If I show you that many of the things in modern day churches are traditional and based on the commandments of men, and that God does have guidelines on how a church should be, would you believe it? If I showed you from Scripture how a New Testament Church ought to be, would you believe God and the Scriptures, or would you say, (1)" Well, that's the way it's always been done down through history, and (2) everybody today does it that way?" Or, you might even say, (3)"Well, I will agree that that was the way the early church was, but today in our modern times, churches have to be different." Then what you are really saying is that God gave guidelines for the early church, but He didn't understand then how things were going to be different today in modern times. But, God does not change. He is the same in the past, today, and will be the same in the future concerning any specific topic. I believe that if He said in His word that churches ought to run a certain way during that time, then they ought to follow the same guidelines today. Has God changed His mind and given us new orders? No, His Word has not changed. Men are the ones who change.
Today, Churches have more money, resources, programs, and trained people than ever before, but do they have God? Is God moving in the churches today? No! Why? Because they do not follow the Word of God. That is why most churches are carnal today. You say it is because of sin. That's is true, but sinful living is the result of not following God's Word
Please ask God to help you. "Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths . Lead me in thy truth, and teach me." Ps 25:4-5.
Please Note: In this exercise it may appear that I am picking on certain denominations, such as the Baptist, but I use them only as an example because having been a member of the Baptist denomination for 27 years, I am more familiar with them than the others. So, my statements are not to be applied only to the Baptist denomination, but to all denominations in general. Furthermore, my opposition is not against the Baptist people or the people of any denomination, but the denominational system itself.
WHAT IS THE CHURCH?
What do we mean by the word "church"? The word "church" comes from the Greek word "ekklesia" which means "called out ones" or "assembly". It means any assembly, or in our case, a Christian assembly that meets together to worship the Lord. But, most people today think that the church is the building, or the organization. However, Jesus did not die for a building, a program, or an organization; He died for people. Saved people are the church. It's all right to have a building the church meets in, and people should be organized, but don't be deceived. That's not the church. No, the saved people are the church. "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Eph 5:25. "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, TO THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints,....." (1Cor 1:2). He wrote to the church or to people that were sanctified.
Interesting Note:
Have you ever heard someone say, "Come visit my church", or "May I come to your church?", or "This is our church."? Common language, right? Let me show you how off base we are on this. The word "church" is mentioned 79 times, and the word "churches" 36 times in the Bible, all in the New Testament, and not one time is it "your" church, "my" church, "our" church, and so on. You see, it is not yours or mine, or ours. It is His church. He died for it, purchased it, and it is His body. Following are the words that come before "church" and "churches" in the Bible. (Not one time will you find a personal pronoun before "church" or "churches," except in Matt 16:18 when Jesus says "upon this rock I will build MY church".)
So, you see, not one time in 115 verses that the word "church" or "churches" is mentioned, will you find a personal pronoun "you," "me," "our," "their", etc. before the word church or churches. This means It is not "your" church, "my" church, or "our" church. It is HIS church. It's HIS body. Any adjectives or prepositional phrases before "church" or "churches" indicate that it belongs to Him. God doesn't miss anything or He doesn't get anything wrong. He is very consistent. It is "you", "I", and "others" that get off track.
Local Church or Universal Church?
I know there is a great debate about the term church today, whether it is local or universal. Both sides have a good argument, and verses that support each. Since there are verses for both, then I personally believe that they both are true. For example, you can speak of McDonalds as a local restaurant in town or you can speak of McDonalds as a large organization. Likewise, when the Bible speaks of a church in a particular area, it is referring to a local church. At other times when it refers to the church as a whole, such as "…even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (Eph. 5:25). The word church here is a collective noun, which covers all saved people. Also, Eph 4:3 indicates that the church is one body, not several. "There is ONE BODY, and one Spirit…one Lord…" The universal church began at Pentecost and will end at the Rapture when Christ takes it up. But, only God can see the universal church, or the Body of Christ. But, there are numerous verses in the Bible that refer to a specific church in a specific location, and that is a local church.
TRADITIONS IN THE LOCAL CHURCH
What about traditions in the church? First, let's see what Jesus had to say to the religious men of his day concerning traditions. Although many traditions are harmless, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for teaching traditions and commandments of men for doctrine of the Bible. "But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men". (Matt. 15:9) The Pharisees were teaching tradition and commandments of men as doctrine. Nobody argued with them about it, except Jesus. Most people accepted it at that time because they were the religious leaders and probably thought, "Well, that's the way it has always been done, and everybody does it that way."
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees over such things as washing hands (ceremonially) before eating, and not doing anything, (even good things) on the Sabbath day, and so on. It's all right to wash your hands before eating and to not do anything on the Sabbath, but they were teaching it as doctrine. That is what Jesus condemned. Matt 15:9 "But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.", and also in Mark 7:8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." Jesus hated this and he condemned it as hypocrisy; because they made people believe these things were God's will, when He never did say in Scripture that they were. Many of these things were added as doctrine and nowhere found in Scripture (such as the washings). Others such as the Sabbath laws were twisted and taken out of context from the Scriptures. Both were being taught as God's doctrine, and so were "many other such like things" they did.
You may feel that there is no problem having traditions in the church. That's true. God is not against having traditional elements in the church, such as homecoming meetings, dressing up, men wearing ties, meeting at certain times, and so on, but He is against it if any tradition is taught as doctrine, or something that MUST be done to please God. You see the danger in teaching tradition and commandments of men, as doctrine is that it turns people away from the real truth. "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, THAT TURN FROM THE TRUTH." Titus 1:13. So, when men teach that you must do or not do certain things, and they are not found in Scripture, then it will turn you from the truth.
Be careful to understand that what God does not comment on in Scripture, we have liberty to decide for ourselves. For example, He doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that you must dress up to go to church. So, then God doesn't care one way or another, or He would have told us to or not to. But, if you make it an issue that one is not right with God unless you do, then it becomes a commandment of men and not of God. Thus, obeying or teaching such man-made commands will turn you and others from the truths of the Bible. You are no longer following God’s Word, but you will be wrapped up in following traditions being taught as doctrine. This is what Jesus hated and rebuked.
Another example: What about men wearing a beard or mustache? Does God say in His word that a man should or should not wear a beard or mustache? No command for that. He doesn't say either way, so evidently He doesn't care. So, if a man teaches otherwise, then he is making it a commandment of men, and it will turn people from the truth. If men in a certain church want to wear beards, then fine, wear them. It may be a custom or a tradition, and that's fine, but when somebody says that you should or should not wear a beard because God prefers it that way, then that is a commandment of men, because God never gave any such command in Scripture. So, obeying or teaching traditions and commandments of men (as doctrine) will confuse and hinder you in believing the real truth from the Word of God.
Why don't people just preach the Bible? There are plenty of commands in the Bible without having to make up several of our own, and then trying to pass them off as God's will. Why would anyone want to teach tradition and commandments of men for doctrine? Why do they do it? Well, Jesus told the Pharisees why they were doing it. "Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men". Matt. 15:7-9. Why do they teach commandments of men for doctrine? Look at the verse. It tells why; because "their heart is far from me (God)." Yes, if he teaches non-scriptural commands as doctrine, (as if they were God's commands), then his heart is far from the Lord. He does not love the Lord. Now, I didn't say that. Jesus did. In this verse, Jesus said that if anybody teaches commandments of men as doctrine, they are 1) hypocrites, 2) they worship God in vain, and 3) they do it because their hearts are far from God.
However, on the other hand, Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15. Do you love Jesus? Well, he said if you do, then "keep my commandments". Keep the commandments of Jesus. Not the preacher's commandments, not my commandments, not your commandments, not the church's commandments, but HIS commandments. Keep the commandments of Jesus. How do you know if a man loves the Lord? Check and see what he teaches. If he loves the Lord, he will keep the commandments of Jesus, and will teach and practice that which is clearly backed up by Scriptural commands. However, if he does not love the Lord, he will teach traditions, man's commandments, and his opinions to make them appear as God's will. He may even twist a few Scriptures to make them appear from the Bible. If he teaches that God prefers you not to wear a beard, or that God would rather you dress up for church, and you have to do this or do that, and it is not from the Bible, then you better be careful. He better have Scripture to back up those kinds of statements, or he is admitting that his heart is far from the Lord.
How dare anyone tell someone, especially a young Christian, to do or not to do something to please God, if he doesn't have any Scripture to show him that it is or isn't God's will. Now, let's face it, we just don't think it's very serious to follow this rule, but Jesus called these men who didn't, hypocrites, and said that their hearts were far from God, and that they worshipped him in vain. It's a whole lot more important than you might think.
Traditions and commandments of men being taught as doctrine is what put the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. So, don't tell me that it isn't all that important. The religion of that day is what drove the nails through the hands of the Son of God. Yes, in God's redemptive plan, I know that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world by going to the cross. It was your sins and my sins that put him on the cross. But, what were the specific sins that actually led Jesus to be crucified on that cross? They were the religious sins of that day that nailed him to the cross. What were these religious sins? The teaching of tradions and commandments of men as doctrine.
In John 5:18, it says, "therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, not only had he broken the Sabbath day, but also said that God was his father." Jesus didn't break the Sabbath, but broke some of their regulations and commandments they had added to it.
But, not only commandments of men, but Jesus spoke out against their traditions that were being taught as doctrine. Jesus said in Mark 7:13, "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." Here they were teaching one of their traditions called "Corban" which meant their money was dedicated to God, so they could not help their parents when their parents needed help. Anytime Jesus spoke out or did something that broke up their religious traditions, the religious leaders got together, and they became so angry that they wanted to kill Jesus, and later they did, by nailing him to the cross.
So, don't tell me that it's not all that important. Don't tell me that the teaching of traditions and commandments of men as doctrine is not all that important, that it's not all that bad. Yes it is! It's what nailed Jesus to the cross.
Now, friend, if you are guilty of teaching others that they should obey opinions and commandments of men as if they were God's will, what excuse do you have? I don't care how lightly you look at this, or how well you honor God with your lips. If you do this, you are either lost, or you are vastly backslidden, and you need to get right with God. However, if you are not guilty of this, and you indeed do love the Lord, then you will want to show others how to please the Lord and back it up with Scriptures, so that they may also love the Lord by keeping His commandments.
Most people think just like the people did during the time of the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked. (1) Everybody in our circles does it that way, and (2) It's been done that way down through history by those before us. So, it must be right. But, if the Bible teaches that we should do something or not do something in a certain way, then that is the way we ought to do it regardless of tradition or the way the majority does it. When men disagree with the Bible, God says in Romans 3:4 "yea, let God be true, but every man a liar."
Believe the Word of God, not traditions and commandments of men. So, if God gives certain commands for churches, then we should obey Him, and do it that way, no matter if no one else does it or not. Furthermore, we should not be persuaded by those who say, "that's the way it was for the early church, but it cannot be done that way today in our modern society." No, if God designed it a certain way for the early church, then He still wants it that way today. It worked pretty good back then, and if we follow His plan, it will work today.
So, friend let me ask you, have you been affected by hypocrisy? Do you follow the traditions and commandments of men that are taught as doctrine? Jesus said if you do, then you are being a hypocrite. When men add traditions or commandments of men to it as if it were God's will, then they are leavening the Word of God. Are you feasting on the pure unleavened Bread of God, or are you leavened by all the things that are being added to it? Are you living by the Word of God, or are you living by His Word mixed with traditions and commandments of men?
"Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy" (Luke 12:1). "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col.2:8). "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the COMMANDMENTS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body;" (Col 2:20-23). Friend, are you unleavened, following the pure Word of God, or have you been leavened with hypocrisy based on the traditions and commandments of men taught as doctrine.
What about traditions in the church? First, let's see what Jesus had to say to the religious men of his day concerning traditions. Although many traditions are harmless, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for teaching traditions and commandments of men for doctrine of the Bible. "But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men". (Matt. 15:9) The Pharisees were teaching tradition and commandments of men as doctrine. Nobody argued with them about it, except Jesus. Most people accepted it at that time because they were the religious leaders and probably thought, "Well, that's the way it has always been done, and everybody does it that way."
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees over such things as washing hands (ceremonially) before eating, and not doing anything, (even good things) on the Sabbath day, and so on. It's all right to wash your hands before eating and to not do anything on the Sabbath, but they were teaching it as doctrine. That is what Jesus condemned. Matt 15:9 "But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.", and also in Mark 7:8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." Jesus hated this and he condemned it as hypocrisy; because they made people believe these things were God's will, when He never did say in Scripture that they were. Many of these things were added as doctrine and nowhere found in Scripture (such as the washings). Others such as the Sabbath laws were twisted and taken out of context from the Scriptures. Both were being taught as God's doctrine, and so were "many other such like things" they did.
You may feel that there is no problem having traditions in the church. That's true. God is not against having traditional elements in the church, such as homecoming meetings, dressing up, men wearing ties, meeting at certain times, and so on, but He is against it if any tradition is taught as doctrine, or something that MUST be done to please God. You see the danger in teaching tradition and commandments of men, as doctrine is that it turns people away from the real truth. "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, THAT TURN FROM THE TRUTH." Titus 1:13. So, when men teach that you must do or not do certain things, and they are not found in Scripture, then it will turn you from the truth.
Be careful to understand that what God does not comment on in Scripture, we have liberty to decide for ourselves. For example, He doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that you must dress up to go to church. So, then God doesn't care one way or another, or He would have told us to or not to. But, if you make it an issue that one is not right with God unless you do, then it becomes a commandment of men and not of God. Thus, obeying or teaching such man-made commands will turn you and others from the truths of the Bible. You are no longer following God’s Word, but you will be wrapped up in following traditions being taught as doctrine. This is what Jesus hated and rebuked.
Another example: What about men wearing a beard or mustache? Does God say in His word that a man should or should not wear a beard or mustache? No command for that. He doesn't say either way, so evidently He doesn't care. So, if a man teaches otherwise, then he is making it a commandment of men, and it will turn people from the truth. If men in a certain church want to wear beards, then fine, wear them. It may be a custom or a tradition, and that's fine, but when somebody says that you should or should not wear a beard because God prefers it that way, then that is a commandment of men, because God never gave any such command in Scripture. So, obeying or teaching traditions and commandments of men (as doctrine) will confuse and hinder you in believing the real truth from the Word of God.
Why don't people just preach the Bible? There are plenty of commands in the Bible without having to make up several of our own, and then trying to pass them off as God's will. Why would anyone want to teach tradition and commandments of men for doctrine? Why do they do it? Well, Jesus told the Pharisees why they were doing it. "Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men". Matt. 15:7-9. Why do they teach commandments of men for doctrine? Look at the verse. It tells why; because "their heart is far from me (God)." Yes, if he teaches non-scriptural commands as doctrine, (as if they were God's commands), then his heart is far from the Lord. He does not love the Lord. Now, I didn't say that. Jesus did. In this verse, Jesus said that if anybody teaches commandments of men as doctrine, they are 1) hypocrites, 2) they worship God in vain, and 3) they do it because their hearts are far from God.
