can disagree on major points and still respect each other.
The issue of authority is important. In the case of national Israel the Sanhedrin functioned as a continuation of the 70 advisors under Moses. They served as judges with the power to administer capital punishment as outlined in Torah (unless the country was under foreign domination like Rome). The penal code involved Torah offenses. In the time of Jesus as you are no doubt aware, the Romans were appointing high priests and judges. The legitimate authority line had been broken.
When Jesus arrives in the first century he is designated by God as being Messiah. This trumps the “fake authority” of the priest class in Jerusalem. It is interesting that the religious leaders in all four gospels are recorded as asking Jesus “By what authority do you do these things?” While they were illegitimate power brokers they still had a Temple military force (in all probability the one that arrested Jesus) so they had coercive power available to them that stretched across the Jewish diaspora.
With the growth of the “way”, a new power structure was also in place. While he was not an apostle, the leader of the group was James… because he was next in line to Jesus as rightful king of Israel. The disciples would all have known this and given him honor and deference. Fortunately James was also a Godly man and Torah observant. After the death of James, other family members headed up the gathering in Jerusalem. Up until the Bar Kochva revolt in 132-135 A.D. the head authority in Jerusalem was always a Jewish believer. The fact that James was head of the church and not just one of the disciples like Peter suggests to me that the early believers understood that a national government was due to be inaugurated shortly under the Messiah.
Now fast forward to Nicaea. The Council was chaired by a pagan emperor wielding political power backed up by military force. Approximately 15% of church bishops attended the council meetings. None of the attendees was Jewish. By this point in time Jews were seen as “perfidious”. So again I ask…on what basis do any of these councils have overarching authority, not just to dictate rules for their own adherents but prescribe behavior for all of Christendom… backed by sanctions up to and including death. Other than self-endorsement, how do these men speak for all believers, not just themselves? To me this is a legitimate question. Raymond Brown the Catholic theologian writing about the deity of Jesus claimed it was settled at Nicaea. If one accepts the foundational authority of the church as expressed through its councils then I guess his position makes sense. What if one does not accept that authority?
Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 writes to the leadership of the Corinthian church with clear direction to expel a member living in incest. That was a capital crime in ancient Israel (see Lev 18:8 and Deut 27:20) Paul does not call for the individual to be stoned, but rather excluded from the assembly (ecclesia). We like Paul do not live under a theocracy. We do not issue death sentences to Law-breakers or heretics but there are many, many, believers who later died at the hands of the church apart from pagan Rome. For example John Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake (with green wood no less) not because he was preaching blasphemy in Geneva but simply was caught passing through the town. I guess I would have to ask “By what divine authority do these people torture and kill”.
So finally my question…. how do we know that God Almighty sanctioned the findings of Nicaea and for that matter the other Gentile church councils which were deemed to apply to everybody?
I close with a little story. Years ago I chaired a group that advocated for social services equity in our region. The group had experts on it from various community agencies but NO legal status. What we did was delegate the key stake holders in the area (school boards, police, city councils, United Way etc). We asked for their endorsement of our findings and report. Then we published and distributed widely our final report. On the cover page was a long list of all the key power groups in the community, explicitly referencing their endorsement and support. Doors opened before our eyes. Audiences were granted, not on the basis of defined power but rather the perception of power… a political exercise that was very effective. So is it not possible that church councils did the same thing? They hyped their conclusions and sought enforcement power of the civil authority to constrain (then eliminate) opposition. For hundreds of years in England there were laws on the books that denial of the Trinity doctrine was considered blasphemy worthy of death by execution. No wonder the crown and pulpit work so closely together.
HSB,
Of course we can disagree and still respect each other. I usually learn something either in these exchanges, or as a result of doing further research to respond.
I don’t find your position that James was the leader of the entire ekklēsia persuasive. Yes, he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Yes, his voice was the final one to speak at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. But, this latter point does not establish him in superior rank over the others. In fact, Galatians 2:19 states, “James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars”, implying that James was on equal status with the other two. Surely, if James were reputed to be the leader, then Paul would have stated something to that effect.