However, on the other hand, Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15. Do you love Jesus? Well, he said if you do, then "keep my commandments". Keep the commandments of Jesus. Not the preacher's commandments, not my commandments, not your commandments, not the church's commandments, but HIS commandments. Keep the commandments of Jesus. How do you know if a man loves the Lord? Check and see what he teaches. If he loves the Lord, he will keep the commandments of Jesus, and will teach and practice that which is clearly backed up by Scriptural commands. However, if he does not love the Lord, he will teach traditions, man's commandments, and his opinions to make them appear as God's will. He may even twist a few Scriptures to make them appear from the Bible. If he teaches that God prefers you not to wear a beard, or that God would rather you dress up for church, and you have to do this or do that, and it is not from the Bible, then you better be careful. He better have Scripture to back up those kinds of statements, or he is admitting that his heart is far from the Lord.
How dare anyone tell someone, especially a young Christian, to do or not to do something to please God, if he doesn't have any Scripture to show him that it is or isn't God's will. Now, let's face it, we just don't think it's very serious to follow this rule, but Jesus called these men who didn't, hypocrites, and said that their hearts were far from God, and that they worshipped him in vain. It's a whole lot more important than you might think.
Traditions and commandments of men being taught as doctrine is what put the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. So, don't tell me that it isn't all that important. The religion of that day is what drove the nails through the hands of the Son of God. Yes, in God's redemptive plan, I know that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world by going to the cross. It was your sins and my sins that put him on the cross. But, what were the specific sins that actually led Jesus to be crucified on that cross? They were the religious sins of that day that nailed him to the cross. What were these religious sins? The teaching of tradions and commandments of men as doctrine.
In John 5:18, it says, "therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, not only had he broken the Sabbath day, but also said that God was his father." Jesus didn't break the Sabbath, but broke some of their regulations and commandments they had added to it.
But, not only commandments of men, but Jesus spoke out against their traditions that were being taught as doctrine. Jesus said in Mark 7:13, "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." Here they were teaching one of their traditions called "Corban" which meant their money was dedicated to God, so they could not help their parents when their parents needed help. Anytime Jesus spoke out or did something that broke up their religious traditions, the religious leaders got together, and they became so angry that they wanted to kill Jesus, and later they did, by nailing him to the cross.
So, don't tell me that it's not all that important. Don't tell me that the teaching of traditions and commandments of men as doctrine is not all that important, that it's not all that bad. Yes it is! It's what nailed Jesus to the cross.
Now, friend, if you are guilty of teaching others that they should obey opinions and commandments of men as if they were God's will, what excuse do you have? I don't care how lightly you look at this, or how well you honor God with your lips. If you do this, you are either lost, or you are vastly backslidden, and you need to get right with God. However, if you are not guilty of this, and you indeed do love the Lord, then you will want to show others how to please the Lord and back it up with Scriptures, so that they may also love the Lord by keeping His commandments.
Most people think just like the people did during the time of the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked. (1) Everybody in our circles does it that way, and (2) It's been done that way down through history by those before us. So, it must be right. But, if the Bible teaches that we should do something or not do something in a certain way, then that is the way we ought to do it regardless of tradition or the way the majority does it. When men disagree with the Bible, God says in Romans 3:4 "yea, let God be true, but every man a liar."
Believe the Word of God, not traditions and commandments of men. So, if God gives certain commands for churches, then we should obey Him, and do it that way, no matter if no one else does it or not. Furthermore, we should not be persuaded by those who say, "that's the way it was for the early church, but it cannot be done that way today in our modern society." No, if God designed it a certain way for the early church, then He still wants it that way today. It worked pretty good back then, and if we follow His plan, it will work today.
So, friend let me ask you, have you been affected by hypocrisy? Do you follow the traditions and commandments of men that are taught as doctrine? Jesus said if you do, then you are being a hypocrite. When men add traditions or commandments of men to it as if it were God's will, then they are leavening the Word of God. Are you feasting on the pure unleavened Bread of God, or are you leavened by all the things that are being added to it? Are you living by the Word of God, or are you living by His Word mixed with traditions and commandments of men?
"Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy" (Luke 12:1). "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col.2:8). "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the COMMANDMENTS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body;" (Col 2:20-23). Friend, are you unleavened, following the pure Word of God, or have you been leavened with hypocrisy based on the traditions and commandments of men taught as doctrine.
NAMES AND TITLES IN THE CHURCH
What about names and titles in the church? One big difference between the early New Testament churches and the modern day churches is that none of the churches in the Bible had names, and all the ones I know of today do. You might think, well, that is one of those areas of liberty that I mentioned earlier, that God isn't bothered by it. But, is it? Remember, if God has something to say about it, then we shouldn't take liberties in the matter, but we should do what God says.
Notice that in the Scriptures, Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, or to the church at Ephesians, and so on. Dozens of churches mentioned in the Bible, and it was always to the "saints" at Jerusalem, or to the church of the Thessalonians, or to the brethren at Colossae, etc. Never, was there a name like Grace Baptist Church. Never. You say, " it doesn't make that much of a deal. That's a matter of liberty, and you have to have it that way in modern times." So, God didn't know we were going to be in modern times when the Scriptures were written? Wrong. If He says not to do something, then we shouldn't do it.
In speaking of the church in Matt 18:15-20, Jesus states in verse 20, "For where two or three are gathered together IN MY NAME, there am I in the midst of them." Notice that He says "in my name". Whose name? The Baptist name? The Independent Fundamental Baptist name? Grace Baptist Church name, or whatever the name of your church is? NO. He said "in MY name." In the name of Jesus we are to meet.
"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together,"1 Cor 5:4. Are we to come together in the church in a sectarian name, the name of the church, or the denominational name? Whose name are we to gather? The Bible says, "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." We are to gather in HIS Name.
Col 3:17 says, "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, [do) all IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." This is a command of God written to the church at Colosse that whatever they do, they are to do it in the name of Jesus. "In His name" means in His authority, by His Word. So, are you serving in Jesus' name or are you serving in the name of your church and your denomination? One day you will have some explaining to do.
"And IN HIS NAME shall the Gentiles trust." (Matt 12:21). "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send IN MY NAME, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you"(John 14:26). He will send the Holy Ghost not in the name of the Pentecostals, but in the name of Jesus. "And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call ON THE NAME OF THE LORD shall be saved" (Acts 2:21).
There's just something about that Name. Why then do we want to add other names with it to meet under? You know, I believe it makes God jealous, for He said He is a jealous God. He may even see it as spiritual adultery. Wouldn't you men be jealous if when you married your wife, she didn't want to take on your last name, but wanted to take on another one instead? And it is not much better, as many women do, when they do take your last name, they keep their last name, too. Then they have both names to identify with. No, the correct way is that they lose their last name and identify with you alone, because she becomes part of your body. The husband and wife become one body, one flesh, the Bible says. So, is it with the Lord. He is the head and we are the body. We take upon ourselves His name and we shouldn't be adding other names to it.
Furthermore, the Bible says that those who claim to be of Christ and who identify themselves with other names, are carnal and walking in the flesh. First Corinthians 1:10-13 says, "Now I beseech you, brethren, BY THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; (sects or denominations) but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? (Denominated) Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul"?
We all know that the church at Corinth was very carnal. Paul had to straighten these people out on many things. One problem they had was becoming clickish (divided or denominated), identifying their little clicks with either Paul, Apollos, or Cephas (Peter). Hey, these people were trying to invent the first denominations. Thus, began sectarianism in the church, the beginning of religious sects or subgroups. Some in the church said "I am of Paul," others "I am of Cephas (Peter)". Some "I am of Apollos", and some were correct by saying, "I am of Christ." But many wanted to identify themselves with men rather than Christ. No doubt the reason for them choosing a man to identify with was that the person was probably saved by that particular man's ministry and probably baptized by him. "Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?" Then he said, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:" 1Cor 1:14-17.
Notice that Paul seems to be saying that people that he had personally led to the Lord and baptized were denominating or dividing themselves unto him, as did others with whoever ministered to them. Thus, they wanted to become followers of Paul, and could be called "Paulites". Those who favored Apollo could have been called "Apollites", and those of Peter; "Cephites or Cephists" or whatever you want to call them. Silly you say. Well, no sillier than today. Today, people likewise say, "I am of the Baptist", or "I am of the "Methodist", or "I am of the Catholics", etc. (Did you know that each denomination was started by a man?) Baptist could say that "I am of John Smyth"(first to start a Baptist church), or "we are of John the Baptist"(we can trace ourselves all the way back to John the Baptist).
Furthermore, those of the Baptist sect or denomination might become even more divided or denominated by saying, "I am of the Independent Fundamental Baptist," or "I am of the Southern Baptist," or General Baptist, or Missionary Baptist, or any of dozens of other Baptist groups. Each of these Baptist groups can even further divide or denominate by saying, "I am of Such and Such camp", or "I am of" whatever subgroup or camp one is in. People seem to think that the more they divide, the more spiritual they are, but God says just the opposite; that the more one divides, the more carnal they become. Well, Paul rebuked them for it, and in 1Cor. 3, he says they are carnal because of their divisions and identifications with men. (Please take note that these Corinthians were identifying themselves with good men, such as Paul, Peter, Apollos, etc., but nevertheless, they were rebuked by it, and rebuked for it by those good men.) (Evidently, only bad men or ignorant men would allow men to divide unto them, because it will make them, the followers, carnal).
".....for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not CARNAL, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not CARNAL? 1Cor. 1:1-4. Notice this time he did not include "I of Christ", as he did in 1Cor 1:12-13. Only those who divide over men, Paul, Apollos, and etc. are carnal.)
So, making application to modern time, the Word of God says here in principle, that when you say I am a Baptist, or I am a Methodist, and so on, you are carnal and not spiritual. If you were a spiritual Christian, then you would not say that. When you say "I am a Baptist and proud of it" as I hear many that do, you are carnal. That's not my judgment, but God's. If you divide unto a sectarian name, then you are carnal. God said whatever you do in word or deed, do in his (Jesus) name. Where two or three meet in HIS name (JESUS), he will be in the midst with us. Why do we want to add two or three other names to His name to meet under? This should apply to today's time as it did then.
Why are churches carnal today while the world is going to Hell? They serve in other names along with His name, and become followers of men, and the world knows it. You know that is true. When a Baptist, for example, goes out to witness or visit someone as a prospect, they say, "I am John Doe, from Grace Baptist Church, and I would like to invite you to church. That person usually thinks, "Well, you want to make me a Baptist." I will tell you from experience that it is a lot easier to go out in the Baptist name and invite someone to church, than it is to go in just in Jesus name and say, "I'm a Christian, and I want to talk to you about Christ." They realize then that you are trying to get them to join Jesus and not the Baptist. You know, maybe if you were honest, you would admit that you are a little ashamed of His name, and it's a lot easier to represent or hide behind the Baptist name or the name of your church than Jesus name. Maybe you don't want to be persecuted. He said you would be for his name's sake. "And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my NAME'S sake:" Matt10: 22.
Most people in this country are Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals or whatever. It is easy for anybody to be one of these. But, are they of Jesus? Do they love Jesus? Do they follow Jesus? Do they serve Jesus? When I die, I don't want on my tombstone, "Baptist born and Baptist bred and now I'm finally Baptist dead". No, I want it to say "a servant of the Lord Jesus", or " a follower of the Lord Jesus". Whose name will you serve? In the name of Jesus, or in some man-made denominational name?
You say it is not that big of a deal to add the name Baptist, Methodist (or whatever). Well, if it is not such a big deal, then why not get rid of your secular church name? Well, you won't, which proves it is a much bigger deal than you realize. Let me ask you. Why is this denominational name so important to you? Why will you not fellowship with a person if he is not the same as you? A person might say, "I am not of any denomination. I am just a Christian. I'm saved by grace. I believe the Bible from cover to cover and follow the Lord Jesus." You find out he believes similar to the way you believe. Many would say, "Well, I'm sorry. You're not a Baptist and I can't fellowship with anyone who is not." You see, if you're honest you would admit that you would rather fellowship with a Baptist who differs on Scriptural matters, than you would a person who believes the same Scripturally as you, but is not a Baptist. Denominational church names do mean more than you think. You say, "Well, I identify with Baptist, because it gives me security in what is believed." But, friend I have found out the hard way that all Baptist don't believe the same. Many differ over salvation and many other major doctrines among themselves. Why can't saved people just be Christians and separate from those who believe wrong on Bible doctrines? Let the others make up names for themselves.
You say, "Well, "Christian" is a title. It may have gotten to be that way, but, it was really a descriptive word that was given by their enemies describing those who followed Christ. "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch " The word meant "Christ like". The word was only mentioned 3 times in the Bible. Saved people were most commonly called "saints"(98 times), "brethren"(542 times), "disciples" (259 times), and many other descriptive terms. But nowhere did they take one of these terms and give it to their group as a title to meet under. They met in the name of Jesus and His name only.
Now, any of the words, Christians, saints, brethren, and so on, represented ALL save people. Now, does Baptist, Methodists, etc., stand for all the saved? Of course not. Not all Baptist are saved, and there are saved people who are not Baptist. But, all Christians are saved. All saints are saved. All brethren are saved. Again, the Bible only refers to Christians as being "brethren", believers, saints, disciples. These words describe all saved people.
Maybe we like these non-scriptural, organizational manmade names because they build us up. We want to make a name for ourselves so everybody will know us. We want everybody in town to know the name of our church. We want the church's name on pens, paper, tracts, ads, caps, T-shirts, etc. Churches have become like businesses. Are we to lift up our name or the name of Jesus? Remember that the early churches didn't have to worry about it because they didn't have names to lift up.
Even recently, I saw on the front page of the paper a picture of a large city celebration. There were many of those large air balloons you ride in, with each having an advertisement on it to fly high above the city. One of the large balloons said, "Such and Such Baptist Church, Rising high to meet the needs of Louisville" It made me laugh. How silly. They were advertising the name of their church, and saying that it could meet the needs of Louisville. Notice they didn't say anything about Jesus, and that Jesus could meet the needs of the city. "Well, that was inferred." No, I'll tell you why. It is a lot easier to promote their church name than it is Jesus' name. The problem no doubt is they are ashamed of his name. To put on the balloon "Jesus, rising high to meet the needs of Louisville" might raise a few eyebrows and offend a few people. Besides, if they wrote that alone, that particular church wouldn't get any credit for it. Hmmm. So, truth of the matter is, they were trying to make a name for themselves and not for Jesus.
Are we to lift up our name or the name of Jesus? Remember the early church didn't have to worry about it because they didn't have names to lift up, but His. Nimrod had this problem in Gen 11:4. Why did they want to build the Tower of Babel? Because of spiritual pride and to make a name for themselves. "And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name," They wanted to make a name for themselves. They wanted to be known. They wanted to be famous.
Christians should want to lift up the name of Jesus, not their names. The name of John the Baptist was getting so popular that he said, "He must increase, but I [must] decrease". John 3:30. Let me ask you, which name are you increasing and which one are you decreasing? The name of your church, the name of the Baptist or the name Jesus? (I've heard some Baptist say they get their Baptist name from John the Baptist, that it is a Scriptural name. Well, then do as John said and let his decrease, and increase the name of Jesus.) Jesus said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all [men] unto me." Lift up His name and you will draw men to him. Lift up the name of your church or denomination and you will draw men away from him.
Jesus gave us a perfect example. He didn't even try to lift up his own name while on earth. When Jesus was on earth, He said that he didn't come in his name, but the name of the Father. "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not" (John 5:42). He didn't glorify his own name, but the name of the Father. "Father, glorify thy name" (John 12:28). But, now things are different. God has glorified Jesus and We are to come and go, not in the Father's name, but in the name of Jesus. We are to glorify the name of Jesus. We are to meet in Jesus' name. "For where two or three are gathered together IN MY NAME, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt 18:20). "In the name of our lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together…." (1Cor 5:4).
"We do meet in Jesus' Name." Yes, but you also meet in other names, too. You are trying to have it both ways, and God doesn't see it that way. God's Word clearly says, "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, [do) all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Col. 3:17). So, my friend, be careful you don't glorify and lift up other names, because, God is a jealous God. He is jealous of anything concerning His Son, Jesus. Why, do we want to take anything away from His name? We do when we add other names to it. "... for I the LORD thy God [am] a JEALOUS God," (Ex 20:5). "…the LORD thy God [is]a consuming fire, [even]a jealous God" (Deut 4:23). "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy:" (2Cor 11:2).
Titles for Men.
What about religious titles for men? You sure hear many of them in and around the modern day church, such as, Brother Jones, Reverend Smith, Doctor , Pastor, etc. But, what does the Scriptures say about this? God said in the Old Testament, in Job 32:21-22, "Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; [in so doing] my maker would soon take me away."
Jesus also condemned it. Speaking of the Pharisees, Jesus said they "love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ." (Matt 23:7-10).
Jesus is saying that they were not to call any man Rabbi, Master, or Father, which were spiritual titles for teachers and authoritative spiritual leaders. Then, Jesus added that they were not to allow others to call them by those titles either. After saying this, do you think Jesus would call a minister today, Doctor, Reverend, etc? No, He would not! He said we are not to have religious titles, and we are not to call other men by them.
Did you know that most people today would be offended if you did not put "Brother" or "Doctor" or some other title before their name? Certainly most preachers would. They would say that it is a lack of respect. But, in the Bible no one had these titles before their names. It wasn't Doctor Paul, or Reverend Paul or even Brother Paul; it was just Paul. Just Peter, James, and John. Just plain Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Now, I know Paul and some of the others were apostles, and we say Apostle Paul and Apostle John, and so forth. That is tradition, but unscriptural. The word "apostles" in the Bible is never capitalized and never used as a title. You will not find it before any person's name as in Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter. Nowhere. Look it up. Just Paul. Just Peter. If it was, then the Bible would be inconsistent, because Jesus said not to do that. But, God's Word is consistent.
Jesus is the only one who deserves a title, and that is Lord, or Christ, as in Lord Jesus or Lord Jesus Christ. These other men didn't feel they deserved titles, and besides, the Bible said not to have them (in Job and Matthew.) Yea, but tradition today has won out. It doesn't matter what the Bible says; we are going to follow tradition. We are still going to give men spiritual titles. "That's the way it's always been done, and everybody today does it that way." Well, the Pharisees would agree with you.
POSITION OF THE MODERN DAY PASTOR
Now, let's take a look at the position of the modern day pastor. As we see it in today's chuches, I believe the position is unscriptural. No doubt, many good men have started out right, but have fallen into this snare, by being put, or putting themselves into an unscriptural position. First of all, nowhere in the Bible will you find that a church was ruled by one man. Nowhere! Yet most churches today are. But, where does the Bible say that a church should be run by one man? If you know of one clear example or one Scriptural command, please let me know.
The word pastor ("poimen"), is used without end today, and was mentioned only once in the New Testament, (Eph. 4:11), "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" The word pastor means to "feed" or to "shepherd". However, according to the context of the text in Eph. 4, it appears that "pastoring" is a spiritual gift, not a position or a calling. The most common word used in the Bible for leaders in the churches was "elders" ("presbuteros" which means older) and "bishops" ("episkope" which means overseer). "Elder" was the Jewish name and "bishop" was the Greek name for the same office, and they both are interchangeable. "Elder" is an older man, and "bishop" is the word for his office (work), or ministry as an overseer in the church. They represent the same person. This is proven in Acts 20:17. "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church." Now, look down at verse 28. "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
Notice that here in this passage, Paul refers to the elders of verse 17, as "overseers" in verse 28. Paul calls the men "elders" and says that their ministry is to be "overseers". They men in the church at Ephesus were "elders" and it was their job to "oversee" the church. There is no mention or hint of a singular pastor or a single elder, bishop, or overseer. Paul called them all elders/overseers in the church. There is no mention or even a hint to a singular pastor of this church in Ephesus. So, it is very clear to me that it was one church (Ephesus), but many elders, or mature spiritual men who were the overseers or leaders in the church.
Look at some other examples where leadership in the early church was plural. "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi , with the bishops and deacons:" ( Phil 1:1). The church at Philippi had many elders, or bishops (overseers), and deacons (servants) (no mention of a one man pastor running the church).
"And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed". Acts 14:23 (Notice the apostles had appointed elders (plural) in every church (singular). (No mention of one singular leader being appointed over each church)
"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders…".Acts 15:4.(This verse says one church in Jerusalem, but elders is plural. No pastor or singular ruler mentioned. Later, when the apostles died off, that left the elders to lead the church.
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee": Titus 1:5. (Bible Dict. says each of these cities in Crete had only one church)
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church’; James 5:14 (clearly, one church, many elders, or overseers in the church)
1Thes 5:12-13 "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake". Paul is speaking to the local church of Thessalonica (who the letter is written to) and saying to "know them" and "esteem them" for "their work's sake." (all plural) This is speaking of the elders in the church at Thessalonica.) (No pastor mentioned). (It did not say, to know him which labours among you, and is over you in the Lord, and admonishes you; and to esteem him very highly in love for his work's sake.)
There are many other similar verses, but I think these will do. If you disagree, then please show me a church in the Bible where one man was the only leader. I will help you. I can think of one example. It is in Third John 1:9-11. John says, "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth [them] out of the church. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God."
The word preeminence means first place. Diotrephes had the preeminence or first place in the church and loved it. He was running the church, forbidding others in the church to receive brethren, and was casting people out that opposed him. Sounds like this church was being run by one man, but John condemned it. Now, today a pastor holds a POSITION for one man being the leader in the church, which will put him in a place of preeminence. Even Diotrephes didn't have the "position" of being a singular leader, as do modern day pastors. He, as an older man just gained more power from the church over the other elders and became preeminent and ran the church. A modern day pastor may be a good man, or he may be a bad man, but the position automatically puts him in the place of preeminence in the church. Now, the question is, Should there be that position of a one man authority in the local church? I believe the Bible says no.
Don't think that no one else believes this. C. I. Scofield said in his notes in the "Old Scofield Bible", "There is no instance of one elder in a local church.... Elders are made or set in the churches by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). At first they were ordained by an apostle (Acts 14:23), but in Titus and 1 Timothy the qualifications of an elder become part of the Scriptures for the guidance of the churches." Scofield's note for 3 John says, "The aged Apostle had written to a church which allowed one Diotrephes to exercise an authority common enough in later ages, but wholly new in the primitive churches. Historically, this letter marks the beginning of that clerical and priestly assumption over the churches in which the primitive church order disappeared. John addresses this letter to a faithful man in the church for the comfort and encouragement of those who were standing fast in the primitive simplicity." C.I. Scofield.
Some say that the pastor can have many assistant pastors (as in a big church), then that is a plurality of elders in the church. But, that seems to make the pastor the senior pastor or chief shepherd. If so, that statement is bordering on blasphemy. The Bible says that Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. "For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd" (Jesus, the Shepherd ("poimen") which means pastor) and Bishop (Overseer) of your souls" (1Peter 2:25). "And when the chief Shepherd (JESUS) shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." Thus all the elders in the local church are the under shepherds all on the same level. There is no provision from the Scriptures for a senior elder or senior pastor over the other elders.
The pastor is not the head of the church. Colossians 1:18 says, "And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence." Now, you tell me, how can Jesus and the pastor both have the preeminence? You say, "Well, the pastor is in that position to be a servant to the flock. He represents Christ in the church. He is the undershepherd. Christ can't be the literal head of the church, so the pastor is the visible representative of Christ in the church." Wow! Did you know those are dangerous words. What you are saying is the same thing the Catholics say about the Pope, that he represents Christ on the earth to the church in doing the Lord's will. Are you saying that the pastor is in the place or position of representing Christ? Surely, you don't believe a man takes the place of Christ in the church, do you? The Bible clearly says that Jesus IS the Head of the church, and if the pastor is going to be His representative head in the church, the Scriptures would have told us. But, you won't find it. So, men should not twist Scriptures to make it appear that way.
One might say, "Well, the pastor is not the head, but a servant to the church." But, whether he is a servant or not depends on the man, not the position. He can be a servant and serve the church without being in this elevated position of authority that exists today. We probably get this idea from the term "office of the bishop" in the Scriptures, "This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop (overseer), he desireth a good work" (1Tim. 3:1). But, the word "office" simply means a "service", a "ministering", or a "work". In other words, "the work of an overseer." The work of any overseer in the church is to watch over, and protect the group. You can't say that it refers to a singular position of authority. It is for any qualified elder in the church that desires it. In no way does it represent an elevated position in the church over the brotherhood, for that would divide an equal brotherhood that Jesus spoke of.
When the Bible speaks of an "office of a bishop", it is not referring to one position in the church that has authority over all other members in the church. For example, did you know that Judas was a bishop? Did you know that he also had a bishop's office? But, Judas was not a pastor of a church. Speaking of Judas, Acts 1:19 says, "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take". But, look what that passage in Psalms says referring to Judas, "Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office". Ps 109:8. "Bishoprick" means office of a bishop. So, Judas had an office of a bishop or a bishoprick. (One of twelve offices or "bishopricks" that Jesus called). But, Judas had no church, nor authority, and was not over the other apostles. Jesus called him to a service, a ministry, a work, or an "office", and sent him out with the other disciples to preach the gospel.
However, in the Bible, the elders in a local church, were "not called" to a service or office in that church. They only had to meet two conditions. First condition, they had to have a "desire" to do the work, ("If a man "desire" the office of a bishop") and second of all, "be qualified." An elder had to meet the qualifications given in 1Tim. and Titus. So, any qualified, spiritually mature man in the church, who desired the work of a bishop or overseer, could have a bishoprick in that local church.
"And when they had ordained them elders in every church," (Acts 14:23). Who? The mature spiritual men who desired it and were qualified. This in no way indicates one position of authority in a local church by a pastor. So, this position in the church where the pastor rules over the church is not the "office of a bishop". It may be a distortion of it. Let me be very clear. It is not the man that is wrong, it is the position that is wrong, and in many cases will, with time, make the man wrong. He will tend to gradually gain more and more authority and responsibilities in the church while the people become more accountable to him and less accountable to Christ. (That is why followers of men are carnal as Paul pointed out to the Corinthians.)
Any person only has as much power as is given to him. The more authority that the people of the church give the pastor, the more powerful he becomes. In many cases he gains this power from the people by reminding them of his "position", and twisting Scriptures to support it. The position of singular leadership in the church will make him preeminent in the church and divide an equal brotherhood into clergy and laity.
The men of the church will become more accountable to the pastor and less responsible to Christ. Little by little, he will take the place of Christ. Now, we did not get this from the Scriptures, but like many things in the church that are traditional, we got this idea of a separate level of "clergymen" from the Catholic Church. They were the ones that developed an hierarchy in their church consisting of a pope, bishops, cardinals, priests, etc. Changing the name to pastor doesn't change anything at all. But, the Scriptures say that Jesus is to have preeminence in the church in all things. He is the Head. Only He should be in that position. Each man in the church is responsible to the headship of Christ. Service, ministering, and leadership should come from an equal brotherhood of elders in the church, men that meet the quaifications and have a desire to do the work.
Peter also condemns it.
Not only did John condemn one man being in preeminent in the church, but Peter condemns this idea as well. Listen to what Peter says about the subject of being an elder. "Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock" (1Peter 5: 3). Elders are not to be lords, but examples to the flock. They are not to be preeminent. They are not to be lords. A lord can be good or bad, but he still is a lord. They are to be servants and an examples to the flock.
Remember that in most churches today, there is only one position for one man leading the church. This singular position for a one man leader will automatically put him into preeminence or first place over everyone else in that church.
Paul condemns it.
Look what happened at the church of Ephesus. "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. (skip to verse 28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" ( Acts 20:17-28). Notice the leaders in the church were: (1) to be plural, ( 2) to oversee (protect) the flock, and (3) to feed the flock ). Look at verse 29, where Paul says after his departing (after his death?) that some of them would draw men after their ownselves, to have men be their disciples. Each of these wicked elders tried to get men to follow him so he could have preeminence.
Now, this did happen as Paul predicted. Look at Ephesus during the year 96 AD. "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; ......I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" (Rev 2:1-6). Jesus said to the Ephesian church, "thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." (These are the "grievous wolves" Paul mentioned in Acts 20, those claiming to be apostles, and trying to draw men after themselves).
Notice, right after this statement of men claiming to be apostles, you find for the first time the word "Nicolaitans." Look at verse 6, and you will find that Jesus complimented the Ephesians for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans. The word Nicolaitans is a compound word, "nikao" which means "to conquer", and "laos" which means "people". Put it together and you have "conqueror of the laity", or "conqueror of the people". This was an attempt to usher in a priestly order or clergy. Sounds familiar doesn't it? We know they later became successful because in Rev. 2:6, the "deeds" of the Nicolaitans later became the "doctrine" of the Nicolaitans in Rev. 3:15 at the church in Pergamos. But, Jesus condemns this modern idea of a clergy which divides an equal brotherhood. Remember, Jesus said in Matt 23:8, "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN." So, we are not to have spiritual masters or leaders, because Christ is our spiritual master and leader. He said you can't serve two masters.
It is important that you realize that there was plurality of elders in the church, because one man would easily be tempted to run the church, thus becoming the head of the church. But, the pastor is not the head of the church; Jesus is. The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the head of the church, and that it is not to be run by one man. Remember, the saved people make up the church and Jesus is to be their head. Modern day clergy claims to be the "undershepherd", serving in the place of Christ to that local church. (they get this from 1Pet 5:4, "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.") (But, if you look at the previous verses, it says that Peter is writing to the elders, not one man pastors. Elders are not to lord over God's people, but to be examples. They also are not to receive base gain; "not for filthy lucre". (money, note below) Other verses elsewhere say that they are to feed the flock, serve as overseers, and to take care of the church.) This sounds like being a helper, not a ruler or lord. The position has become distorted probably because the church has become distorted, being more like a business requiring a businessman to run it. God did not scripturally organize a church to be like a business, so there was no foundation for a "minister" to be like an executive.