The fact that the Jewish Bishopric at Jerusalem ceased after Judas of Jerusalem actually hurts your cause. With no Jewish leadership, then what? And I don’t find evidence that all these Jewish Bishops were, in fact, kin to the Davidic line. This line was broken at Justus, ca. 107–113. In any case, there is no evidence prior or subsequent to the Bar Kochba revolt that the Jerusalem see had preeminence over any of the other sees, any more than there’s evidence that Rome (RCC’s claim) or Alexandria (per the EO) had preeminence over the others. The data points to equal authority with no clearly leading see.
Had James not accepted Jesus’ Messiahship, then he would not have been designated the Bishop of Jerusalem in the first place. Belief in the Messiah defined followers of “The Way”. Recall Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:48-49.
I also don’t agree that the arrival of the Messiah rendered the Sanhedrin illegitimate. Jesus instructed others to obey their leadership (‘do as they say, not as they do’). He was critical of them only insofar as they were hypocrites.
Going back to your earlier statements regarding Arius, as I’m sure you know, the debate was over the words homoousios (same substance/essence) and homoiousios (similar substance/essence), with Arius and his followers aligning with the latter. The difference is one iota (ι, i). You may argue that Nicea 325 was won ‘by might’; however, you must then concede that it was later overturned by might with the help of Arius’ adherents who persuaded Constantius II to their side. They did so by tricking him into ‘agreeing’ that homoousios meant ‘same being’ (a possible understanding, but clearly not what Nicene 325 meant), which would amount to Sabellianism, aka Modalism—that the Father and Son were identical.
I’ll end with a ‘fun fact’. Notice in the first link I provided in my May 26, 2019 5:16 pm comment a reference to “Alexander the Pope”. See the footnote:
The Greek word for “father” is παππας, pappas, yet the word we translate as “pope” is the Latinized παπας, papas, dropping one of the “p”s. This word was first used by Bishop Dionysus of Alexandria to his predecessor Heraclas. The word was used here as a term of respect to one’s elder or teacher. After being used of Bishops and Abbots generally, it began to be used of certain Bishops (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Rome). But it wasn’t until the 6th century that Rome claimed the term as their own. So much for Rome’s “Apostolic Succession” of “Popes”.
The first definition above (in the blockquotes) likely follows the Jewish tradition that teachers of the Law ‘beget’ their students: “He who teaches the son of his neighbour the Torah, Scripture ascribes it to him as if he had begotten him…” (See Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, folia 19b [para 11], as found here: come-and-hear dot com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_19.html | also see Galatians 4:19).
HSB,
Now let me address some other points you raise in your most recent comment. The number of attendees at Nicaea is uncertain, but reportedly between 220 and 325. I cannot speak one way or the other as to why there may not have been Jewish attendees, except to ask this question: Were there any Jews in leadership? We know that even in Jerusalem there no longer Jewish Bishops after Bar Kochba, e.g. But, most certainly, there were Jewish ‘Christians’ at the time of Nicea. Then again, if we are uncertain of the number of attendees, how can we know for sure if there were no Jews?
Brown’s assertion that the deity of Christ was settled at Nicaea needn’t mean that Christ was not deemed to be deity in some sense prior to this. As I illustrated above, even Arius believed the Son to be God in some sense, just not on equal terms as the Father—in other words, subordinationism of some sort. I’d posted elsewhere quotes from Celsus, indicating that he thought it strange that Christians construed Jesus as God. Then there’s Irenaeus, Sabellius (though he had a wrong conception), etc. who had affirmed Christ’s deity. The question at Nicaea was strictly between the Arian view and the Trinitarian view.