Important note: You will not find one example of a minister in the Bible who received a salary. Not one. However, the Bible is very clear that Christians support the poor and give offerings to meet needs of those in full time ministry, but never did they give a salary. Even Jesus received offerings for His work while on earth. [not a tithe; the tithe went to the Temple] But, He did not receive a salary. Paul worked and supported his ministry along with those who helped him, but he received no salary either. Today, we have professionally trained pastors, ministers, and missionaries who receive salaries. The Bible states that gifts of financial help should be given to poor brethren, but that doesn't mean they receive a salary. Likewise, the Scripture teaches that those who minister in the gospel should receive financial help, but for a minister to receive a salary for his services seems to put him into the category of a hireling receiving "filthy lucre". You say it depends on why he is doing it. True, but the idea of a salary is foreign to any servant in the Bible, (only the O.T. Levites were commanded to receive tithes from the people, because they had no inheritance in Israel, which was very much like a salary.)
Furthermore, you will not find any of God's servants that were professionally trained or educated specifically for the ministry, especially as a pastor in the church. Elders were not trained, but raised up by the Holy Spirit to desire to do the work of an overseer in that church. They were not hired. They are not hirelings. They were not brought from without to come in to do the work, but were raised up within that church to do the work in that church.
Now, look at today's clergy. You see, a clergy, or priestly order, or "men of God", or what ever you want to call them, did and does today divide an equal brotherhood. Some of these men today call themselves "men of God" or "God's man". They claim to have a special "calling" or anointing. Funny, they talk so much about a special calling, and I can't find it anywhere in the Scriptures, other than the call to be an apostle or a preacher. But no calling for pastor, elder, or bishop. Everywhere it was for the people of the church to recognize these men whom the Holy Spirit had raised up among them.
The office of a bishop was for anyone who desired it and met the qualifications; there was no special calling from God mentioned. So, they claim to have a special call or anointing that others don't have, and that God will lead His people and show them His will for their lives through these "men of God". Since there is no position in the Bible for these clergymen, they have created one, and they call it the "office of the pastor". But, what office are they using as their pattern? I believe they could be claiming one of the following offices, and then renaming it (pastor) whenever they claim to be "the man of God".
(1) Old Testament Prophet?
Many of the pastors today compare their leadership to that of Moses or others that were God's men in the Old Testament. They claim to be the "man of God" leading God's people today. They say, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." Ps 105:15. This is a favorite verse of the clergy today to hold over the heads of the people. But, are these so called "men of God" today who claim to have a special calling from God to lead His people, claiming to be some kind of Old Testament man of God? Well, first of all, the verse in Ps. 105:15 about "touch not mine anointed" was referring to the nation of Israel, not to a man. (Read verses 9-14.) You see, God is saying in these verses that all His children in the nation of Israel were His anointed.
Furthermore, in the New Testament, 1 John 2:27 says that all Christians today are anointed, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." So, all Christians are anointed of the Lord. This verse says that all Christians have been anointed by the Holy Spirit, and He teaches us all things, so we have no need of a "man of God" to spiritually lead us. The Holy Spirit and the Word of God leads us. Others can help show what the Word says, and rightly divide the Word for you (as I am doing), but if you really learn anything that is "spiritual" it takes the Holy Ghost to reveal it to you, and you must be given the liberty to allow Him to. In other words, you can learn of God by the Holy Spirit just as well as any other man, including the leaders in the church. God will not just enlighten or reveal spiritual things to a pastor to relay to others. All saved people are "spiritual" and can discern spiritual things. "God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit…but which the Holy Ghost teacheth: comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1Cor 2:10&13. This in no way says these spiritual things are comprehended only by spiritual leaders in the church, but states clearly that all saved people can and will know the truth when it is revealed to them
But, then the verse adds, "and do my prophets no harm." But, surely they don't claim to be an OT prophet. These men in the Old Testament held a special office, and were called by God to proclaim His word and His will to the nation of Israel. They performed great miracles and predicted future events. God gave them special revelations. "…but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). In that day, God spoke to the prophets with an audible voice or through dreams and visions. Most OT prophets came out of the desert or wilderness to proclaim their message. Most wore a coarse dress of hair cloth, as did Elijah and John the Baptist. They often led a wandering and unsettled life and were very simple in their manner of life. Lastly, most OT prophets I know in the Bible were martyred. These were all qualifications for people to recognize God's true prophets. Surely, today's "men of God" are not claiming to be OT prophets. They don't qualify, and besides, that office is not for today.
(2) New Testament Apostle?
Could it be that the office of the pastor today is trying to imitate the office of an apostle? But, the qualification for an apostle was that he had to be "called" to be one, and he had to have been an eyewitness of Jesus' life and an eyewitness of his resurrection. "Am I not an apostle, am I not free, have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord, are not ye my work in the Lord?" (1Cor 9:1) Paul was indeed an apostle. He saw Christ on the road of Damascus. That knocks everyone out today. Listen, there are no apostles today. There are not many today that would admit they're trying to be an apostle. They're smarter than that, but they are trying to behave as one, and trying to get people to treat them as one. They get by with it by renaming their office, substituting the phrase "man of God" for the word apostle. They don't claim to be an apostle, but they do claim a special calling from God to be the "man of God." You hear them say, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1). But, wait a minute. Paul said these words, and he was a true apostle. The New Testament was in the writing stages, so in order for churches to know the will of God, they asked the apostles, and God spoke through them. He still does today, not through pastors, but through the apostle's writings, the Scriptures, so there is no need for modern day apostles or "men of God" with a special calling.
Now, when you hear someone say, "I'm going to follow my pastor because he is "God's man," you better be careful. You better be sure he is following the Scriptures. But, better yet, why don't you follow the Scriptures? God holds you accountable to follow the Scriptures, not a man. During your judgment someday, you will not give an account of how you followed a man, but how you followed the Scriptures. Your total life will be judged according to your obedience to the Scriptures. The middle verse in all the Bible says, "[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Ps 118:8.
Over in 2 Tim 4:3-4, it says, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth." An elder, or bishop is to be a helper to you, and to assist you by pointing out Scriptures. His attitude should not be "follow me", but "let me help you follow the Lord." Jesus is your head. He is the head of the body, His church. He will lead you, and teach you by the Spirit of Truth, (the Holy Spirit) and make you to grow as a Christian. Jesus is your head. He is your authority. How? By the Word of God, the Scriptures. You follow Jesus today by following His Scriptures.
Pastors Today Claim More Authority than the Apostles did in the Bible
Did you know that many pastors or "men of God" today demand more from you than the apostles did? Even the apostles didn't demand and expect the obedience that pastors do today. Look what Paul who was a true apostle said. "Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you". (from Jesus to Paul the apostle, to man) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;" 1 Cor 11:1 Notice that Paul, as an apostle, said to follow him as he followed the Lord, and to obey the commands that he had given them, but then he quickly added, "BUT I WOULD HAVE YOU KNOW, THAT THE HEAD OF EVERY MAN IS CHRIST". He is, even as a true apostle, reminding them that Jesus is their head or authority and not Paul. Follow Paul, yes, but Jesus is their Head. They will give an answer to Jesus someday, not to Paul. And, you, my friend, will give an answer some day how you followed Jesus, not a man. Paul also said, (remember he was a true apostle), "Not for that we have dominion over your faith , but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand" (2 Cor 1:23). So, elders, the ones who take the oversight in the church, should be helpers, not lords, for a lord is one who has dominion over others.
By the way, who did Jesus put into a position of leadership over the other apostles after He left? Nobody. Now, Peter would have no doubt been a good leader, and many of the other apostles probably looked to him for leadership, but he was not put into a position of leadership over the others. Jesus did not say, "Well, I'm getting ready to leave you, but don't worry, I'm going to leave Peter in charge while I'm gone. He will take my place, so you need to follow him." No, Jesus did not do that. He did not create a position and leave someone in charge to lead the others. Now, Peter did seem to be a leader, and the others looked up to him. (He said, "I go a fishing", and the others went with him.) He did have influence. He had been very close to the Lord, and was very qualified to be their leader, but Jesus did not put him in a position to be their leader. Why? Because Jesus left someone else to take His place over them. "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth : for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you" (John 16:13,14). Jesus did not appoint any man to take his place, because He sent the Holy Spirit to take his place on the earth.
I am not against leadership, because the Bible teaches that the older, more spiritual men should lead in the church, which the Bible refers to as elders or overseers. But I am against a singular position of authority in the church for one man only. Why? Because most modern day churches hire a trained clergyman to come in and run the church, and sitting in the pews are qualified men, yea better men, who have the desire to help in leading the church, but they can't because the position is for only one man, and more than likely, one that is trained and has a degree.
You hear many pastors say, "you are not to submit to me, but to my position. I may not be much, but you should honor my position." Now, that friend is dangerous. You better make sure the man is worthy to be followed, and that he loves the Lord, and meets the qualifications in 1Timothy and Titus, because that position is wrong. He is using that remark to bring you under his authority. The word "position" means rank or status, so when they speak of this position, they are saying that they outrank you in the Lord because of their position, whereby we get the concept of the clergy-laity division. But, Jesus said, "But be not ye called Rabbi: (a position of a spiritual leader. Today we would say Reverend, Pastor, Doctor, or some other spiritual title), "for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren." Jesus is saying that we are all on the same level, including the elders. One Master, and the rest of us are all brethren. "....and all ye are brethren." He told his disciples they were all equal brethren, and not one of them was to let others put any of them in a higher position than that, and they were not to put someone else in that position over them either.
(3) Old Testament Priests?
So, I have clearly shown that modern day pastors are not prophets or apostles in any way, shape, or form. What this one man pastor position might resemble, yet they would deny it, is the office of the Old Testament priests. The priests were from the tribe of the Levites. They were to care for the Temple or the "house of God." They received tithes from the people for their livelihood. They were an intermediary between God and man. They performed the sacrifices in the Temple.
The modern day pastor in most churches likewise is in a special group of spiritual leaders (like the Levites), called the clergy. They also preside over the "house of God" or their building the church meets in. They also receive tithes from God's people, from which part of it goes for their livelihood for their services in the "temple". (some churches even have "Temple" in their name.) They in many ways act as an intermediary between God and man. ("Follow me as I follow Christ." "God will lead me to lead you").
But, nowhere in the Bible will you find a command from God that one man should act as a priest in a New Testament church. He is not an intermediary between God and man. As Spirit filled Christians, we each are our own "priesthood", and have no need of a priest or intermediary. "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood , to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1Pet 2:5,9).
(4) The Vicar of Christ?
This one, friend, is the scary one. Does a modern day pastor of a local church claim to be the "vicar" or representative of Christ to that local church? He may if he carries his position too far. Many do claim to be the representative head of Christ in that particular church. Don't they say that they are the "undershepherd" representing the Shepherd? However, it is the position that has been created that makes him the representative head of Christ.
If the pastor claims to be the "spiritual leader" in the church, because of his calling and position, then he is getting close to becoming the "vicar." Now, the word "vicar" comes from a Latin word "vicarious", which means substitute. The Pope outwardly claims that he is the Vicar of Christ. He claims that he has been given authority by God to act as Christ's substitute on the earth and to the church. He says he is Christ's representative on the earth. Now, friend, this is heresy. The disciples asked Jesus, "…what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many ..." Matt 24:3-5. Now, I have never heard anyone come right out and say that they are Christ, but, are they claiming His position in the church? The Pope sure does. He outwardly claims to have a position of being Jesus' representative or substitute head in the church. (In other words, Jesus can't be here, so He put me in his place to represent Him. The World Book Encyclopedia says that the "pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. The members regard him as the visible head and Christ the invisible head of the church").
Again, that is heresy! Nowhere did Christ say that he was choosing someone to represent himself as the head of the church. Christ is the head of the church. The Bible makes that very clear. Now, surely a pastor would not want to be identified with that kind of a position. But, what does a pastor mean then, when he says, "It is not me, but my position that you are to respect and follow"? Or, "You are to submit to my position as your pastor." When he says, "Follow me as I follow Christ", what is he actually saying? What does he mean when he says, "Christ will lead and direct the church through me?" Is he claiming the position of Christ in the church? This kind of pastor is saying that as the Holy Spirit leads him, he will lead the church. Where is this in the Bible? He becomes the intermediary or link between Christ and the other men of the church. Do you see how that when he speaks this way, he is being like a pope to that local church?
So, have Baptist and other denominations substituted the word "pastor" for the word "pope" or "vicar of Christ"? Friend, if you haven't figured it out yet, this is cultish. The definition of cult is "an obsessive devotion to a person or idea." The person can be the pastor and the idea can be his position. Your devotion should not be to a person or to a position, but to the Lord Jesus and His Word. You should be devoted to Jesus, not some man or his position. That is why Paul sharply rebuked the Corinthians, because they were making men their leaders, "I'm of Paul", "I'm of Cephas", "I'm of Apollos." However, these good men would not allow others to make them their spiritual heads. As I have said before, you may learn from good men, and follow good men, but your devotion and service is to the Lord Jesus. He is your head. He is your spiritual authority. The Bible says we should follow good men that help us follow the Lord. But, you are to follow what you see in them, if it is of the Lord. Remember them which have the rule (a standard or guide) over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: WHOSE FAITH FOLLOW, considering the end of [their] conversation (behavior)" (Heb 13:7).
As I have said before, Christ did not give any command for one man to take his place in being the head of the church. When Jesus was on the earth, He led his disciples. When He left them, He did not put someone else in charge. He had several good men to choose from that would have made a good choice. But, Jesus left no one in charge to take His place. Jesus said that He would leave the Holy Spirit to take His place, and that He would lead us by the Holy Spirit. So, the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ. The more spiritual men, or elders should know how to follow the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures, and then it will be easy for the others to follow them. If they don't, then you don't follow them. It's that simple. Now, that is the position of authority in the church. Jesus, the head of the church via the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. Men should submit to that and we should help other men to do likewise.
Scriptural Leadership in the Church is by Elders
So, you ask, how does Jesus become the head of His church? The Scriptures indicate that He guides the church by the Scriptures by a group of men in that church called elders that the Holy Spirit has raised up. They are all equal brethren that are not "professionals", but have been raised up through that church, not hired. Not imported. They have equal authority with one another and they have Jesus as their Head. These men are to help other Christians to follow the Lord, and by no means were they to be in an elevated position to be rulers over the others in the place of Christ.