While one may argue that this whole idea of assigning some sort of ontological notion to God is wrongheaded, this is shortsighted. Even in John’s first epistle we find the author defending against a distorted Christology. This, of course, continued into the 2nd century with Gnosticism and associated heresies (yes, heresies, for they were clearly anti-Biblical, partly because of a faulty cosmology). So it was not unimportant to determine just who Christ was/is. Irenaeus was one of the first apologists in this regard. And with a quest to determine just who Christ was/is, it followed that some sort of ontological understanding of God the Father would have to be put forth.
Of course I don’t condone the murderous and torturous actions of anyone. But, what are we to make of Moses killing the Egyptian? He was even forbidden to enter the Promised Land over disobedience. Why would we follow a man like that? Yet, he made it into the book of Hebrews ‘hall of fame’ (“By faith Moses…”). The same with King David. David not only committed adultery with the wife of one his very best warriors, he sent this warrior to certain death in an attempt to cover his sin.
I share your concerns about theocratic notions. Conversion by coercion will never work.
Craig/HSB, thanks both for very well presented, lucid, cogent treatises. Have either of you read Michael Wyschogrod’s Abraham’s Promise – Jewish and Jewish-Christian Relations edited by Kendall Soulen?
A few comments by reviewers;- Wyschogrod’s writing is clear and engaging, while his arguments are exciting and persuasive. He argues (among many things) for the centrality of Israel’s election for Jewish identity, for a Catholic cardinal keeping Torah, and why Christianity and Karl Barth are interesting to him as a Jew. Soulen’s introductory essay is a solid piece of writing in its own right and will certainly whet your appetite.
Wyschogrod’s essays range widely over a variety of important Jewish topics. While he often takes positions which are sharply different from most other contemporary Jewish thinkers, his ideas all well thought out and argued intelligently. He is one of the most profound Jewish thinkers of our time.
Wyschogrod helps to shed important light on what it means to be an Orthodox Jew. While this book is not for everyone, those who seek a deeper appreciation for the potential for healing amongst the people of the God of Israel will truly appreciate Wyschogrod’s insights.
I would love to hear your response if/when you do. Thanks for all your input over the years.
George: thank you for the Wyschogrod recommendation. I have purchased the Kindle version for some good reading.
re: May 28 2:36pm
Craig: a few follow up comments. I just think it was bizarre for a meeting of bishops to be chaired by the pagan emperor of the day. Constantine called the Jews “perfidious”. Would you have attended Nicaea as a Jewish bishop? By 325 A.D. the split had basically already occurred anyway between Jews and Gentiles. The “deity” of Messiah would have been a non-starter in a conclave of Jewish believers in my opinion. About the ‘monogenes theos’ possibility of John 1:18 I suspect Thayer was right in his statement about Theos S2316 “Hebraistically, equivalent to God’s representative or viceregent,”
Regarding James (the brother, not the apostle) there is no indication he was even a believer before Jesus met with him after his own resurrection. Talk about shooting for the top… James laps all the disciples who spent years with Jesus including his closest associates Peter and John. He is clearly leading the ecclesia in Jerusalem in Acts 15 as the final one to speak definitively. Notice the name order. In introductions the most significant goes first… James outranks Peter and John in Galatians 2:9 (I think that is what you meant in your reference to Gal 2:19), he does not have equal status with them. See also Gal. 2:12 re men coming “from James”. Why does this matter? I think it reveals the fact the disciples believed in a physical kingdom (just like Daniel 7 indicated would come) with a physical Messiah (Jesus) ruling over it. In his absence the next in line to the throne of Israel was in fact James. Alas the Messiah did not return to Jerusalem and the hope of the restoration of the kingdom faded. I believe this Jerusalem Council had legitimate authority to rule unlike the fake religious leadership of the day. I say fake because the rulers were illegitimate, stooges of the Romans to whom they paid large bribes.
I liked your comment about teachers of the Law “begetting” their students.
Finally a word about authority. You mention Moses and David. Both of these individuals were selected and approved by God. In David’s case he was anointed by Samuel. I just don’t think Constantine was in the same league, although he no doubt impressed the good folks at Nicaea.
I leave you with a question. If in John 20:28 “Theos (2316) mou” out of Thomas’ mouth means Jesus is the God of Thomas, what does “Theon (2316) mou” mean out of Jesus’ mouth earlier in the same chapter in John 20:17? Jesus had already referred to “Patera mou” in the same verse…so the reference to Theos does not simply mean Father. If Jesus is actually God… then is he talking about going to himself?
HSB,
I concur that James only became a believer post-Resurrection. But keep in mind that the Jerusalem Council took place ca. 50AD, ~17 years after the Resurrection. Thus, when you consider those intervening years and you factor in that James grew up with Jesus as His brother, the appointment to Bishop of Jerusalem does not seem odd. We’ll just have to agree to disagree regarding whether James’ final statement at that first council indicated his superior rank over the entire ekklēsia, as opposed to Jerusalem solely.
Also recall that the book of James is specifically written to the scattered twelve tribes, i.e., it is written exclusively to Jewish believers in Messiah (James 2:1). Comparatively, Paul became the apostle to the gentiles. They each had a different focus.
While Constantine convened Nicaea—at the urging of other Bishops—he did not preside over it. This is an important distinction. In fact, Constantine didn’t even arrive until three weeks after proceedings had begun, and he didn’t make any rulings, which were done by consensus of the attendees—the ekklēsia—which included staunch supporter of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia.
Take a closer look at Thayer. Under 4 is this definition: “Theos is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way:” And under this are subcategories, the first of which is the one you cite:
Note that this is a reference to John 10:34, a paraphrase of Psalm 82:6, in which that context is most certainly about the of use “gods” as YHWH’s agents. More importantly, note that this is the ONLY NT reference Thayer applies to this subcategory to (though there are four additional refs in Philo cited). Observe also that there are two further subcategories—of the devil (2 Cor 4:4), and “whose god is their belly” (Phil 3:19).
This ‘vicegerent’ definition is a non-starter for John 1:18. There monogenēs theos could be (a) “‘only-begotten/unique in kind’, God” (the two terms in apposition), or (b) “‘only-begotten/unique in kind’ God” (monogenēs as adjective modifying “God”), or perhaps (c) “God the ‘only-begotten/unique in kind’”. Item (c) is not likely, for this does not fit the pattern used elsewhere in Scripture. So, it’s either (a) or (b). Arius obviously knew this, as he also called the Son “Mighty God” (ἰσχυρὸς Θεὸς, ischuros theos)—in this case, an adjective modifying the noun.
You wrote, “…If Jesus is actually God… then is he talking about going to himself?” in relation to John 20:17. This is not much different than His cry on the cross. The answer is what is understood as the hypostatic union in Christianity; but, I don’t wish to go any further afield than we already are. We both know we are not going to agree on this anyway, so any discussion in this vein will be unfruitful.
I’m sticking to the music. “You might not see him in person but he’ll see you just the same. You don’t have to worry ‘cause takin’ care of business is his name.” Good one Skip. Always appreciated your taste in music. Work some Aretha into a post one of these days, eh?
Wow good morning Skip you really hit some buttons there for me a reminder of just how far we’ve drifted and had to come back it’s ironic that I still hold some of those views not very tightly but they resurrect them selves a few of the people that I keep in touch with from time to time hold tenaciously to that very DOGMA my guardian angel this morning reminded me we are not to make decisions independently she is a blessing she is a gift she is corrector she’s my fishing buddy too Shabbat shalom to you all
Can I get a witness? Here is a summary of what happens when Hebraic based practice is rejected
May 22, 2019
Deception Is A Pandemic Spiritual Cancer (Part 1)
Dear Friends in Christ Jesus,
We’ll soon be uploading to Youtube the next set of videos in our series, Mutually Serving Jesus Your Lord With Resolute Determination. In this next set we discuss two Bible-based imperatives which represent the distinctiveness between a person our Lord Jesus calls His own, and those who call themselves “Christian” but are in fact “lord” of themselves:
•Biblical authority and the responsible Christ-like exercise of it.