It is clear that in the Bible, the apostles went around during their second missionary trip and saw these qualified men doing the work and appointed them as overseers in each of the churches. They simply pointed them out to the people in each church. "These are your elders. Follow them." After the passing of the apostles, we have their writings, their list of qualification for overseers in 1Timothy and in Titus. Again, it was for any older mature Christian men in that church who 1) had the desire to do the work, and 2) met the qualifications. They would already be doing the work, and the Christians should recognize it and follow them. These elders would not need appointment by other elders, because they would be appointed by the Holy Spirit to be overseers in the church. The others need to recognize it. If they wanted to make it public, or official to the church in some way, they could just do it by addressing the church that they also recognize this brother being raised up by the Holy Spirit to help in the oversight in the church and that he meets the qualifications from Scripture.
Now, not all elders or older men will want to serve in the church. There will no doubt be some that will not be close to the Lord, some that will not want to serve, and others that will not be Scripturally qualified to oversee the church. But, they are still elders. However, the Holy Spirit will separate some of the qualified elders in the church, (over the which the Holy Ghost HATH MADE you overseers, to feed the church of God, Acts 20:28) to perform the work of an overseer in the church and give them the desire to do their work. The people in the church recognize this and in turn acknowledge each of these elders as overseers.
"Obey them that have the rule (guide) over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you." Heb 13:17. (This is one of the favorite verses held over everyone’s head to get everybody to submit to the position of a pastor) (Notice the word pastor is not mentioned). It is referring to elders and not one pastor, because it says obey THEM that have the rule over you. Submit yourselves; for THEY watch for your souls, as THEY must give an account, that THEY may do it with joy….) (If there had been one man over each church back then, it would have said, obey "him" that has the rule over you. Submit yourselves; for "he" watches for your souls, as "he" must give an account, that "he" may do it with joy.) But, it doesn't say that. It says "they" and "them" (all plural). People in the church are to submit to the elders. Elders are to lead in the services and others are to submit in the services, but the elders are not the Heads. Jesus is the Head.
Interesting Note: Most all letters today sent to churches would include the pastor's name, because of their prominent position in the church. "Reverend John Doe", "Such and Such Church". Did you ever notice that with all the letters to the many different churches in the New Testament, not one was addressed to a pastor or even mentions a pastor. Now Paul was a perfect gentleman, and if each church had a Pastor, then Paul would not have ignored him. But, he didn't have to, because each church that Paul wrote to didn't have a one man pastor.
Who did Paul write to? Paul wrote: "to the church", "to the "beloved of God," "to the saints", "to the brethren", "to the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi," with the BISHOPS (elders/overseers) and deacons," and so on. Now, if churches then were anything like they are today, Paul would be writing to or at least mentioning the Pastor's name. But, he never did. He never addresses the Pastor of a church. Why? Because they had elders/overseers.
Checks and Balances
Does the Bible say how elders in a church should behave in a meeting? Look what Paul says about polity in the Corinthian church. (Now, remember that he is writing to them because of chaos and confusion in the church, and he is telling them how they should conduct their services). "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. (Sounds like things are out of hand a little) Let all things be done unto edifying.......29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Cor 14: 26-33).
Could these "prophets" be the preachers, bishops or elders? I think so. They were men in the assemblies of Christians that were moved by the Holy Spirit to stand and speak, having power to instruct, comfort, encourage, rebuke, convict, and stimulate their hearers. Today, we call them the pastor or the preacher. But, look at verse 29 where it says, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge." Notice, it does not say "one", but two or three. It doesn't say two or more, but two or three. There may be several men in the church, but two or three were to speak at a service being led by the Holy Spirit. While each took his turn, the others were to judge.
Now, in today's church, the pastor usually gives the message, but Paul said it was to be by two or three, and each could speak sooner or later. If the early Corinthian church had only one pastor, then why didn't Paul just say in order to do away with the confusion, let the pastor take charge and tell everyone else what to do? He didn't because there wasn't just one man in charge. So Paul is setting a pattern in the church to be followed and he says in the last verse of the chapter "Let all things be done decently and in order." He also says in verse 37, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord". These are not suggestions by Paul, but commandments of the Lord.
But, you say, if a modern day church was led by a group of men called elders, you would have chaos in the church. Everybody would be trying to take over, and several people of equal authority can't lead in one church. It is much easier, you say, for one man to lead a church. Well, that's true if it is like a business, as most churches have become today. But, churches should not be businesses or operate as such. God did not set them up that way. The church is a spiritual body and should operate as one. The Scriptures clearly teach that a church should be led by the Holy Spirit, who leads a group of mature Christian men in the church, called elders. The Holy Spirit sets them apart for that task, to oversee, to feed the flock, and to set the example. So, there should be liberty in the church for more than one man to speak, teach, exhort, rebuke, etc. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. This is a system of checks and balances that God has put into the church in order to keep out lordship over His church.
Now, with one man ruling in a church, you do have a lord or dictator. In most denominational churches, he usually is the pastor, but in other churches, he may be the chairman of the deacons or the most prominent businessman. This makes him head of the church, or the lord, or a "dictator." What he says goes. Now, not all dictators are bad. Dictators in some countries may appear to be good, but they are still dictators. Likewise in the church. He may appear to be a good man, but he is still a dictator, or lord in that church. When only one man rules in a church, he is automatically a dictator. Maybe good, maybe bad, but still a dictator. But, God said there is not to be a lord in the church. There must be a plurality of rule in the church.
For a democracy, you must have checks and balances. We have it in this country politically and it has worked better than in any other government in history. We have checks and balances in our country by having three different branches: the Executive (President), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (Supreme Court). They keep checks and balances on each other. The president is not the "head" or lord of our country. He doesn't rule alone. When he speaks, the other two "judge". When any of the three speak or does something, the other two "judge". They are like overseers. They each must approve. Not one branch can rule and dictate over the country. So, our government is based on Scriptural principles.
Now, God has set up the church to run the same way with checks and balances. There can be several elders in a church, but only two or three are to speak (message or lesson). Each is to wait his turn, and the others are to judge. "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge"(1 Cor 14:29). These are the "checks and balances" in the church that will allow the Lord to have liberty in the church.
What if an elder is wrong? When an elder is wrong, it is the duty of the other elders to correct the wrong before the church. That can and will happen when you have equal authority among the elders. "Against an ELDER receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all that, others also may fear. I charge [thee] before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality" (1 Tim 5:19-21).
However, that cannot happen with one man, the pastor, the "man of God", ruling in the church. It is unheard of for anyone to correct him. He says that he doesn't have to answer to anyone but God. But, as we have seen, that is not Scriptural.
What About Church Membership In Today's Churches? I believe this is another tradition in the churches that has absolutely no basis at all in the Scriptures. Now remember, God does not mind tradition in the church as long as it does not become doctrinal. The question is, has "membership into the church" become a commandment of men? It sure seems like it. Most would agree that it has no Scriptural basis, that it is not all that important, so God doesn't mind. Remember again, that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for putting great importance on man-made religious inventions and passing them off as something you have to do. He condemned them for it.
Fact of the matter is, you cannot be a member of most local churches unless you become a "member" and placed on their membership role by a vote of the church. Where is this in Scripture? There is no command for that. But, if you are not on their role, then you are not a member of their church. Now the whole thing sounds stupid.
Concerning church membership, how could anyone ever come up with such a crazy idea and even worse, how could anyone be so naive to fall for it? I'll tell you how; because of double talk. Today, when someone gets saved they are told to "join the church." Where is that in the Bible? The Scriptures plainly teach that when a person is saved he becomes part of the church immediately, because God "joins" him to the body of Christ, or the church. "…And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47). Notice it is the Lord adding saved people to the church. That doesn't say anything about the new convert asking the church if he could "join" their membership, nor does it say that the church voted to accept him into their membership. There is no place anywhere in the Scripture where a saved person is voted onto a church membership role.
This is one of the problems that you get into when you say that only a local church exists, and that there is no universal church. As I said before, they both have to exist to prevent inconsistencies, and the Scriptures teach that they both do exist. You say, "Well the Lord was adding daily to that local church in Jerusalem such as should be saved." So? That's true, but God "joined" them to that local church in Jerusalem. They weren't voted to become a member of the church in Jerusalem. God made them a member.
You say that it is not that important, that I am making a big deal out of nothing. Then, why won't your church accept a saved person as part of your church unless he "joins" and is put onto a membership role? You are the one making a big deal out it. Jesus did not say, "Where two or three are "joined" together on a membership role, there am I in the midst of them." He said, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt 18:20).
Listen friend. I already belong to Jesus and I am a part of His body. I don't have to join anything. I am already "joined" to Him. I was joined to him when I got saved, and God did the "joining".
You see, the devil is a master of "double talk", deceit, hypocrisy, and developing counterfeits and imitations, and he does it mostly through semantics. All his works are designed to take away from God's works and His Word . "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth" (Titus 1:14). The church is the body of Christ; it is not some kind of a club that you join. But, then, many professing churches are probably just that, "clubs."
Now, there is probably a great deal more to what is wrong with this idea of a church membership role than what we think. For, anything that you join, you are making a pact, an agreement, a commitment to abide by certain rules, conduct, and to take on certain responsibilities. You commit yourself to follow a church constitution and a set of by-laws. But, the Bible is clear that we are to be committed to Christ and His Word, not to a church, a denomination, nor to a set of by-laws and a church constitution.
To me, a church membership role seems to bind individuals into a group, taking away liberties that we have in Christ, and thus making us more of a servant to the church, and less of a servant to Christ. But the Scriptures say: ".... and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty" (2Cor 3:17). Not liberty to do what you want, but liberty to be a servant of Christ and to do what the Scriptures teach. We must have freedom to do that. That's why we came to this country in the first place; to have liberty to serve Christ.
The devil wants to take away this liberty, so we can't have the freedom to do what the Bible says. "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Gal 2:4). Theses "false brethren" were using the Law in their teaching to bring these early Christians under bondage.
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Gal 5:1). You say, "What bondage?" Well, as long as a person is "joined" to a group or organization by some kind of an "official" action, that person is bound to that group, to it's constitution, and church by-laws. It means they are part of everything that church is doing, both good and bad.
But, we are not supposed to be bound to a church. We are supposed to be bound to Christ, and we already are if we're saved. The above verses apply to men who were trying to bring Christians under bondage by saying if you weren't circumcised, then you were not saved. And, today, you are told that if you are not on our membership role then you are not a member of our church. What does that mean? Does that mean you are not saved? Yes, if you are not a member of the church, then you are not saved, because the church is the body of Christ, and if you are not a member of the church, then you are not a member of His body. Crazy? I told you, it is all double talk. The devil's semantics.
Truth of the matter is, that when you got saved, you immediately became a "member" of His body, the body of Christ. God "joined" you to the church of the redeemed. You became a "member" of the "general assembly and the church of the firstborn". However, when you assemble with brothers and sisters in a local area, you automatically become a "member" of that local church, because you are a member of Christ.
Each local church is to give expression to the universal church, the body of Christ. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt 18:20). If you are saved and you are there meeting with others in Jesus Name on a regular basis, then you are a member of that local church. Simple as that. This is being in fellowship in that local church. The Bible does teach fellowship in the local church, but never membership. There is a difference. Membership is for a club or organization, not a church.
The most important thing is to be on that role of the redeemed in Heaven. "When the role is called up yonder, I'll be there." Yes, I know my name is written in the Lambs Book of Life. That is the only role I need to be a member of. I am a member of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a part of His Body, the Body of Christ, the Church. When the Bible speaks of membership, it is speaking of being a "member" of the Body of Christ and a member of the universal Church. Whenever I meet on a regular basis with a group of believers that meet in Jesus Name in a local church, then I am in "fellowship" with them, which is different than membership.
IS TITHING FOR TODAY?
Most all modern day churches teach tithing and expect it from their members. But, is tithing for today's churches? Does the Bible teach that Christians must give tithes to a church? No, I believe that tithing is not for today's New Testament churches. Tithing was clearly part of the law for the nation of Israel. God said tithing was (1) for the nation of Israel to give, (2) for the tribe of the Levites to receive, and (3) was of the Law.
(1) The tithe was instituted by God was for the nation of Israel.
"And if a man will at all redeem [ought] of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth [part] thereof. And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, [even] of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD. ...... These [are] the commandments, which the LORD COMMANDED MOSES FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL in mount Sinai" (Levi 27:30-34). Clear here that tithing was given by God to the "children of Israel."
Even the most famous verse used by people today to support tithing in churches says that tithing was for the nation of Israel. "For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore YE SONS OF JACOB are not consumed. Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept [them]. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say. Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye [are] cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, [even] this whole NATION. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it"] (Mal 3:6-10). This passage is used by most churches in the teaching of tithing. However, it is clear that this command for tithing was for the "Sons of Jacob" which means the nation of Israel.
(2) The Tithe was for the Levites
"And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I [am] thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel. 21 And, behold, I have given the CHILDREN OF LEVI ALL THE TENTH in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, [even] the service of the tabernacle of the congregation". 26 "Thus speak unto the LEVITES, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the TITHES which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, [even] a tenth [part] of the tithe" (Num. 18:20-26). Very clear here that all the tithe was for the Levites, because they did not have part of the inheritance, and it was for their service in the tabernacle and later in the temple.
"And at that time were some appointed over the chambers for the treasures, for the offerings, for the firstfruits, and for the tithes, to gather into them out of the fields of the cities THE PORTIONS OF THE LAW for the PRIESTS and LEVITES" (Neh 12:44).
(3) The Tithe was of the Law
"And at that time were some appointed over the chambers for the treasures, for the offerings, for the firstfruits, and for the tithes , to gather into them out of the fields of the cities THE PORTIONS OF THE LAW for the priests and levites...." (Neh 12:44).
"And all the tithe of the land, [whether] of the seed of the land, [or] of the fruit of the tree, [is] the LORD'S: [it is] holy unto the LORD.… 34 These [are] the COMMANDMENTS, which the LORD COMMANDED MOSES for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Levi 27: 30-34). Tithing was of the Law of Moses.
Even in the New Testament this is clear, that tithing was of the Law. "Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a COMMANDMENT to take tithes of the people ACCORDING TO THE LAW" (Heb 7:4-5).
So, it is very clear to me that the tithe was (1) by the nation of Israel, (2) for the tribe of the Levites, and (3) part of the Law.
I have heard an argument, that tithing is not of the Law, because it existed before the giving of the Law to Moses. That verse just used, Hebrews 7:4-5, says that Abraham gave tithes, and he was before the Law and before Moses, so tithing was before the Law. Jacob also tithed and he was before the Law. Thus, if tithing was before the Law then it should apply after the Law. (For our time).
Well, I have used many clear verses above that clearly state that tithing was of the Law. So, now we have to explain a situation, not a verse. The Bible doesn't say that Abraham was commanded to give a tithe. (Furthermore, Jacob, who was before Moses and the Law, also promised to give tithes to God, but we see no command for Jacob to do that either).