•Biblical deference and the Christ-like humility it entails.
As we’ve served our Lord Jesus for over four decades, one of the greatest voids we’ve observed within contemporary Christianity is the biblical enactment of godly authority along with the humility that’s demonstrated in appropriate deference.
Please consider this. If your marriage or the marriages of others who are close to you have been routinely plagued by ongoing apprehension or relational discord, we strongly encourage you to prayerfully take to heart what we’ll be discussing in these upcoming videos. Authority and deference are paramount Scriptural foundations for both a family and a fellowship family. So few self-identified “Christians” today have any idea what righteous authority and readily given deference are, and that our Lord’s Kingdom entails both of these components. Therefore they aren’t aware of the consequences in their lives that come from not knowing these components and incorporating them into their character. It’s vital for you that if you’re living by grace in the Lordship of Jesus, you must understand God’s purpose for authority and the depth of humility which authentic deference requires. These two distinctives which are so absent these days are essential Kingdom ingredients!
You may not have ever served in the military, worked as a police officer or firefighter, or been involved in any other occupation in which immediate obedience to authority with a deferential attitude is absolutely necessary. But our Father still purposes that you practice a Bible-based lifestyle that emanates from these two distinctives. Being transformed in these areas of Christ-like character means you’ll need to die to many of your own self-determined, self-willed motivations and attitudes.
The Kingdom of our Lord isn’t built on the loosey goosey view that dominates so much of Christianity today: “I’m okay; your okay. Let’s just all get along.” “If you don’t correct or admonish me, I won’t correct or admonish you.” “Live and let live. After all, God accepts everyone just the way they are.” In previous materials we described authority as the God-given responsibility to commend or correct, to include or exclude. To have the loving courage to exclude or correct someone means that you understand our Father’s righteous standards and, if you’re the person in your family or faith family to whom God has entrusted this authority, you are prepared to put His standards into practice. On the receiving end, if you’re yearning to become more like Jesus in your character, you can’t try to avoid being corrected when it’s necessary.
Our society is filled with the stench of chaos as each person does what they consider their right, regardless of the impact or effect on others. That’s lawlessness, a condition which defies God and snubs His righteous standards. No one is willing for anyone else to tell them what to do. And this “lawless” rationale has infected many within Christendom too. Loosey goosey “Christians” fear the exercise of biblical authority, such as through parents, bosses, elders, and public service officials. They especially despise being corrected or excluded by those who’ve been given that authority according to God’s Word.
Many have slipped deeply into insolence, insubordination and rebellion — but are blinded to that influence in their own attitudes and behavior. They’re obsessed with the quest to be accepted by others at all costs. You’ve seen this yourself. Agreeable (though “plastic”) smiles gain you acceptance among other Christians who have neither the time nor the inclination to come alongside you in your time of need. And behind the smile is someone seeking “likes” even from people with whom they have no personal relationship. Mike and Sue Dowgicwics
Misrepresenting a position with straw man arguments is akin to burning a competitor’s mascot in effigy thinking that you actually destroyed the competition in reality.
Copied from the Patrickschreiner link (thank you, Craig):
“The fundamental problem with “solo” Scriptura is that it results in autonomy. It results in final authority being placed somewhere other than the Word of God. It shares this problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine. The only difference is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final authority in the church while “solo” Scriptura places final authority in each individual believer. Every doctrine and practice is measured against a final standard, and that final standard is the individual’s personal judgment of what is and is not biblical. The result is subjectivism and relativism. The reformers’ appeal to “Scripture alone,” however, was never intended to mean “me alone.”
The fight must be fought on two fronts. We are not only to reject the Roman Catholic doctrine (whether the two-source doctrine of Tradition 2 or the sola ecclesia doctrine of Tradition 3), which places final autonomous authority in the church. We must also reject the revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura, which places final autonomous authority in the hands of each and every individual.”