(1) According to Bible dictionaries, tithing was popular among many nations. History shows that many nations gave different percentages of their income for religious works. (The Westminister Dict. of the Bible says "The separation of a certain proportion of the products of one's industry or of the spoils of war as tribute to their gods was practiced by various nations at this time. The Lydians offered a tithe of their booty. The Phoenicians and Carthaginians sent a tithe annually to the Tyrian Hercules. These tithes might be regular or occasional, voluntary or prescribed by law. The Egyptians were required to give a 5th part of their crops to Pharaoh (Gen. 47:24)". Abraham and Jacob were no doubt familiar with this principle, even though it was not yet given to them by God as a command.
(2) To answer those who say that the command of tithing was before the Law because Abraham gave tithes, violate all the Scriptures that clearly say that tithing for the nation of Israel was of the Law. But, let's look at a similar principle to make a parallel. It is interesting to note that circumcision was also given in the Law of Moses. Nobody will argue with that. But, wait a minute. Abraham and Jacob were also circumcised. God told them to. Then, circumcision was before the Law, so then if circumcision applied before the Law then it should apply after the Law, which would be for today as well. But, no! The New Testament clearly says that circumcision was of the Law and not to be observed by Christians as being legal. So, just because circumcision was practiced before the Law, that does not make it apply after the Law. Thus, the same would seem true for tithing.
Nowhere in the New Testament is there a command for tithing. Nowhere. You say, "Well, there is no place in the New Testament that says you shouldn't tithe, as it does with circumcism." True, but I would hate to take any doctrine of the Law given to the Jews, and make it a doctrine for a New Testament church.
So, what does the New Testament teach then, if not tithing. It teaches giving, not tithing, and there is a difference. Most all churches today teach tithing, but you will not find it anywhere in the New Testament in any of the commands to the churches. You will find it mentioned in the four gospels, and Jesus commended those who tithed, but remember, that was not a church. The Temple and the Levitical priests were still there. The Levites and the law was still in affect. Jesus had not died yet, the veil of the Temple had not yet been rent, and the New Testament had not begun. He was still fulfilling the law of the Old Testament. Jesus lived on the earth during the Old Testament and under the Law. The New Testament began at Christ's death, and the church soon was established by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Besides the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you will find tithing only mentioned in one other place in the New Testament, and that is in the book of Hebrews, written to the Jewish Christians. It is reflecting back to Abraham and it is not being used to endorse tithing, but rather Jesus as being the high priest.
You will not find tithing or giving ten percent anywhere else in the New Testament. Nowhere. You would think with all these new Gentile churches being founded by Paul and others, and the many epistles written to Gentiles regarding how to conduct themselves as Christians, that surely tithing would have been mentioned, especially to people who were not familiar with tithing and other aspects of the Law. But it never was. Giving offerings are mentioned several times to the churches, but never tithing.
"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first [day] of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as [God] hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by [your] letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem" (1Cor 16:1-3). Tithing or giving ten percent is not mentioned or implied here. Giving is commanded in this verse, and to give as God has prospered us, putting money aside to be given and sent to the poor saints at Jerusalem. God does want us to give, and to give from the heart. "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, [so let him give]; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver" (2Cor 9:7). Tithing not mentioned or implied here, but free will giving. Notice, he says "not of necessity". Tithing would be of necessity. It was of the Law. Giving from a cheerful heart is because you love God, not because you have to. And you are to give freely and willingly as you purpose in your heart. There is absolutely no reference of a tithe offering here.
The more a person loves God the more he will want to give. Yes, we are to give. God wants us to. He commands us to give, but that we should give willingly, cheerfully, and liberally. Look at 2 Cor 8:13, "For [I mean] not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: But by an equality, [that] now at this time your abundance [may be a supply] for their want, that their abundance also may be [a supply] for your want: that there may be equality": :Liberal giving is taught here, not tithing. Now, these are just a few of many verses on Christian giving. But, tithing is never, ever mentioned to any of the New Testament churches.
There are many that feel if tithing is not taught today, then no one would give anything. That may be true for some, but I believe that real Christians will be led of the Holy Spirit to give and to give all, if necessary for God's work and to help other saints in need.
It seems to me that most churches today have gotten themselves in this mess because most operate as businesses, and when they do, they must have a source of revenue in order to operate the business, and must have an executive or businessman to run the business. But, early churches did not operate as businesses, because God did not set them up to run that way. Now, in the Old Testament, you had a different situation. You had a building and properties (Temple) and a priesthood and tithing was a command of God for the nation of Israel to give this ten percent (almost like a tax) for their upkeep. God promised to bless all those who did. However, the New Testament Christians were to give as they purposed in their heart from a heart of love. Many gave all they had in the first early churches. They sold their properties and gave it all, even though there was no command to do so. The Scriptures plainly teach that Christians serve and give their all from the heart because they love the Lord. Just because you don't believe they will, doesn't mean that you have to invoke a Law to make sure they do.
You may feel that there is no difference in tithing and giving, that it is just a difference in terminology. But, it appears that the teaching of tithing could be very detrimental to the New Testament Christian. "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty" (2 Cor 3:17). Tithing is not "giving" nor is it of the Law of Liberty but of the Law of Moses. Tithing is of the Old Testament Law and would therefore place the New Testament Christian under the Law in at least one aspect of it. We are clearly taught that we are not to put ourselves under the Law in any aspect for it would put us under bondage (Gal. 5:1-7). Paul rebuked those in that day for trying to get Christians to be circumcised by the Law. He would also rebuke those who put themselves under the Law of tithing. Give, yes. Tithe, no.
You say they are really the same. No, friend, they are not. It is very dangerous to teach that God wants tithing in New Testament churches today when He nowhere said in His word that He does. We should obey God and not men. Men today command tithing, but God has nowhere commanded Christians to tithe, nor New Testament churches to receive tithes. "… let God be true , but every man a liar;…." (Rom 3:4).
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for teaching that you can't do anything on the Sabbath, even good things. They twisted this Law to be a burden to others. They made it appear as God's word and Jesus said, no, you are "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition," (Mk 7:13). It seems that tithing has also become a tradition or commandment of men in today's churches. "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth" (Titus 1:14). This verse says that when you follow commandments of men rather than what God says, that you will turn from the truth. More and more, you will turn from the truth. Tithing today, what tomorrow?
It almost appears that instead of New Testament churches today, we seem to have instead Old Testament temples. Paul had a great deal of trouble trying to keep the Jewish legalizers away from the churches of his day, especially in the churches of Galacia. There have always been people around who don't like other people having democracy, freedom, or liberty, to serve God. Satan wants to bring Christians into bondage. It has always been that way, and it is that way today. They have really had their effects on today's churches. Instead of a church, we have more what resembles a temple (they call it the "house of God"). They make it like a sanctuary and even call it that. The building is called the church. But, Jesus said our body is the temple of God. Saved people are the church.
We have also gone back to the Old Testament, and pulled out a position and called it the office of the pastor, but it is more like that of an Old Testament priest rather than a Scriptural New Testament elder. It was the priest's job to run the house of God, and to be the mediator between God and man. Now, the pastor is hired to run the church building and organization, and he also tries to be the mediator between God and his flock. And, now we have gone back and pulled out tithing from the Law and imposed it on the New Testament churches, and said that it is the same principle, when the Bible clearly states otherwise. So, don't tell me it is only terminology. It's much worse than you think.
It is the mixing of Judaism with Christianity.
In conclusion, tithing was clearly (1) for Israel to give, (2) for the Levites to receive, (3) and commanded by the Law. It is not for today's New Testament churches or God would have informed us in His Word. Furthermore, in summary, tithing is not for today because: (1) it is clear that tithing is of the law, and Jesus fulfilled the law, (2) there is no command in the New Testament for tithing, (3) there is no example of a New Testament church receiving tithes, (4) there is no example in the New Testament of a Christian giving tithes, and 5) tithing is not commanded for Christians, because the New Testament does give specific directions on how Christians are to give and tithing is not included.
Most all modern day churches teach tithing and expect it from their members. But, is tithing for today's churches? Does the Bible teach that Christians must give tithes to a church? No, I believe that tithing is not for today's New Testament churches. Tithing was clearly part of the law for the nation of Israel. God said tithing was (1) for the nation of Israel to give, (2) for the tribe of the Levites to receive, and (3) was of the Law.
(1) The tithe was instituted by God was for the nation of Israel.
"And if a man will at all redeem [ought] of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth [part] thereof. And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, [even] of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD. ...... These [are] the commandments, which the LORD COMMANDED MOSES FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL in mount Sinai" (Levi 27:30-34). Clear here that tithing was given by God to the "children of Israel."
Even the most famous verse used by people today to support tithing in churches says that tithing was for the nation of Israel. "For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore YE SONS OF JACOB are not consumed. Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept [them]. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say. Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye [are] cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, [even] this whole NATION. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it"] (Mal 3:6-10). This passage is used by most churches in the teaching of tithing. However, it is clear that this command for tithing was for the "Sons of Jacob" which means the nation of Israel.
(2) The Tithe was for the Levites
"And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I [am] thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel. 21 And, behold, I have given the CHILDREN OF LEVI ALL THE TENTH in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, [even] the service of the tabernacle of the congregation". 26 "Thus speak unto the LEVITES, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the TITHES which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, [even] a tenth [part] of the tithe" (Num. 18:20-26). Very clear here that all the tithe was for the Levites, because they did not have part of the inheritance, and it was for their service in the tabernacle and later in the temple.
"And at that time were some appointed over the chambers for the treasures, for the offerings, for the firstfruits, and for the tithes, to gather into them out of the fields of the cities THE PORTIONS OF THE LAW for the PRIESTS and LEVITES" (Neh 12:44).
(3) The Tithe was of the Law
"And at that time were some appointed over the chambers for the treasures, for the offerings, for the firstfruits, and for the tithes , to gather into them out of the fields of the cities THE PORTIONS OF THE LAW for the priests and levites...." (Neh 12:44).
"And all the tithe of the land, [whether] of the seed of the land, [or] of the fruit of the tree, [is] the LORD'S: [it is] holy unto the LORD.… 34 These [are] the COMMANDMENTS, which the LORD COMMANDED MOSES for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Levi 27: 30-34). Tithing was of the Law of Moses.
Even in the New Testament this is clear, that tithing was of the Law. "Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a COMMANDMENT to take tithes of the people ACCORDING TO THE LAW" (Heb 7:4-5).
So, it is very clear to me that the tithe was (1) by the nation of Israel, (2) for the tribe of the Levites, and (3) part of the Law.
I have heard an argument, that tithing is not of the Law, because it existed before the giving of the Law to Moses. That verse just used, Hebrews 7:4-5, says that Abraham gave tithes, and he was before the Law and before Moses, so tithing was before the Law. Jacob also tithed and he was before the Law. Thus, if tithing was before the Law then it should apply after the Law. (For our time).
Well, I have used many clear verses above that clearly state that tithing was of the Law. So, now we have to explain a situation, not a verse. The Bible doesn't say that Abraham was commanded to give a tithe. (Furthermore, Jacob, who was before Moses and the Law, also promised to give tithes to God, but we see no command for Jacob to do that either).
(1) According to Bible dictionaries, tithing was popular among many nations. History shows that many nations gave different percentages of their income for religious works. (The Westminister Dict. of the Bible says "The separation of a certain proportion of the products of one's industry or of the spoils of war as tribute to their gods was practiced by various nations at this time. The Lydians offered a tithe of their booty. The Phoenicians and Carthaginians sent a tithe annually to the Tyrian Hercules. These tithes might be regular or occasional, voluntary or prescribed by law. The Egyptians were required to give a 5th part of their crops to Pharaoh (Gen. 47:24)". Abraham and Jacob were no doubt familiar with this principle, even though it was not yet given to them by God as a command.
(2) To answer those who say that the command of tithing was before the Law because Abraham gave tithes, violate all the Scriptures that clearly say that tithing for the nation of Israel was of the Law. But, let's look at a similar principle to make a parallel. It is interesting to note that circumcision was also given in the Law of Moses. Nobody will argue with that. But, wait a minute. Abraham and Jacob were also circumcised. God told them to. Then, circumcision was before the Law, so then if circumcision applied before the Law then it should apply after the Law, which would be for today as well. But, no! The New Testament clearly says that circumcision was of the Law and not to be observed by Christians as being legal. So, just because circumcision was practiced before the Law, that does not make it apply after the Law. Thus, the same would seem true for tithing.
Nowhere in the New Testament is there a command for tithing. Nowhere. You say, "Well, there is no place in the New Testament that says you shouldn't tithe, as it does with circumcism." True, but I would hate to take any doctrine of the Law given to the Jews, and make it a doctrine for a New Testament church.
So, what does the New Testament teach then, if not tithing. It teaches giving, not tithing, and there is a difference. Most all churches today teach tithing, but you will not find it anywhere in the New Testament in any of the commands to the churches. You will find it mentioned in the four gospels, and Jesus commended those who tithed, but remember, that was not a church. The Temple and the Levitical priests were still there. The Levites and the law was still in affect. Jesus had not died yet, the veil of the Temple had not yet been rent, and the New Testament had not begun. He was still fulfilling the law of the Old Testament. Jesus lived on the earth during the Old Testament and under the Law. The New Testament began at Christ's death, and the church soon was established by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Besides the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you will find tithing only mentioned in one other place in the New Testament, and that is in the book of Hebrews, written to the Jewish Christians. It is reflecting back to Abraham and it is not being used to endorse tithing, but rather Jesus as being the high priest.
You will not find tithing or giving ten percent anywhere else in the New Testament. Nowhere. You would think with all these new Gentile churches being founded by Paul and others, and the many epistles written to Gentiles regarding how to conduct themselves as Christians, that surely tithing would have been mentioned, especially to people who were not familiar with tithing and other aspects of the Law. But it never was. Giving offerings are mentioned several times to the churches, but never tithing.
"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first [day] of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as [God] hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by [your] letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem" (1Cor 16:1-3). Tithing or giving ten percent is not mentioned or implied here. Giving is commanded in this verse, and to give as God has prospered us, putting money aside to be given and sent to the poor saints at Jerusalem. God does want us to give, and to give from the heart. "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, [so let him give]; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver" (2Cor 9:7). Tithing not mentioned or implied here, but free will giving. Notice, he says "not of necessity". Tithing would be of necessity. It was of the Law. Giving from a cheerful heart is because you love God, not because you have to. And you are to give freely and willingly as you purpose in your heart. There is absolutely no reference of a tithe offering here.
The more a person loves God the more he will want to give. Yes, we are to give. God wants us to. He commands us to give, but that we should give willingly, cheerfully, and liberally. Look at 2 Cor 8:13, "For [I mean] not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: But by an equality, [that] now at this time your abundance [may be a supply] for their want, that their abundance also may be [a supply] for your want: that there may be equality": :Liberal giving is taught here, not tithing. Now, these are just a few of many verses on Christian giving. But, tithing is never, ever mentioned to any of the New Testament churches.
There are many that feel if tithing is not taught today, then no one would give anything. That may be true for some, but I believe that real Christians will be led of the Holy Spirit to give and to give all, if necessary for God's work and to help other saints in need.