I have noticed that both ‘sides’ share a premise: that of fighting over WHO ‘gets’ “autonomous authority”. Also notice that, even though scripture is being used to establish said ‘authority’, at the end of the day, that authority actually ends up in either the hands of the church or the individual. This is such a classic dialectic. Because both sides share an invalid premise (that someone other than scripture can ‘have’ the authority that only scripture actually comes with) they have a platform to ‘share’ a fight. Why should we be sucked into this fight?
Craig, I will have to say this is one of the better exposes of the problem of the dialectic that I have ever seen. If we are sucked into tilting at windmills just because someone else is, we have to concede not only the ‘existence’ of said windmill, we have to use the same ‘weapons’. I think the main problem with arguing with problems (Greek response to dealing with them) is that, by themselves, they tend to die a lonely, illegitimate death, but if an opponent happens to think the subject valid enough to show up, voila! the windmill really DOES exist! We have just allowed the opponent to define the terms. Let the tempest in the teacup games begin!
Shouldn’t we be more concerned with redefining the terms? There is a reason no argument exists in nature: no ‘survival of the fittest’: no competition (covetousness) either. It is because, fitted correctly in with all other life, each piece fills a unique niche. I think problems show up precisely where “trespassing”, or, overlapping of niches, occurs. Simply put, we end up with problems in places where things are out of their correct placing. I have found that if we go to the effort to put them back in their proper place (terms), the ‘problems’ tend to go away.
Sorry, Socrates. I am finding that I am not inclined to argue as much these days. (Well, except in terms of formal logic, anyway, where I find “argument” used as a tool to figure out truth: not a way to just ‘prove’ a position ‘wrong’ or ‘right’.) If we put the premise of authority back where it really belongs – with the Word of God – the whole argument evaporates.
Laurita,
A while ago I had a fruitful back-and-forth discussion with a Roman Catholic on a blog. I respected her position and the way she typically interacted with others in defending her various stances (most unrelated to the RCC, as that blog discusses primarily the New Age Movement and related socio-political issues). In the ensuing conversation, both of us—me as a quasi-Protestant (I’m not protesting!) and she the RCC adherent—inadvertently misrepresented each other’s positions. As we progressed, each better understood the other. She intially incorrectly understood the Reformed position to be “solo” Scriptura. I provided a link to Mathison’s article to correct that misconception.
But one point she made remains valid. The position of “Scripture alone” still requires proper interpretation of the Scriptures. She, of course, claimed the RCC’s “Tradition” was that authority. Further, her claim was that Scripture and “Tradition” were equal in authority in the RCC, and that “Tradition” never contradicts Scripture; however, in practice this is just not the case, given the myriad anti-Biblical teachings (Immaculate Conception, e.g.). The Reformers accepted the tradition of the early church councils as proper Scripture interpretation. They also understood that there is progressive revelation, in the sense that further developments, e.g., archaeological digs that clarify a position (whether it be physical artifacts or NT manuscripts), become part of “authority”.
Just a minor correction: your quotation is from the bible-researcher link (the first one) instead of Schreiner. I can no longer find Keith A. Mathison’s original post (he may have taken it down since he published a full-length book dealing with these issues), but the bible-researcher link is an exact copy (I’m reasonably sure) of the original. Having stated this, let me quote from the Schreiner link (not sure what the original source is, though he mentions Timothy Ward [which work?]):
But, again, we come against this requirement for proper Scripture interpretation. I understand most here would reject the early church councils. Fair enough. But, do we align ourselves with Hillel or Shammai? The Palestinian Talmud or the Babylonian Talmud? The Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Reform movements of Judaism?
You wrote: I think the main problem with arguing with problems (Greek response to dealing with them) is that, by themselves, they tend to die a lonely, illegitimate death…
I’m not clear what you mean here by ‘arguing with problems’. Also, I’m not clear on what a Hebraic argument (over against a Greek one) would be in the context of the information supplied at that link.
Craig, I respect you and am thankful to you a whole lot. You drip study!