It seems to me that most churches today have gotten themselves in this mess because most operate as businesses, and when they do, they must have a source of revenue in order to operate the business, and must have an executive or businessman to run the business. But, early churches did not operate as businesses, because God did not set them up to run that way. Now, in the Old Testament, you had a different situation. You had a building and properties (Temple) and a priesthood and tithing was a command of God for the nation of Israel to give this ten percent (almost like a tax) for their upkeep. God promised to bless all those who did. However, the New Testament Christians were to give as they purposed in their heart from a heart of love. Many gave all they had in the first early churches. They sold their properties and gave it all, even though there was no command to do so. The Scriptures plainly teach that Christians serve and give their all from the heart because they love the Lord. Just because you don't believe they will, doesn't mean that you have to invoke a Law to make sure they do.
You may feel that there is no difference in tithing and giving, that it is just a difference in terminology. But, it appears that the teaching of tithing could be very detrimental to the New Testament Christian. "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty" (2 Cor 3:17). Tithing is not "giving" nor is it of the Law of Liberty but of the Law of Moses. Tithing is of the Old Testament Law and would therefore place the New Testament Christian under the Law in at least one aspect of it. We are clearly taught that we are not to put ourselves under the Law in any aspect for it would put us under bondage (Gal. 5:1-7). Paul rebuked those in that day for trying to get Christians to be circumcised by the Law. He would also rebuke those who put themselves under the Law of tithing. Give, yes. Tithe, no.
You say they are really the same. No, friend, they are not. It is very dangerous to teach that God wants tithing in New Testament churches today when He nowhere said in His word that He does. We should obey God and not men. Men today command tithing, but God has nowhere commanded Christians to tithe, nor New Testament churches to receive tithes. "… let God be true , but every man a liar;…." (Rom 3:4).
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for teaching that you can't do anything on the Sabbath, even good things. They twisted this Law to be a burden to others. They made it appear as God's word and Jesus said, no, you are "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition," (Mk 7:13). It seems that tithing has also become a tradition or commandment of men in today's churches. "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth" (Titus 1:14). This verse says that when you follow commandments of men rather than what God says, that you will turn from the truth. More and more, you will turn from the truth. Tithing today, what tomorrow?
It almost appears that instead of New Testament churches today, we seem to have instead Old Testament temples. Paul had a great deal of trouble trying to keep the Jewish legalizers away from the churches of his day, especially in the churches of Galacia. There have always been people around who don't like other people having democracy, freedom, or liberty, to serve God. Satan wants to bring Christians into bondage. It has always been that way, and it is that way today. They have really had their effects on today's churches. Instead of a church, we have more what resembles a temple (they call it the "house of God"). They make it like a sanctuary and even call it that. The building is called the church. But, Jesus said our body is the temple of God. Saved people are the church.
We have also gone back to the Old Testament, and pulled out a position and called it the office of the pastor, but it is more like that of an Old Testament priest rather than a Scriptural New Testament elder. It was the priest's job to run the house of God, and to be the mediator between God and man. Now, the pastor is hired to run the church building and organization, and he also tries to be the mediator between God and his flock. And, now we have gone back and pulled out tithing from the Law and imposed it on the New Testament churches, and said that it is the same principle, when the Bible clearly states otherwise. So, don't tell me it is only terminology. It's much worse than you think.
It is the mixing of Judaism with Christianity.
In conclusion, tithing was clearly (1) for Israel to give, (2) for the Levites to receive, (3) and commanded by the Law. It is not for today's New Testament churches or God would have informed us in His Word. Furthermore, in summary, tithing is not for today because: (1) it is clear that tithing is of the law, and Jesus fulfilled the law, (2) there is no command in the New Testament for tithing, (3) there is no example of a New Testament church receiving tithes, (4) there is no example in the New Testament of a Christian giving tithes, and 5) tithing is not commanded for Christians, because the New Testament does give specific directions on how Christians are to give and tithing is not included.
GOD'S PLAN FOR A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH
I hope you now have a better idea of what God's plan is for a New Testament Scriptural church. I also hope that you understand why so many of the churches today are carnal. However, it doesn't have to be this way. We can have a Scriptural church if we follow God's plan. A Scriptural church is made up of people who obey Scripture. It's that simple. The Bible says that we should walk spiritually. Walking spiritually is obeying God and believing and trusting in what He says. The early churches were Scriptural in the beginning, but even they had to fight against becoming carnal. Paul preached and rebuked the carnality in the churches of Corinth, Galatia, Colossians, etc. We also have the same rebukes and instructions for us today that they had, and they are in the Bible.
When one observes the modern day man-made church, it appears to be more like a club than it does a church. Like a club, both have a membership role of which members pay dues. They both have officers, and use a constitution and a set of by-laws. They both have a prescribed detailed course of customary proceedings, and they put a lot of emphasis on activities and programs. They likewise have names they promote and they both are organized as nonprofit organizations. Furthermore, most churches are also similar to businesses in that they are incorporated by the state. Corporation means to form a body of persons acting under a legal charter as a separate entity with privileges and liabilities. As far as the state is concerned, it looks upon a church as being like any business. In order to be exempted from lawsuits and taxes, it must be done this way, set up like a business. However, it is not God's design for churches to be like businesses, organizations, or clubs.
God's Word clearly describes how a church should assemble and conduct themselves. He doesn't just leave it up to us to meet however we want. For the most part, the early church meetings were very simple. They were not like the business churches or club-like churches we have today. Christians came together in the name of the Lord Jesus, to fellowship, worship, pray and to exhort one another. God has always worked in simple ways and He has not changed. He works in simple ways so that man cannot glory in himself. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;" " And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (WHY?) "That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:27).
God has always worked in simple ways throughout the Scriptures. Jesus was born in a stable and raised by a common carpenter. He had no home as an adult. And, this was God's only son, whom He loved. He told Gideon to trim down the number of men he had, in order for God to defeat the enemy and get the glory. God said He chose Israel not because they were the greatest on the earth, but because they were the least. He always chose the weak and base things to confound the mighty. So, don't you think that God would want his churches to operate just as simply even in our advanced and complex society today? He set them up to be simple 2000 years ago and He worked mightily through them, and He will today if we follow His plan. When men seek for a better plan, program, or method, then God will seek for better men. Men that will follow Him, no matter what the cost.
Is it important how a church functions when it assembles? Yes. Paul laid down the rules for how the early church was to meet. With the beginning of each church, he stayed for awhile and helped them to know how to conduct themselves in their meetings. Later, he periodically sent helpers such as Timothy or Titus to check up on them and to give help in further establishing them as a Scriptural church. Paul's words were more than just advice. They were the Words of God. They were God's commandments of how a Scriptural church ought to be. You can find most of these in 1 and 2 Corinthians, especially 1Corinthians 14. Their meetings were getting somewhat out of hand and so Paul had to correct them over many things. He ended the chapter by saying the commands were God's commandments, and if any man thought himself spiritual, to acknowledge such.
Based on these Scriptures, the following is how I believe a typical church meeting was conducted. Everything was again very simple. On Sunday, the first day of the week, people assembled together only in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. No other name. Like most churches of that day, they probably started out in someone's home, and as the number grew, they either built a building or rented one. But, it was just a building that the church met in. They did not give it a name or title, (or take on a title for themselves), nor did they decorate and fashion it into a sanctuary with stained glass windows, padded pews, an altar, etc, and then conduct formal services. We no doubt got into this mess influenced by the Catholics. It also may be an attempt to make it like the Old Testament Temple or the "house of God" as you hear many church buildings called today. I'm not against making a place where the church meets comfortable. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Scriptures indicate that Christians are the church and that they are to be sanctified and holy, and they are not to put the emphasis on holy days, places, buildings, etc.
When it was time for the meeting, everyone sat and quietly prayed for the Holy Spirit to lead in the service. There was no one up front running everything. The Holy Spirit would then begin to move upon the men. Someone might feel led to testify of some good thing that God had done for him during the week. Someone else might feel led to lead the group in a song, hymn, or the reading of a psalm. One of the men, being led by the Spirit, would then share Scriptures the Spirit laid on his heart. When finished, there could be more singing, prayer, or someone could expound on more Scripture. (1Cor 14:23 seems to limit these messages to no more than 3, maybe for the sake of time so not to wear everybody out.) There would be no specific order of events, but the Lord would have liberty to lead in any order: songs, testimonies, lessons, exhortations, messages, etc, and who would be doing such. Now, there were guidelines given by God, and liberty was given within these guidelines. For example, He said that women were to be silent in the church per 1Cor 14:34. Liberty does not mean doing whatever you want, but being allowed or having the freedom to do whatever God has commanded us to do according to His Word. He said there was not to be confusion, and everything was to be done decently and in order (vs 40). Who was to make sure these commands were carried out in the church? By the elders/overseers in that assembly (1Cor 14:29, Act 20:28).
So, you see, the service seemed to be very simple, but organized to allow the Holy Spirit liberty to operate during the meeting. "... and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty" (2 Cor 3:17). The Spirit must have liberty in the church in order for Him to work. I have heard some say, "Well, our pastor allows liberty. He doesn't hinder the Spirit from working, or others from getting involved." But, who is the pastor to "allow liberty"? It is not his to give. Or, it shouldn't be, unless he is a lord. For a pastor to allow liberty means that he has control over the church, that he is the head. He decides whether to give permission to do something. He decides on who can say anything.
"Liberty" means the condition of being free from control, confinement, and servitude. The opposite of liberty is bondage. Bondage is when the Scriptures do not have freedom to be obeyed and practiced. Now, surely a pastor doesn't want to be compared to those in Galatians 2:4, that tried to put others in bondage. "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:"
So, the pastor can allow liberty in the church? Does he want to be compared to those men in 2 Peter 2:19? "While they promise them liberty , they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." For, you see, liberty is not given by the pastor. It is given by the Lord! And, God has already given us liberty to do what He said according to the Word of God. God says to do it, and He gives us liberty to do according to His Word.
My point here is, that liberty is from God, not man. But, man is the one who will try to hinder you from following God's Word. And if he is in charge of the liberty or freedom to obey God's commands, then he can also take it away. But, we are to never allow any man to keep us from serving God according to the Scriptures. "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage"(Gal. 5:1). "....and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty" (2Cor 3:17). Where there is liberty, you will find the Spirit of the Lord. If you want the Lord in the church, then there must be liberty for people to serve Him. If there is no liberty in the church, then it is because someone has taken it away.
Liberty means that everyone should be free to participate in the church according to the guidelines of Scripture. "Oh, but we can't do that. Things will get out of hand. You've got to have one man in charge in order to keep things under control. If you had that kind of liberty in the church with Christ as the Head, and elders leading and having equal authority, then there would be chaos." But, hey, you are not trusting in the Lord. I would not want to cause problems in a right kind of church. I would be afraid to. Just ask Ananias and Sapphira what happened to them when they caused trouble in the early church that was trying to follow God's will in the church. If Christ is the Head of the church, He will take care of troublemakers, if the others are trying their best to follow Him and have a Scriptural church.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it may appear to you that this writing is a little radical. You may even think it is very radical. You may say that you have never heard or seen anything like it before, and that no one else believes it this way, so it must be wrong. But, friend, we are in the last days, and the Word of God plainly teaches that there will be a great falling away from the truth. Not only is the world falling from the truth, but so are the churches.
Speaking to the last church age (the one we are in) Jesus said to the Laodicean church, "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me" (Rev 3:14-22).
This is a picture of the anemic, powerless, churches of our day. Yes, they have all kinds of buildings, money, programs, and methods, but they do not have God. He says they make him sick, to the point He could vomit. He commands them to repent and to follow Him.
What about you personally? If you know that the things that you have read in this book are true, then you will do one of two things. You will either repent of the mess that you are in and then get out of it. Or you will suppress these truths or explain them away and stay like you are. But, you will never be able to escape these truths if you are saved. You will never be able to be honest before God and therefore will not have peace in your soul. Why? "Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God:" (Rom 8:7).
My suggestion to you would be to get out of a carnal church. It will only make and keep you carnal. You say, "Well, I would not know where to go. This is the best I can find." It would be better for you not to go at all, than to go to a carnal church. Read your Bible, pray, and worship at home. Then, pray and ask God to start a church in your home. That's the way the early churches got started. "But, I can't just not go to church. That would be wrong." Look in God's Word and you will find several churches that started in and continued in homes. "As for Saul, he made havoc of the church , entering into every house, and hauling men and women, committed [them] to prison." (Acts 8:3). "Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus…Likewise [greet] the church that is in their house" (Rom 16:3).
Yes, the early churches met in homes."The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house" (1Cor 16:19). "Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house" (Col 4:15). "And to [our] beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:" ( Phl 1:2).
"But until the Lord starts a church in my home, I must go somewhere until He does that." Well, He never will do that then. You must come out of the mess, the church system we have today. Stay at home and study your Bible, pray, and worship with your family. Soon, God may lead others to meet with you. "But, I just can't stay at home and not go to church. What about the verse "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]" (Heb 10: 25)?" This is a famous verse that many use to hold over people's heads that you can't miss any church services at all. But, this was a verse written to Jewish Christians who, because of fear of persecution, did not meet or assemble at all.
"I will be persecuted if I don't go to some church." Ironic, these early Christians were persecuted because they did assemble together, and we will be persecuted if we don't. Again, you are thinking of church in the traditional since. I'm opposed to the idea of never assembling at all, as the verse says. But, did you know there were many examples in the Bible where men temporarily did not go to group worship. Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness, John the Baptist came out of the wilderness, Paul spent at least 3 years alone in the desert, etc. Now, don't tell me that they didn't have private worship on their own. They did. They just didn't meet and worship corporately. So, if you have to assemble just with your family for awhile, you are not violating this Scripture. This should be temporary, and not a habit ("manner of some is") or an excuse just to miss assembling together.
It should be your desire that God join others with your group, or to help you find another group to meet with, but by all means, don't just go out and join a church just because you think that is what you have to do. Yes, it is God's will for you to be part of a church, but the right kind of church. If there aren't any, then don't compromise and become a part of a bad one. It is not God's will for you to be in a wrong kind of church. You will be worse off by going. "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse" (1Cor 11:17). These carnal Corinthians were not better off by going to church, but they were worse off coming together because of all the problems they were having in church. But, Paul doesn't tell them to stay at home. No, he tells them to get their problems straightened up. And, they did, (according to 2 Corinthians) so everything was okay. But, today, if churches refuse to follow God's Word in the way they meet, then you will be worse off by continuing with them. You would be better off staying home and waiting on God to help you start something Scriptural.
If the whole system today is wrong, and I sincerely believe it is, then we should come out of it, and take a stand. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor 6:17-18).
Yes, it is all part of man's religious system. Most all churches today have become a part of this false religious system in these last days, in which the Bible says there will be a great falling away. However, the Devil started this system soon after the first early churches were founded. They soon became known as the Catholic Church, and later all other denominational churches have have come out of her (reformation) and have been influenced by her false, adulterous ways. (Clergy, religious titles for men, denominational and church names, religious schools, tithing, membership roles, teaching of tradition and commandments of men as doctrine, having a church constitution, bi-laws, a creed to follow, incorporating with the state, building church sanctuaries, owning properties, etc).