I was, um, well, ‘protesting’ the same thing you were, I think: i.e. fighting “straw men”. This should not be a problem!
I have a fav uncle who was ousted out of the church and also out of teaching at one of its colleges for just such a thing. I am currently reading his heartbreaking account (book) of what happened. It is so very sad. In the hubris of setting up “traditions of men” ON BOTH SIDES, what was entirely lacking was love. In all of it, no one was loving or getting loved.
I want to ask: “where’s the love?” Love IS the only authority. Somewhere in the traditions of men, love silently slips away.
Assuming your uncle was ‘guilty’ of some minor deviation–and that is my assumption–this is the sort of thing that really angers me (and see my response to HSB @ May 24, 2019 6:10 pm above). The way I see it, any sort of excommunication must be over something very extreme, using the example put forth by Paul in 1 Cor 5.
However, a caveat: if one is teaching at a given church or college, and the church or college specifically enumerates a statement of beliefs that one must abide by, then the teacher should agree with and abide by them. If, in good conscience, the teacher cannot, then the teacher should either not promote his/her variant belief (omit that part) or the teacher should go elsewhere.
With all due respect, I wasn’t aware that properly ordained order was in question, here. What I see in question is on what authority does that order operate? It is possible to do all the right things for all the wrong reasons/motivations/beliefs. Authority is about what is backing those decisions. I think my uncle got caught up in a row over what (man-made) authority was ‘right’. In those fights, both sides are going to be wrong. I have seen that you can usually expect to find the problem further up the creek than where it breaks out. Authority is not established by might, after all: even the might of ‘proper’ order. I say let God be true and let all the rest of us liars learn how to let Him (and each other while we are at it)!
Shabbat Shalom!
Good morning Craig I am still slow to hear ?what are you referring to?
Baruch,
Thanks for your question. I appreciate that you did not merely assume what I meant by this–thereby possibly erecting a straw man–but that you asked for clarification. It is related to my earlier comment @ May 24, 2019 6:44 am. My main reason for posting that comment was to illustrate the position of Luther. Those who read the first link will see that Luther did not adhere to what Mathison calls “solo” Scriptura, but that he accepted a tradition begun by early church writers (“Fathers”–I despise that term) and the early church ecumenical councils. Implicit here is that, given Luther’s position of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), then he would scarcely ignore the teachings in 1 Timothy, e.g., about ecclesiastical authority. Thus, my point was this TW misrepresents Luther’s position on the priesthood of all believers as that of “solo” Scriptura (the individual, his/her Bible, and the Spirit). See here:
tifwe dot org/resource/the-priesthood-of-all-believers/
I think criticism of anything is valid–as long as the position criticized is correctly put forth in the discussion. Straw man arguments are not valid criticism because they do not accurately represent the other position.
“..All the rest is still in process…” Indeed, What do I know? And how is it I know what I know? I’m certain I’m limited in my understanding, and this I know, because my experience keeps reinforcing that “knowledge”. Does the biblical text depict a collection of persons seeking a story?… or is it a phenomenal story having its origin in the spiritual realm seeking a collection of characters? How can we know?
The ultimate answer for each of us centers on one principal character—the Nazarene called Yeshua (Jesus). His question, posed to Peter, defines what ultimately brings each of us to that final answer; it is, “Who do you say that I am? I know what I say.
The word for “priest” (ἱερεύς, hiereus) is a term used for cultic (religious) worship in the NT. It is never used to apply to leaders in Yeshua’s ekklēsia, but is used for Jewish priests and Jewish “high priests” (archiereus), as well as Jesus as “high priest” post-glorification. Paul never uses the term. See my comment to HSB @ May 24, 2019 6:10 pm for the terms used for leadership of the ekklēsia that Messiah built.
The verb form (hierateuō) is used only once, and it is applied to Zechariah (Luke 1:8). There is an alternate noun form (hierateia), “priesthood”, used once for Zechariah (Luke 1:9) and once for Levitical priests in general (Heb 7:5). The “priesthood” (hierateuma) of this TW is only found in 1 Peter 2:5, 9. More on this usage below.