Now, there are a few denominations that have some truth and some correct doctrines on salvation or other major doctrines, but they still have been prey to this false religious system that has effected the church and made it powerless. When Jesus spoke the truth in the synagogues, it infuriated the religious crowd and they wanted to kill him. However, some believed on him, but they were afraid to speak out for fear of being put out of the synagogue. "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [him], lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (John 12:42,43).
What about you? What will you do? (1) Suppress these truths and be silent so as not to offend the religious crowd, and continue to gain honor from men rather than God? (2) Speak out as Jesus, Paul, and others did and be run off? Or (3) separate yourself now and take a stand for Christ and the Truth?
I can't tell you which to do, although I know God will not bless you if you choose the first one. I tried that one for a long time, and I was miserable. With number 2 you will be greatly persecuted before you are run off. For me, I chose number 3, to get entirely out of the system, and to speak out against it from without rather than within. Since then, God has richly blessed me and my family, and He has become a Father to us and we have indeed become his sons and daughters. Our fellowship with Him has been great. I can honestly say that I love the praise of God more than the praise of man. We are now praying, studying our Bible, and worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth in our home. A couple of other families meet with us. We are witnessing and trying to get others saved, by giving the plan of salvation to as many as we can.
In closing, let me say that I strongly believe that everything I have written is true to the Word of God. I further believe that many Christians down through the centuries have believed and practiced these things, and were persecuted by the religious system. Furthermore, I believe that there are Christians today in this country that meet as God has commanded, even though I am not aware of them. To meet in a simple way and in a Scriptural way, you are not going to be noticed.
May God bless you and help you to see these truths concerning the Truth About the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and Why Modern Churches are Carnal.
Written by J.B. Sparks
jb5sparks@aol.com
I hope you now have a better idea of what God's plan is for a New Testament Scriptural church. I also hope that you understand why so many of the churches today are carnal. However, it doesn't have to be this way. We can have a Scriptural church if we follow God's plan. A Scriptural church is made up of people who obey Scripture. It's that simple. The Bible says that we should walk spiritually. Walking spiritually is obeying God and believing and trusting in what He says. The early churches were Scriptural in the beginning, but even they had to fight against becoming carnal. Paul preached and rebuked the carnality in the churches of Corinth, Galatia, Colossians, etc. We also have the same rebukes and instructions for us today that they had, and they are in the Bible.
When one observes the modern day man-made church, it appears to be more like a club than it does a church. Like a club, both have a membership role of which members pay dues. They both have officers, and use a constitution and a set of by-laws. They both have a prescribed detailed course of customary proceedings, and they put a lot of emphasis on activities and programs. They likewise have names they promote and they both are organized as nonprofit organizations. Furthermore, most churches are also similar to businesses in that they are incorporated by the state. Corporation means to form a body of persons acting under a legal charter as a separate entity with privileges and liabilities. As far as the state is concerned, it looks upon a church as being like any business. In order to be exempted from lawsuits and taxes, it must be done this way, set up like a business. However, it is not God's design for churches to be like businesses, organizations, or clubs.
God's Word clearly describes how a church should assemble and conduct themselves. He doesn't just leave it up to us to meet however we want. For the most part, the early church meetings were very simple. They were not like the business churches or club-like churches we have today. Christians came together in the name of the Lord Jesus, to fellowship, worship, pray and to exhort one another. God has always worked in simple ways and He has not changed. He works in simple ways so that man cannot glory in himself. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;" " And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (WHY?) "That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:27).
God has always worked in simple ways throughout the Scriptures. Jesus was born in a stable and raised by a common carpenter. He had no home as an adult. And, this was God's only son, whom He loved. He told Gideon to trim down the number of men he had, in order for God to defeat the enemy and get the glory. God said He chose Israel not because they were the greatest on the earth, but because they were the least. He always chose the weak and base things to confound the mighty. So, don't you think that God would want his churches to operate just as simply even in our advanced and complex society today? He set them up to be simple 2000 years ago and He worked mightily through them, and He will today if we follow His plan. When men seek for a better plan, program, or method, then God will seek for better men. Men that will follow Him, no matter what the cost.
Is it important how a church functions when it assembles? Yes. Paul laid down the rules for how the early church was to meet. With the beginning of each church, he stayed for awhile and helped them to know how to conduct themselves in their meetings. Later, he periodically sent helpers such as Timothy or Titus to check up on them and to give help in further establishing them as a Scriptural church. Paul's words were more than just advice. They were the Words of God. They were God's commandments of how a Scriptural church ought to be. You can find most of these in 1 and 2 Corinthians, especially 1Corinthians 14. Their meetings were getting somewhat out of hand and so Paul had to correct them over many things. He ended the chapter by saying the commands were God's commandments, and if any man thought himself spiritual, to acknowledge such.
Based on these Scriptures, the following is how I believe a typical church meeting was conducted. Everything was again very simple. On Sunday, the first day of the week, people assembled together only in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. No other name. Like most churches of that day, they probably started out in someone's home, and as the number grew, they either built a building or rented one. But, it was just a building that the church met in. They did not give it a name or title, (or take on a title for themselves), nor did they decorate and fashion it into a sanctuary with stained glass windows, padded pews, an altar, etc, and then conduct formal services. We no doubt got into this mess influenced by the Catholics. It also may be an attempt to make it like the Old Testament Temple or the "house of God" as you hear many church buildings called today. I'm not against making a place where the church meets comfortable. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Scriptures indicate that Christians are the church and that they are to be sanctified and holy, and they are not to put the emphasis on holy days, places, buildings, etc.
When it was time for the meeting, everyone sat and quietly prayed for the Holy Spirit to lead in the service. There was no one up front running everything. The Holy Spirit would then begin to move upon the men. Someone might feel led to testify of some good thing that God had done for him during the week. Someone else might feel led to lead the group in a song, hymn, or the reading of a psalm. One of the men, being led by the Spirit, would then share Scriptures the Spirit laid on his heart. When finished, there could be more singing, prayer, or someone could expound on more Scripture. (1Cor 14:23 seems to limit these messages to no more than 3, maybe for the sake of time so not to wear everybody out.) There would be no specific order of events, but the Lord would have liberty to lead in any order: songs, testimonies, lessons, exhortations, messages, etc, and who would be doing such. Now, there were guidelines given by God, and liberty was given within these guidelines. For example, He said that women were to be silent in the church per 1Cor 14:34. Liberty does not mean doing whatever you want, but being allowed or having the freedom to do whatever God has commanded us to do according to His Word. He said there was not to be confusion, and everything was to be done decently and in order (vs 40). Who was to make sure these commands were carried out in the church? By the elders/overseers in that assembly (1Cor 14:29, Act 20:28).
So, you see, the service seemed to be very simple, but organized to allow the Holy Spirit liberty to operate during the meeting. "... and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty" (2 Cor 3:17). The Spirit must have liberty in the church in order for Him to work. I have heard some say, "Well, our pastor allows liberty. He doesn't hinder the Spirit from working, or others from getting involved." But, who is the pastor to "allow liberty"? It is not his to give. Or, it shouldn't be, unless he is a lord. For a pastor to allow liberty means that he has control over the church, that he is the head. He decides whether to give permission to do something. He decides on who can say anything.
"Liberty" means the condition of being free from control, confinement, and servitude. The opposite of liberty is bondage. Bondage is when the Scriptures do not have freedom to be obeyed and practiced. Now, surely a pastor doesn't want to be compared to those in Galatians 2:4, that tried to put others in bondage. "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:"
So, the pastor can allow liberty in the church? Does he want to be compared to those men in 2 Peter 2:19? "While they promise them liberty , they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." For, you see, liberty is not given by the pastor. It is given by the Lord! And, God has already given us liberty to do what He said according to the Word of God. God says to do it, and He gives us liberty to do according to His Word.
My point here is, that liberty is from God, not man. But, man is the one who will try to hinder you from following God's Word. And if he is in charge of the liberty or freedom to obey God's commands, then he can also take it away. But, we are to never allow any man to keep us from serving God according to the Scriptures. "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage"(Gal. 5:1). "....and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty" (2Cor 3:17). Where there is liberty, you will find the Spirit of the Lord. If you want the Lord in the church, then there must be liberty for people to serve Him. If there is no liberty in the church, then it is because someone has taken it away.
Liberty means that everyone should be free to participate in the church according to the guidelines of Scripture. "Oh, but we can't do that. Things will get out of hand. You've got to have one man in charge in order to keep things under control. If you had that kind of liberty in the church with Christ as the Head, and elders leading and having equal authority, then there would be chaos." But, hey, you are not trusting in the Lord. I would not want to cause problems in a right kind of church. I would be afraid to. Just ask Ananias and Sapphira what happened to them when they caused trouble in the early church that was trying to follow God's will in the church. If Christ is the Head of the church, He will take care of troublemakers, if the others are trying their best to follow Him and have a Scriptural church.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it may appear to you that this writing is a little radical. You may even think it is very radical. You may say that you have never heard or seen anything like it before, and that no one else believes it this way, so it must be wrong. But, friend, we are in the last days, and the Word of God plainly teaches that there will be a great falling away from the truth. Not only is the world falling from the truth, but so are the churches.
Speaking to the last church age (the one we are in) Jesus said to the Laodicean church, "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me" (Rev 3:14-22).
This is a picture of the anemic, powerless, churches of our day. Yes, they have all kinds of buildings, money, programs, and methods, but they do not have God. He says they make him sick, to the point He could vomit. He commands them to repent and to follow Him.
What about you personally? If you know that the things that you have read in this book are true, then you will do one of two things. You will either repent of the mess that you are in and then get out of it. Or you will suppress these truths or explain them away and stay like you are. But, you will never be able to escape these truths if you are saved. You will never be able to be honest before God and therefore will not have peace in your soul. Why? "Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God:" (Rom 8:7).
My suggestion to you would be to get out of a carnal church. It will only make and keep you carnal. You say, "Well, I would not know where to go. This is the best I can find." It would be better for you not to go at all, than to go to a carnal church. Read your Bible, pray, and worship at home. Then, pray and ask God to start a church in your home. That's the way the early churches got started. "But, I can't just not go to church. That would be wrong." Look in God's Word and you will find several churches that started in and continued in homes. "As for Saul, he made havoc of the church , entering into every house, and hauling men and women, committed [them] to prison." (Acts 8:3). "Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus…Likewise [greet] the church that is in their house" (Rom 16:3).
Yes, the early churches met in homes."The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house" (1Cor 16:19). "Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house" (Col 4:15). "And to [our] beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:" ( Phl 1:2).
"But until the Lord starts a church in my home, I must go somewhere until He does that." Well, He never will do that then. You must come out of the mess, the church system we have today. Stay at home and study your Bible, pray, and worship with your family. Soon, God may lead others to meet with you. "But, I just can't stay at home and not go to church. What about the verse "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]" (Heb 10: 25)?" This is a famous verse that many use to hold over people's heads that you can't miss any church services at all. But, this was a verse written to Jewish Christians who, because of fear of persecution, did not meet or assemble at all.
"I will be persecuted if I don't go to some church." Ironic, these early Christians were persecuted because they did assemble together, and we will be persecuted if we don't. Again, you are thinking of church in the traditional since. I'm opposed to the idea of never assembling at all, as the verse says. But, did you know there were many examples in the Bible where men temporarily did not go to group worship. Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness, John the Baptist came out of the wilderness, Paul spent at least 3 years alone in the desert, etc. Now, don't tell me that they didn't have private worship on their own. They did. They just didn't meet and worship corporately. So, if you have to assemble just with your family for awhile, you are not violating this Scripture. This should be temporary, and not a habit ("manner of some is") or an excuse just to miss assembling together.
It should be your desire that God join others with your group, or to help you find another group to meet with, but by all means, don't just go out and join a church just because you think that is what you have to do. Yes, it is God's will for you to be part of a church, but the right kind of church. If there aren't any, then don't compromise and become a part of a bad one. It is not God's will for you to be in a wrong kind of church. You will be worse off by going. "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse" (1Cor 11:17). These carnal Corinthians were not better off by going to church, but they were worse off coming together because of all the problems they were having in church. But, Paul doesn't tell them to stay at home. No, he tells them to get their problems straightened up. And, they did, (according to 2 Corinthians) so everything was okay. But, today, if churches refuse to follow God's Word in the way they meet, then you will be worse off by continuing with them. You would be better off staying home and waiting on God to help you start something Scriptural.
If the whole system today is wrong, and I sincerely believe it is, then we should come out of it, and take a stand. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor 6:17-18).
Yes, it is all part of man's religious system. Most all churches today have become a part of this false religious system in these last days, in which the Bible says there will be a great falling away. However, the Devil started this system soon after the first early churches were founded. They soon became known as the Catholic Church, and later all other denominational churches have have come out of her (reformation) and have been influenced by her false, adulterous ways. (Clergy, religious titles for men, denominational and church names, religious schools, tithing, membership roles, teaching of tradition and commandments of men as doctrine, having a church constitution, bi-laws, a creed to follow, incorporating with the state, building church sanctuaries, owning properties, etc).
Now, there are a few denominations that have some truth and some correct doctrines on salvation or other major doctrines, but they still have been prey to this false religious system that has effected the church and made it powerless. When Jesus spoke the truth in the synagogues, it infuriated the religious crowd and they wanted to kill him. However, some believed on him, but they were afraid to speak out for fear of being put out of the synagogue. "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [him], lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (John 12:42,43).
What about you? What will you do? (1) Suppress these truths and be silent so as not to offend the religious crowd, and continue to gain honor from men rather than God? (2) Speak out as Jesus, Paul, and others did and be run off? Or (3) separate yourself now and take a stand for Christ and the Truth?
I can't tell you which to do, although I know God will not bless you if you choose the first one. I tried that one for a long time, and I was miserable. With number 2 you will be greatly persecuted before you are run off. For me, I chose number 3, to get entirely out of the system, and to speak out against it from without rather than within. Since then, God has richly blessed me and my family, and He has become a Father to us and we have indeed become his sons and daughters. Our fellowship with Him has been great. I can honestly say that I love the praise of God more than the praise of man. We are now praying, studying our Bible, and worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth in our home. A couple of other families meet with us. We are witnessing and trying to get others saved, by giving the plan of salvation to as many as we can.
In closing, let me say that I strongly believe that everything I have written is true to the Word of God. I further believe that many Christians down through the centuries have believed and practiced these things, and were persecuted by the religious system. Furthermore, I believe that there are Christians today in this country that meet as God has commanded, even though I am not aware of them. To meet in a simple way and in a Scriptural way, you are not going to be noticed.
May God bless you and help you to see these truths concerning the Truth About the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and Why Modern Churches are Carnal.
Written by J.B. Sparks
jb5sparks@aol.com
No comments:
Post a Comment