“High priest” (archiereus) is used 119 times in the NT, 102 of which are found in the Gospels and Acts in reference to Jewish high priests. It is found 3 more times in Hebrews (9:7, 25; 13:11) referring to Jewish high priests, mostly contrasted with the remaining 14 times referring to Yeshua (2:17; 3:1; 4:14, 15; 5:1, 5, 10; 6:20; 7:26, 27, 28; 8:1, 3; 9:11), who is the “mediator of a new covenant (Heb 9:15).
“Priest” (hiereus) is found 31 times in the NT. 13 of these refer to Jews in the Gospels and Acts, though 1 in Acts refers to a priest for Zeus (14:13). A further 7 of these refer to Aaronic or Levitical priests (Heb 7:11, 14, 20, 23; 8:4; 9:6; 10:11), most of which are in contrast with the 7 times it refers to Christ as priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:6; 7:1, 3, 15, 17, 21; 10:21). The remaining 3 instances reference Yeshua followers serving as priests serving God (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). The latter should be understood as the meaning undergirding the usage in 1 Peter 2:5 (“holy priesthood”) and 2:9 (“royal priesthood”), though the context makes that pretty clear.
Luther did not denounce leadership in a general sense with his affirmation of “the priesthood of all believers”. His main point was to assert that believers have direct access to God through Christ as per Scripture, as opposed to through an intermediary—the Roman Catholic ‘priest’.
Craig thank you for the well researched and explained referencing to priest as office rather than as anointed…
An anointed priest then seems to be an individual who trusts only in God for anointing as either apostle, prophet, evangelist, Shepherd or teacher as all these functions are to direct, keep and equip God’s children in the ways of the Father.
Any other role they claim outside the anointing seem then to be self empowerment and not of God’s anointing. The only way we will now is through the anointing that flows through the so called priest. If there is a super nature saving anointing then this is most likely from God if there is a cognitive mutual agreement on the anointing it then seems to become questionable… Not a very easy task for a true believer to determine. But as Yeshua said trust in God but also trust in me…
Another question I have been wondering about… What is the difference between a priest through study and a priest through commitment? If I understand they are both self choices as God’s calling is like we read of with Amos and the other priest… Selected in NT by the Holy Spirit after the gathering has ‘stayed in Jerusalem until empowered by the holy spirit’… Which Jerusalem would this be. North Africa or place of peace and separation as explained in the OT 40 days trusting solely on God… Sorry even Yeshua underwent this preparation.
Then what is we have gained access to the apostleship and all become priests of God as Paul explained in his letters?
Too many head questions while God desires obedience and commitment…
But the priests in the Tanakh were anointed (see e.g., Lev 4:5), and NT believers are anointed by the Spirit. Jewish priests were physically anointed, while NT believers are spiritually anointed. That’s not to say YHWH did not approve of the priests in the Tanakh and did not place His anointing upon them. However, in the NT, with the example of Pentecost in Acts 2, there came a new age of the Spirit, which replaced the presence of Yeshua (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:7).
True Craig. Are all believers then priests. Do all believers have the spiritual gifts or are they given according to faith..
See I Cor 12:11.
So we seem to agree that God or the spirit anoints as it deems fit. It is for the anointed then to prove anointment not for the audience to accept it as a given by virtue of position or responsibilities…
Though job to do as a priest I read of responsibilities. For deacon a few, for bishop or overseer or Shepherd a different functioning… Let’s leave it there as again it is mainly Paul writing on these gifts the other apostles seemed not to concerned… Or maybe did not deem them anything more than the result of how people understood their teachings.
Greetings to all. The abuses of authority and the errors of officials or servants of the Lord, have been in all ages. The principles and values for the one and the others are clearly defined in the scriptures. Abraham, Joseph, Job, Moses, Eli, Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ himself were in some respects priests and in other respects leaders.